Bataroas vs. Gaeilache (And Botroas vs. Gaeroas)

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Which unit do you train more for your Celtic army: spearmen or swordsmen? I say this because there seems to be no significant difference between them, well Bataroas is slightly better than Gaeilache and has better Stamina, but Gaeilache is also cheaper and has a tighter formation (better for defense). Should I just get a balance of both, or should I just forsake spearmen and focus on swordsmen?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Higher lethality is a significant difference, especially when it is a Celtic longsword. So I train mainly the Botoroas.

But for the enemy cavalry, of course, I recruit the spearmen. Although actually, I do not employ Celtic Spearmen. Not the levy ones that is. I use elite spearmen, while still training the levy swordsmen. For you I would recommend a mix, about 4:1, swords:spears ratio. If your choice was restricted to either levy spear or swords, as you say it is.

[DaciaJC]

I play Celtic factions simply for the high-tier swordsmen. Spearmen are a dime a dozen in EB; few factions can boast superior swordsmen.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I play Celtic factions simply for the high-tier swordsmen. Spearmen are a dime a dozen in EB; few factions can boast superior swordsmen.
Whoa, you did not mention that "Drapnai would, like totally own the Celts"!! No Drapnai or Getai? In this thread, where you could have mentioned them without going especially OT?:dizzy2:

Keep it up, you are showing great improvement. :yes::beam::2thumbsup:

[Kikaz]

With my Arverni campaign I pretty much spam Bataroas... I mean, they kill everything...
Though I do generally back them up with a unit or two of Lugoae and Iosatae (who are then used for garrison duty as I retrain my Bataroas for their next conquest.)

[Aemilius Paulus]

With my Arverni campaign I pretty much spam Bataroas... I mean, they kill everything...
Even Pantadapoi kill everything when there is 20 units of them. For instance, Cordinau Orcas kill everything even better than Bataroas. And Bototroas are much better then Bataroas. I most certainly prefer Northern Gallic Swordsmen.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Even Pantadapoi kill everything when there is 20 units of them. For instance, Cordinau Orcas kill everything even better than Bataroas. And Bototroas are much better then Bataroas. I most certainly prefer Northern Gallic Swordsmen.
Your statement doesn't make any sense :clown:.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Your statement doesn't make any sense :clown:.
It does when you read it as the response to that quote in my post. And why would you put the clown there? Even if this is a jest, it is not amusing, I can assure you.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

First off, there's no unit called "Bototroas".

Second, Botroas are Southern Gallic Swordsmen. Bataroas are Northern Gallic Swordsmen. You cannot say you prefer Botroas and "Northern Gallic Swordsmen".

:juggle2:

[moonburn]

northern galic swordman all the way

swordman can beat almost any infantry unit, their superior defence makes them resist some archery (after you played sweaboz you learn to apreciate the arrow thick skin) and in walls they are just great ^^

pity i don´t really like playing the celts due to their weak economy

[HunGeneral]

Well I personal prefer to use swordsman over spearmen as they are the celts main strenthg and use spearmen in a cavalry counter/FM cavalry supporter role. I also prefer to get more professional troops to the field as soon as possible. Which celtic swordsman or spearmen are best I don't know since I haven't played them long enough.

[Ca Putt]

I can only speak about fighting them but generally Bataroas are the most annoying to face(at least as sweboz). for some strange reason I never had any problems facing southern gauls. Gailiche can be annoying but when mostly useing infantry they seem pretty harmless in melee.
I agree with AP: 4:1 should be ok for most battles tho you don't need e-leet spearmen Gailiche are totaly ok for that job.

[The General]

Even Pantadapoi kill everything when there is 20 units of them.

I and anybody who has played as Baktria, Pahlava or Saka-Rauka can testity this statement is false. :beam:

[Raygereio]

Even Pantadapoi kill everything when there are 20 units of them and they are controled by the player
Fixed? :wink:

As for the main topic; botroas and any other good solid sword- and axemen for me. That doesn't mean I ignore the spearmen though, I have at very least 4 of them to go to town on enemy cavalry.

