Historical Data for Bi??

[lars573]

It's a priest unit. "Catholic" priests to be specific. They are functionally just like British/Gallic druid units. But with clubs instead of scyths.

Check it out http://www.totalwar.com/community/rtwbi.htm
Click 3D unit profiles.

[screwtype]

Catholic priest units with clubs? ROFLMAO. That is ridiculous!

[screwtype]

Oh heck, I just took a look at the unit, and it is soooo cheesy!

[Bromley]

Just be glad it's not a +5 club of whatever.

[Mongoose]

ROFLMAO!



This is a joke right???

i sure hope so...:wreck:

The first thing i am going to do when i buy this game(IF i buy it) is remove those units. ~D

[TheViciousChicken]

LOL! Hahahahaha...that is a fun one! Does he cary the magical +5 holy club that does 5points os physical damage and 15 points of spiritual damage so that when he bangs you on the head with it you convert faster to catolicism? Hmm...

[Mongoose]

LOL! Hahahahaha...that is a fun one! Does he cary the magical +5 holy club that does 5points os physical damage and 15 points of spiritual damage so that when he bangs you on the head with it you convert faster to catolicism? Hmm...

No, you're thinking of the +3 holy club. the +5 holy club does 30 points of spiritual damage and 7 points of physical damage.


Also, they run faster then cavalry and you can't attack them if the pope leaves the map. ~;)

[Coldfish]

i don`t see any button "3D unit profiles" ~:confused:

[Krauser]

i don`t see any button "3D unit profiles" ~:confused:

http://www.totalwar.com/community/rome.htm
-----------------------------------
I don't think it's so bad. I'm don't need it to be historically accurate. As long as it's fun. I just hope the improved AI is gonna be worth it.

[Coldfish]

thanks...that`s more like it...

[Mongoose]

How do you know the AI is going to be so much better? they said


The AI has improved generally

Well, hopefuly it has improved more then that quote would suggest....

[Zenicetus]

This is reminding me a lot of "The Penguin".... remember the nun in the Blues Brothers movie, with the yardstick? Maybe that will be the next unit they profile.

[Orda Khan]

Kensai........

This unit was not ridiculous?

........Orda

[Mongoose]

It was totally ridiculous. and this is just as bad(if not worse)

[Wishazu]

I agree with Krauser, i dont care what units they put in it as long as the ai is improved. Besides im sure the modders at RTR and EB will swiftly get to work on this expansion.

[Mongoose]

It will take them months to sort this mess out. :dizzy2: just like it did with RTW...

[Afro Thunder]

This is reminding me a lot of "The Penguin".... remember the nun in the Blues Brothers movie, with the yardstick? Maybe that will be the next unit they profile.

I think I can just imagine a "War Nuns" unit, they hit both friendly and enemy soldiers every time they curse or say the Lord's name in vain. ~D

[lars573]

I agree with Krauser, i dont care what units they put in it as long as the ai is improved. Besides im sure the modders at RTR and EB will swiftly get to work on this expansion.

And I hope they stay as far away from it as possible. If their is one thing I hate it's realism mods. RTR more than any other.

[King of Atlantis]

The one good thing is Bi looks like it will bring in some nice new models...

[King of Atlantis]

As it is already obvious with the first new unit, Bi will not be historically accurate. Thus, I think we should start collecting historical data for the time period that could be given to intrested mods. Anybody else intrested...

These are the factions that need research..

Eastern Roman Empire
Western Roman Empire
Huns
Goths
Vandals
Saxons
Franks
Allemanni
Sarmatians
Sassanid Empire

Thats 10 playable of the twenty,

some others are break off's

romano- british
vistogoths
ostrogoths

Does anyone know any other factions that are in..

[Horatius]

"but it’s your choice whether or not to revert to paganism in the hope that this will bring victory."

In my first game then I am going to try to ressurect the old ways.

I wonder if you are allowed to try to ressurect the Res Publica.

[Kekvit Irae]

No, you're thinking of the +3 holy club. the +5 holy club does 30 points of spiritual damage and 7 points of physical damage.


Also, they run faster then cavalry and you can't attack them if the pope leaves the map. ~;)

I've got my Ogre Slaying Knife! It's got a +9 against ogres!

[King of Atlantis]

No, you're thinking of the +3 holy club. the +5 holy club does 30 points of spiritual damage and 7 points of physical damage.


Also, they run faster then cavalry and you can't attack them if the pope leaves the map. ~;)


It does triple the damage to pagans though ~;)

[Mongoose]

Lars573

No one is forcing you to download them(Not yet at least...)
EB will have much better gameplay the RTW. RTR also has better gameplay.

[King of Atlantis]

And I hope they stay as far away from it as possible. If their is one thing I hate it's realism mods. RTR more than any other.

why hate realism mods? Fantasy games are fun, but rome total war claims to be a historic strategy game, which it isnt. The realism mods are simply making rtw up th mtw standards.

[Mongoose]

Yeah, vanilla sux0rz. RTR is fun and SPQR is the best :bow:

[lars573]

why hate realism mods? Fantasy games are fun, but rome total war claims to be a historic strategy game, which it isnt. The realism mods are simply making rtw up th mtw standards.

Experience they say is the best teacher. I tried one of MTW realism mods (med mod) and it left a very bad taste in my mouth. When I read all the description of RTR, SPQR, even EB, they all reaffimed my suspicions. Realism mods no matter how well intentioned are not and cannot be fun to play. That's all I can really say, without my mouth getting me in trouble.

[Wishazu]

well surely its a bit stupid to throw them all in the same boat and say "see ya". your a bit narrow minded i think...

[lars573]

Look at it this way, the same feeling that keeps you from enjoying vanilla RTW keeps me from enjoying a realism mod. And i'm not talking about the AI either.

[bubbanator]

Realism mods are alright. I prefer to do minor changes like getting rid of the line formation and doing some minor unit rebalancing, changing starting armies, and things of that nature.

RTW is a perfectly good game without major modifications. A few tweaks makes it even better.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I can assure you that EB is much funner to play than vanilla RTW.

This unit...*sighs*

Crazed Rabbit

[pezhetairoi]

That's it, I'm not buying BI. Oh gawd, priests are healers, they don't belong on the field except to cart sacred relics around for inspiration... wait that's an idea! Think of the Relic First Cohort, extra large in size, composed completely of templar priests, carrying a sacred relic that can be captured by the enemy?

But all the same, just because of that cheesy crucifix, which looks worse than any chessy cricifixes I have ever seen, I will not buy BI. Urgh....

[MAt]

OK.

There are numerous threads rubbishing this new Catholic priest as not just ahistorical but something that belongs in a fantasy rpg. Now I know that a lot of people are just joking, but there are some people who seem actually convinced straight away that this unit is absolutely categorically wrong.

What I'd genuinely be interested in is if anybody has any proof that this unit is a "fantasy unit".

