Creative Assembly RTW units Descriptions [Archive]

shingenmitch2

04-14-2003, 21:48

Fun?

If I wanted FUN I'd play a video... er.. uhmm... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

------
But seriously... its still stupid to add fantasy units to what is essentially an ancient warfare sim... They don't add flying saucers to to F15 Strike Eagle do they? Perhaps the Borg would go well with IL2? How about Lasercannons to Close Combat VI?

Hell, they don't even try adding Stormtroopers to a Star Trek game because of "realism"... but the ancient warfare strategy games need Kensai and SuperGladiators. I mean if they want to make AD&D Total War, just make it and spare me the cheese...

I should just be happy that it isn't equipped with the friggin' batman-mask that Russel Crowe wore in Gladiator...

Knight_Yellow

04-14-2003, 22:03

so i take it we dont want gladiator units then?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Kongamato

04-14-2003, 22:24

Really, if you have to have such issues with this game and that it wont be your secret computerized heaven of perfect realism, then maybe you ought to quit whining and calmly slip into the night. There are probably ten people who will like the game that are willing to replace you.

Hakonarson

04-15-2003, 01:00

It's not a matter of wanting perfect realism, just not wanting pointless fantasy.

sure there's a need to spice thigns up, but consider that there's probably plenty of variety available from historical prototypes without having to enter ther realms of fantastic fiction.

Here's some possibilities from within the period that actually existed:

Mixed gladiators - fed up with their life and death these desperate men welcome the chance to rebel or fight for fredom when called upon as a last resort. They are individually brave and skilled, but NOT trained to fight together in formations.

Extraordinarii - Latin allies had fought with the Romans for centuries, and het pick of their infantry were the Extraordinarii. Elite fighters equipped with javelins, shields and armour, trained to skirmish and fight hand to hand they led the Roman armies and provided bodyguards to the Generals.

Velites, Hastati, Princepes and Triarii - the Roman legion.

Velites - younger and poorer soldiers who cannot afford the full arms and armour of the heavy infantry these troops skirmish with javelins and spears. Eager for loot but disciplined they provide the Legion with the ability to weaken enemy infantry before the clash of the main lines.

Hastati - Armed with the formidable pilum, a short sword, large shield and body armour these fearsome infantry are the first to attack the enemy. they are formed from the youngest of the heavy infantry, and so are eager and strong in the attack.

Princepes - men in the prime of their lives these soldiers are equipped in the same manner as the Hastati, but beign older and richer theirs is of better quality. They are also more experienced and less impetuous than their younger comrades.

Triarii - the veterans. What more needs to be said?
Behind every legion was the sure knowledge that these heavily armoured veteran spearmen would form a solid wall to rally behind if things went wrong.

Ligurians - nimble tribesmen from the alps, these tribal warriors are fielrce and well adapted to fighting in their hilly terrain. they combine teh ability to skirmish with javelins with hand-to-hand fighting with swors and axes and their large shields. A very useful addition to any army fighting in hilly terrain.

Achaian peltasts - these mercenary troops are well equipped with javelins and longer stout spears. Capable of fighting from dispersed formations as skirmishers or in a tighter phalanx of spears they form the back bone of many Greek armies and are highly sought after elsewhere.

Latin allies: The Roman Latin allies also fought in legions. Normally they were indistinguishable from Romans, but from time to time they might be reulctant to fight for one reason or another, and hence reluctant allies suffer a morale penalty.

Numidian Cavalry - these nearly naked tribesmen ride without saddles or bridles. Armed with only a small shield and some javelins they weer never the less considered some of the finest warriors of their time, skirmishing with heavier cavalry who could not catch them, raiding the flanks and rear of units, and generally creating mayhem.

Italian cavalry
Roman Cavalry
Illyrian cavalry
Spanish and Gallic cavalry
Spanish Caetrati
Spanich Scutarii
Gallic warriors

Gallic Gaestati - these men throw off their clothes to avoid being encumbered in battle. they are utterly fearless inspire terror among all who oppose them.

etc, etc

So what was the need for fantasy units again??

Oh and BTW the masks in Gladator weren't actually that bad from a historical POV - RC's might've been a bit anachronistic (ie modern), but the other ones were pretty much spot on AFAIK.

Skomatth

04-15-2003, 03:56

The Samnites were actually a people south of Rome who fought in wars against Rome between 343 BC and 290 but were eventually destroyed. The Romans fashioned their gladiators after warriors who already existed, the Samnite gladiator was armed quite similarly to the Samnite tribe.

*bows deeply* Thank you very much.

Well I'm sort of defending the poor developers but I mean really, gladiators on the battle field? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif All they'd have to do was change the name to samnites.

Skomatth

04-15-2003, 04:01

Later of course they started changing gladiator names from ethnic to what they actually did. e.g. Samnite--->secutor meaning chaser.

Hakonarson

04-15-2003, 04:43

Roman Samnite Gladiators weren't armed anything like Samnites were - rather they were armed like Romans at the time THOUGHT Samnites were There's a difference http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Samnites soldiers were armed with javelins and swords, they wore helmets and sometimes greaves and rather small breastplates made up of circular plates. They fougt by throwing volleys of javelins and charging only when their enemy was disordered - quite sensibly really. Their equipment suited them to fight in and among the wooded hills and valleys of their homeland.

As you say they fought several hard wars against the Romans, their most famous victory being at Caudine Forks 321BC where they captured the entire Roman army - the Romans carelessley marched into a valley the Samnites had fortified the exit from. when the Romans discovered this they turned around & discovered the Samnites had fortified the entrance behind them too

After a few days trying to fight their way out the romans surrendered and were forced "under the yoke" as a sign of humiliation, retaining only their tunics.

They were "finally" defeated by Rome in 273BC, but many joined Phyrrus and even Hannibal 3 generations later.

Gladiators were known to fight on a couple of occasions - specifically in the hajor slave revolt Spartacus (where they threw away their gladatorial equipment as soon as they captured Roman arms), and in the armies of Otho and Vitellus in 69AD in the year of the 4 emperors.

But bearing arms and fighting for the state were jobs for freemen and citizens - not slaves Except in times of emergency of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

CBR

04-15-2003, 04:59

Quote[/b] (Kongamato @ April 14 2003,22:24)]Really, if you have to have such issues with this game and that it wont be your secret computerized heaven of perfect realism, then maybe you ought to quit whining and calmly slip into the night. There are probably ten people who will like the game that are willing to replace you.
Well I prefer to whine now, in a desperate hope that CA doesnt come up with a load of fantasy units to "spice up" the game, instead of waiting until the game is finished.

I like history and always look at this game as a way of recreating battles/tactics of the proper era. Ok I know its just a game so maybe not a good reason..

With "weird fantasy" units there are balance issues. Either the units suck and will never be used, which is just a waste of time for the developers, or they suddenly have an important role. Just take Lancers in MTW...a historical unit type actually, but it belongs in the late era and just look at all the complaining. Could write an essay on balance...but its late http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Ok balance issues has more something to do with MP than SP and I'll just admit it right away: I buy this game for multiplayer. In SP balance is not maybe not as important but its still needed.

Maybe we wont see many units like the gladiators so maybe some of us are overreacting. I would rather just react now and not when its too late if it isnt already too late heh.

But dont worry...if I dont like this game and cant mod things to keep me happy I will not be here in this forum and bitch and whine 6-7 months after game has been released http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

CBR

lonewolf371

04-15-2003, 05:35

Well IMO they will be much like Vikings and Woodsmen in MTW, much like peasants but superior and more effective in the early ages before the seperate factions get their legions developed. Once legions become truly developed gladiators will become out of date save as a policing force, much like Urban Militia and normal peasants. Simply overreacting about a unit before you even know how it performs is quite ignorant. It was probably released the first because it was so easy to define it and its purpose, whereas to develop the Velites, Hastati, and Triarii will take more time to truly define them.

Hakonarson

04-15-2003, 06:19

Perhaps you should go read the description they've posted then - because it's nothing like what yuo think they will be.

Gladiators are not an early troop type - the first games are recorded in 264BC, but that's just a single fight, and for a long time they weer associated/held as a sort of funeral celebration to mark the passing of a distinguished citizen.

Good overview of the history of Gladiators (http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/gladiator.htm)

the Coloseum wasn't built until 80 AD - the first Amphitheatre wasn't built until the end of hte 2nd century BC, and in the 1st century Rome actually prohibited the construction of buildings for shows - an Amphitheatre built by Pompey in 5BC was justified as an extension of a temple.

"The first stone amphitheatre of Rome is that of Statilius Taurus, built in 29 BC somewhere in the Campus Martis, its precise location being a matter of fierce debate. It seems that wooden structures continued to be popular; in 27 AD in Fidene, just outside Rome, one of these collapsed killing 20.000 spectators (Suetonius), or killing and wounding 50.000 (Tacitus)." (from this site on the history of amphitheatres. (http://www.the-colosseum.net/architecture/amphitheatrum-en.htm))

Theatres were built in provincial cities up to a couple of hundred years before these were built in Rome - Eg Pompeii had 2 theatres seating 1200 and 5000 by about 250 BC - but these were for Greek plays rather than games when first built.

So Gladiators should not be an early troop type at all - they should be one that requires some sort of relatively advanced building and considerable conquest

lonewolf371

04-15-2003, 06:21

Check the FAQ, the game starts in 264 BCE, so gladiators would be a perfect early game unit and a police force. BTW, the game ends in 14 BCE, so basically the game goes through the conquests of the Republic and the establishment of the first emperor. I'd prefer this era to Imperial Rome as much more conquest occured and armies developed more to allow a changing game style from beginning to end.

In addition to this, the descriptions I believe are overrated and tend to simply give the unit some jazz. For instance, in the VI site it describes a unit which can't be much more than a peasant in a similar fashion.

A Nerd

04-15-2003, 16:25

People oftne forget that games are supposed to be fun, even sims. They become less so when people whine and point out things that shall only encompass small amounts of the game. I would still enjoy gladiator if russel crowe wore a dress during combat.

Catiline

04-15-2003, 17:21

Lonewolf, I hate to asy it, but your thoughts are wrong, at least factually. Gladiators might well make a good unit early in the game, if htat's how they've been implemented, but they shouldn't be there as a unit at all, apart from possibly in a spartacus scenario. Gladiators didn't fight battles, and they didn't form police forces. This isn't fantasy total war.

Stormer

04-15-2003, 18:06

ok lets get this sorted gladiators were not warriors as they are in the game they were entitainers and the odd time the joined up to fight for there freedom.

the only reason there in RTW is beacause it makes the game more fun.

Nowake

04-15-2003, 18:33

Fun?? Are you sure? I have my doubts that including gladiators nd other wonder warriors can make this game fun ... The hell with it, put Cleopatra in if you want to make it fun, even if I read that it was rather ugly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Galestrum

04-15-2003, 22:27

im not gonna cry "the sky is falling" but i have to wholeheartedly agree with Hark and others on this. There are SOOOOOO many AWESOME HISTORICAL units that NEED to be in the game. Yte they will be left out because some ass clown wants to throw in some gladiator unit that has little basis in history and was rarely ever to take the field.

Like another said, why not have the Antaran Nebulan Star League Cruisers in Medal of Honor Allied Assault, it is just lame, plain and simple. I mean cmon its not that hard, the history is there, crack open a frickin book, look at the pictures and do whats there, it is all right there for anyone to look at.

Why not have a Jupitor unit: He is the king of all gods, and can launch lightning bolts from the heavens to smite his enemies.

Centaurs: these fleet half men half horse served as the elite shock troops of Alexanders Agean campaign.....

There are literally dozens of truly awesome, interesting, hip, sexy, leet, blah blah units that were actually around and important, why go this route? there is no need

Hakonarson

04-15-2003, 22:31

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ April 15 2003,00:21)]Check the FAQ, the game starts in 264 BCE, so gladiators would be a perfect early game unit and a police force.
I did check the FAQ - and at 264 there weer probably no "professional" gladiators at all. Like everything else- gladiators DEVELOPED from small beginnings - they didn't jsut appear in thousands the first time someone used them

The "police force" in Rome was provided by the "Urban Cohorts", but they weren't founded until Augustus at teh end of the game. Similarly the Vigiles - firefighters.

But there was no organised police force in Rome as we understand it - the Urban cohorts were more crowd control than criminal investigators.

Inded there was no civic criminal investigation function - ifg you thought you'd been wronged then you had to do all teh investigation yourself and present yourself to court with the accusation.

Athens had a "police" force of Skythian slaves - but again it had no criminal investigation function - it patrolled the city at night and chased runaway slaves.

Before Sulla the Consuls were allowed to enter Rome with their armies - it was only at the time of Sulla that this was proscribed and so the need for a "specialised" urban defence force arose.

Using slaves to control citizens in Rome would have caused an uproar

Oh - and edited to add that I think you're thinking of "Early Game" in MTW terms - where urban militia and peasants and spearmen are all useful.

In RTW, at 264 BC, the Roman legion was alerady a well developed and formidable fighting force - for the Romans the "Early Game" unit is the legion.

The middle game unit is also the legion.

The late game unit of choice will also be the legion - albeit somewhat altered to become homogeneous unit of 10 chorotes rather than 60 Maniples.

Hakonarson

04-15-2003, 22:36

Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ April 15 2003,12:33)]Fun?? Are you sure? I have my doubts that including gladiators nd other wonder warriors can make this game fun ... The hell with it, put Cleopatra in if you want to make it fun, even if I read that it was rather ugly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Good point - IMO making fantasy units doesn't add to fun - fun comes from good game balance and game play - ie a good idea well implemented.

A purely fantasy game can be fun without any historical connection, and a historical game fun without any need for fantasy.

lonewolf371

04-15-2003, 22:59

Still, it's just one unit, despite what you guys are talking about. One unit will not ruin the game, nor will it make a game. By 'police force' I basically mean some unit to guard against rebellion so you don't have place a bunch of super-legionairries in every single province to deter rebellion. Complaining about a unit before about 60% of the game has yet to be made is just... no. Even as is it notes that all units are subject to change, we may not even see gladiators in our armies. It says it's a unit but that doesn't mean it will be available to us. It may only be usable by the player in some sort of Sparticus campaign (like the Golden Horde one). A video game doesn't have to follow history, that is up to the developers, and if they want it to not follow history, then it won't. I meant police force from a gamer's point of view, not a historical one. If I meant it that way I would have said so. Note also that you said that the first gladiators came into use around 250 BC, 14 years after the game starts. If they use the same turn system as MTW that's only 14 turns to be able to train gladiators, assuming that CA is following history. I can assure you that you'll be getting all your Legionairries, phalanxes and elephants, I doubt we'll be seeing many gladiators anyway.

BTW, history can be fun without fantasy but it's easier to make a fun fantasy game than historical, with video games they always end up bending some historical aspect of the game.

lonewolf371

04-15-2003, 23:24

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ April 14 2003,22:43)]But bearing arms and fighting for the state were jobs for freemen and citizens - not slaves Except in times of emergency of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
This is what I was in a large part implying http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

Hakonarson

04-16-2003, 00:06

Criticising units before hte game is finished is PRECISELY teh right time to do it - there's no point at al complaining about them after it's done

as for a gamer's police force - the idea of raising units of gladiators to garrison provinces is even worse than having them in armies - at elast they were in armies occasinally, but as static garrisons??????

I thought RTW was going to use a seasonal turn length?

You missed my point about the rise of Gladiators - it didn't take 14 years for them to become common - it took 100 (more or less), and thats for entertainment purposes - the first known use of them militarily was ANOTHER 100 years later - in Spartacus's revolt.

So that's 200 years from their first mention as existing in Rome to their first known military use - not quite early game, nor a quick developer

lonewolf371

04-16-2003, 04:26

It's early game if you start it at some point 200 years after 264 BCE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif . Perhaps there shouldn't be gladiators, but they might have some sort of historical backing for putting them in the game that we don't know about. I personally can quite easily imagine any Roman governor using slaves to defend his province if they're no legions nearby. Perhaps they will be a late-game unit, although they might provide a step-up as peasants later on, this is the first unit, they're likely to be dozens by the time of the release. Right now if you're willing we can just cross our fingers, although I'm sure that there will be historical units later on... I do, however, believe that they will definately not exclude Numidian cavalry, as it was some of the finest cavalry in Europe at the time. However I also hope that they be historically accurate in making Roman cavalry as crappy as it historically was, just about the only good things the people of Rome and Itallica itself were good for were the thousands of legionairries that formed the bulk of the army.

Hakonarson

04-16-2003, 04:45

lol

Actually there was nothing obviously wrong with Roman cavalry either they get bad press because they couldnt' deal with Numidians - but then no-one could They (the romans) were also generally outnumbered in cavalry in straight up fights, and they did fight well - eg they were outnumbered on the right flank at Cannae but put up a fierce resistance before being overcome.

Italian cavalry were well thought of - Tarentine cavalry used shields and that style was taken from there to Greece by Phyruss where sheilded javelin armed cavalry replaced shieldless lancers based on the Macedonian Companion model.

Campanian cavalry were used as mercenaries by anyone who could get them, and probably formed the bulk of hte Roman cavalry arm.

Galestrum

04-16-2003, 09:36

complain now or forever have a POS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

I still think you are wrong in one point you made,

Quote[/b] ]BTW, history can be fun without fantasy but it's easier to make a fun fantasy game than historical, with video games they always end up bending some historical aspect of the game.

I disagree, firstly, i think 80% of the fantasy games i have played quite frankly blow, but even assuming that you are right, thats not because it is hard to make a good fantasy game, merely a fact that people that have tried to make good history games have failed miserably.

