Post your suggestions for new units !

[Barry Soteiro]

Here are a few ideas of mine :

1) Paionian cavalry : a must

2) The "blue" celtiberians guys

3) Indian chariots

4) Aetolian cavalry

What do yout think ?

[lobf]

I thought you were banned...

[Dumbass]

Here are a few ideas of mine :
2) The "blue" celtiberians guys


Ahh, those blue celtiberian guys. I know exactly what you mean.

[Sarcasm]

The what now?

[kuzduck]

is the team looking for suggestions on new units? i thought they were running out of unit spots, or mabey that was provinces...

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Here are a few ideas of mine :

2) The "blue" celtiberians guys


What?
The blueman-group got a time-machine and started breeding?


Anyway, I know I might be jumping to conclusions here, but if there will be a Numidian faction, I read about some elite cavalry employed by Jugurtha called "regii equites", (by the romans, apparantly).
This force was drawn from Jugurtha's Gaetulian allies, and is said to have been one of the most loyal forces of the army, as they, in contrast to most Numidians, did not desert after a defeat.
Such a unit could, for example, be avalible to the Numidians in their southernh provinces, given that they have gone through some sort of reforms, and have a moral bonus, representing their loyalty to the king.

However, all pure speculation.

[Foot]

We didn't start this thread, and we certainly aren't looking for new unit suggestions. If someone comes a long with a well written piece about a unit that we did not know about or did not think was viable we'll listen, discuss and make our decisions. But otherwise this is just like the new factions thread, people letting their imaginations run while they wait for EBII.

Foot

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Indeed!

I have no delusions that the EB team would listen to my (from time to time) insane ramblings. However, it is hard to resist the urge to post...

[ludwag]

foot, if someone gives a good suggestion, will you tell us if you have included that unit? I really want you to add the thracian infantry with rompahia and shield. not the falxmen or bastarnae or pelatists, just infantry. with bronze armour and phyrigan helmet with face mask. I really miss that in eb 1. The closest that is to it is the Thrakioi Peltastai. I can make a simple picture in paint to show you what i mean. and it is historacly correct.

https://img404.imageshack.us/img404/3994/lolololololololololololgi1.jpg

[Foot]

This isn't some guessing game, we are not going to reward people with previews of units we aren't ready to reveal yet.

As for the unit you mention above, is this what you are looking for:
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/getai/getai_thraikioi_rhomphaia.gif
They are in EBI you know.

Foot

[Hax]

..and that's when they woke up and noticed it was just a dream...

[ludwag]

1. i just wasnt sure of if you had added it allready, so it would be stupid to talking about units that would be added IF you added a thracian faction or a new merchendary. and i understand it is not in eb 1 becouse getai did not use that kind of troops, but ordysay did and they are only elutheroi and no playable.

2. the thraikioi rhomphaiaporoi is heavy infantry with a very long two handed sword and no javelins. What i mean are something more like the thracian pelatist that is in the game, but more heavy, if you know what i mean. i have read much about thracians lately. i will try to find a good picture, maybe from one of the osprey books.

[Foot]

1. Are the ordysay (sp?) you talk about the Ordes? Cos thats who the Getic faction represent. Regardless we still have units representing a people in an area even if they don't appear as a playable faction.

2. I cannot speak on behalf of the historians working in this area, but if you can find information on this unit I'm sure they will be interested to take a look. You'll need something better than osprey however.

Foot

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

This thread is so funny.

[Matinius Brutus]

What is actually funny is Ludawg's insisting on old R:TW Vanilla units to be included in EB!

[chairman]

Ludwag: the Thrakioi Peltastai are the unit you are talking about. The only difference is that the EB version has some light armor. I'm guessing that you didn't notice that the Thrakian peltasts actually do use the rhomphaia (i hate infinitely long, unpronouncable greek words for barbarian things), phrygian and attic helmets like you want (some of the peltast models might get the attic in EB2) and the thureos (that's the shield you like).

From your drawing, I assume that you have the Osprey Men-at-Arms book "MAA 360 The Thracians 700 BC - AD 46". However, as Foot alluded to, EB uses more than just Osprey books to design units (though some units bear freakishly close resemblence to some pictures from Osprey). So while the Thrakioi Peltastai don't look exactly like the soldiers from MAA 360, they represent the true warrior type from Thracian history.

Hope that helped explain some things.

Chairman

[ludwag]

What is actually funny is Ludawg's insisting on old R:TW Vanilla units to be included in EB!

what kind of units are you talking about? You are talking about the ls-armour? I cant se that thracian infantry is an old vanilla unit. You mean they guys with green hair?

foot, how do you want the historcal information to be presented? Do i need to send you a lot of sources, or do i have to collect some information and give a description? And how do i even know if this kind of unit fits in the gameballance out from the historical evidence? you are the the one how decides that.

[Foot]

Collect information and write a description but also give your sources. We'll read it and then we can decide. But we cannot promise anything. So no you don't know if it will fit in the game, but if you want to do some research than you are more than welcome to. But in the end it is up to the historians for that area who will decide.

Foot

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

1. Are the ordysay (sp?) you talk about the Ordes? Cos thats who the Getic faction represent.
Foot

I think he is refering to the Odrysians.

Ludwag: The Thraikioi Peltastai is basically the same, as Chairman stated, with romphaia and all, and as the M2TW engine allows for variance in unit skins, I don't think there will be any problem.

[Hax]

Actually, I believe the Thraikioi Peltastai wield falxes.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Actually, I believe the Thraikioi Peltastai wield falxes.

I thought falxes were the heavier, two-handed variant... Or maybe It's the other way around.:shrug:

[Hax]

It's the other way around. Rhomphaioi are the big evil two-handed thing. The falx is shorter, and could be wielded with one hand (not for long, but still).

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I stand corrected!:beam:

[Strategos Alexandros]

Actually Mithridates is right. Taken from the EB site description for Thraikioi Peltastai: They are expert javelinmen, able to pepper their targets with javelins before charging in with their fearsome rhomphaias.

[Hax]

Then it's probably that the EB website is wrong, in this case.

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/getai/getai_thraikioi_rhomphaia.gif

See these longswords, those are rhomphaias.

http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistorum/site_eng/Images/falx_02.jpg

If we look at this falx, you notice that it is way shorter in comparison. If you then look at the way the Thraikioi Peltastai wield their weapons, you can see that they are wielding it with one hand. A rhomphaia is longer (and thus heavier), and required two hands. A falx was shorter and could be wielded with one hand.

[Barry Soteiro]

My new suggestions :


Phrygian heavy cavalary
Bythinian light cavalry
Pisidian slingers
Cilician infantry
Cilician cavalry
Pamphylian light infantry

Machimoi Epilektoi
Nubian Kleruchoi
Libyan Wildmen
Libyan Chariotry
Cyprus Light Phalanx
Ptolemaic Felt Cataphract

Gedrosian Light Infantry
Characene Slinger
Parthian Camel Cataphract
Elamite Camelry
Babylonian Light Phalanx
Caspian Javelinists

Blue Celtiberians

[Strategos Alexandros]

Then it's probably that the EB website is wrong, in this case.

I stand corrected. :smash:
Edit: and what are blue Celtiberians?

[Hax]

Parthian Camel Cataphract

/me dies from the inside.

I think that he means Gaesatae with woad from Celtiberia.

[TheGlobalizer]

I'd prefer:

Dragons
Ogres
....Unicorns.

[Tollheit]

/me dies from the inside.

Herodian of Antioch, book IV, chapter XIV, line 3:
"Macrinus thus received the office of emperor not so much because of the soldiers' affection and loyalty as from necessity and the urgency of the impending crisis.

