Historical Data for Bi??

[SMZ]

If you have a source stating that they DID NOT carry clubs, I would like to see it.

[Asakura Lord]

Touché

[Productivity]

If you have a source stating that they DID NOT carry clubs, I would like to see it.

Given CA's rampant disregard for history in R:TW, I am taking anything they say with a huge dose of cynicism. The onus is upon them to sell their game, and if that means showing us that it is historical, that is up to them.

[sik1977]

I think the only "obvious" thing is that people love to complain.

and thats a complain in itself... hence you must be right...

[master of the puppets]

it is doubtful that they would carry a club which would seem crude and brutish in the hands of a man of god. a sword, a spear, a bow, anything would seem more prestigious than a club which even the barbarians believed was the inferior weapon. it would be most likely that they would be standard bearers with many well trained bodyguards.

[Orda Khan]

The somewhat rabid response has stunned me somewhat...

Yes I agree....and there will always be the unit that people find 'cheesy' or whatever. I am certainly sick of reading how bad CA are, how bad RTW is, how bad BI will be.

For goodness sake, how many times do we have to read that sort of comment?

I do not like 'War Priests' either but I fail to see the point in posting this and other negative points over and over. If nothing else, it makes the Org a forum full of whiners and hardly likely to encourage visitors. Every thread seems to be hijacked by ( mostly the same ) members who go on and on. It really is tedious

.......Orda

[SMZ]

Hardly so.

Obviously some things in R:TW were contrived, however it does not make sense to lump the entire game and it's subsequent expansion under the heading of fantastical nonsense. A case by case decision would be reasonable. In the present case we have a few ideas worth debate:

A religious unit attending the battle:
This seems completely reasonable. There has seldom been a war fought in which the soldiers did not look for some kind of spiritual blessing.

The unit carrying a club:
This seems somewhat a matter of judgement, but I hardly think it represents a disregard for history. It's simple common sense that a man who is going to be in a dangerous situation will want to protect himself. Of the available choices I think a small dagger or cudgel serves this purpose best. Personally I would like to see the club that is shown shrunken somewhat but that's a minor concept.

If there's any other issue raised by the current appearance of the unit, I am unaware of it. However based on those two simple concerns it seems the unit is well within the parameters created by history. If anyone claims otherwise, the burden of proof is upon them.

Do you seriously want CA to spend time assuring you of the accuracy of their every unit, building, game mechanic, etc... instead of actually designing said game!?

EDIT: on the contrary master of puppets - the cudgel and the dagger were long the favored weapons of holy men, they are easy to use and easily maintained and can be carried about with a person rather easily as well

[Mongoose]

If you have a source stating that they DID NOT carry clubs, I would like to see it.

That's a rather weak arguement. Example:


PosterA: Flying pink monkey's were used in the roman army!
posterB: Prove they were
PosterA: OMGZ! prove they were not!


.

[SMZ]

And a rather annoying argument is:

PosterA: soldiers were used in the roman army.
PosterB: prove they were
PosterA: wtf? that's common sense!
PosterB: I said prove it

[SMZ]

[Orda Khan]

Another thread hijacked......

......Orda

[Mongoose]

Geezz... this sure is going around in circles....

There ARE sources that state that soldiers were used in the roman army. There are NOT any sources that state priest's ran around with clubs.


Praying from a distance is fine. Charging into the melee with a club is not. The unit could be realistic or fantasy...it all depends on how it they are portrayed....

IMHO, they should have NO COMBAT abilities what so ever. they should just rout once the army has been defeated.

[Asakura Lord]

If you don't like CA, the game, or how they are designing the game use your "choice" not to play it and stop complaining. If you don't like the unit, don't use it.

[SMZ]

CA specifically said they were not going to have any effective combat ability whatsoever... so that nerfs your entire argument from the get go. Hence my befudlement at your claim that the unit is not historical.

If I got put on the front lines of Iraq today would I bring whatever weapon I could get my hands on? Yes I would. Would I be any good with it? No, but it sure would make me feel better. Basically I don't see why a source is required. It's common sense as I said. I'm almost positive I could find one - but I'm too lazy to look. I know for a fact that clergy of the early middle ages carried weapons - I don't think it's much of a leap to believe that those in this period did also.

No combat abilities? Any man will fight back when he's attacked.

EDIT: Regardless, enough has been said on this subject. I've stated the logic several times and it has been ignored. Repeating it would merely be foolishness on my part.

[Asakura Lord]

First, your analogy is retarded. Flying pink monkeys, you must be smoking something.