A point being, before LOTR, every fantasy movie ever made sucked arse in the bigggest way and was considered B movie status - finally someone came along and made a commercially and critically successful movie. Dont blame the genre for the inability's of those in it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I acknowledge that a history game cannot reasonably follow all the history upon which it is based, however, that does njot mean that a historical game should use things which are not supported in history at all. To explain, a roman history prof could prby identify 50 distinct units and 500 generals for the RTW roman faction, not to mention any number of events and other factors etc, however the game may not want or be able to include all of them, fine edit it down BUT dont add stuff that there is no basis for.

History is far more interesting than fantasy, heck fantasy is based on history often, they just insert mythincal characters in place of reality. Ive read the history of J caesar and of rome and it is far more interesting than the history Googily Boo the dragon warder of the Garbinean empire of galdos 4 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

Leet Eriksson

04-16-2003, 11:06

They could have started by showing us the common roman units,like the hastati or principles http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif,its just plain weired they showed us an unpopular unit like the samnite gladiator..

Nowake

04-16-2003, 13:18

Marketing mistake ... I hope they'll read our posts ...

Stormer

04-16-2003, 14:28

i dout they will

if they listen to us their game would be perfect, nope instead they listen two about 5 men in a room who think they know whats best for us well i got news for them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif

Monk

04-17-2003, 16:57

Another Unit has been added

http://www.totalwar.com/community/unit1.htm

Spartan Hoplite was added to the list.

EDIT: if for some reason the link above does not work here is what the unit's description says;

Spartan Hoplites are heroic heavy infantry, born into a military society, the survivors of a virtual cull when babies, and trained from boyhood to do little except fight for the Spartan state. The results are "perfect" hoplites, supremely disciplined, dedicated to victory and their fellow warriors, and thinking nothing of death providing that victory is achieved. Their morale in battle is, as might be expected, superb. The Spartan Hoplites’ great strength is to fight in tight formation. Each man's shield firmly fixed on his left forearm protect his left side and his neighbour’s right. If surrounded Spartan hoplites will form large hollow impenetrable defensive squares. Spartan Hoplites prefer a slow, ordered and silent advance, always ready to react to new orders from their commanders. Unlike other phalanx-using nations, they do not choose to charge until very close to contact but they let the younger hoplites burst out of their line to take an enemy by surprise.

Stormer

04-17-2003, 17:36

i cant see it monk

shingenmitch2

04-17-2003, 19:49

Okee,

That's more like it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

Although it's not a unit that I'm suprised to see (like say Thracian Rhomphia troops or Saramatian cavalry), it is a nice standard unit that appears well done. It is much better than needless fiction.

However, I still think the kids will love the Ordered Foot Mothra with sticky web-action... fun fun fun and just think of the sales http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

(BTW: They need to proofread their copy...)

Catiline

04-17-2003, 23:34

Much more hopeful. I can only whine about sideways crest being for officers here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. The bit about ekdromoi is hopeful as well

Leet Eriksson

04-17-2003, 23:54

I WANT SOMETHING THAT CARRIES A PILUM http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif C'mon CA show us one roman unityou could always start with syrian archers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Knight_Yellow

04-18-2003, 02:59

i want hefalumps or chariots.

they are gonna be sweet.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Nowake

04-18-2003, 10:07

Much better ... I think they haven't decided yet how to implement the roman legion, that's why they don't spoil us with some triarii descriptions.

Kongamato

04-18-2003, 13:06

From the description it appears that there will be unique formations available to certain units, which we already knew after seeing the tortoise formation in the movie. This ought to be nice.

Nelson

04-18-2003, 16:05

Perhaps a whole new approach to raising armies is appropriate for legions.

What if we could (or had to) buy whole legions at one time?

They would be expensive and take time to produce. You would get maybe 1 or 2 velites units, 3 principes, 3 hastati, 2 triarii and an equite. All for say, 8000 dinarii, or whatever.

The actual composition, build time and cost are just a first thought and can of course be altered and debated. This idea would at least encourage and enable players to field complete legions.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

04-18-2003, 21:32

Speaking about a whole new way of raising legions, or for that matter armies, I would like to have your thoughts on dropping alltogether the money for army system in favor of a 'raising army' system.

Here are my thought on that;

- armies are raised issuing orders to local leader /ally (diplomacy required) by faction leader.
- army raised depends on leader status (influence / loyalty), V&V, province development, hapiness and possibly cash. One can also imagine that some buildings will provide automatic units for defense, etc...
An unwilling ally getting a raise army order from a low influence leader is not going to provide much support and a small low quality army...
A good ally or governor, with a good infrastructure, under a popular leader will be able to raise large armies.
- invasion of a province automatically triggers a local raise army order. Same but bigger for capital invasion.
- once an army is raised, support cost are to be paid, and happyness is going down (function of number of armies*lenght they have been raised).
- cash would pay for support, province improvement, and say one longstanding professional army (kind of Royal army).