While these events were taking place, Artabanus was marching toward the Romans with a huge army, including a strong cavalry contingent and a powerful unit of archers and those mail-clad soldiers who hurl spears from camels."

[MeinPanzer]

It's the other way around. Rhomphaioi are the big evil two-handed thing. The falx is shorter, and could be wielded with one hand (not for long, but still).

What sources are you basing this distinction on? I've never heard the falx described or depicted as anything other than a two-handed weapon (unless you want to argue that large sicae were called falxes). The difference between the romphaia and the falx, it seems, was entirely in the shape of the blade (straighter versus strongly curved) and in the primary people who used it (Thracians versus Dacians).


Herodian of Antioch, book IV, chapter XIV, line 3:
"Macrinus thus received the office of emperor not so much because of the soldiers' affection and loyalty as from necessity and the urgency of the impending crisis.

While these events were taking place, Artabanus was marching toward the Romans with a huge army, including a strong cavalry contingent and a powerful unit of archers and those mail-clad soldiers who hurl spears from camels."

And from Herodian IV.14.3 - Nisibis, AD 217:

"Meanwhile Artabanus was upon them with his vast and powerful army
composed of many cavalry and an enormous number of archers and
kataphrakts who fought on camels, jabbing with long spears (possible
corrupt text, but the camels and the long spears are secure).

15.2-3:

"The barbarians caused heavy casualties with their rain of arrows and
with the long spears of the kataphraktoi on horses and camels, as the
wounded the Romans with downward thrusts. But the Romans had easily
the better of those who came to close-quarters fighting. And when the
size of the cavalry andthe numbers of the camels began to cause them
troublem they pretended to retreat and then threw down caltrops and
other iron devices with sharp spikes sticking out of them. They were
fatal to the cavalry and the camel-riders as they lay hidden in the
sand, not seen by them. The horses and the camels trod on them and
(this applied particularly to the camels with their tender pads) fell
onto their knees and were lamed, throwing the riders off their backs.
As long as the eastern barbarians are riding on horses or camels they
fight bravely; if they dismount or are thrown they are easily taken
prisoner because they do not resist in close-quarters fighting. And
further, they are hindered from running away (if this were necessary)
by the loose fodls of their clothes hanging around their legs."

Needless to say, both of these mentions postdate the EB timeframe by several centuries.

[Matinius Brutus]

My new suggestions :


Phrygian heavy cavalary
Bythinian light cavalry
Pisidian slingers
Cilician infantry
Cilician cavalry
Pamphylian light infantry

Machimoi Epilektoi
Nubian Kleruchoi
Libyan Wildmen
Libyan Chariotry
Cyprus Light Phalanx
Ptolemaic Felt Cataphract

Gedrosian Light Infantry
Characene Slinger
Parthian Camel Cataphract
Elamite Camelry
Babylonian Light Phalanx
Caspian Javelinists

Blue Celtiberians

I am sure you are just joking, right?

[Tollheit]

And from Herodian IV.14.3 - Nisibis, AD 217:


So what is the difference between Herodian 4.14.3 and Herodian 4.14.3 ?

[Ibrahim]

Herodian of Antioch, book IV, chapter XIV, line 3:
"Macrinus thus received the office of emperor not so much because of the soldiers' affection and loyalty as from necessity and the urgency of the impending crisis.

While these events were taking place, Artabanus was marching toward the Romans with a huge army, including a strong cavalry contingent and a powerful unit of archers and those mail-clad soldiers who hurl spears from camels."

that's from 217AD (the events, not the Author). I believe EB wants info from 272BC-14AD

[MeinPanzer]

So what is the difference between Herodian 4.14.3 and Herodian 4.14.3 ?

Oops, didn't see that. I keep my citations all together and I just copied the two together.

[Tollheit]

that's from 217AD (the events, not the Author). I believe EB wants info from 272BC-14AD

True, but still, I don't think the idea to have Parthian camel cataphracts is stupid enough to make someone "die from the inside".

[Hax]

True, but still, I don't think the idea to have Parthian camel cataphracts is stupid enough to make someone "die from the inside".

Oh, if you only knew...

[General Appo]

It´s not as much dying per say as a sploding from the inside.

And no, I will not tell you what a sploding is. You should know, noob.

[Tollheit]

It's what happens to me when someone misspells "per se"?

[General Appo]

Yeah, sorry. I know it´s really spelled persay. :yes:

[Hax]

Guys, let's stop the arguing now, kay?

[Tollheit]

We were not arguing, move along.
I am just one of a nit-picky nature.

[paullus]

one of a nit-picky nature on a forum frequented by many for whom English is not a first or even second language? learn some forbearance.

i think we'll not be including cataphract camelry. some of the other suggestions are probably more viable. what about pergamon? what new units shall we give them? galatian kataphraktoi?

[MeinPanzer]

i think we'll not be including cataphract camelry. some of the other suggestions are probably more viable. what about pergamon? what new units shall we give them? galatian kataphraktoi?

I'm curious, what do you make of the Galatian cataphracts in Appian's account of the Seleucid order of battle at Magnesia? I've always taken them to just be heavily-armed (mail-armoured) Galatian cavalry (basically the current Galatian Heavy Cavalry), but I wonder if perhaps you have another interpretation?

[russia almighty]

Possible Galatian heavy cavalry that adapted eastern horse barding?

[abou]

I'm curious, what do you make of the Galatian cataphracts in Appian's account of the Seleucid order of battle at Magnesia? I've always taken them to just be heavily-armed (mail-armoured) Galatian cavalry (basically the current Galatian Heavy Cavalry), but I wonder if perhaps you have another interpretation?The Galatian Heavy Cavalry is what I went with in my version of Magnesia.

The cataphract is unfortunately... broad. I wonder what TPC would say.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I'm curious, what do you make of the Galatian cataphracts in Appian's account of the Seleucid order of battle at Magnesia? I've always taken them to just be heavily-armed (mail-armoured) Galatian cavalry (basically the current Galatian Heavy Cavalry), but I wonder if perhaps you have another interpretation?

I don't think Paullus was being very serious; seeing his remark about camelry...

[MeinPanzer]

I don't think Paullus was being very serious; seeing his remark about camelry...

Regardless of whether he was serious or not, I'm just curious what his take on the Galatikoi kataphraktoi of Appian's account is.

[Foot]

He's going to be away for a couple of days, so it might take a while to respond.

Foot

[General Appo]

Lemme guess. Another one who got trampled by the FOOT!!!!

Sorry, I´ll try to stop saying that.

[Ludens]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the term cataphract simply mean "armoured"? I am under the impression that in history it was used for heavy cavalry as well as the completely-armoured cavalry we now associate with cataphracts. Historically, camels weren't used in close combat, and Herodian's text also suggests they skirmished rather than performed charges, so it wouldn't make sense to weigh them down with armour. Most likely their riders wore armour, but not the camels. The same goes for the Galatian cataphracts.

Incidentally, there are little unit slots left and EB2 will include 10 new factions that need unique units as well, so I'll doubt we'll see many new units in EB2 that are not related to those factions. Just posting suggestions is not enough, you'll have to make a good case when, where and why they should be implemented.

[Tellos Athenaios]

AFAIK, Cataphract as in kataphraktos means 'fully covered', whereby 'covered' impicitly requires substitution, e.g. "nees kataphraktoi" (fully decked ships). This is in case of armour, obviously, part of debate: for instance if anyone said "hippeis kataphraktoi" (litt.: fully armoured horsemen) should that suggest the horse was covered also?

[BozosLiveHere]

Incidentally, there are little unit slots left and EB2 will include 10 new factions that need unique units as well, so I'll doubt we'll see many new units in EB2 that are not related to those factions. Just posting suggestions is not enough, you'll have to make a good case when, where and why they should be implemented.