[athanaric]

Voted for spearmen; to me, it feels unrealistic to have more swordsmen than spearmen (perhaps I'm wrong, but then I don't know too much about Celtic warfare). The problem is that the Keltoi factions don't have great line spearmen like the Suebi or Dacians. Still, Gaelaiche are good enough for an effective army, especially when supported by a few Solduros (best Gallic unit IMO, apart from Carnutes).

[NeoSpartan]

Bataroas but like to train a variety of units. So I like to mix in Gaeroas, Botroas, Uirodusios, Teceitos, etc. Once I take over the Alps I always put in 4-5 Mori Gaesum or the Alpine phalanx guys in my armies.

My goal, however, as the Aedui is to be able to train Gaesatae ASAP!

That way I can have elites in my armies and do some major a** kicking in the early game.

....once I get Neitos I am super happy.

[Arutima]

after a certain time, you'll have armies made of neitos with some spearmen to watch their flanks

[Aemilius Paulus]

after a certain time, you'll have armies made of neitos with some spearmen to watch their flanks
What is the reasoning for that? That seem opposite to common strategy sense IMHO, although I suppose you can have your own strategy I am not aware of.

The AI does not normally send their cavalry to the flanks, and if it does, then you should have your own cavalry to protect your army. A sound non-phalanx strategy would be to place spears in the centre, on guard mode, as merely the indecisive cannon fodder whose only purpose is to hold their ground, while having the swords on the flanks to encircle the enemy, along with cavalry, which will charge directly into the rear.

We all know that spearmen (especially the ones with the longer spears) are superior in guard mode, while swordsmen suffer in the same mode, due to the insufficient reach of their swords. Swordsmen are best let loose, as the killers they are, where their attack capability is maximised.

Well, I do sometimes keep some spears near the flanks as a mobile defensive force ready to respond to any flanking cavalry movements, but usually, the enemy horsemen are simply too swift for me to chase them.

[Andronikos]

Bataroas are basic soldiers of my northern armies while in southern armies it is approx. 1:1 Botroas: Gaeroas. I use Gaelaiche as a replace for Lugoae mostly for garrisoning and in lower class armies. They don't experience many battles.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

What is the reasoning for that? That seem opposite to common strategy sense IMHO, although I suppose you can have your own strategy I am not aware of.

The AI does not normally send their cavalry to the flanks, and if it does, then you should have your own cavalry to protect your army. A sound non-phalanx strategy would be to place spears in the centre, on guard mode, as merely the indecisive cannon fodder whose only purpose is to hold their ground, while having the swords on the flanks to encircle the enemy, along with cavalry, which will charge directly into the rear.

We all know that spearmen (especially the ones with the longer spears) are superior in guard mode, while swordsmen suffer in the same mode, due to the insufficient reach of their swords. Swordsmen are best let loose, as the killers they are, where their attack capability is maximised.

Well, I do sometimes keep some spears near the flanks as a mobile defensive force ready to respond to any flanking cavalry movements, but usually, the enemy horsemen are simply too swift for me to chase them.

I do the same reasoning it as this. Though enemy cavalry usually does charge somewhere near the center of your line, it often pulls back after experiencing some losses, especially the generals unit. Therefore, once the general has charged and the two lines are clashing, I like to have a more mobile unit to send around the back and mop up the cavalry which is now probably retreating backwards a bit. Since the celtic spears move quickly, they fill this role perfectly. Of course it depends on the battle, but this general strategy seems to work well in most cases. Only time it doesn't is if the enemy has many skirmishers behind the line in which case I'd rather some swordsmen which can deal with them easier.

I've always wondered why Bataroas have very good stamina while Botroas have only good. Considering the northerners wear a small bit of armor and the southerns don't. Does it have to do with the ruggedness of their respective lifestyles? Also, confusingly enough, their mercenary equivalents are the opposite. Golberi Curoas (northerns) have only good stamina while Enoci Curoas (southerns) have very good. :dizzy2:

[antisocialmunky]

The only thing the Gauls need is a sufficient mass of uncircumcised rage.