One can imagine that the faction leaders issue orders... But for Rome, with several faction leaders, all them able to issue orders. A Rome leader will play for Rome glory, but also to top other Rome leader in terms of popularity (influence) and titles (consul).
Rome players will have to find a balance between Rome best interest (which might be to give resources to another Rome leader) and their own (which is likely to be detrimental to other Roman leader). A little bit like in the nice boardgame Res Publica.

Your thought on that?

Louis,

EDIT; THIS IS OT. A NEW POST IS DEALING WITH THIS TOPIC.

Raising or buying armies (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=19;t=5833)

PLEASE ANSWER THERE (if this is of any interest)

lonewolf371

04-20-2003, 05:54

I personally find it odd that the hoplite appears to be wearing a large tunic/dress rather than the kilted skirt style armour that would have normally covered the upper leg, and normally for the lower leg, if they had protection for the lower leg as proper equipment in the phalanx, would be a shin guard. Otherwise it still looks pretty cool.

PS-Oddly enough, Triarii, Hastati, and Velites are essentially 'early game' units, as starting around 100 BC the Cohortal legion went into effect, and while almost always subject to change it consisted of 10 Cohorts of 600 men each, making 6000 units of Heavy infantry. Up to 100 BC, however, the Manipular legion was in effect and consited of four lines of infantry starting with Velites, then Hastati, then Principes, and finally Triarii. Quite odd, though once again the Cohortal legion was often suspectable to having 'Auxillery Units' added to it, that is, cavalry and archers. Normally these were taken from lands outside of Rome due to the fact (that I've elsewhere stated) all the Romans were good for was Heavy and Light Infantry.

Spino

04-21-2003, 19:07

The hoplite in question is wearing the full length red cloak because the soldier is a Spartan. Around ~235 BC there was a movement by king Cleomenes III that attempted to revitalize the old Lycurgian constitution in order to bring back the 'glory days' of Sparta's past. During those glory days all Spartan hoplites were encouraged to grow long and well groomed locks and beards and were issued a large red cloak that served both as their outerwear and blanket while on campaign. As far as I know the transverse crest on the helmet was issued only to officers and ambassadors/diplomats. However, CA did get something wrong; prior to combat Spartans wrapped their red cloaks around their shoulders and did NOT let it hang freely around their body as depicted in the screenshot. Given that the Spartans were extraordinarily gifted in the martial arts it is hard to believe they would throw caution to the wind by giving their opponents such an advantage in hand to hand combat. If that sounds somewhat outlandish keep in mind that Alexander the Great ordered all his soldiers, even his generals, to shave their beards so as to deny Macendonia's enemies even the smallest advantage in hand to hand combat.

Bravo to CA for their attention to historical detail and shame on them for not getting it right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

lonewolf371

04-21-2003, 21:44

The bagginess makes him look cool, but I do understand that this would heavily hinder him in combat. I'm a percussionist, and even as is it is really annoying to simply get a drumstick caught in a baggy long sleeve shirt. It would really suck to get your sarissa stuck in your robe.

Hakonarson

04-22-2003, 02:55

The Spartan Hoplite is much better - I wonder if they realise that Spartans abandoned Hoplites in 225BC?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

But the little bit about not charging like other hoplites is nonsense. Certainly they used their younger charging members alone on occasion - but only to clear away skirmishers.

This was the tactic they used outside Corinth when Iphicrates demolished a whole Mora (battalion - about 600 men, there were only 6 Mora in hte Spartan army) using solely skirmishing light infantry.

The Spartans had a little cavalry but the commander didn't know how to use them properly and ordered them to maintain line with his infantry. As a result the skirmishers simply ran away each time the Spartans charged them. The Spartan commander ordered his charge by age groups - initially ages 20-30, then 20-35.

The Spartans eventually suffered enough casualties to break and run when the Athenian hoplites came close.

Compare this with the Greek use of 50 cavalry against Persian Skirmishers in Xenephon's "Anabasis" - the Greeks had 10000 men, mostly hoplites, with 1500 javelinmen and maybe 1-200 Cretan archers. They were harrassed by 400 Persian foot archers and 200 horse archers and could never catch them.

Overnight they (the Greeks) improvised 50 cavalry from their best riders, and got all their Rhodian hoplites to fight as slingers.