Actually, not needing to use the merc trick to recycle models freed a lot of unit slots. I don't know if even most members realize this.

[chairman]

Do you mean to say that the total limit in EBII could be higher than 500? Because if you do, this is news to not only me but also just about every member of these boards that I know of. However, I have heard that the higher model limit will allow EBII to different looking soldiers for each unit as well as maybe more officers per unit. There was another cool trick for the new model limit that I can't remember but it was much less ambitious than what I think you are suggesting.

Chairman

[Foot]

No, he's saying that in EBI we had to waste unit slots on using the merc trick to give certain units to certain factions. This saves about 12 units (if I remember correctly - or something like that number). Spendios, our unit hoarder, has recently freed up a further 7, I think.

Foot

[General Appo]

Good man Spendios. Have a manly pat on the back.

[Foot]

The man knows his EDU.

Foot

[Tellos Athenaios]

Actually, not needing to use the merc trick to recycle models freed a lot of unit slots. I don't know if even most members realize this.

Yeah, in EB1 for instance; we have one slot 'wasted' on having both a rebel (slave) Ioudaioi Taxeis *and* and a rebel (slave) Peltastai Indohellenikoi.

[chairman]

EBII :

Name: Numidian reformed infantry (wip)

Factions: Numidia (and Massaesyli if included) with reforms; as local unit at high MIC level for at least Romani and Qarthadast, maybe some hellenistic nations as well

Equipment: rounded scutum, short gladius-like sword hung from baldric, simple helmet of greek or roman types, short spear, maybe javelin, linothorax of leather or chainmail with leather or cloth pteruges, short tunic and trousers, sandals

AoR: Kirtan, Siga, Ippone, Utica, Kart-Hadast, and Adrumento; possibly Lixus and Sala as well

History: based on the Syphax's infantry trained by Scipio's centurion in the Second Punic war

Sources: Osprey MAA 121 Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265-146 BC by Terence Wise, pg.14, and Osprey MAA 243 Rome's Enemies (5): The Desert Frontier by David Nicolle, plate A1.

........

I know that this is not enough to completely convince the team to add this unit, though I guess that you may already be considering this unit. Either way, I hope this helps you make a decision. I apologize that my only sources are Osprey, but those are the ones I have on hand, and the 2nd source includes a picture of a Numidian prince with heavy Greek, Carthaginian or Roman influence on armor and weapons that I thought fit the general concept.

Chairman

[Skandinav]

What is wrong with Osprey books - now that it has been mentioned a few times in this thread - I´ve always thought they were of good enough quality but please enlighten me if I´m mistaken ? Or did you mean you wanted more sources than only Osprey ?

[MeinPanzer]

What is wrong with Osprey books - now that it has been mentioned a few times in this thread - I´ve always thought they were of good enough quality but please enlighten me if I´m mistaken ? Or did you mean you wanted more sources than only Osprey ?

The problem with Osprey books is often one of transparency- most of the time, the books are too short to include extensive citations, and so sometimes some reconstructions or claims, which are often objectionable, cannot be fully investigated. Nicolle's Desert Frontiers title is a prime example of this; his Herodian soldier reconstruction is as fanciful as any vanilla RTW unit.

[Havok.]

I'd prefer:

Dragons
Ogres
....Unicorns.


I personally like the ideas of Trolls singing black metal songs fighting Dragons, empaling Ogres and rapping Unicorns at the Ragnarök.



......lol o_O

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

Ok I have an idea for a unit.
Name: Dio Brando. (chaotic evil)
Battle cry: MUDA DA (useless, as in the foe's attak)
spical attak: ZA WARUDO (The World, an assistant Dio can summon to attak the foe.)
Main attak: Time Stop ( by saying "TOKI YO TOMARE" time stops, and by saying "SOSHITE TOKI GA UGOKI DESU" time moves again.)
Final attak: WRYYYYYYYYYYYY (Dio throw a steamroller on the foe while standing on it, then hit the foe while still on the steamroller shouting "MUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDA" untill the foe is dead, then Dio finally burst into laughter and screems "WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!"

Oh, and he can also throw knifes.

[Atilius]

EBII :

Name: Numidian reformed infantry (wip)

Factions: Numidia (and Massaesyli if included) with reforms; as local unit at high MIC level for at least Romani and Qarthadast, maybe some hellenistic nations as well

Equipment: rounded scutum, short gladius-like sword hung from baldric, simple helmet of greek or roman types, short spear, maybe javelin, linothorax of leather or chainmail with leather or cloth pteruges, short tunic and trousers, sandals

AoR: Kirtan, Siga, Ippone, Utica, Kart-Hadast, and Adrumento; possibly Lixus and Sala as well

History: based on the Syphax's infantry trained by Scipio's centurion in the Second Punic war

Sources: Osprey MAA 121 Armies of the Carthaginian Wars 265-146 BC by Terence Wise, pg.14, and Osprey MAA 243 Rome's Enemies (5): The Desert Frontier by David Nicolle, plate A1 Livy (XXIV.48)
Here is the reference in its entirety:


And Statorius out of the mass of young men enrolled infantry for the king, organized them almost in the Roman manner, taught them in formation and evolution to follow standards and keep their ranks, and to such an extent accustomed them to fortifying and other regular duties of the soldier that in a short time the king had as much confidence in his infantry as in his cavalry, and in a regular engagement in formal array on level ground he defeated the Carthaginian enemy.

All that tells us is that they were organized "almost" like Romans and that they had at least one success in battle; it tells us nothing about equipment. Livy mentions later that Massanissa brought 6,000 foot to Zama, but it's not clear if these guys were among them.

[Ludens]

What is wrong with Osprey books - now that it has been mentioned a few times in this thread - I´ve always thought they were of good enough quality but please enlighten me if I´m mistaken ? Or did you mean you wanted more sources than only Osprey ?

Also, Osprey are limited by their format. Their goal is to give a quick overview of the subject in a limited number of pages, so there is little space for details or to discuss the uncertainties and contradictions that plague classical military history. In addition, popular history can lag quite a bit behind the real thing.

[Skandinav]

Of course it was only quality as opposed to format or function that I questioned, never should a comparison be made on different terms.
But thank you for some clarification on what was meant ( I have a few Osprey books on my shelves and couldn´t agree more ) as I clearly mistook the resentment, or caution rather, as founded in something less central than the obvious.

[paullus]

Hey MP,

Sorry, I was away for a few days, and having returned, forgot all about this thread. I've generally assumed that Appian made a mistake calling them Galatians. Don't they overlap with the generic "kataphraktoi" in Livy? The contingents of Galatians would have been stationed right next to them in the battle line, so perhaps Appian messed up. I know its usually translated "mail clad" and my interpretation is that its either 1) an error, and should just read "kataphraktoi" or 2) a reference to Galatian cav wearing heavy armor: breastplates, chain mail, and the like. I prefer 1), but I'm not gonna call someone a fool who thinks that we should give greater credence to Appian's wording.

[Pinkkiller]

well...wiki is worse than osprey...sure it gives a better overwiev but since nearly any1 can go and edit it's not too trustworthy...and leviathan..I really hope that wasn't supposed to be serious... and I continue to wonder when the next suggestion for ''blue cetiberian'' will come :laugh4: still confusing me thought

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Here is the reference in its entirety:


Originally Posted by Titus Livius
And Statorius out of the mass of young men enrolled infantry for the king, organized them almost in the Roman manner, taught them in formation and evolution to follow standards and keep their ranks, and to such an extent accustomed them to fortifying and other regular duties of the soldier that in a short time the king had as much confidence in his infantry as in his cavalry, and in a regular engagement in formal array on level ground he defeated the Carthaginian enemy.