Second, anyone knows that soldiers were used in the army. I’m not going to waste my time looking up in the encyclopedia or Google to see if priests carried clubs or even went to war. I really don’t care. So much of this game is unrealistic we shouldn’t be arguing over something as benign as this.

[Horatius]

Sure catholic priest were at battles, but they never fought in them. There are a few times were a certain preist did fight, but would be in desperation. Preist should be represented as druids are in R:TR, alongside standard bearers, or not even there at all.

Can you imagine rome ever sendind a troop of priest to fight the Huns?

BTw, Welcome to the Org!

Clearly you have never read the story of St Leo (Pope Leo III) and Atilla the Hun.

The idea that it was a Saint Pope that defeated the Huns (Pope Leo is often depicted in the christian stories about it as arriving heroicly victorious hun camp declaring to Attilla that God shall kill him if he does not cease at once, then St peter and St Paul came down and threatened to strike down the Hun King at which point Leo chases the Huns away from Rome, one of the best mosaics in the Vatican depicts that scene).


Also don't downplay the fact that there were often times were priests fought. Around this time period Gregory of Tours was scolded for "Going to war with the earthly shield instead of the holy sign of the cross of our lord". It was out of the ordinary, but on occassion it did happen.

[Mongoose]

CA specifically said they were not going to have any effective combat ability whatsoever... so that nerfs your entire argument from the get go. Hence my befudlement at your claim that the unit is not historical.

If I got put on the front lines of Iraq today would I bring whatever weapon I could get my hands on? Yes I would. Would I be any good with it? No, but it sure would make me feel better. Basically I don't see why a source is required. It's common sense as I said. I'm almost positive I could find one - but I'm too lazy to look. I know for a fact that clergy of the early middle ages carried weapons - I don't think it's much of a leap to believe that those in this period did also.

No combat abilities? Any man will fight back when he's attacked.

EDIT: Regardless, enough has been said on this subject. I've stated the logic several times and it has been ignored. Repeating it would merely be foolishness on my part.

No, i think you missed my point. I suggested that they should be far away from the fighting...and when attacked, they should rout almost instantly.


Anyway, i don't really look forword to fighting AI armies with 10 units of priests....Like with the RTW wardogs....

[Zenicetus]

Not whining here, just offering honest feedback and a personal opinion. The main thing that bothers me about the Priest is that it takes up a combat unit slot, and yet (as the description says), these units are not expected to actually enter combat. So now your army has 19 "real" combat units and one morale-boosting unit that's weak and has to be protected, and kept close to the troops (I assume) for full effect.

It just seems to me that it's adding another layer of micromanagement during battles. I'd rather micromanage actual combat units. In real life, I doubt that the generals of the time were having to worry about positioning their priests when managing a live battle.

It will be fine if you can choose not to use this unit, and still have an effective army. Choices and options are a good thing. I don't think it will be much fun if CA balances the game so you're forced to use the priest to win battles.

[conon394]

SMZ

But last time I checked the USMC for example does not deploy assault Chaplin teams to spearhead attacks (times change though and I admit the ex-marines I know were Vietnam-era, so maybe they do now).

Might not be a bad ideal if it was implemented as a extra you can but to have attached to your unit. As in pay another 10% and you get a priest attached to your unit of late roman infantry (kind of like a centurion or other officer in RTW).

As a regular unit though, personally I find ’em silly.

[Mongoose]

If you don't like CA, the game, or how they are designing the game use your "choice" not to play it and stop complaining. If you don't like the unit, don't use it.

In other words: "don't post here if you disagree with me"


I have wasted enough time on this...when and if i buy the game, the first thing i will do is remove this absurd unit. What i am trying to do now is convince CA to make it semi historical so that i will not have to remove it. that's all.It could be realistic AND FUN if they made it a kind of "Spectator" That boosted morale from a distance ad routed once the army was defeated.

Thank's

EDIT:

As a regular unit though, personally I find ’em silly.

Couldn't agree more. They would be fine as a sort of 'officer'.

[Zizka]

mongoose - Ok, sorry it took me a bit, but it is hard to find any references to anything at that period. The Bishop Germanus, sent to Britannia to deal with the teachings of Palagius, and his retinue organized a force of britons celebrating easter to fight a saxon and pict force that had come upon them, and beat off the attacking force. This is all described in chapter 20 of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England, Book 1, also in Book 2 chapter 20 the priest Paulinas survives a battle wherein King Edwin of Northumbria is slain, and he manages to move the Queen safely out of Northumbria.

These are two very exception examples, not your everyday priests urging on the warriors. I don't really have the desire to search anymore. There may or may not be other references, but the most accessable ones are all resources which deal with the great events and leaders of the day.