I had always assumed the Catholic faith was the official faith of the Roman Empire east & west before 1053... or 1058... or whenever the Great Schism was. So the name 'Catholic Priest' is entirely fair enough right?

And why is it so unreasonable to suggest that chaplains may have been present on the battlefield behind the front line of a Roman army?

What would you say that any sort of unit like that should look like?

So please, all of you that are certain that CA are pulling units out of thin air, enlighten me. Seriously... Im not having a go or anything, Im just suprised that without any actual proof you can be so convinced that this unit is a total work of fiction... Im as aware as everyone else how other units in rtw have been represented but honestly dont see where the hostility is coming from with this one.

[King of Atlantis]

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

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

BTw, Welcome to the Org! ~:cheers:

[MAt]

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

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

BTw, Welcome to the Org! ~:cheers:

Hey thanks!

From what I read on the unit description thats exactly how theyre represented in the game... hence my confusion at the backlash...

[King of Atlantis]

The will be represented in the game as a unit of 60 men, just like druids i presume.

Were serious about historical accuracy at the org. ~:)

[King of Atlantis]

Dont worry, all we have to do is force EB to mod this campaign too ~;)

[edyzmedieval]

Check the posts in the Colloseum for other factions......

Stupid CA...Why won't they make at least one game Historically accurate?!

[The_Doctor]

Does it have a holy hand grenade?

[player1]

Really, on what do you guys think that AD&D clerics got modeled on?

On military priests.

[player1]

OMG!
It isn't realistic!

Allergic reaction starts to spread.
God help us!

AAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Run for your lives!

[Intrepid Sidekick]

The unit has a chanting moral effect and as such help to bolster defences...nothing more. They have the combat abilities of a peasant unit and there are only 12 of them rather than 60. Try building an army of these and you'll lose pretty fast.
It's one unit. Wait for the rest before you pass judgement.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Only 12 men in the unit.
And it's not anywhere near as tough as the Druids.
They are Priests. They help encourage the troops, no more.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

cough
Rome can be amazingly inaccurate
/cough

[Tamur]

Stupid CA...
I leave for six months and posters are still saying things like this... phenomenal. *beats head against wall*

Feel free to have opinions and express them, but try to be a little more specific. Labelling the entire company as lacking in intelligence is simply a good way to drive devs off the board. I'm very surprised to see they're still around at all.

[Duke John]

He only joined 2 months ago. It takes time to assimilate newcomers into the bOrg :wink:

[Asakura Lord]

Stupid CA...Why won't they make at least one game Historically accurate?!

Right, then they make it so accurate that it isn't any fun to play.
They can only do so much.

Like the Germanic or Gaul peoples took over Europe and wiped out the Romans like in my current campaign? No they didn't the Romans thrived and ruled Europe. That is Historically Accurate, sound like fun to you?

If the game was historically accurate it would be controlled and you only interject during certain points along the timeline.

[Horatius]

That's it, I'm not buying BI. Oh gawd, priests are healers, they don't belong on the field except to cart sacred relics around for inspiration... wait that's an idea! Think of the Relic First Cohort, extra large in size, composed completely of templar priests, carrying a sacred relic that can be captured by the enemy?

But all the same, just because of that cheesy crucifix, which looks worse than any chessy cricifixes I have ever seen, I will not buy BI. Urgh....

The Templars came into existence in the 12th century, sorry no Templar Priests.

However at this time Medicine was leaving the hands of private practice and surgeons and entering the hands of priests.

You forget that this is nearing the start of the dark ages, Roman Power is fading away at this time, and with it the field of medicine is starting to change hands from capable surgeons, and doctors of a variety of qualities back to the various priesthoods, partly because there are a lot less of them around.

[Horatius]

To make the game totally accurate is to make an unplayable game.

The history is very fascinating however, Sulla and Marius fighting over the rights of the people, Sullas brutallity in victory, Cato the Younger refusing to outlive the Republic, Brutus forced to kill a friend so close to him they were like father and son, the last stand of the betrayel to Cicero and the Republic by Octavian, Pompey the Great betrayed by a dynasty he had saved from destruction.

On the Catholic Priests you don't know what they do yet. It is accurate for them to come along to give special morale benefits, and the christian empire consistently had priests along with the army to do burial services for troops, baptisms for their children, explain to the troops how fighting to save Rome is pleasing to God and other non battle activities, so having them along (Probably just to sing prayers for the troops to increase their power and be really weak) is not innacurate.

[Zizka]

actually the priest at that time, as well as their followers were pretty aggressive. Many of the Bishops were hard military men and many had been warriors/soldiers at one time. The tradition of the priests aiding in combat continues through the early middle ages. The pope's legate in the first crudes crouched a lance as well or better than many of the knights.

This unit is very feasable and far from fantasy. Everyone decries the wardogs as well as being fantasy, they weren't wide spread but in the time period of BI the Saxon, Angles, Jutes, and Fanks on the continent used large mastifs to break up shield walls.

Armies about this time were starting to take on the look or the medieval armies, and looked more like a circus than an army. There were often more onlookers at battles than the actual combatants. Small bands of priests were present, often marching unarmed and carrying a cross at the front of armed units. CA may have gotten a few things wrong one a few units (the screaming women of the germans were strong light infantry, but the women of the barbarian tribes moved with their men and would have urged them on in battle.) so give them a break. Good grief. Hell if they were making it 'real' then you would have to outfit each army with cooks, whores, wagons, and various other camp followers.

[Mongoose]

What bothers me is that they have CLUBS....CLUBS for the love of God!



If they didn't have a club or some strange cross/wind i wouldn't really care....but as it is now, they look like a combat unit.


In other words, remove the club and i will be happy ~:) .

Also, why did i despise screeching women? Because the AI didn't just use them for the moral bonus, it charged them into my troops :furious3:

PLEASE, make sure that the priests don't do this :wreck:


Zizka

Do you have a source stating that in the games time period(The middle ages don't count), priest went to war and fought? thanks :bow:

[Mongoose]

The unit has a chanting moral effect and as such help to bolster defences...nothing more. They have the combat abilities of a peasant unit and there are only 12 of them rather than 60. Try building an army of these and you'll lose pretty fast.
It's one unit. Wait for the rest before you pass judgement.


Really?! that's great!

just remove the club and make sure that the AI doesn't use them as regular soldiers. thanks :bow:


Horatius

If you think Realism must hurt game play, then you have not see EB. Check it out under hosted mods.


What bugs me is that EB is going to have to do what they just did ALL OVER AGAIN because the units (Might be, i don't want to pass judgement too soon) are going to be as unrealistic and bland as vanilla RTW.



Also, if the game is going to be the same damn thing every time(Egypt and the romans in one final showdown :dizzy2: ) It might as well be historical, right? ~;)

[SMZ]

The somewhat rabid response has stunned me somewhat... a number of posters in this thread seem somewhat unbalanced on the side of hasty judgements and baseless proclamations.