But otherwise, I think their swordsmen are much better. I still need to play a Casse Campaign because I Like Swords.

[DaciaJC]

Can anybody tell me why Bataroas have 5 armor and Botroas have only 1? Surely a shirt can't account for all of that difference?

Well, I suppose the helmet might figure in. Anything else?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Can anybody tell me why Bataroas have 5 armor and Botroas have only 1? Surely a shirt can't account for all of that difference?

Well, I suppose the helmet might figure in. Anything else?
I know this sounds a bit radical, but it always seemed to me as if the Northern Gallic Swordsmen had a maille coat. Just look at the colour and texture of the shirt. Now, sure, it hangs on them like clothing, but that is what maille does. So I gave them slightly more armour in my EDU.

However, Leuce Epos have a very similar coat, and I doubt they had maille...

[bobbin]

I'm guessing its a padded shirt that would account for some of the difference.

Oh and the helmet of course.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I'm guessing its a padded shirt that would account for some of the difference.

Oh and the helmet of course.
Yes, the helmet. But I still think the shirt was a maille one. It was certainly not padded.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Can anybody tell me why Bataroas have 5 armor and Botroas have only 1? Surely a shirt can't account for all of that difference?

Well, I suppose the helmet might figure in. Anything else?

Hoplitai Haploi also have 5 armor and just a helmet and shirt. Same with Gasesatae. I guess the stats workers at EB figured that the helmet is worth 4 armor. Every unit has at least one armor i think, even the nudists.

Also while the merc Northern Swords look like they might have extra armor and do I believe have one extra than standard Bataroas, the regular Northern swords wear your typical plaid shirts.

Does anyone else have an answer to the stamina question? I was gonna change it in the edu but I'd like to hear some responses first. Why do unarmored southern swords have worse stamina than northern swords and yet their mercenary equivalents are the exact opposite?:dizzy2:

[bobbin]

Yes, the helmet. But I still think the shirt was a maille one. It was certainly not padded.
Had a look in ddsveiw and its definitely a plaid shirt, I think Brave Brave Sir Robin pretty much nailed it on the head, there do seem to be some odd units though like the Gaelaiche which have 2 armour despite just wearing a shirt.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

A padded shirt doesn't look like a normal shirt, mind you. I guess Bataroas get extra armour because they are big tough guys, and that's it.

http://www.theriddleofsteel.co.uk/warbands/images/photos/general/armour2.jpg

[DaciaJC]

A padded shirt doesn't look like a normal shirt, mind you. I guess Bataroas get extra armour because they are big tough guys, and that's it.

http://www.theriddleofsteel.co.uk/warbands/images/photos/general/armour2.jpg

I would think that would count towards defense skill, not armor.

[A Very Super Market]

It's because of the helmet. ATHN's post doesn't make much sense.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Gaeilache don't have a helmet, yet they have one point of armour :inquisitive:. That's what I was talking about.

[A Very Super Market]

Gaeilache don't have a helmet, yet they have one point of armour :inquisitive:. That's what I was talking about.

Read that again.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Read what :inquisitive:?

[Kevin]

Hm the Gaesatae have 5 armor too while the Uirodusios have 1. I guess helmets are worth 4 points, though I can't picture the Gaesatae blocking swords with their heads. (In fact I kind of imagine them doing the exact opposite)

As for the thread, I'd say the Northern Swordsmen rule :book:

[Ibrahim]

I prefer swordsmen to spearmen-I'm more offense oriented, and don't care for the enemy cavalry, as long as I have some of my own.

@ everyone: please, no spamming. and stop with the FYROM and sexual references in the titles. the backroom and babe thread exist for a reason.

[antisocialmunky]

Stop modding my posts and get over here Ludens :-p.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, let us continue the discussion then.

Why does the EB team give armour to the naked or half-naked barbarian soldiers? Surely 5 armour is not a single helmet, because by that logic the TABs should have 40 armour.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, let us continue the discussion then.

Why does the EB team give armour to the naked or half-naked barbarian soldiers? Surely 5 armour is not a single helmet, because by that logic the TABs should have 40 armour.

Shirts and pants are like 1 each I think. Maybe shoes count?

The real guy to ask is Watchman, he audited all the stats.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Shirts and pants are like 1 each I think. Maybe shoes count?
Are you actually serious? Why would they give armour points for that? Or is this merely to prolong battles, in opposition to insta-slaughter of the vanilla?

[antisocialmunky]

Considering the high-end for armor is well into the 20's and the attack/defense matchup does not scale linearly: 0 or 2 armor against 10-14 attack for most weapons is not a very big deal.

I was conjecturing though I'm fairly sure some clothes is counted above no clothes or no shirt.

[the man with no name]

I usally have 2 to 1 sword to sper ratio. Those Belgae spearmen PWN! I also love the Bataroas. They are hands down better then the batroas.

[The Celtic Viking]

I distinctly remember Watchman or some EB team member saying that the Celts get 1 armour bonus for free because they were bigger and tougher than most others. There are actually a few units that have 0 as their armour value, though I think the only infantry unit that has that are the Nubian Spearmen.

As for swords vs. spears, I prefer swords because the .225 lethality is awesome. This is not to say that the spearmen don't have their use as well; I use plenty of non-Lugoae spearmen whenever I can, and Lugoae when there is no other choice for spearmen.

[Ludens]

Stop modding my posts and get over here Ludens :-p.

Yeah, yeah. Yesterday I didn't have enough time to view all new posts. If it happens again, there is a report button next to every post. That will send a message to the moderators in charge.


Voted for spearmen; to me, it feels unrealistic to have more swordsmen than spearmen (perhaps I'm wrong, but then I don't know too much about Celtic warfare).

No, you are right. Elmactios even argued that swords had gone out of fashion by EB's time-frame, although he couldn't explain why.


Can anybody tell me why Bataroas have 5 armor and Botroas have only 1? Surely a shirt can't account for all of that difference?

I think it is +4 for a high-quality, face-covering helmet, and the +1 barbarian bonus. The helmet gives such a big bonus because it covers the bit of the body that is most vulnerable when carrying a medium-to-large shield, like most Celtic close-combat fighters do. All barbarian units get a +1 armour bonuses for balancing purposes, or possibly to indicate that a considerable number of them would have supplemented their basic armour.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

No, you are right. Elmactios even argued that swords had gone out of fashion by EB's time-frame, although he couldn't explain why.

I think he stated that "sharp-edged" swords gave way to late La Tene blunt edged ones such as those carried by the Bataroas. Anyway, I agree that having way too many swordsmen seems unrealistic.

[Scutarii]

When I play ANY faction I never load up on certain troops types.

I go with a generally cost based mix, the cheaper they are to recruit and maintain the more I have.

Means that my armies tend to be very mixed with the 'core' factional or local units dominating and just a smattering of the more elite stuff.

Feels right to me to only have maybe two or three 'elite' units in a 15-20 unit army.

When you're facing 3 units of elite africans and the rest sacred band of either foot or mounted variety in a 15 unit enemy army something just seems wrong...

(funny when the Komatai lead them into the desert though...)

[Olaf The Great]

I think it is +4 for a high-quality, face-covering helmet, and the +1 barbarian bonus. The helmet gives such a big bonus because it covers the bit of the body that is most vulnerable when carrying a medium-to-large shield, like most Celtic close-combat fighters do. All barbarian units get a +1 armour bonuses for balancing purposes, or possibly to indicate that a considerable number of them would have supplemented their basic armour.
I think this is it, +4 for complete helmet(perhaps raised depending on shield size), +1 for barbarianess.

[satalexton]

and another +1 for having a blacksmith in town.

[Mykingdomforanos]

Bataroas are great, very high stamina, 200 men with 0.225 longswords, 5 armour which is better than 1 or 2 like usual. Milnaht or Neitos are also good depending wether you go for stamina or better armoured. For spearmen I like Batacorii as anticav/general purpose and Balroae as skirmishers, latter two have narrow AOR though.