All that tells us is that they were organized "almost" like Romans and that they had at least one success in battle; it tells us nothing about equipment. Livy mentions later that Massanissa brought 6,000 foot to Zama, but it's not clear if these guys were among them.

That Livy states that Statorius "taught them in formation" and "to follow standards and keep their ranks" seems to imply that it was not merely light infantry, but some sort of heavier troops. The fact that the Crathaginians were beaten in a battle "in formal array on level ground" also seems to point to this conclusion.

That they fortified camps etc. also implies that the force was romanized in its tactics and orgainzation.
But to what extent they carried roman-ish equipment can not be derived from the text though. They might as well have carried a spear and aspis, instead of gladius and scutum, however, I would guess that they wore some kind of armour, of a better type that the hardened-leather that, for instance, the mauri wore. Helmets also seem quite likely.

The bottom line being; some form of armoured melee line-infantry (though quite posibly carrying javelins), arranged in, at least to some extent, coherent formations.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, he's saying that in EBI we had to waste unit slots on using the merc trick to give certain units to certain factions. This saves about 12 units (if I remember correctly - or something like that number). Spendios, our unit hoarder, has recently freed up a further 7, I think.

Foot

I was trying to tally the number of free unit slots so far, in the quote above Foot has given 12 and 7 making 19 new unit slots for 10 new factions so far.

I just going through the EDU and searched for the highest number listed for the unit slots and got to 548. I was confused by this because I thought the max # of unit slots was 500. For some reason I also recall reading somewhere that stated EB uses 460 slots which would make the count 40+12+7=59 new units slots for ten new factions or just under 6 specific units a faction.

Could someone clarify what the max is for the EDU?

[Foot]

500. It has always been 500, and always will be. Do not believe those putrid liars who would tell you otherwise. They lie.

Foot

[Majd il-Romani]

Ok, please don't flame me for this, but,when you guys have released EB2, if there is 1 unit slot left free (i doubt it but still) you guys should put a totally over-the-top unit like Unicorn Cataphracts or Flaming Elephants

*runs away*

[Foot]

There won't be any extra unit slots left.

Foot

[Dumbass]

Ok, please don't flame me for this, but,when you guys have released EB2, if there is 1 unit slot left free (i doubt it but still) you guys should put a totally over-the-top unit like Unicorn Cataphracts or Flaming Elephants

*runs away*

How about Bartix Elephant driven ninja chariot riders? I read that in polybius they were employed by Antiochus at Magnesia, for the paltrysum of 10000000 mnai

[Sarcasm]

Now that we have some serious unit proposals, how about you guys type in some spam?

[a completely inoffensive name]

500. It has always been 500, and always will be. Do not believe those putrid liars who would tell you otherwise. They lie.

Foot

Why are units numbered up to 548 then?

[General Appo]

Now that we have some serious unit proposals, how about you guys type in some spam?

Okay:

An Essay upon Unicorns and their history by General Appo

Chapter 1: Proof of Unicorns existance and history

How about unicorns? I seriously think Unicorns are underrepresentated in modern games, even in ones dealing particulary with supposedly mythological creatures. For example, the computer game Age of Empire: Age of Mythology included many supposedly mythological creatures but left out the unicorns. Some might argue that this is because unicorns had not yet appeared in mainstream mythology, however, many Greek historians wrote of their existence, particulary in the Indus Valley, where images of what might be a unicorn has also appeared on early seals.

By medieval time the unicorn had grown more and more accepted into European mythology, possibly becasue of biblical and ancient sources frequently mentioning it, even though contacts with the Indus Valley where this wonderful creature lived was scarce. Marco Polo himself wrote of what might have been an unicorn, even though some people have claimed he was describing an rhinoceros. Even the great Leonardo Da Vince wrote of the unicorn, and far distant nations such as Denmark used unicorn symbols such as it´s trademark horn.

Now, during ETW timeperiod (1700AD-1800AD) European contact with the Indus Valleys was constantly increasing, as trade posts were set up in India and the nearby area. Surely wealthy Europeans interested in the stories of unicorns would have organised parties to search for these wonderful beasts, and though some claim that this did never occur and that unicorns do not exist, newly found evidence exists that proves the contrary. Just look at this painting (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...PalFarnese.jpg) from 1602, it clearly indicates Europeans had encountered unicorns already at that early age, perhaps brought home from India by such explorers as Vasco Da Gama.

In fact there is some indication that the great Timur the Lame had several unicorns in his entourage. In 1398 Timur invaded India, and he sacked many towns and cities, including the great city of Delhi. During this campaign his army allegedly encountered a small herd of unicorns shortly after crossing the Indus River, and Timur naturally intrigued by these creatures brought several of them with him for the rest of his campaigns. when Timur died the unicorns passed to his third son Miran Sha, who was however killed shortly after at the battle of Sardrud in 1408 by the Kara Koyunlu, a Turkic tribal confederation that ruled much of Armenia and Iraq during this period. Their great general Qara Yusuf was after the battle presented with the unicorns, and he to keept them with him during many campaigns. When Qara Yusuf died the small herd passed to his son Qara Iskander.
However Iskander did not relish the unicorns as much as their previous owners had, and so keept poor watch over them. And so during the Ak Koyunlu invasion around 1420 the unicorns were captured by the Ak Koyunlu, and even though they were ultimately defeated they brought the small herd back to their homeland. The herd long stayed with the Ak Koyunlu and passed on from ruler to ruler, but in 1464 they were hard pressed by the Ottoman Empire, and so requested aid from it´s greatest enemy, the Serene Republic of Venice. In an attempt to gain their good faith the present ruler Uzun Hassan gifted two young unicorns to the Doge of Venice.

As anyone know unicorns seldom mate but live for many hundreds of years, and take a long time to age. This was indeed a wonderful gift, which inly increased the Ak Koyunlu´s outrage when Venice´s aid never materialised. Anyway, the uncorns stayed in Venice for some time, were they were the target of much wonder and affection both from the citizens of Venice and the foreign dignitaries privilieged enough to be allowed to see them. In 1509 though, Venice was crushingly defeated at the battle of Agnadello, by an alliance led by Pope Julius II. Julius had seen the unicorns several years ago in Venice and so demanded them as part of his treaty with Venice. With no choice, Venice ceaded the two still not fully grown unicorns to Julius, who keept them at his court in Rome, where they passed on to several Popes. It was during the reign of Pope Clement VIII that the above posted painting was made, clearly demonstrating the existence of a not fully grown unicorn at Rome at that time. I will explain more tommorow about the nature of unicorns and the conspiracy to keep unicorns a purely mythological creature, but now I must have my beauty-sleep.

Chapter 2: The Nature and later history of Unicorns

Firstly, I do not unerstand why anyone would joke about such a serious matter as unicorns, I strongly believe that unicorns to exist, and I intend to attempt to convince you of it as well. Secondly, why doesn´t that picture prove anything? When someone finds a cavepainting or mosaic from ancient Rome or Greece it is considered important historical material that strongly indicates the existence of whatever the painting or mosaic depicts, why would it not be the same with later work of arts? It´s all part of the conspiracy I intend to reveal, possibly in a later post.

Now, to the nature of unicorns. A unicorns is as far as looks go simply a horse with a horn potruding from it´s forehead, though unicorns do tend to be extraordinarily beautiful creatures, displaying a natural grace and elegance unknown to horses. Unicorns seldom mate, and when they do it takes an extremely long time for the one baby to grow into a mature unicorns, often as long as 300 years. In return, unicorns have a very long lifespan, able to live for as long as 2000 years, and in extreme cases even longer. Though a unicorns can be slain by a human or animal, it is exccedingly rare, both as unicorns have an incredibly ability to quickly heal any wounds inflicted upon them, and because any creature who approaches a unicorn with the intent to hurt it will be overwhelmed by the unicorns beauty, and will be unable to harm such a beautiful creature.