Having a priest along to reinforce the troops morale isn't a far-fetched idea. Even today when many people aren't even certain a higher power exists, the U.S. military still has chaplains. There have been spiritual leaders in virtually every war mankind has fought. The priest wielding a cudgel is a matter of taste. Many probably didn't carry any sort of weapon at all, relying instead on the protection of their attendents and faith. Some most likely did carry some sort of simple weaponry for basic defense... a simple club works as good as anything else...

[player1]

Well clubs are cheap.
Cheaper then daggers.

Why waste money on unit that isn't supposed to get in melee?

[Mongoose]

No, if they are NOT combat units they should not have weapons.

Unless you have a source stating that they did of course. :bow:

[Asakura Lord]

Maybe they have the clubs for self defense. It makes more sense to equip them with something instead of leaving them defenseless.

[Mongoose]

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

[SMZ]

mongoose - is it hard to believe that a man who knows he is going to be near a large number of other men intent on doing him harm might carry some kind of simple weapon for self defense?

[Mongoose]

Once again:


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

[SMZ]

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

[SMZ]

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

[Asakura Lord]

Touché

[Productivity]

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

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

[sik1977]

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

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

[master of the puppets]

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

[Orda Khan]

The somewhat rabid response has stunned me somewhat...

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

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

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

.......Orda

[SMZ]

Hardly so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mongoose]

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

That's a rather weak arguement. Example:


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


.

[SMZ]

And a rather annoying argument is:

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

[SMZ]

~:cool:

[Orda Khan]

Another thread hijacked......

......Orda

[Mongoose]

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

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


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

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

[Asakura Lord]

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

[SMZ]

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

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

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

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

[Asakura Lord]

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

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

[Horatius]

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

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

BTw, Welcome to the Org! ~:cheers:

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

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


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

[Mongoose]

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

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

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

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


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


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

[Zenicetus]

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

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

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

[conon394]

SMZ

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

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

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

[Mongoose]

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


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


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

Thank's :bow:

EDIT:


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

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

[Zizka]

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

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

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

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

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

[Asakura Lord]

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

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

I give up

:surrender:

[Zizka]

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

[SMZ]

SMZ

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

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

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

[Zizka]

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

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

[SMZ]

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

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

[Mongoose]

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

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


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

[player1]

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

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

[player1]

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

[Afro Thunder]

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

[Zizka]

It actually makes more sense to have a Christian Priest retinue rather than another unit. What else do you have the Retinue system other than to cover circumstances such as this? In Rome we had the various Priestly retinues, so why change it? the only possible reason i could think of would be if you wanted to add a small retinue to a non family member lead army.

[Mongoose]

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

No, they did not use clubs. They stayed far away from the action...their job was to pray, not to fight. I am going to take Steppe Merc's advice...

Any way, this is my last post on this subject. Anything further could result in warnings...


It actually makes more sense to have a Christian Priest retinue rather than another unit. What else do you have the Retinue system other than to cover circumstances such as this? In Rome we had the various Priestly retinues, so why change it? the only possible reason i could think of would be if you wanted to add a small retinue to a non family member lead army.


Well said :bow:

[Proper Gander]

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

well? the fact that CA wastes time and money on such silly things is sad. why bother?

if they're the only silly unit, no problem. it just concerns me.

[Colovion]

meh.

Screaming Women, blerg

/take two

[Colovion]

We all know that priests of the Dark and Middle ages believed that it was unGodly to shed another human's blood. And yes, some interpreted it literally enough to indicate that if they used a club or mace they weren't 'technically" shedding another human's blood per-say. Just like all the opther fantasy units we've seen - they were never used in numbers, but what they are depicting was a reality on a much smaller and much less regulated occurance. But just like the Screaming Women and Head Hurlers - I won't build them and I turn my nose to their ahistoricalness.

[The_Doctor]

The catholic church did not exist until the schism, before that people in the western Roman world where orthodox or ayrian(sp) christians, so there should not be catholic priests.

Also christian priests where not supposed to make the enemy bleed, so a club would be a good weapon for a priest.

[King of Atlantis]

guys, please only post here if you want to help collect data. :embarassed:


Intrepid Sidekick, Thaks for you response, but why not just give one of them with every unit like R:tr did.

[King of Atlantis]

umm.. the pope talked with attilla i am well aware of that, but he didnt fight him, and plus that meating is said to be myth anyways.


The monks should not have clubs, and another point shouldnt they have black robes?

[conon394]

SMZ

Sorry about offending you, the sarcasm was rather a reflection of the fact I was disappointed at seeing CA lurch ahead with more silly units.

Really it is not so much the logic of the unit’s existence. I’m sure CA can find at least one historical or semi-historical incident to support every ‘fantasy’ unit. I just cannot see why CA seems to prefer a rather unrealistic ideal of unit of priests (or head tossing Celts, etc), rather then simply providing a method of adding them to the officer slots (in game via buildings etc). I realize that some units say the pigs in RTW, have to be independent units. But a lot of the moral units could provide color, and faction differentiation, but be more grounded in reality as unit add-on.

[King of Atlantis]

The reason im mad cause they are almost slapping their hardcore fans in the face. They know we dont like this fantasy stuff, but they chose to pick something like this first. I dont hate Ca, they mad the best game ever(mtw), but this kind of stuff that is trying to be pulled as realistic is getting kind of sickning. :embarassed:

[Horatius]

The catholic church did not exist until the schism, before that people in the western Roman world where orthodox or ayrian(sp) christians, so there should not be catholic priests.

Also christian priests where not supposed to make the enemy bleed, so a club would be a good weapon for a priest.

Not true Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (Pope), followed by Saint Paul.

[Viking]

Ah this unit looked cool. Seriously it did.

One cannot judge the whole expansion by just one unit even though it`s the first unit they presented.

I don`t think I`m gonna train these units often, not because people claim them to be historically inaccurate, but `cause they`re a really weak unit. I think peasants will do a better work than those. Just eye-candy in my opinion.

As long as those innacurate(at least claimed so) units are cool, just exaggerated from reality and not plain stupid as Screeching Women I got no big problem with them. ~:cheers:

[Horatius]

It is realistic for Celtic and Germanic women to have accompanied the men to battle, the only thing that was silly about the screeching women was the name.

Besides what would you prefer a beaten up mercenary with 11 troops left or a morale boosting priest group?

[player1]

We all know that priests of the Dark and Middle ages believed that it was unGodly to shed another human's blood. And yes, some interpreted it literally enough to indicate that if they used a club or mace they weren't 'technically" shedding another human's blood per-say.

Good, so I was not wrong.

There is a historic reason, why priest, if in need to be armed, would be armed more probably with club, then with dagger.

[King of Atlantis]

The thing is they wouldnt be armed, they would just carry a huge cross or something.

[Colovion]

Good, so I was not wrong.

There is a historic reason, why priest, if in need to be armed, would be armed more probably with club, then with dagger.

Yes. And seeing how Total War's play style is where you statically build a unit of soldiers and send them against the enemy - you can understand how ridiculous it would be for a leader to gather a large number of priests together and send them en masse into the battlefield.