In the next engagement the slingers had enough range to engage all the archers, and the 50 cavalry rode down many persians (2-30 IIRC) & the Greeks weren't bothered by that lot again.

Hakonarson

04-22-2003, 03:00

Lonewolf - chorotes had been used for much of the 2nd century BC - the first instance of Romans combining Maniples into Chorotes was in Spain in 210BC - 1 maniple each of Princepes, Hastati and Triarii were combined.

The main difference after Marius's reforms was rather the uniform armament of all "heavy" legionaries with pila and abandoning hte spear of the Triarii. Velites seem to have survived until the start of the civil wars about 80BC.

lonewolf371

04-22-2003, 04:22

The Manipular Legion was the most common type of legion up to around 100 BC, when Marius and his reforms changed the Roman army to become almost entirely infantry based. Peasants and 'foreigners' still had to serve a purpose, and while I don't know their exact position I expect that they were still used as Light Infantry, cavalry, and archers.

BTW, oddly enough I believe that the spear used by the triarii was the Hasta, while the Hastati used a pilum. Quite odd. Or maybe not so, I don't know. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Hakonarson

04-22-2003, 05:19

My bad - the legions were still raised in maniples until Marius's reformes, but they often deployed and fought in cohortes.

Yes the Triarii used the Hasta - the word is usually used to mean a thrusting spear, but htere's a section in Ennius "Annals" where he mentions "hastate who throw Hasta" at a time when Hastati were the only ones who used pilum - ie before the reforms listed in Polybius and thought to date to about the time of Phyrrus (275BC-ish), when both Princepes and Triarii used thrusting spears.

So it may be that it originally meant a thrown spear, and came to mean "any" spear, then finally when the Pilum was the name for a thwn spear it came to mean a thrusting spear that wasn't thrown.

Nelson

04-22-2003, 18:36

IMO. the triarii represents Roman respect for the dependability and toughness of a hoplite formation. The triarii line was Rome's hedge against disaster when using the sword armed maniples whose employment amounted to a totally new tactical idea. After enough time to prove that the pilum/gladius/scutum plan was good the hoplites were dispensed with.

Captain Fishpants

04-23-2003, 08:51

Hmm. Gladiators in Rome: Total War. Could we possibly have been thinking of Spartacus when we put them in... I wonder?

Who can say? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

MikeB ~ CA

Nowake

04-23-2003, 09:00

Oh, very well then, but they should appear in Rebel Armies, not in Roman Armies, no??

Gladiators fought in roman armies, even Spartacus did, but they were put in the common units, they did't formed units themselves. The possibility of rebelion was too obvious. They would be seen as auxiliars, in cohorts or alae or numerus, nothing more.

Stormer

04-23-2003, 11:03

hehehe you guys gotta rember its a game not everything can or will be the same.

Hakonarson

04-24-2003, 06:40

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ April 23 2003,02:51)]Hmm. Gladiators in Rome: Total War. Could we possibly have been thinking of Spartacus when we put them in... I wonder?

Who can say? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

MikeB ~ CA
Well that was exactly the point that I an others made.

The main problem with the description of them is that it's, well, over the top. Spartacus's gladiators, for example, escaped armed with kitchen knives, seized a shipment of gladatorial equipment on the road, and then threw that away when they captured their first "real" arms.

The gladiators that joined them likewise threw away their hated gladatorial equipment in favour of "real" arms and armour (according to Plutarch and Appian).

To call them "Samnites" is pointless unless you are going to contrast them with some other sort of gladiator, and not historically correct either.

Now there's nothign particularly wrong with not being historically correct - we all appreciate that it's a game, but why bother when the actual history is just as rich and diverse??

So are there going to be other sorts of gladiators?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Krasturak

04-25-2003, 06:47

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ April 15 2003,16:36)]Good point - IMO making fantasy units doesn't add to fun - fun comes from good game balance and game play - ie a good idea well implemented.

A purely fantasy game can be fun without any historical connection, and a historical game fun without any need for fantasy.
Agree.

Hakonarson

04-25-2003, 09:17

Hey I think they changed the description of the Gladiator - they no longer fight together in formation, and it reads much better.

Now if we can just get rid of "Samnite" from the title.....and perhaps make the description a little less specific to the samnite himself - ie get rid of the references to weapons (I guess the graphic is OK - it's at least distinctinve so we'll know what unit they are&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Are we being listened to? That would be nice

As an aside there's probably room for a couple of different classes of gladiators - initial units might well have mixed gladiatorial equipment, as Spartacus's did, and then they re-equipped with captured Roman arms and armour and even manufactured them in areas they captured.