The unicorn is a naturally docile creature, but when its infants are in danger it will drive off the assaulter by attempting to impale the assaulter on its sharp horn. Because of the unicorns impressive speed and agility, it almost always succeed in this task, instantly killing the assaulter. Unicorns are vegetarian creatures, eating only grass and leaves, refusing to even touch a dead animal. Unicorns are also quite intelligent creatures, often succeeding in avoiding traps and galantly passing any test or hinder in its way, though sometimes it makes use of its incredible reaction speed and jumping ability.

The unicorns have lived in the Indus Valley for many millenias, as has already been menioned. There the climate and nature was appropiate to all their needs, and they thrived there, creating several seperate herds of unicorns, each consisting of about 20 unicorns. At most there appears to have been 30 to 40 of these herds in existence, so about 700 unicorns at their peak.
The native inhabitants of the Indus Valley where aware of the unicorns existence, though they did not often show themselves to the inhabitants, being naturally catious. When the inhabitants spoke to outsiders of these creatures they were often thought of as liers, and even when they were believed the creature appeared more as a mystic creature from ancient legends then an actual living animal. During the Mauryan Empire and the rule of the Indo-Greeks, the unicorns went into hiding, and were seldom spotted by any humans except a few natives which had gained their trust. During this time they were pressed to find food without exposing themselves to human eyes, and so fewer and fewer new unicorns were born. The number of unicorns begun to slowly decline, until by around 1000 AD it was down to around 300 specimens. During this longperiod not much is known about the unicorns, but they appear to have retreated to the most seclusive areas of the Indus Valley, where they lived their long lifes in peace. As I have already mentioned, a herd of unicorns was taken by the army of Timur the Lame during his invasion of India in 1398, though it is unclear how the unicorns were captured.

After Timur´s departure the unicorns were pressed even harder, as the population became ever greater, and no new unicorns (expect the ones taken by Timur´s army) had been borned for over a millenia. The very last unicorns in the Indus Valley is supposed to have perished sometime during the early 19th century. The unicorns take by Timur the Lame however persisted in Rome, but there conditions were about to change dramatically.

During the reign of Pope Pius VI (1775-99) a member of the Freemasons society allegedly stole the two unicorns and brought them to a Freemason lodge in Bretagne, likely to study the nature of these incredible creatures, something the Popes would never allow them to do. Pius does not seem to have cared much for the theft, but his succesor Leo XII certainly did. During his reign an extensive search for the unicorns was begun, and many Freemasons were hunted down and persecuted, but the unicorns were not found, for under great pressure from the Pope´s lackeys the unicorns had been taken to America, and the thriving city of Philadelphia. What exactly happened next I will hopefully explain in an later post, but now I´m afraid I must... do something else. Till next time.


Chapter 3: The late history of the Unicorns

Anyway, I´m tired so I´ll just give a short account of what happened after the unicorns had been taken to Philadelphia. the Freemasons were curious as to nature of the unicorns long life-span, and so did some experiments. However the unicorns were stolen by Darwin´s lackeys who tried to drown them in the Hudson River but fled when one of them was shoot by an rabbit that accidentally triggered an abondonded rifle left there by American Vice President William A. Wheeler, 19th Vice President of the United States of America, District Attorney for Franklin County, Attendant to the University of Vermont and reknown for his honesty, for reasons better left untold of, at least in this post.

Anyway, the unicorns fleed to Mexico by train where they took up living around the Sad Hill Cemetery living of rotten oranges left there by various friars. After many decades they were found by the CIA who are now making horrible evil terribly experiments on them to determine the truth of their origins.
General Appo. 27th May, 2008.

[Spendios]

Why are units numbered up to 548 then?

Maybe because some numbers are not used ? ~:handball:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe because some numbers are not used ? ~:handball:

Can someone give me an accurate number of how many unit slots are actually used?

[Tellos Athenaios]

O(1).

[Spendios]

Can someone give me an accurate number of how many unit slots are actually used?

Why don't you count them in the EDU instead ? Too lazy ? :juggle2:

[General Appo]

No, we just expect you to do it for us. After all, the customer is always right... even when he doesn´t pay jack shit.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why don't you count them in the EDU instead ? Too lazy ? :juggle2:

Sorry if I thought that maybe an EB member or someone who made an unofficial mod had written down or memorized the amount of unit slots used which number above 400 and would take over an hour maybe two to fully count one by one. Prick.

[Hax]

Dude, go out, grab a drink, chill out.

[abou]

Sorry if I thought that maybe an EB member or someone who made an unofficial mod had written down or memorized the amount of unit slots used which number above 400 and would take over an hour maybe two to fully count one by one. Prick.
You know, considering that we're all busy and that some things are forgotten, it might not have hurt for you to actually go and look it up yourself. Furthermore, you know that Spendios had a jocular nature to his post.

And then to go and call an EB team member a prick? If you want to go searching for a ban, I suggest you continue acting the way you have.

[paullus]

circa 450 maybe. eb2 will have all 500 eventually.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I stick to O(1). I THINK I might go as far as to say Ω(1), but if not perhaps Θ(1) is more likely. Yet there is no basis for such an estimate, therefore I stick to what I feel safe with, which is O(1).

[lobf]

You know, considering that we're all busy and that some things are forgotten, it might not have hurt for you to actually go and look it up yourself. Furthermore, you know that Spendios had a jocular nature to his post.

And then to go and call an EB team member a prick? If you want to go searching for a ban, I suggest you continue acting the way you have.

That's one of those jokes that's not really a joke. It's just kind of sneering and insulting. With a joke-ish tone. Good example for everyone else.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You know, considering that we're all busy and that some things are forgotten, it might not have hurt for you to actually go and look it up yourself. Furthermore, you know that Spendios had a jocular nature to his post.

And then to go and call an EB team member a prick? If you want to go searching for a ban, I suggest you continue acting the way you have.

I have already said I attempted to count the units in the EDU but the numbering for them goes all the way up to 548 so I was confused about how many the EDU could hold. After sorting out my confusion on the number of unit slots the game can hold, the response to my question "can anyone tell me what the real number is, seeing as how the numbering for them is all messed up." was "Why don't you go to the EDU and actually look?" I just told everyone last page I counted! And what exactly makes it "jocular"? The fact it had a juggling smiley? Because that it makes it so easy to see that when he says "Are you just too lazy to actually do anything yourself?" he was kidding.

I would be completely happy if I had gotten a straight answer saying "No, we don't have that exact information ready right now, you will have to ask some other member experienced with the EDU or try to count them all yourself. "Why don't you count them in the EDU instead ? Too lazy ?" was the "joke" I received.

I'm sorry that I called Spendios a prick, that was uncalled for, name calling is always uncalled for. I really am very sorry Spendios about that, but if you see your response as a serious reply as I did and not jocular you might agree that could be considered uncalled for as well.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, I after posting that last message a stroke of genius hit me on how to find out how many units there are. I copy and pasted the entire EDU into MS Word, deleted the beginning paragraphs so there was just unit slots, typed in "unit_cost" into replace, hit replace and it told me that all 461 "unit_cost" had been replaced (I just put empty space for it to be replaced with), so there must be 461 units in the game.

500-461=39, 39+7+12 (the 7 and the 12 coming from Foot's post on new slots being freed up)=58 new units that to my knowledge have been freed up for EBII.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There's a catch...

[General Appo]

There always is...