It's the static way it's portrayed in Total War which makes it ridiculous.

[player1]

For consistency sake.

If other morale boosting units were in group (druids, screeching women), then so these ones should be too.

[conon394]

It is realistic for Celtic and Germanic women to have accompanied the men to battle, the only thing that was silly about the screeching women was the name.

But they tended form a mass on non-combatants behind the battle line, not formal units.

[player1]

Well, they are just that way for consistance sake.
Since all other morale boosting units function as that (like druids).


It also gives some tactical possibilities, like keeping them at the rear of your central line, and freeing up general for flanking.

[King of Atlantis]

None of those units should have been included....

Anyways this threa isnt just about those units, if BI ,, is anything like rome then their will be tons of historical innaccuracies.

[Colovion]

edit

[Colovion]

Someone is deciding to invade a territory and wants something to bolster his troops. Plenty of strong arms are found but the foes ahead will be savage and some men may be prone to flee. Moral Units are nice dimension to add to the battlefield but we can probably all agree that the concept is both ridiculous and also believable. How so? It's the way it's implimented is all. A solid mass of civilians partaking in the fighting of an army was a practice which almost never happened, and was never planned for except for an endeavor such as a Crusade-type practice. It is true that it happened on smaller scales though.

It should really be, as others have said - merely a retinue unit of your General. Or alternatively - a Standard Bearer. I'll explain:


In the timeframe we're dealing with here there were times when a battle would ensue and, indeed, individuals whom had control over a fighting man's mentality may find their way onto a battlefield. Be they Religious Leaders, Women or particularly ruthless warriors, there were people who affected the bloodthirst of an army. Usually this was probably done through a General or otherwise leader leading their troops through a battle with chanting, war-songs, displays of might and words of encouragement to his fellows. Priests and Women would have a very limited ability to be even near a battle seeing as 95% of War is travelling to the battlefield and thus would either have to be with the army or have the enemy be invading their territory.

If you build any of these statically produced Moral-Increasing units they should deffinately increase/reduce moral. However - they should be attached to the army in some way such as being the one who carries the Standard of a given faction or with gather around a said standard. A Priest would hold the cross and be attached to some unit or other and perhaps if you build one Priest unit and you attach it to your army once you get into the battle they would disperse amongst your soldiers, increasing the moral of your entire army.

That would certainly help suspend my disbelief. Sure - you should have a feature which calls all Moral increasing men/women to a certain area of the battle which is in dire need of help for those fatigued sword-swingers.

Simple ideas like this - they would go a long way to smoothing the rough edges of such great ideas of Moral Units into a more realistic and believable fashion.

[IceTorque]

My 2 cents on the priest unit.

Which is the stronger army ?
a. One combat unit + one priest unit.
b. Two combat units.

Which just about sums up why the AI has such a hard time putting up a
decent challenge.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

The Druid unit stands behind the battle line singing while i waste em with arrows me thinks they would do much better to join in the melee. and i modded them to unit size 60. and if more than one Druid unit per AI
army, only one Druid unit sings the rest fight.
So if more than one priest unit in AI army do they all sing ?

I believe that the younger mainstream players would enjoy the game more
if it were more of a challenge.
Which is exactly what the hardcore minority want too.

[antisocialmunky]

http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/bis1.jpg

Judging from that maybe they're like Prophets from EE and summon sodomy on the heathen hordes.

[Krauser]

The reason im mad cause they are almost slapping their hardcore fans in the face. They know we dont like this fantasy stuff, but they chose to pick something like this first. I dont hate Ca, they mad the best game ever(mtw), but this kind of stuff that is trying to be pulled as realistic is getting kind of sickning. :embarassed:

I think CA does care about their fans but they care more about making the most money. The way to make more money is to make the game mainstream which they did in RTW and are continuing in BI. Now even though the hardcore fans think RTW was completely unrealistic I still think it was more realistic than most games.

[King of Atlantis]

Why did my thread get mixed into this. :embarassed:

[Colovion]

:balloon2:

[Zizka]

Why did my thread get mixed into this. :embarassed:

I don't know, but it makes for some interesting reading.

[player1]

Finnaly, I found the merged thread.

And I though they all got "deleted".

[King of Atlantis]

To sum up all the arguments that the "warrior priest are real"


prove they didnt use clubs

it would be very hard to do that. There is no source that says the romans didnt use aliens as archers, but I am sure there are also none that say they did.


clubs are cheaper than knives

sure if they were going to fight, which some did, they would probably use clubs, but they didnt fight


the pope and bishops beat attilla

The pope talked to atilla, but even this meeting is probably myth.

[player1]

To sum up all the arguments that the "warrior priest are real"

Not warrior priests, but support priests that are behind the lines (like genral not some fictive red line), if player is smart, boosting morale before, and at the beggining of the battle.



sure if they were going to fight, which some did, they would probably use clubs, but they didnt fight

Proof?

Seriusly, the way it is implemented, you would not fight with these units. They carry weapons just in case that battles lines get breached.

[King of Atlantis]

Not warrior priests, but support priests that are behind the lines (like genral not some fictive red line), if player is smart, boosting morale before, and at the beggining of the battle.

yah, but how smart do you think the AI is.




Proof?

Seriusly, the way it is implemented, you would not fight with these units. They carry weapons just in case that battles lines get breached.

Again, it is impossible to prove something didnt happen, i cant prove romans werent really from mars cause not source will say "the Romans were not from MArs"

That means it up for you to prove that priest carried weapons with them on average.

Preist came in using all their might carrying some huge cross.

[player1]

yah, but how smart do you think the AI is.

Well, that's the question, how CA imporved AI?
There was the same problem with Screeching woman.
Or maybe AI would realize that poor attack/defense units shodul stay back?



Preist came in using all their might carrying some huge cross.

Actually, that's more unrealistic.
Bunch of priests all carring big heavy crosses. Get tired up pretty quckly.

On the other hand when having group of priests, one elder, several apprentices, you could see one carring big cross and several other varius cargo. That's more realistic. And club is peasant weapon, also apropriate for emergency.


P.S.
Of course, we are talking about priests that accompanied army, not priests in general.

[Horatius]

Speaking out of a historical perspective shouldn't Romans be allowed to build as many temples to as many gods as they want in their cities?

Shouldn't there be two civil wars, one won by Sulla, one by Caeser?

[King of Atlantis]

Well, that's the question, how CA imporved AI?
There was the same problem with Screeching woman.
Or maybe AI would realize that poor attack/defense units shodul stay back?

dont count on them staying back ~;)





Actually, that's more unrealistic.
Bunch of priests all carring big heavy crosses. Get tired up pretty quckly.

On the other hand when having group of priests, one elder, several apprentices, you could see one carring big cross and several other varius cargo. That's more realistic. And club is peasant weapon, also apropriate for emergency.


P.S.
Of course, we are talking about priests that accompanied army, not priests in general.