The whole point to priests being present at the battles is simply analysis. Armies travel with followers, all types. The pagan armies all traveled with their Druids or shamans, so when these people converted they would take up the habit of bringin their priests with them, probably carrying a large cross as a symbol of power, there were no true flags in that respect and every army had their symbols of identification and power. When Constatine converts on the eve of his famous victory attributed to God, he may have truely had a vision but he was more likely convinced by the christian officers and members of his retinue who offered optamism rather than the doomed prediction of failure the pagan shamans and priests had given, stating that all of the god were against his victory.

No, one hardly ever finds priestly groupd mentioned in battles but both Tacitus and Arminius(sp?) both mention generals using priests, christian and other, as emissaries and envoys, quite clearly proving that small retinues of religious representatives traveled with the Roman formations. Hell, Gaius Julius was Potifex Maximus of Rome, and personally preformed the Auspices before every battle. Roman Armies had fought with priests and augers since the days of the republic, they were also senators and military men as well, but would they have started precluding christian priests once Rome had an official conversion.

Oh, and you want sources on weapon specifics, well odds are that these religious retinues merely urged on the warriors near them and took no part in the fighting. I think CA gets them right in ghaving 12 man units with the offence of peasants. I would wager the clubs are there just there to give the a martial look and let CA show off their really nice combat engine. I do think they would look better with just the large cross, and let them swing that if they ever get into combat.

[Asakura Lord]

Post all you want, event if you don't agree with me.

I agree that they are silly units, but they are there and I'm tired of people whining. ( so of course I'm whining about people that whine)

I give up

[Zizka]

oooh, Pope Leo I and Attila, I had forgotten that one, Prosper, wrote in 455 A.D. about that encounter, although the miraculous event was described later by an anonymous writer. The first one by prospor simply states that, accompanied by Avienus, a man of consular rank, and the prefect Trygetius, he persuaded Attila to depart beyond the Danube.

[SMZ]

SMZ

But last time I checked the USMC for example does not deploy assault Chaplin teams to spearhead attacks (times change though and I admit the ex-marines I know were Vietnam-era, so maybe they do now).

if you simply read what CA said about the unit... they are not going to be used as "assault" forces or to "spearhead attacks"

the note of condescension is not neccessary, if I wished I could ridicule you as well and probably with a much greater degree of accuracy - if you want to consider whether the units are logical or not, read my post in the other thread

[Zizka]

mongoose - from what i gather, you would prefer a Retinue of a Church Legate or somesuch that give you a +1 moral bonus for all soldiers, or perhaps all christian soldiers, on the field. I could agree with that, but a unit one has the chance to remove that from the battle field and they will only affect soldiers near them. I doubt you will see huge armies of priests. I have yet to have seen the vast armies of peasants in Rome as were present in Shogun and Medieval. Also, a stack of only priests would be a stack of 12 man units, you could kill them all with your general's bodyguard.

Wardogs, I have never been face with a full stack of them, but they are easy beat. I have never been worried by them, and I never really got to using them. Charge them with your cavalry before they get a chance to unleash the dogs. They die faster than peasants when you catch them before they are unleashed.

[SMZ]

That's what he meant Zizka - that the priests would be easy to beat if the AI used them wrong...

however that's a seperate issue - if we wanted to make sure the AI used units as best as possible then we would only have one unit

[Mongoose]

mongoose - from what i gather, you would prefer a Retinue of a Church Legate or somesuch that give you a +1 moral bonus for all soldiers, or perhaps all christian soldiers, on the field. I could agree with that, but a unit one has the chance to remove that from the battle field and they will only affect soldiers near them. I doubt you will see huge armies of priests. I have yet to have seen the vast armies of peasants in Rome as were present in Shogun and Medieval. Also, a stack of only priests would be a stack of 12 man units, you could kill them all with your general's bodyguard.

Wardogs, I have never been face with a full stack of them, but they are easy beat. I have never been worried by them, and I never really got to using them. Charge them with your cavalry before they get a chance to unleash the dogs. They die faster than peasants when you catch them before they are unleashed.

Yes, that would be perfect It would also be nice to have priests visble out side the 'red line', praying and watching the battle

[player1]

One again, if you have a source sating that they DID carry clubs, i would like to see it.

And I would like a source that they did not carried clubs for self-defense.

[player1]

I remeber when I was playing 2nd edition AD&D, and it had restictions for cleric to only use bludgeoning weapons, since as priest they should not split blood or something. I wonder is it based on some historical order or something (I doubts RPG guys invented something like this), but could explain club armed priests.

[Afro Thunder]

To those of you talking about how their aren't any elite "Chaplain Assault units", you do realize that these priest units have about the same stats as a peasant unit?