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's a catch...

I don't understand how there could be a catch to extra unit slots?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Are you feeling good sport today?

If yes: use your brains and find out for yourself what & why (it's a typical 'parsing' mistake programmers make; but I'm sure you'll be able to 'discover it by yourself' and slap yourself on the forehead for it)
If no: You forgot to take into account that comments mentioning this specific attribute may occur inside the EDU. I know of at least 1 such instance, but there are possibly more. Hence, it follows your estimate cannot be considered any more accurate than the few I've posted before.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Are you feeling good sport today?

If yes: use your brains and find out for yourself what & why (it's a typical 'parsing' mistake programmers make; but I'm sure you'll be able to 'discover it by yourself' and slap yourself on the forehead for it)
If no: You forgot to take into account that comments mentioning this specific attribute may occur inside the EDU. I know of at least 1 such instance, but there are possibly more. Hence, it follows your estimate cannot be considered any more accurate than the few I've posted before.

What instance are you talking about? I erased the beginning paragraphs to leave nothing but the unit slot info. Are there comments in between some of the unit slot info? If so what line (so I can use "Go to" for once)?

[Strategos Alexandros]

You could use 'find' until you get to one.

[Spendios]

What instance are you talking about? I erased the beginning paragraphs to leave nothing but the unit slot info. Are there comments in between some of the unit slot info? If so what line (so I can use "Go to" for once)?

To make it quick and easy : There are so many changes between EB1 and EB2 units that you can count, re-count and calculate in every manner you want you will not be able to know how many new slots are available for EB2.

And if you ask to know what this number is we won't give you an answer nor an estimate.

Buhahahaha :beam:

[a completely inoffensive name]

To make it quick and easy : There are so many changes between EB1 and EB2 units that you can count, re-count and calculate in every manner you want you will not be able to know how many new slots are available for EB2.

And if you ask to know what this number is we won't give you an answer nor an estimate.

Buhahahaha :beam:

But that would depend on how you have worked on the EDU. Did you start over with a totally blank EDU and are working your way up to 500, or did you import the units from EBI and have begun to "whittle" down the unnecessary and lower priority units to make room for the new faction units? (Yes, I know all the units will be "new" in that they will look different then from EBI because of the improved graphics and variability models.)

[ludwag]

in everywhere i read about thracians they talk about thracian infantry and very much about them. In eb there is only thracian pelatists, and elite infantry and bastarnae. no normal thracian infantry.

[Ibrahim]

in everywhere i read about thracians they talk about thracian infantry and very much about them. In eb there is only thracian pelatists, and elite infantry and bastarnae. no normal thracian infantry.

the thracian peltasts I'm afraid are there for a purpose. you can even look at their secondary weapon if you don't believe me.

[MeinPanzer]

in everywhere i read about thracians they talk about thracian infantry and very much about them. In eb there is only thracian pelatists, and elite infantry and bastarnae. no normal thracian infantry.

Bastarnae aren't Thracians, and the Thracian peltasts are what you would classify as generic Thracian infantry.

[Hax]

in everywhere i read about thracians they talk about thracian infantry and very much about them. In eb there is only thracian pelatists, and elite infantry and bastarnae. no normal thracian infantry.

Thraikioi Doryphoroi..? Literally means Thracian spear-bearers. Or spear-armed, can't recall. Something with spear.

[ludwag]

but not all use javelins and skhirmishing. some used only swords and shields and was infantry (like in vanilla rtw)

[Hax]

*shrug*

Skudra Tabari...

[Strategos Alexandros]

but not all use javelins and skhirmishing. some used only swords and shields and was infantry (like in vanilla rtw)

In an ideal world it would be possible to give some members of the unit javelins and not others, but it isn't. Besides, more Thracians would have had javelins than not had them so it doesn't really justify using another unit slot and you don't have to use them as skirmishers in any case.

[bobbin]

some used only swords and shields and was infantry (like in vanilla rtw)
you mean like these guys?
https://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g177/0404625/getai_taxeistribalii.gif

[paullus]

haha, or galathraikioi. really, our thracian roster is rather robust. there'll be some alterations for EB2, but i'm not sure i see anywhere that we'd need to add any units for the thracians.

[ludwag]

In an ideal world it would be possible to give some members of the unit javelins and not others, but it isn't. Besides, more Thracians would have had javelins than not had them so it doesn't really justify using another unit slot and you don't have to use them as skirmishers in any case.

i diddnt mean that. but the infantry wasnt skirmishers even though they had javelins, most of them. If they was using skirmishing it was in a much smaller scale, but that wasnt a part of their main use, it was only their fighting style.

If playing as thracians it cant be mostly skirmishers in the army. it has to be infantry.

[Spendios]

i diddnt mean that. but the infantry wasnt skirmishers even though they had javelins, most of them. If they was using skirmishing it was in a much smaller scale, but that wasnt a part of their main use, it was only their fighting style.

If playing as thracians it cant be mostly skirmishers in the army. it has to be infantry.

I don't understand at all what you mean. Are Roman legionaries also skirmishers and not infantry since they are equipped with throwing weapons ?
The unit you suggest is exactly like a thracian peltast when he has thrown all his javelins !

[ludwag]

I don't understand at all what you mean. Are Roman legionaries also skirmishers and not infantry since they are equipped with throwing weapons ?
The unit you suggest is exactly like a thracian peltast when he has thrown all his javelins !

you are the first one to understand what I mean. but i dont really know. I know that their infantry are not pelatists. And I know that i cant base an army on skirmishers.

[Foot]

Peltasts aren't only skirmishers. They can also be used as shock infantry, but they certainly aren't line infantry. However the unit you drew was not line infantry either. There are Thracian spearmen. I'm sorry if they are not enough, but as it seems you don't even know what you want. As Paullus said our thracian line-up (where some of the getian troops can also stand in for thracian units) is fairly comprehensive and there really isn't room to expand it any further.

Foot

[MeinPanzer]

you are the first one to understand what I mean. but i dont really know. I know that their infantry are not pelatists. And I know that i cant base an army on skirmishers.

You seem to be hung up on the term "peltast." Just forget that they're peltasts and think of them as Thracian infantry.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

The Thraikioi Peltastai are actually exellent infanty. They're actually one of my favourit units.
But, as has been said, there are quite a loot of Thraikian units, so just adding another, that is basically the same as Thraikioi Peltastai, but without the javelins, seems pointless.
You have after all (pardon me, if my spelling of these names is incorrect):
Thraikioi Doryphoroi
Thraikioi Peltastai
Thraikioi Romphaiaphoroi
Taxeis Triballoi
Thraikioi Hippeis
Thraikioi Prodromoi

That is four infantry units, and two cavalry units, and in addition to this, you also have some Getic units. I'd say that the Thraikians are one of the more numerous and diverse non-faction roosters.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And Gallathraikes.

[Strategos Alexandros]

Aren't the Tarabostes Thracian too?

[Ghaseken]

i was thinking maybe the slovanic Богатйрй (Bogatyeiryei). Fight mounted or dismounted, usually with spears or swords. Records show that they used chainmail with a round-top helm with a nose-guard. Possibly some chain mail hanging off the helm to protect the neck and shoulders form blows. Nothing to protect the legs usually, but the chainmail usually hangs down to the knees. Also used a round medum-sixed shild, probably 2 feet in diameter with a metal handguard or whatever in the middle.

[Foot]

What records, what evidence? Sounds like an interesting unit, but also sounds suspiciously late to me.

Foot

[Artorius Maximus]

i was thinking maybe the slovanic Богатйрй (Bogatyeiryei). Fight mounted or dismounted, usually with spears or swords. Records show that they used chainmail with a round-top helm with a nose-guard. Possibly some chain mail hanging off the helm to protect the neck and shoulders form blows. Nothing to protect the legs usually, but the chainmail usually hangs down to the knees. Also used a round medum-sixed shild, probably 2 feet in diameter with a metal handguard or whatever in the middle.

Wouldn't the early Slavs have been considered Scythians or Sarmatians? That aside, I support new Slavic units, as they are a little underrepresented at the moment.

Also, I would like to see an Illyrian Hoplite unit of some sort, or at least more Illyrian units. At the moment, I think there are only three representing the Illyrian culture. More Balkan-faction units would be nice in general.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sounds like an interesting unit, but also sounds suspiciously late to me

You're right. The Bogatiry were a Medieval unit that existed no earlier than 900 AD at the very least. That is, of course, way, way later than the time EB II takes place and such unit would be more appropriate for M2TW.

BTW, speaking of M2TW, I just got it two days ago, tried it and found it to be rubbish. I guess I am just going to play EB I until another better game comes out - if that is possible.

[ludwag]

You seem to be hung up on the term "peltast." Just forget that they're peltasts and think of them as Thracian infantry.

maybe i just dont like that is says "missile" when holding over them.

[Oqlanth]

Well about Thracian military... I think ludwag especialy interested with southern thracians...
current thracian units are nearly totaly fill the whole historical thracian military except a heavier cavalry bodyguard and maybe an archer.

if you mean with 'shock' infantary of Thracians it is represented in Thraikioi Romphaiaphoroi (Elite Thracian Infantry) They are using only melee weapon. And they are not wielding long sword. I make a custom battle to see what weapons look like and it is not the long sword it is pure deadly rhomphaia !!! :D

Well if you can make with only simple search you will see majority of southern Thracians infantry were using peltast. EB divided major thracian infantry into two;
Thraikioi Peltastai
Thraikioi Doryphoroi

Probably Thraikioi Peltastai represents wealthier and more profesional warriors of thracians while Thraikioi Doryphoroi represents poorer. Both are 'peltast throwing' units as being true thracian! :D

And there are some other special infantries;
Taxeis Triballoi
Gallathraikes

Texeis Triballoi represents fierce southern thracian tribe. at 272 they are beaten by Celts and forced to east. They are also 'peltast throwing' unit.
Gallathraikes represent celtic influenced Thracian infantry after celtic invasion. They are also 'peltast throwing' unit.

Both of then are much like specific types of Thraikioi Peltastai. I mean wealthy and more profesional thracian infantry with some diferences or influences.

Well i think i can describe southern thracian infantry.

[Hax]

You're forgetting something hugely important.

Thraikoi Rhomphaiaphoroi.

[Oqlanth]

You're forgetting something hugely important.

Thraikoi Rhomphaiaphoroi.

No... I said it in the beginning;


if you mean with 'shock' infantary of Thracians it is represented in Thraikioi Romphaiaphoroi (Elite Thracian Infantry) They are using only melee weapon. And they are not wielding long sword. I make a custom battle to see what weapons look like and it is not the long sword it is pure deadly rhomphaia !!! :D

And if you say about their 'position' or station in thracian army, they are the elite. Probably more profienced and wealthy warriors than Thraikioi Peltastai. And also they probably had 'fanatic' site. Thracians were religious people! :D

But I think they may still have javelins... I have to make more detailed search about it but they may have....

This situation is same for Thracian Medium cavalry.They were also using javelins too. but i think it is beacuse of 'engine limitations'...

[ludwag]

but Thraikioi Peltastai are the closest to thracian infantry. I think they are what i am talking about. but they are still missile unit. and why are they wearing armour?

[Oqlanth]

but Thraikioi Peltastai are the closest to thracian infantry. I think they are what i am talking about. but they are still missile unit. and why are they wearing armour?


Well well well...
why they are wearing armor!...hehe for some protection! :D

Let's take this question in two ways:

First think it about fantastic stuff or gaming stuff. You probably see many armored archers in pc games. There are some in R:TW and MII:TW.
And also may be you watch Lord of The Rings movie. You may notice archer of gondor in plate mails!


Well let's think it in second way... Historical way:
There are many armored archers or 'missile' troops. Like Turkish sipahis. they are mounted troops armed with bows , swords and usualy wears chain mail and carries shield.

Well about Thracian Peltast.
Tribal people militarises are not 'professional' armies of modern age. even not like 'civilised' ones in their era. Their economical conditions effect how well they are armed as well as their skill and experience.

So thracians as founders of peltast used it in battles. It is some kind of their 'mark' in battlefield.
Poorer ones arms with simple and more easly usable equipments. And weathier and braver ones wears more rich arms are more 'professional' arms.

Well probably in your point of view to 'thracian infantry' thracian army mostly consisted of 'missle infantries'

Cihan

[MeinPanzer]

but Thraikioi Peltastai are the closest to thracian infantry. I think they are what i am talking about. but they are still missile unit. and why are they wearing armour?

This, I think, is a legitimate issue. The majority of representations of lighter Thracian infantry that we have show them without any body armour. I think this goes along with a trend in EB in general, though, in which the EB historians have opted to reconstruct units as heavily armoured as the evidence may allow.

[abou]

That essentially has been the case due to how the RTW engine represents only one type in what could be a variety. In the case of thureophoroi, if it is possible for a linothorax then every individual gets a linothorax. Made things easier for stating and modelling. But hey, expect changes for EB2 since M2TW gives us so many options.

[Megas Methuselah]

Hey, abou? You know I love you, right? :crowngrin:

[Oqlanth]

Thraikioi Peltastai (Thraikian Peltasts):
Armour: 8
Shield: 2
Skill: 8

and I am looking the picture of the unit...
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/getai/getai_thrakioi_peltastai.gif

Well Armour: 8... Shield: 2 well everything seems to be in order....
The only problem about them is I think this;
Discipline: normal
Probably for game balance but they may be 'Disciplined' unit.

[MeinPanzer]

Thraikioi Peltastai (Thraikian Peltasts):
----
Probably for game balance but they may be 'Disciplined' unit.

Why? What evidence do you have for this? Why would the generic infantry of a society like the Thracians' necessarily be disciplined?

[Strategos Alexandros]

maybe i just dont like that is says "missile" when holding over them.

AFAIK you can change that in the EDU :book:

[ludwag]

but they still have skirmish mode as an option and more javelins than normal infantry.

[Oqlanth]

Why? What evidence do you have for this? Why would the generic infantry of a society like the Thracians' necessarily be disciplined?

You give the answer;
'The society like Thracian'
Thracians are mostly professional soldiers. They were fighting for or against scyhtians , Macedonians , Hellens , Selucians , Ptolemians, Celts , Romans , Persians and of course among themself! :D

We are not talking about 'generic infantary' from a Hellenic polis or early germanic tribe. Those were the tribes of war-like people who were also professional soldiers.

This is first part and second part;

in my opinion:


Well if you can make with only simple search you will see majority of southern Thracians infantry were using peltast. EB divided major thracian infantry into two;
Thraikioi Peltastai
Thraikioi Doryphoroi

Probably Thraikioi Peltastai represents wealthier and more profesional warriors of thracians while Thraikioi Doryphoroi represents poorer. Both are 'peltast throwing' units as being true thracian! :D

Well not all thracian infantry wore this kind of armor. But unit of Thraikioi Peltastai are wearing heavier armor.
This is from the description of the unit;



Historically, the Thraikioi Peltastai have been around since the late Bronze Age and are often considered the archetype of the Thraikian warrior, though these Hellenized Peltastai are considerably more heavily armored than their fifth century ancestors. The Thraikioi Peltastai have been plying their deadly trade against Hellenes for as long as any Thraikian or Hellene can remember, and their method of warfare was so effective it was copied by the Hellenes and Makedonians and even mimicked by tribes as distant as the Illyrians. The number of battles and by whom they were used is uncountable. Suffice to say Thraikian peltastai have been used in every major conflict between Hellenic states, and will continue to be used.

These are the most basic ones of the reasons when I said 'thracian peltast may be disciplined'....

Cihan

[Oqlanth]

Meanwhile I also notice this!:

Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi (Elite Thracian Infantry):
Lethality: 0.26 0.1 (there is no second weapon...probably lethality of second weapon is useless)

Thraikioi Peltastai (Thraikian Peltasts)
Lethality: 1 0.285 (first weapon is javelins )

Well for melee Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi 's lethality 0.26 and Thraikioi Peltastai 's lethality is 0.285 ! Higher than Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi !!!!

[Foot]

We have a very complex stat system, it is impossible to just take two units and expect to divine some mistake or some reason behind it. Plus this is the EBII forums, not the EBI forums, comparing EBI units here is rather off-topic. Finally because there is no lethality stat in MTW2 you can expect some stat changes.

On the matter of your little question, there are many other stats associated with weapons, including the fact that the Rhomphaiaphoroi have the armour piercing stat.

Foot

[MeinPanzer]

You give the answer;
'The society like Thracian'
Thracians are mostly professional soldiers. They were fighting for or against scyhtians , Macedonians , Hellens , Selucians , Ptolemians, Celts , Romans , Persians and of course among themself! :D

We are not talking about 'generic infantary' from a Hellenic polis or early germanic tribe. Those were the tribes of war-like people who were also professional soldiers.

Some Thracians fought as mercenaries. However, this unit is meant, AFAIK, to represent the generic infantry of Thrace, who would by no means by "professional soldiers." Fighting against many different peoples does not necessarily make the line infantry of a military disciplined.

In the same vein, some Galatians fought as mercenaries. Does that mean that your average Galatian infantryman from Galatia proper should be disciplined? No, it doesn't.

Also, "generic infantry" from a Hellenic polis? Like the disciplined ranks of the hoplite phalanx?

I don't know why you're arguing so strongly just for the Thracians, but your impressions of their abilities are distorted.

[ludwag]

what about making the thracian pelatists more light, and make a new thacian infantry with javelins, that looks much the same, and fights the same, but are very different in stats. more infantry-like.

i love that there is many thacian units in eb 1, but i cant stop feeling there is a huge gap :(

[Foot]

Unit slots are a premium. As paullus said, and he should know as he is Faction Coordinator for the Getai faction, the Thracian list is fairly complete. This has been discussed ad nauseum, the Thracian list is not going to change very much for EBII, and there is unlikely to be new units for the area.

Foot

[Oqlanth]

We have a very complex stat system, it is impossible to just take two units and expect to divine some mistake or some reason behind it. Plus this is the EBII forums, not the EBI forums, comparing EBI units here is rather off-topic. Finally because there is no lethality stat in MTW2 you can expect some stat changes.

On the matter of your little question, there are many other stats associated with weapons, including the fact that the Rhomphaiaphoroi have the armour piercing stat.

Foot

:beam:

Well I am not 'expect to divine some mistake or some reason behind it' ... I just noticed this and want to share it at forms... look what i said:



Meanwhile I also notice this!:

Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi (Elite Thracian Infantry):
Lethality: 0.26 0.1 (there is no second weapon...probably lethality of second weapon is useless)

Thraikioi Peltastai (Thraikian Peltasts)
Lethality: 1 0.285 (first weapon is javelins )

Well for melee Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi 's lethality 0.26 and Thraikioi Peltastai 's lethality is 0.285 ! Higher than Thraikioi Rhomphaiaphoroi !!!!

Are there any word or verb which is blaming EB or EB team!!!....
Well communication at forums is hard thing...There are 'very few' forums which i like to use... There are every kind of people who get advantage of freedom to say what they want in many way.

But I am not one of them!!!

And about....Rhomphaiaphoroi having armor piercing... Peltastai also have armor piercing...

Last word... I know your hard work...! go on and make good game...! :beam:

[Foot]

Look, I'm not having a go. I'm just saying that a) this is not the correct forum, b) you've spent several posts criticising the thracian units in EBI (not EBII), and c) there is more going behind the stats that you realise. If you don't want to misunderstood then you need to lose some of the exclamation marks. They aren't full stops they have a meaning and stress the importance of a sentence beyond the actual words behind it. Using 5 exclamation marks in quick succession leads me to believe that there is a sense of disbelief with those stats. Leading me to believe that you are raising a mistake. Not only is it not a mistake but it isn't even in the right forum.

So use less exclamation marks, please. They aren't just fancy punctuation, they express a meaning.

Foot

[Oqlanth]

Some Thracians fought as mercenaries. However, this unit is meant, AFAIK, to represent the generic infantry of Thrace, who would by no means by "professional soldiers." Fighting against many different peoples does not necessarily make the line infantry of a military disciplined.

In the same vein, some Galatians fought as mercenaries. Does that mean that your average Galatian infantryman from Galatia proper should be disciplined? No, it doesn't.

Also, "generic infantry" from a Hellenic polis? Like the disciplined ranks of the hoplite phalanx?

I don't know why you're arguing so strongly just for the Thracians, but your impressions of their abilities are distorted.

Well well well... I do not know where to start... :D

Let's start form here:



Also, "generic infantry" from a Hellenic polis? Like the disciplined ranks of the hoplite phalanx?


No... As we all can know disciplined ranks of hoplite phalanx is not 'generic infantry'... We even in 'EB' you can see disciplined ranks of hoplite phalanx is not generic infantry...

It is something like 'believing' 300 spartans hold against one billion persians...

300 spartans are core of the fight yes but they are not alone...

Well...well...well...


Thracians fought as mercenaries. However, this unit is meant, AFAIK, to represent the generic infantry of Thrace, who would by no means by "professional soldiers.

This may mean... But if you insist to look from 'empty side' of the glass you can find many distorted reasons...

And last of all to finish this;
What i said in my early post about 'disciplined' thracian peltast;


Probably for game balance but they may be 'Disciplined' unit.


Ahh...Ahh... Forum Generation!....

:beam:

Nevermind.... I think i can tell myself :D

[Oqlanth]

well Foot,

I am not critising thracian units for posts... There is an 'ongoing' converstaion about thracian units under post and i just join it :beam:

And about 'this is not place to discuss units in EBI'... Well... Don't say me EBII team will not create units mostly based on EBI... So discussing EBI units are some how discussing EBII units... Simple :D

Amd about exclamation marks... you are probably right from your position... there is no need to make 'deep discussion' about this...

Cihan

[Foot]

I really don't get the above post

Please can we stop talking about the Thracians. No one has put forward any information beyond conjecture on this matter to make changes to the Thracian roster. Can we please move on. Please.

Foot

[Oqlanth]

I really don't get the above post

Please can we stop talking about the Thracians. No one has put forward any information beyond conjecture on this matter to make changes to the Thracian roster. Can we please move on. Please.

Foot

SURE! :beam:
until next time :viking: but you can't stop the Thracians! :spider: hehehe...

[lobf]

He's saying bring up some sources before you keep talking about them.

[Oqlanth]

Hrrr....
What i said... SURE!...
OK!...
No need to act like a pedant!
Hrrr.....:furious3::furious3::furious3:~:pissed:~:mad~:angry:

[Foot]

Alright. I'm locking this thread. It was started by a troll and as devolved into nothing more than a shouting match over thracian units that we haven't even previewed yet. This isn't about new units this is about old units.

Closed.

Foot