Give one referance that preist in the army routinally carried around big clubs and then i might believe this isnt all a bunch of B.S.

[player1]

Well you already know the story that those priests that used weapons usually used bludgeoning weapons (for "religious" reasons).

As for refernce find me the one that roman peasants routinally used the kinfes as their weapons.

Or that gaul warbands always used spear and loingshield/

Priests were never an organized unit, and thus never had uniformed waepons, when needed to defend.

But, you know that RTW engine only supports clone troops.
So to represent priests on battlefiled that need to look like organized unit.

[The_Doctor]

Maybe they could carry a big cross and crucify people. :dizzy2:

They should be retinue character that gives units a moral boost.

[King of Atlantis]

Well you already know the story that those priests that used weapons usually used bludgeoning weapons (for "religious" reasons).

As for refernce find me the one that roman peasants routinally used the kinfes as their weapons.

Or that gaul warbands always used spear and loingshield/

Priests were never an organized unit, and thus never had uniformed waepons, when needed to defend.

But, you know that RTW engine only supports clone troops.
So to represent priests on battlefiled that need to look like organized unit.


give me one source were the routinly used any weapon. Sure some did, especially in the viking raids in england, but that is not common. If you want an organized unit thats right give them no weapon.


martinus thats what Ca should have done.

[player1]

Common sense dictates that someone near the front is not more stupid then peasant.

And since common sense is that romans haven't came from mars, it doesn't need the reference. ~D

[King of Atlantis]

preast were not near the front when the actual battle is fought.

common sense would say julius ceaser wouldnt have walked to the senate when he knew of an assasination plot. Wait a minute historians must be wrong cause of common sense. Cesear never was assasinated :charge: :charge: , yeah!

[player1]

Well, these are, and thus common sense dictates that they need some weapon.

[King of Atlantis]

once again you cant decide on history by common sense.

btw, "well these are", are you admitting that these units are fake now?

[Horatius]

How do you guys know they weren't carrying staffs like walking sticks?

I like talking about these things because I know a great deal about Ancient Rome, however you guys really are taking the priests look way too seriously.

[King of Atlantis]

How do you guys know they weren't carrying staffs like walking sticks?

I like talking about these things because I know a great deal about Ancient Rome, however you guys really are taking the priests look way too seriously.


Dont know, but a walking stick isnt a spiked club

Your not taking this serious enough ~;)

[Horatius]

Dont know, but a walking stick isnt a spiked club

Your not taking this serious enough ~;)

If it was a spiked club then your right it wasn't a walking stick.

Still barbarian invasion is very early in design, so I highly doubt that everything will remain the same for release.

[King of Atlantis]

They arnt too early in design, it is supposed to come out in a couple months.

[Productivity]

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

I will stop complaining once they give me a refund for R:TW.

[Productivity]

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

Or alternatively it could be a common sense way to stop priests being ridiculously overpowered.

When you are using AD&D as a reference in your argument, it is seriously weak.

[Mongoose]

I will stop complaining once they give me a refund for R:TW.

If you don't like it, stop Bi***ing and travel back in time to warn your self not to buy it. ~D

[Horatius]

They arnt too early in design, it is supposed to come out in a couple months.

Ok so they messed up on how one unit will look.

I still challenge you to find one game with superior graohics.

The priest attachment to the army helping it morally while not fighting is realistic, it seems like your complaining about the look, yet try to find games that have looks nearly as good as this one.

Try scrolling your view down to your army during a battle you will see what I mean, it is really nice to see the battle close up.

[King of Atlantis]

I and no one else is compliaing how they look, they shouldnt be able fight at all.

[CMcMahon]

Does it have a holy hand grenade?

As an upgrade, yes, but you can only get that upgrade in Antioch.

[King of Atlantis]

You guys should pm this idea to CA, i mean can anybody here find a source that says warrior priest didnt use the holy hand gernade?

[CMcMahon]

- One! Two! Five!
- Three, sir.
- Three!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

While the discussion has mainly focused on the battlefield priests and wether or not they are suspect from a realism aspect.
But what hasn't been looked at is what priests DO. I'm sorry, but I find a little hard to believe that troops engaged in a battle would notice a group of dress wearing men waving crosses, let alone take heart from tem. They noise of battle would prevent it. This IMO strengthens the case for making priests retinue only because realisticly your only chance to show your men that God is on your side is prior to battle. Once battle is joined priest would find it impossible to make any impact what-so-ever. What are the priests going to do? Tap a soldier on the shoulder mid battle, asking him about God? I don't thinks so.

[SMZ]

http://www.usachcs.army.mil/history/brief/chapter_1.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chaplain
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=847817

^as those links show, militant priesthoods, armed holy men, etc have been a part of military action almost as long as humans can remember and the Christian Church by this point in history was no different... there's your "proof", I expect it to receive the same welcome as "logic"...

somebody else already posted giving examples of holy men being slaughtered at various battles, it's evident they were close enough to the conflict to be reached easily

as to what they would do Elmar, it's the same thing any morale boosting prescence does... when the general sends his men forward to fight but remains in the rear this is never beneficial to morale and usually negative... the same with a holy man who promises victory and then scuttles away for safety. If victory is assured, why would he need to leave? Thus a holy man remaining near the army assures them that God(s) are with them and even if mayhaps He would overlook their own poor sinful forms, surely He will protect His holy servant.

EDIT: King of Atlantis - what is the point in babbling about holy hand grenades? Do you think it's equally as absurd for a clergyman to carry a club as a grenade?

Well then I have a short exercise for you. Go look at a picture of the Pope. He STILL carries a club.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

as to what they would do Elmar, it's the same thing any morale boosting prescence does... when the general sends his men forward to fight but remains in the rear this is never beneficial to morale and usually negative... the same with a holy man who promises victory and then scuttles away for safety. If victory is assured, why would he need to leave? Thus a holy man remaining near the army assures them that God(s) are with them and even if mayhaps He would overlook their own poor sinful forms, surely He will protect His holy servant.

My point being, if you are hacking away at some dude and that dude is hacking away at you, you'd be hard pressed to notice thew second coming of Christ behind you, never mind a clutch of chanting priests. With adrenaline gushing out of your ears and the din of battle you aren't going to be aware of much of anything. Thus having some dudes wander over behind you and then their chanting leading to a nagical morale boost would be a little unrealistic.

That the debateis so heated is (I suspect) because CA was told by the vast majority of posters here, at TWC and .com to not do those units with dubious historical accuracy during RTW and again CA chose not to listen. With CA not listening to their core fans it's hard not to get a little exasperated when you see something else you don't like.

And as a seperate point: I'm a bit tired of the whole balance versus fun/playability debate because saying there is a balance to strike is a weak excuse for not making it both realistic and fun. Look at Combat Mission, it's very realistic but still a good weeze to play.

[conon394]

SMZ

But your links seem to me to support the ideal of a retinue approach and/or a single priest attached to a general or unit, rather than the cluster of priests units.

[Viking]

@ King of Atlantis

If you KNOW that priests did not step out on the battlefield nor carrying clubs,
then you MUST have source that you read somewhere so that you can rule it out, otherwise you cannot KNOW, just SPECULATE about it. Now, show me a source about roman priests from that time period that DEFINATELY rule out that this could not exist.

[King of Atlantis]

As i have said many times it is impossible to give a source that says someone didnt do something and i still havent seen a link that it did..

[SMZ]

I just posted three.

*sigh* :surrender:

[Horatius]

Since this is a thread about Catholic Priests did you guys know that a few days ago an adoption agency recieving federal funds is banning Catholics from adopting kids?

It seems like typical bigotry to me, I mean what do they have against catholics adopting kids?

[Viking]

@KoA

If you know that those priest did not carry clubs then you know something about those priests; and what is that? Can you provide me a source?

[King of Atlantis]

I have never seen a source were priest standadrly carried weapons nor do I ever expect to see one, though i might change my opinion if someone could provide a link showing they did carry weapons. If they did then this should be fairly easy to find.

[player1]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=847817


Makes me wonder how replying on this thread helps? ~D

[player1]

I have never seen a source were priest standadrly carried weapons nor do I ever expect to see one, though i might change my opinion if someone could provide a link showing they did carry weapons. If they did then this should be fairly easy to find.

Of course not, normal priests are in temples and don't need weapons.

But military priests, as some of the links show did.

I never see any reference that priests that accompanied armies were not armed. That rules out common sense (not other way around), so needs a proof.

[Viking]

I have never seen a source were priest standadrly carried weapons nor do I ever expect to see one, though i might change my opinion if someone could provide a link showing they did carry weapons. If they did then this should be fairly easy to find.

I would like to see how much information you went through about roman priests in the 300th century before you made that conclusion(battlepriests are unreal).

[King of Atlantis]

Some links showed the execptions, but never the standard.

As ive sad you can judge history on the obvious, cause many people did stuff that is the farthest from the obvious.

[player1]

Some links showed the execptions, but never the standard.

As ive sad you can judge history on the obvious, cause many people did stuff that is the farthest from the obvious.

On the other hand, you can't judge history on not obvious, just because there are no references, especialy if you talk about broad things, not exeptions (obvious thing happen more often then not obvious).

[King of Atlantis]

im judging history on history. Nobody can provide a link showing priest in battle usually carried weapons. Why cause most likely a source like this doesnt exist and that would mean it isnt real.

[player1]

Ok, I give up...
We agree to disagree.

[Colovion]

I can't believe this became such a big discussion. Anyone who believes that Priests were trained and then sent into battle for that purpose are sorely mistaken. In Total War the static recruitment and blocky representation on the battle map of a conglomeration of church-less priests is absurd. They fought in historical times in desperation or when all other forms of diplomacy had failed - but never were they used in the context which they will be in BI.

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.

[King of Atlantis]

Thank you :sweatdrop:

[BobTheTerrible]

R:TW never claimed to be a historically accurate game. BI isn't claiming to be a historically accurate expansion pack. Nobody is forcing you to buy the game. So I don't see what the big deal is.

If R:TW claimed to be a historically accurate game, and was released as it is, I can see a problem. Likewise, if BI was marketed as a historical accurate game and was released with major flaws in historical accuracy, I can likewise see a problem. The fact is that none of you have to buy the game if you don't want to. If the game looks too ahistorical and that really bothers you, then you don't have to buy it.

Arguing about the historical accuracy of Catholic Priests in armies is not going to accomplish anything except for raising tempers and post counts.

[King of Atlantis]

R:TW never claimed to be a historically accurate game. BI isn't claiming to be a historically accurate expansion pack. Nobody is forcing you to buy the game. So I don't see what the big deal is.

Actually the whole concept of RTW makes itsself claim to be accurate. How do you make a game about the waging war in the Roman time period and then make it total fantasy


If R:TW claimed to be a historically accurate game, and was released as it is, I can see a problem. Likewise, if BI was marketed as a historical accurate game and was released with major flaws in historical accuracy, I can likewise see a problem. The fact is that none of you have to buy the game if you don't want to. If the game looks too ahistorical and that really bothers you, then you don't have to buy it.

Most of the people complaing were either big shogun or medieval fans and we are just sad to see rtw go this way


Arguing about the historical accuracy of Catholic Priests in armies is not going to accomplish anything except for raising tempers and post counts.

It makes you wonder why CA would choose this as the first units, cause you know they expected this kind of reaction.

and raisng post count is good ~;)

[Duke John]

The first impression is always the most important one. What does CA choose to show first? Chanting priests with big clubs. I think it couldn't be a more clearer statement. People who were dissatisfied with R:TW shouldn't buy BI, unless they are gambling for mods being developed for it.

I will certainly buy it simply because it allows the Lordz to introduce the square formation for NTW2.

[Viking]

The first impression is always the most important one. What does CA choose to show first? Chanting priests with big clubs. I think it couldn't be a more clearer statement.

Actually my first impresssion was that RTW would be more historically accurate with BI. Why?


Every faction in the game has a ‘signature’ unit that is unique to them, such as the axe-throwing Francisca Heerbann of the Franks to the ultra-heavy Sassanid Clibinarii cavalry.

Those were the first units CA revealed and they`re both historically accurate, so it came as a big surprise for me when they chose those doubtful priest for the first 3D unit profile.



I can't believe this became such a big discussion. Anyone who believes that Priests were trained and then sent into battle for that purpose are sorely mistaken. In Total War the static recruitment and blocky representation on the battle map of a conglomeration of church-less priests is absurd. They fought in historical times in desperation or when all other forms of diplomacy had failed - but never were they used in the context which they will be in BI.

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.


Well, I guess CA chose either-or, and since RTW is a game for the masses they decided to make a own unit with women, in this case priests.

[IceTorque]

Realism mods are alright. I prefer to do minor changes like getting rid of the line formation and doing some minor unit rebalancing, changing starting armies, and things of that nature.

RTW is a perfectly good game without major modifications. A few tweaks makes it even better.

Yes a few tweaks does wonders.
I don't give a rats about the priest unit as i'll remove it immediately anyway.
I'm more interested in tweaks to the code than new units.

[SMZ]

I can't believe this became such a big discussion. Anyone who believes that Priests were trained and then sent into battle for that purpose are sorely mistaken.
Whether that statment is true or not is merely a product of the religion the priest worships. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant christian priests in this time period. Because, quite honestly, you would appear to be quite ignorant if you tried to claim that priests have not been integrally tied to military matters (yes, including dealing death to the damned, not simply blessing the righteous) at many points in history in many cultures. I'll admit quite openly that I do not know whether Roman priests entered battle or not. With my cursory search the closest I found was a description of them as being "militant". Which of course could simply mean that they encouraged others to go fight from the safety of their chapels. However I do know that priests before their time went to war and that priests after their time did. Therefore I don't find it a great leap of faith to imagine that a priest and his underpriests accompanied soldiers in this time period either.

In Total War the static recruitment and blocky representation on the battle map of a conglomeration of church-less priests is absurd. They fought in historical times in desperation or when all other forms of diplomacy had failed - but never were they used in the context which they will be in BI.

You make the same error almost everyone complaining about them does. You say "they were never used in the context they will be in BI". Yet who controls how they are used? You do! If you send four groups of priests along with every army, that is your decision. If you train a couple groups of priests and attach them to certain armies specially made for them, once again this is your choice. You decide how to use them. So for them to be used in the wrong context requires you to use them wrongly.

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.
How the AI acts is an entirely different issue, and one that will not be solved anytime in the near future.

[King of Atlantis]

Yet who controls how they are used? You do!

The AI contolls them too and thats why this matters.

[Colovion]

Whether that statment is true or not is merely a product of the religion the priest worships. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant christian priests in this time period. Because, quite honestly, you would appear to be quite ignorant if you tried to claim that priests have not been integrally tied to military matters (yes, including dealing death to the damned, not simply blessing the righteous) at many points in history in many cultures. I'll admit quite openly that I do not know whether Roman priests entered battle or not. With my cursory search the closest I found was a description of them as being "militant". Which of course could simply mean that they encouraged others to go fight from the safety of their chapels. However I do know that priests before their time went to war and that priests after their time did. Therefore I don't find it a great leap of faith to imagine that a priest and his underpriests accompanied soldiers in this time period either.

You make the same error almost everyone complaining about them does. You say "they were never used in the context they will be in BI". Yet who controls how they are used? You do! If you send four groups of priests along with every army, that is your decision. If you train a couple groups of priests and attach them to certain armies specially made for them, once again this is your choice. You decide how to use them. So for them to be used in the wrong context requires you to use them wrongly.

How the AI acts is an entirely different issue, and one that will not be solved anytime in the near future.

You must have missed my previous idea which was injected into this thread and, predictably, lost


Someone is deciding to invade a territory and wants something to bolster his troops. Plenty of strong arms are found but the foes ahead will be savage and some men may be prone to flee. Moral Units are nice dimension to add to the battlefield but we can probably all agree that the concept is both ridiculous and also believable. How so? It's the way it's implimented is all. A solid mass of civilians partaking in the fighting of an army was a practice which almost never happened, and was never planned for except for an endeavor such as a Crusade-type practice. It is true that it happened on smaller scales though.

It should really be, as others have said - merely a retinue unit of your General. Or alternatively - a Standard Bearer. I'll explain:


In the timeframe we're dealing with here there were times when a battle would ensue and, indeed, individuals whom had control over a fighting man's mentality may find their way onto a battlefield. Be they Religious Leaders, Women or particularly ruthless warriors, there were people who affected the bloodthirst of an army. Usually this was probably done through a General or otherwise leader leading their troops through a battle with chanting, war-songs, displays of might and words of encouragement to his fellows. Priests and Women would have a very limited ability to be even near a battle seeing as 95% of War is travelling to the battlefield and thus would either have to be with the army or have the enemy be invading their territory.

If you build any of these statically produced Moral-Increasing units they should deffinately increase/reduce moral. However - they should be attached to the army in some way such as being the one who carries the Standard of a given faction or with gather around a said standard. A Priest would hold the cross and be attached to some unit or other and perhaps if you build one Priest unit and you attach it to your army once you get into the battle they would disperse amongst your soldiers, increasing the moral of your entire army.

That would certainly help suspend my disbelief. Sure - you should have a feature which calls all Moral increasing men/women to a certain area of the battle which is in dire need of help for those fatigued sword-swingers.

Simple ideas like this - they would go a long way to smoothing the rough edges of such great ideas of Moral Units into a more realistic and believable fashion.

[Zenicetus]

The AI contolls them too and thats why this matters.
Bingo!

If I can ignore the unit, and build armies that work better for me without it, then that's fine.

But if it confers some kind of magical morale bonus.... and the AI is packing its armies with this unit... and that means I'm forced to use a "micromanagement time-sink unit" like this to counter the advantage... well, that's something else.

I was kind of hoping the new BI expansion would give me interesting new units for KILLING THE ENEMY in my 20 slots for an army.

[screwtype]

it seems the unit is well within the parameters created by history. If anyone claims otherwise, the burden of proof is upon them.



Er, no, sorry, you can't prove a negative. If you claim that such units existed then the burden of proof is on YOU to support that claim.

I've certainly never heard of bands of chanting priests accompanying Roman armies - or medieval ones for that matter. Probably some priests did accompany armies to bless them before a battle and so on but I've never read a single instance of what is being proposed here, of "battle priests" armed with clubs and chanting stuff to encourage fighters. Heck, Christian chanting itself only began in the Middle Ages, didn't it?

On the plus side, Intrepid tells us they are only a unit 12 strong, and with mainly a supporting role, I was envisaging them as a standard combat unit.

It would perhaps make a little more sense if you're going to have such a unit to have it made up of monks rather than priests. Priests do not normally work together in groups at all, they work alone. Monks on the other hand do live together in communities, and monasteries played an important role in the early Christian era.

[screwtype]

And one other thing I'd like to know - are all twelve of the priests in this unit going to be carrying that big cheesy looking crucifix? Or is it only the leader who gets to carry one?

[Horatius]

Bingo!

If I can ignore the unit, and build armies that work better for me without it, then that's fine.

But if it confers some kind of magical morale bonus.... and the AI is packing its armies with this unit... and that means I'm forced to use a "micromanagement time-sink unit" like this to counter the advantage... well, that's something else.

I was kind of hoping the new BI expansion would give me interesting new units for KILLING THE ENEMY in my 20 slots for an army.

It does, the priest is just one out of many many new units.

[HarunTaiwan]

Bad news for Catholics.

the new pope will excommunicate you if you buy and play BI.

[Colovion]

And one other thing I'd like to know - are all twelve of the priests in this unit going to be carrying that big cheesy looking crucifix? Or is it only the leader who gets to carry one?

I'm also interested in this. If the Priest units have only a half-dozen or so in their unit, not in ranks and only a single one of them carrying the cross then it wouldn't be as bad as I expected. I also expected them to be depicted like normal units, but I still think that they should just be the standard bearers for Christian factions - if they are attached to an army.

[King of Atlantis]

A know this is probably just another rant, but shouldnt their robes be black or brown, not redstriped. :embarassed:

[gardibolt]

Pope Julius II led troops into combat both before and after he became pope. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08562a.htm

No one seemed to think that was at all unusual. And of course, there are the military religious orders, of which there were over a hundred:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10304d.htm

[Mongoose]

Yes, he led the army. Did he fight? No.

[player1]

Well, players can also choose will they fight with their generals or not.

[gardibolt]

Also, from a description of the Bayeux Tapestry:

"Famously the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Norman conquest of England shows Bishop Odo, bishop of Bayeux, with a club in his hand lashing out against the enemy. The Bishop's rationale for his actions was that it wasn't a sharpened weapon"

http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/cupboard/filing/essays/essay2.htm

[Mongoose]

One bishop...not a group...

Once again, priest's in the following context are fine:

1:retinue(sp?) characters
2:Generals
3:Groups visible beyond the red line
4:Officers

[gardibolt]

Dwight D Eisenhower was never in combat during WWII. But he still carried a gun.

[player1]

One bishop...not a group...

Once again, priest's in the following context are fine:

1:retinue(sp?) characters
2:Generals
3:Groups visible beyond the red line
4:Officers

But doesn't moral boosting group pretty much function as captain or general.

[player1]

Also, from a description of the Bayeux Tapestry:

"Famously the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Norman conquest of England shows Bishop Odo, bishop of Bayeux, with a club in his hand lashing out against the enemy. The Bishop's rationale for his actions was that it wasn't a sharpened weapon"

http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/cupboard/filing/essays/essay2.htm

So that the reference that used AD&D authors for their clerics.
Good work.

[Colovion]

Pope Julius II led troops into combat both before and after he became pope. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08562a.htm

No one seemed to think that was at all unusual. And of course, there are the military religious orders, of which there were over a hundred:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10304d.htm

Those are soldiers who devote their actions (or justify them) by their religion. Priests aren't a military order, they are devout civilians. Knights Templar? Fighters first, devout second. Priests? Civilians; non-combatants - only to fight in desperation.

[player1]

Well, priests as shown in this unit are hardly civilians if they go near battle lines, have clubs and pray.

[magnum]

I have never heard nor read anything that would indicate such a ‘priest brigade’ ever existed, at least not on any large scale that would be considered as a military unit. I see them as being very much in line with the Druids from RTW (which was also a unit that CA showed off before launch.) In both cases, I see the unit as representing not so much actual players on the battle field, but a representation of the influence that both groups wielded both on the common people and on the leaders, in terms of morale and whether or not a particular choice was just and/or wise.

As to their reality/fantasy, I think that would be very hard to show either way with ‘hard facts.’ At best one must make some conjectures as to their place. I have no doubt that throughout modern Christianity that priest have participated in battle. It is also possible that priest participated during the time that BI occurred. The specific prohibition against a priest shedding blood or taking a life did not become official scripture (Cor 11:26) until the end of the BI time frame, a time period where many ‘versions’ of Christianity were in existence and a struggle was going on as to dominance. As such, versions of Christianity that did not prohibit priest participation in shedding blood and killing might have existed.

By the middle ages, while the church had many military orders, the ranks of these orders were not filled with actual priests, but with feverent faithful (well, usually….hopefully….ok, sometimes.) The bottom line, this was most likely due to the fact that there weren’t that many priests. Add on to that the fact of the immense cost and time required to train someone for the priesthood (indoctrination, reading and writing, history as far as the faith is concerned) and the few priests that did exists certainly would not be wasted in something so risky as a battle. So while a few priests here and there might take up the club (or sickle) it is unlikely in my opinion that they did so in any organized military size groups.

[King of Atlantis]

Pope Julius II led troops into combat both before and after he became pope. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08562a.htm

many popes lead armies, the Pope was the most powereful man in europe for a long time, of course he would have an army


No one seemed to think that was at all unusual. And of course, there are the military religious orders, of which there were over a hundred:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10304d.htm


Knights Templar can never be considered preist..

Also, from a description of the Bayeux Tapestry:


"Famously the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Norman conquest of England shows Bishop Odo, bishop of Bayeux, with a club in his hand lashing out against the enemy. The Bishop's rationale for his actions was that it wasn't a sharpened weapon"

http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/cupboard/fi...says/essay2.htm

Your right as i have said through this whole debate there was exeptions ot the rule and im sure you can find some other priest that fought, but not as a standard.

[King of Atlantis]

Well, priests as shown in this unit are hardly civilians if they go near battle lines, have clubs and pray.


Thats the whole point! They should be like civilians that might follow an army, but not be a part of it.

[caesar44]

Just an anecdote - when Stalin was doing the usual things he did (maybe killed some priests or smashed churchs) his assistants said to him "but the pope...he is going to be our enemy..." Stalin asked - "how many divisions the man have"...

What a man he was...

[Mongoose]

Well, priests as shown in this unit are hardly civilians if they go near battle lines, have clubs and pray.

Yes, but they take up an army "slot".

One again, the following would be 100% realistic

1:retinue(sp?) characters
2:Generals
3:Groups visible beyond the red line
4:Officers

But not entire units.

[Brutus]

Not true Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (Pope), followed by Saint Paul.
St. Paul never was bishop of Rome (or pope, for that matter). Both names, Catholic or Orthodox, more or less mean the same and could be used for the most popular form of Christianity in these ages, only later (after the Great Schism of 1054) did they really seperate and Catholic came to signify the Latin, Orthodox the Greek Church per se. In these ages, therefore, the unified leadership of the pope was very much not established and if pursued by a bishop of Rome (certainly not by all), it was very much disputed by the patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria).

[Murmandamus]

Perhaps they would be better as a strategic map unit like MI rather than an army unit?

Put them into other towns like spies to spread christianity and cause rebellion, or merge them with your army to get the battle bonus.

Yes? No?

[lars573]

Oh they are putting in those too don't worry.

[pezhetairoi]

If you're going to put priests in battle, then at least let them be knights-templar lookalikes instead of permitting them to commit sacrilege by using those terrible cricifixes as murder weapons. Crucifixes are icons, not weapons.

Even the Pope needed divisions, not monastic orders, to fight the Crusades.

[HarunTaiwan]

One reason you want the priests on the field....


So your pagan forces can kill or capture them.

Will there be a "sacrafice prisioners" button?

[King of Atlantis]

One reason you want the priests on the field....


So your pagan forces can kill or capture them.

Will there be a "sacrafice prisioners" button?

I hope somebody mods them to change their clubs to bibles and giving them super human stats. Now that would be some fun playing.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Why not go the hole nine yards (which nine yards was meant with that originally btw?) and have them function as onagers as a way of depicting devine intervention on the battlefield. :dizzy2: ~D

[Productivity]

It's the same discussion as the Screaming Women. Were women, at some point, moral boosters to their men in battle? Yes. Did they, at times, lend their arms to the battle? Yes. Was it ever done in anything near the way it's portrayed in RTW? Absolutely not.


For those who missed this fine statement the first time. Nobody is denying the existance of priests, just the portrayal of them.

[screwtype]

Put them into other towns like spies to spread christianity and cause rebellion, or merge them with your army to get the battle bonus.

Yes? No?

That's a cool idea Murmandamus. I would support that.

[King of Atlantis]

I think anybody here would support them as an agent, not a unit though.

[pezhetairoi]

you bet. priests are just bad on the battlefield.