I'm not sure what we'd call them - "Rebel Gladiators" for the first grade perhaps, and something meaning "properly equipped" for the upgraded ones? Any suggestions?

As an aside if hte game had gone as far as 69AD then the Gladiators used by Otho and what's-his-name would probably be the later - these genrals having access to armouries and an incentive to at least make their troops look Roman rather than slaves as they were aiming to be emperor.

There - a little extra flavour that's quite historical http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Monk

04-25-2003, 18:03

Praetorian Cohort was added to the list today. heres a link http://www.totalwar.com/community/unit1.htm

and if ur to lazy to click that (like me) then heres what the description reads:

The Praetorian Cohort are heavy infantry, hand picked from the bravest troops of the Legions. They are the only military units allowed to remain within the city of Rome. They are fierce soldiers, dedicated to their mission as an elite bodyguard for the mightiest of Romans. On campaign, they are equipped in the same fashion as the Legions, with legionary lorica segmenta armour, pila and gladius and these are of the finest quality. Historically, Scipio Africanus created the Praetorians from his most trusted troops, and exempted them from all duties except that of guarding his person. The Praetorians have better conditions than ordinary Legionaires, and need only complete 16 years under arms before retiring. Tribunes command the Praetorian Cohort and two Praetorian Prefects command the whole Corps. The Praetorians are the political elite of the Roman army, bodyguards to the powerful in Rome, but not always used to the rigours of campaigning.

some_totalwar_dude

04-25-2003, 20:44

I heard there suposed to be dressed in collorful uniforms with red,yellow and golden collers. slap me if I'm wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

But I like em more in black, they look more dreadfull.

Hakonarson

04-26-2003, 00:59

Hmmmm....well maybe Scipio did form some, but he did NOT form the Paetorian Guard as it's described here.

Praetorian simply means headquaters, and many (most/all) Roman generals had a praetorian unit of some sort from the earliest times.

But until Augustus raised the Guard in 31BC after the battle of Actium they were essentially no different from any other troops - merely the HQ guard taken from a line unit, probably the general's favourite veterans, with no special terms of service. Scipio is said to have paid his 6 times as much as ordinary soldiers and exempted them from various duties, but the source for this is a relatively unknown historian Festus and isn't supported by anyone else.

Praetorian units could be infantry or cavalry, and were often "estraordinarii" - the best of hte Latin allies.

When Auggustus picked his guard he did choose the best veterans - both foot and horse, and both his and his opponents'. But it didn't take long before it became the preferred service for rich young Romans.

And of course Lorica Segmentata was not in use during the time RTW covers at all It is first attested in the early years AD - the first known examples of any segmentata are from Teutonberger Wald - 9AD.

Given that RTW finishes in 10BC for all of the period of RTW Roman body armour should be mail.

Even then mail stayed available in the East for a century or more, and in the West heavily armoured Romans equipped specially to fight Dacian falx-weilders reverted to mail for more complete coverace in 102 AD

History of the Praetorian Guard #1 (http://www.clanpraetorian.com/real_praetorian_guard.htm)

History of the Praetorians #2 (http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Praetoriani.html)

Oh - and the comment that they're not used to the rigours of campaigning is also highly anachronistic and applies in hte later 2nd and 3rd centuries AD only It's typically accepted t hat they'd grown soft because they were defeated by German legions at Milvians Bridge in 312 AD, after which they were disbanded.

The early Praetorian guard accompanied the Emperor on all his campaigns, and were well used to the rigours of campaigning

Hisory of Praetorians #3, incl reference to Scipio's cohort. (http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Praetoriani.html)

Hakonarson

04-26-2003, 01:09

Quote[/b] (some_totalwar_dude @ April 25 2003,14:44)]I heard there suposed to be dressed in collorful uniforms with red,yellow and golden collers. slap me if I'm wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

But I like em more in black, they look more dreadfull.
Slap http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Actually we don't know what colours they dressed in. By the 4th-5th centuries AD guards units didwear the colours you mention, but noting is known of what colours they wore earlier.

These later units were raised after the Praetorians were disbanded by Constantine in 312, so it may be that their colourful equipment was in contrast to hte Praetorians?

The units identifiable as Praetorians on Trajans Column wear the latest equuipment, but it is essentially the same as "line" units - they are identifiable by their shield patterns.

We know Legionaries wore red tunics, and it seems likely that Praetorians did too.

But the colour for Praetorians isn't really that important IMO - not like Spartan cloaks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif