Gallic Foresters

[Kongamato]

http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/for.jpg

Gallic Foresters
A life spent hunting is an excellent training for war. Personal courage, skill and the readiness to take a life can all be learned during the hunt. Foresters are highly skilled men who have great ability with both bow and spear, learned over many years of hunting. The need to put meat on the King's table for his warriors means that they are valued members of the community as most barbarians are great meat eaters by preference - and this is one of the reasons that they are strappingly large in comparison to Romans

In battle, Foresters are gathered into their own warbands who are not only excellent archers, but can take advantage of every piece of terrain. They are not heavily armoured, but they are flexible, well-able to use arrow fire to weaken an enemy unit before closing to finish the issue in hand-to-hand combat.

[Vanya]

GAH

Vanya thought the feller was dancin' with the devil under a pale moonlight... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Vanya sez... is there a province or city in RTW with a name like Pharsalus or something similar? If so, youz could have a unit called the "Phallic Warriors" announced any day now by CA/Activision... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

GAH

[some_totalwar_dude]

Well they look nice/handy units to me.

But what about their historical accuracy?

I don't realy bother that much about it but I'mjust curious.

[CBR]

Gah meat eaters Gah

CBR

[Kraxis]

Not very historical.

They mention spears but he is clutching an axe.

[Mega Dux Bob]

Look, it's a ranger

[shingenmitch2]

Hmmm....

Well let's see, not especially accurate unit, but not some fantasy type either.

The text talks about spear & bow, which really intrigues me as that would (firstly) be a new combo not seen in the TW series and so would be an interesting hybrid. It (secondly) would also be more accurate in the sense that these are typical/traditional war weapons of the gauls.

HOWEVER, the picture has him carrying an axe. Now at least this axe is much truer in look to the fanscisca and axes of about this time period. I could deal with the gauls using it, but this would probably turn the guy into something closer to the typical sword/bow hybrids that we've already seen in M:TW.


The crap about hunting is laughable... I mean, yes they did hunt... but they also raised cattle in large numbers -- sssshhhh be very quiet lest the herd bolt to the other side of the pen and we lose our shot.... hehe

The meat eater/size thing is a bit stupid too... did the Romans eat more fish than the ancient Danes? Doubtful. The Gallic tribes on the coast ate lots of fish, while the Romans had herds of cattle, goats and swine... they didn't lack meat.

[LadyAnn]

Was it a typos? Was it Garlic Farmers?

Annie

[Barkhorn1x]

Aww great - another fantasy unit. There is NO FRIKKIN WAY that the Gauls grouped their "hunters" together in one unit.

Is it me or what because - overall - I see these units breaking down into a 50/50 split between semi-historical looking units and total made-up Hollywoood fantasy BS units?

This ain't a good ratio (and they haven't even posted the doggies or the flaming oinkers yet).

VERY disappointed w/ CA this week http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif

Barkhorn.

[The_Emperor]

While I agree the unit description sucks, it is certainly good in theory.

These guys would probably be more like nomads rather than anything else, guys who live in the wilds and have to hunt with bow and spear to fend for themselves.

Not every Gaul is bound to be settled at that period in history, so its no stretch of the imagination that small groups of those guys got together and supported some Gallic tribes in times of war.

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

[Hakonarson]

Gallic use of bow in battle was limited to the young and poor - warriors all used javelin/spear, sword and shield.

Yet again the unit is nonsense.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

This is, of course, rubbish. Everyone knows Gallic warriors hunted with menhirs...

[Hakonarson]

Now there ya go - a perfect example of what can go wrong when you only read one source - you get entirely the wrong picture of a society by extrapolating

Only a minority of Gallic warriors used menhirs - most used small dogs or old fish, and many hunted from the back of shields carried by lesser mortals

Besides - while menhirs might be useful vs wild boars they're clearly overkill vs the other common prey - Romans

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

[Nowake]

I really don't understand the heavily armoured part. CA wanted some LotR Rangers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Shono]

Before I start I am no expert and the below is only theory gathered from some reading and a little knowledge of computer games http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The Gallic warriors generally followed a noble who likewise followed a leader/king.

Only the richest nobles would be able to arm their followers and thus the poor etc had to arm themselves with what ever they could. This would result in many different weapons and armour/clothing.

The problem is if you are trying to portray all these variations in a computer game. Somewhere you have to generalise or you would only have 100 troops in a battle running on a P4 3GHz.

Thus you have Gallic peasants or the like and the most general tool they will have is an axe, so it makes sense to use it as a weapon.

So to represent Gallic peasants then the generalisation would be to give them few clothes, no armour and an axe.

One final thing, it was the poor who used bows as the Gallic tribes thought long range weapons were for wimps and believed that combat coupled with fortune and glory was in the face with close quarter weapons.

[shingenmitch2]

Shono -

Yes, I agree w/ ur point that the mixed unit-type formation is probably near unworkable from a game-code stand point.

However, they haven't been making the axe men like peasants who have grabbed any old farm implement -- they turned them into super-hero berserks/housecarls which was ridiculous... (see two-handed barbarian axeman) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Shono]

Hey shingenmitch2, I see your point,

Will have to keep our eyes on the new units section of Totalwar.com to see what comes out.

There must be some reason for it...... (await developer post) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[The_Emperor]

I guess that in the battle between game balance and gameplay VS Historical Accuracy, Historical Accuracy will lose out.

Seems they need to do something to prevent the Romans from marching through Gaul too easily

[shingenmitch2]

Emp ---

I'm all for game balance ... and that should win out. The key is how that is achieved.

Do you do it through creating fantasy super-units for weak factions?

Or, instead, do you create balance by simply taking an accurate celtic troop type and then pump its attack/defense / morale stats up a bit until the faction can handle other factions?

[Galestrum]

Quote[/b] ]I guess that in the battle between game balance and gameplay VS Historical Accuracy, Historical Accuracy will lose out.

Seems they need to do something to prevent the Romans from marching through Gaul too easily

Well, that would be (a) improved AI (b) "tactics" © low cost vs. high cost and maintenance © large numbers versus small numbers (d) strong carthage faction and others (e) multiple celt and german factions.

They just need to model the game like real history - caesar, reputed as one of the greatest military minds of any era took something like 14 years to conquer Gaul if I am correct - and they were a politically fragmented people.

Historical Accurracy can only help the gameplay, not harm it.

[Lazul]

aaaah im getting anoyed... why do CA allways have to call them "BARBARIANS" they didnt wiew themselfs as barbarians. Its like calling Muslims in MTW infidels... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif