Gaesatae way too overpowered [Archive]

Rex_Pelasgorum

04-03-2007, 14:52

I do agree that nevertheless they where terrifying units on the battlefields, drugged and fanatical fighters, howewer i find them terribly owerpowered considering the fact that they are basically naked unarmoured man !

Just imagine that a single well pointed arrow, javelin or good cut with the sword would kill the Gaseatae. Not to imagine that any warrior would target his genitalia with the sword or the spear. Despite the fact that they where not used in the battlefields only very rarely (a few times, maybe) thus not represented in EB, even attack dogs could disable in real life units such as the Gaesatae, as they where trained to attack the "soft parts".

Even if the Gaesatae would sustain terrible injuries and still continue to fight, eventually they will dye due to the injuries after the battles. Ancient times had no good medicin, and disabled warriors where left to their doom. It is hard to believe for me that in real history Gaesatae could overcome spartans, roman elite legions, and so on.

Just for a test, i have fought a custom battle on hard , in wich i made a siege with a full stack of Gaesatae against a walled city with 2 full stacks of good armenian infantryman. I even roleplayed the battle, sending the Gaesatae to attack in wawes. Still, in the end, i won by killing 5000 or so of the enemyes and having lost less than 300 man. This is irealistic. Not to mention that i lost few man due to arrow fire, despite that there was a constant arrow barrage from the walls. This is not realistic at all.

Anyway, they are a very cool unit, and fun to fight using them. especially in custom battles, where you can build full stacks of them and put them to fight against different enemyes.

I just wanted to point out that the way they are implemented and their attributes are terribly exagerated, at least in my opinion as a future historian.

with respect,
Rex Pelasgorum

Domitius Ulpianus

04-03-2007, 15:24

"Just for a test, i have fought a custom battle on hard"

Maybe the problem is right here...

Morte66

04-03-2007, 15:34

Are they a multi-hitpoint unit by any chance?

I hate multi-hitpoint units (except elephants and chariots). The first reason I moved to EB from RTR was the single hitpoint for general's bodyguards.

[Then I discovered that the EB trait system can give them five or more hitpoints, and saw some real nonsense on the battlefield. I sent a whole Pontic army to kill a Seleucid general (greek bodyguard cavalry) who'd already fled implausibly from one field, surounded him and his two troops with pike phalanxes six deep, pursued him with two generals' fast cavalry units when he escaped the phalangites, and watched him run off the field. He did it again in a similar battle next turn. That man survived three concerted attempts to kill him, then died in a siege. He took nine hoplites with him, fighting alone against about seventy of them in the town square.]

paullus

04-03-2007, 15:43

AI generals do usually rack up some extra hitpoints (your generals shouldn't get too many extra, often only 1) but do remember that otherwise, and even in spite of this, they frequently die in battle. If they didn't have extra hitpoints, it would be awfully rare for AI generals to survive at all.

As regards the gaesatae, someone raises this issue every few months, with slightly more frequency than the occasional "the elephants are overpowered." I've never had trouble fighting either gaesatae or elephants, myself, so I'm never sure what the problem is. With the elephants, you hit 'em with a few volleys and that should be about it. With the gaesatae, I usually pin them, get someone in their flank or rear, hit them with a few volleys, and charge. Its rarely very difficult, and not because I'm really good (which I'm not).

Foot

04-03-2007, 15:45

The first reason I moved to EB from RTR was the single hitpoint for general's bodyguards.

[Then I discovered that the EB trait system can give them five or more hitpoints, and saw some real nonsense on the battlefield. I sent a whole Pontic army to kill a Seleucid general (greek bodyguard cavalry) who'd already fled implausibly from one field, surounded him and his two troops with pike phalanxes six deep, pursued him with two generals' fast cavalry units when he escaped the phalangites, and watched him run off the field. He did it again in a similar battle next turn. That man survived three concerted attempts to kill him, then died in a siege. He took nine hoplites with him, fighting alone against about seventy of them in the town square.]

Um, your talking about two different things there.

No mod would ever allow a general to have fewer than two hitpoints, then they would die fast and you would lose generals quickly, too quickly. Our trait system certainly does not give a general five or more hitpoints, thats just nonsense. Certainly generals are hard to kill, and perhaps they are slightly harder to kill in EB, however that has nothing to do with the gaesatae or two-hitpoint generals anyway.

Foot

Rilder

04-03-2007, 16:28

Gaesatae are so not overpowered,Hammer and Anvil, skirmishers and Viagra are great tactics to take care of them, when I was playing my Medium battle difficulty(like you should) Those Gaesatae (in those north italy rebel provinces) were easy Imho, sure if you stick like 20 of them there gonna wtfbbqpwn you but thats why they call them elite units.

Fondor_Yards

04-03-2007, 16:29

Heh if you don't like them now, your lucky you weren't planning .72, when they were a lot stronger.

But even so, they aren't that strong. In a battle yesterday *me romans, they aedui*, they had 2 units of gaesatae, which is pretty average. The first unit lost about 10-18 men from pilum and a lot lost 2nd HP. My marian legionaries then brutally crushed them in meele. And what surpised me the most was they were the first enemy unit to rout. They had send 4 total to attack way before the rest of their army got there *1 gaesatae, 1 Batacorii, 1 Gaelaiche, and something else*, and the gaesatae went first, and the Gaelaiche held out the longest.

And for the other unit, that was their front line of this massive inf push fight. My marians were slowly eating them up in meele, when the cav hit their giant inf mass from behind and routed it all.

Bonny

04-03-2007, 16:50

Just for a test, i have fought a custom battle on hard"

Maybe the problem is right here...

In costum battle the bonusses are being granted for both the ai and the player, so it makes no difference...

Domitius Ulpianus

04-03-2007, 17:03

In costum battle the bonusses are being granted for both the ai and the player, so it makes no difference...

Ohhh did not know that...I never play custom battles...sorry my bad.:oops:

Anyway, as other have said...I use the same tactic to defeat "The crazy mob of sausage swinging warriors":clown: the same tactic I use for any other infantry unit. Soften with missiles (Even if you don't see them dying it doesn't mean it is not effective...it will at least remove 1 hp.), Engage, Flank, Rout and Pursuit. I swear it is as simple as it sounds.

The_Mark

04-03-2007, 17:37

In costum battle the bonusses are being granted for both the ai and the player, so it makes no difference...
Or wasn't that fixed in some update?

Pelopidas

04-03-2007, 17:42

The problem is also the use of a FULL STACK of Gaesatae, no ?
Use a full stack of Spartans Hoplitais / Thorakitai Agyraspidai / Parthan Cataphracts / etc... and you'll get same results.

Personnaly, I never use more than a few ultra-elite units, except for ropleplay reasons ( my Spartan army field more than two unit of Spartans, and my Athenian army had no Spartan but a certain number of elite hoplitais, and U never place more than 2 Gaesatae in my Pontics and Gauls armies )

Now, when the Gaesatae received no arrows, no slings, and charge on hand-to-hand fighting without a single loss, yes, they could be nasty...if the player doesn't flank them.

Morte66

04-03-2007, 17:54

Um, your talking about two different things there.

So are the hitpoints for the general himself (one man) different from the hitpoints for his bodyguard?

If so, that's no so bad. Sorry for talking rot.

thought the EB bodyguard cavalry was making sense, and not fighting like 2 hitpoint RTR bodyguards or Spartans/Basternae etc. Should have trusted my (substantial) gut over my (apparently less substantial) brain.]

Our trait system certainly does not give a general five or more hitpoints, thats just nonsense.

I've got a general Artaxerxes Herakleotes, faction heir of Pontos, with:
Base hitpoints: ??
Man grown: "+1 to your general's hitpoints"
Hale and Hearty: "+3 to your general's hitpoints"
Proud Veteran: "+1 to your general's hitpoints"

So he's got at least 6, if his base is 1. I'm pretty sure that Seleucid general I eventually killed had base+6, but there are about forty game saves he could be in so it's hard to check.

Foot

04-03-2007, 18:01

So are the hitpoints for the general himself (one man) different from the hitpoints for his bodyguard?

If so, that's no so bad. Sorry for talking rot.

thought the EB bodyguard cavalry was making sense, and not fighting like 2 hitpoint RTR bodyguards or Spartans/Basternae etc. Should have trusted my (substantial) gut over my (apparently less substantial) brain.]

The unit are given their hitpoints in the edu, the general himself is given hitpoints by the traits and they can only effect himself.

I've got a general Artaxerxes Herakleotes, faction heir of Pontos, with:
Base hitpoints: ??
Man grown: "+1 to your general's hitpoints"
Hale and Hearty: "+3 to your general's hitpoints"
Proud Veteran: "+1 to your general's hitpoints"

So he's got at least 6, if his base is 1. I'm pretty sure that Seleucid general I eventually killed had base+6, but there are about forty game saves he could be in so it's hard to check.

Wow, we should probably put a cap on that or something. Sorry for not believing you.

Foot

NeoSpartan

04-03-2007, 18:05

gaestae are NOT way overpowered. In medium battle diffuclty they are not that big a deal, in H or in VH you better use terrain advantage, missiles, phalanx, cavalry, outflanking, whatever advantages are available to you.

Morte66

04-03-2007, 18:08

The unit are given their hitpoints in the edu,

Gotcha. I edited that (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=89389) for RTRPE/ExRM, making it like EB, and I was a lot happier afterwards.

the general himself is given hitpoints by the traits and they can only effect himself.

Fine, I can see the sense in that.

O'ETAIPOS

04-03-2007, 18:21

Mind you Gaestae are on drugs. I do not know what they were using, but heard that Zulu wariors (obviously only some) were using some kind of poison, that made them almost super human - not feeling pain, not feeling fear, only what they want was to kill as much enemy as possible. At a cost obviously - they died after the battle in 1-3 days.

Info about them fighting with arm crushed by bullet for example, or big pieces of flesh missing are strangely simillar to those about Celts charging with sarissa through the stomach.

On the other hand do not underestimate skill in weapon handling. If you have seen japaneese martial arts (don't know name of the katana fighting one) this is how very skilled warrior of every era would fight.
If you reach enough high level, you need no armour, or more precisely there is bigger danger that armour will block some crucial moves than a chance that someone will be able to reach you with a sword.

For Seleucid Bodyguards there is one cure in pontic army - chariots. They are not too good for anyting else, but they cut heavy cavalry like no other unit. after while, or if they are loosing they should be reinforced by some cav and that's all.

RabbitDynamite

04-03-2007, 18:35

One possible solution would be to lower their armour a point or two to further emphasise their (existing) weakness to missile fire. I mean, I know 5 is standard for helmeted celt units, but the Gaestae are, well nude.

Ower

04-03-2007, 18:56

I read somewhere on this pforum, tahat the problem whit the generals, is in RTW 1.5, wich gives them more hitpoints, (unknow amout) wich makes them harder to kill, thats why you often see the on against all, situation.
Although they are hadr to kill, its posibble, and many times the first thing i do in battles.

Amenophis

04-03-2007, 19:05

The problem is not so much the unit itself, but when the AI starts spamming them. It is not uncommon to see 10-15 units in a full stack. I am not sure what is the best way to handle the problem though. I thought about increasing their cost to cut down on their appeal, but it might do weird things to the AI since I am mid campaign. I am also thinking about tweaking the stats. Something about seeing a bunch of naked guys with 2 hit points just doesn't seem right.

bovi

04-03-2007, 19:07

I believe their armour is not merely from their helmet, but an abstraction for being able to shrug off missiles due to the drugs.

Foot

04-03-2007, 19:15

Something about seeing a bunch of naked guys with 2 hit points just doesn't seem right.

Have you read their description. They drug themselves up to the eyeballs on pcp and then go into battle chanting war songs. There are accounts of one of these guys taking a javelin to the chest and just shrugging it off. 2hp is the only way to represent this

Foot

Orb

04-03-2007, 19:18

I think the problem with the generals just comes from the fact that they (themselves) have multiple hitpoints anyway, which combined with high armour values means that they take aaaaaaaaaaages to go down. It's not actually very avoidable without making the general's bodyguard die far too quickly.

Dumbass

04-03-2007, 19:23

I believe their armour is not merely from their helmet, but an abstraction for being able to shrug off missiles due to the drugs.

Isn't that what the 2hp is for?

The Errant

04-03-2007, 20:26

The unit are given their hitpoints in the edu, the general himself is given hitpoints by the traits and they can only effect himself.

Wow, we should probably put a cap on that or something. Sorry for not believing you.

Foot

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=81562&highlight=generals

Remember this thread Foot? The issue with the generals hitpoints has come up before. I think the majority expressed the opinion, that something, anything had to be done to make the generals weaker instead of having them as some sort of Jedi Supermen.
If the average enemy general has 6+ hitpoints due to the amazing amount of experience and traits they seem to pick up something is seriously wrong here.
In an assault it's quite common to see all other defenders slaughtered to the last man but the generals simply won't die.
If you can put a cap on their hitpoints to 2 max 3 (Base 1, the other trough traits) they will still be tougher than the average soldier but not impossible to kill, like some enemy generals that manage to escape with a few lousy militia survivors, only to come back the next turn with a full stack of mercs and a regenerated bodyguard. :wall:

antisocialmunky

04-03-2007, 21:02

They aren't that hard to take down. Granted half stacks of them are INZANE. However, if the AI starts doing that, you might just have to start dragging around tons of slingers.

Rex_Pelasgorum

04-03-2007, 21:19

Hmm, i play battles by hard, because i play campaign at medium due to my non-agresive external politics.I like alot diplomacy and on hard and very hard campaign, there is little if any of it...

ABout the Generals, the Seleucid generals seem weaklings to me. I fight on hard battles with Armenian against them, and even the crappy Caucaza Sparabara can take on them easily. Even if they have 6 or 7 stars.

If you pinn them down with spears, they will die very easily. Also, when general vs general charges, always press the "alt" key when ordering to charge. So, the cavalry will use in close combat swords instead of spears, wich will make the killing more easy.

Amenophis

04-03-2007, 21:30

Have you read their description. They drug themselves up to the eyeballs on pcp and then go into battle chanting war songs. There are accounts of one of these guys taking a javelin to the chest and just shrugging it off. 2hp is the only way to represent this

Foot

I understand the reasoning behind the 2 hit points, but still think an unamoured man is going to be more susceptible to a fatal wound then one even wearing a simple pectoral plate, pcp or not. Since they are drugged out beserkers, maybe they should have a lower defence skill? More concerned with attack then defence? High defence skill plus 2 hit points makes for one incredibly tough unit.

Really my only problem with the unit is when the AI starts to spam them. Maybe they should be higher cost/maintenance to reflect their worth?

antisocialmunky

04-03-2007, 22:04

Well, I think their defense takes into account of the ferocity of their attack. Its hard to kill a naked guy if they're fighting wildly with a single minded purpose to pain you.

If you haven't tried already, throw slingers at them. They die spectacularly well to those guys like almost everything else that isn't insanely armoured. Two slinger bullets will take them down.

Orb

04-03-2007, 22:28

asm has a point, if you were looking at a drugged up lunatic, who you can't actually seem to hurt, you'd be more concerned about defence than attack.

They don't really need higher costs, they are actually not too hard to nail unless you're on hard, provided you use the correct strategies. They shouldn't be easy to take down. As a human, you are probably used to cakewalk AI. See this as a fun challenge: how to beat a ****load of gaesatae with a balanced stack.

Fondor_Yards

04-04-2007, 04:44

Yonk!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=58846

Kull

04-04-2007, 06:06

zonks32

04-04-2007, 06:36

Watchman

04-04-2007, 07:13

There's actually only about two things people actually die of - enough direct damage to a sufficiently vital organ (the brain and the heart, and the latter may be conditional), and going into system shock. The latter is the most common, at least as battle damage goes, and is brought about by the body's regulatory system going haywire due to trauma and/or blood loss. How much of the former varies wildly by individual; even perfectly normal folks can sometimes keep going for quite a while with quite grievous wounds while others are down for the count from comparatively minor damage. The latter is fairly constant as the circulatory system tends to go bonkers if too large a portion of blood is lost.

The whole point in pain-killing combat drugs - an effect also achievable, if unreliably, through the natural hormonal secretions of the brain (endorphine makes morphine look wimpy) and/or suitable psychological conditions - is to circumvent most of the above by flatly cutting off the sensory feed that tells the system it even has suffered such damage in the first place. If the body simply doesn't know it has suffered such injuries it will try to keep going as if nothing had happened, until the point where enough blood loss and damage is accumulated that this becomes impossible and the system just shuts down. But without the normal feedback that brings about the shock state, this can take quite a while.

Now, of course, broken bones and such are still broken bones and will limit the functionality of the body if they're in the right place (say, limbs), regardless of whether the body deigns to notice the matter; but people with their sense of pain shut off can nonetheless do some very abnormal things simply by the virtue of flatly ignoring the "damage report" feedback that makes normal folks stop doing stupid and harmful things and curl into a screaming fetal ball instead.

It's not likely to be very healthy ignoring the warning signals like that of course, but that's a cold comfort to the guy whose sword in your gut you're not even noticing and instead cut off his head. And, really, many if not most such injuries would be lethal down the road anyway, so there's a certain amount of sense behind figuring out a way to keep going and (hopefully) killing regardless - if the spear wound in your chest will kill you sooner or later anyway, isn't it better you remain funtional long enough to kill the guy who delivered it and maybe some of his mates to boot rather than drop on the spot ? Certainly seems to fit the rather uncompromising views the Celts seem to have held about combat, death and the afterlife too.

Armour 5 for the Gaesatae is incidentally more or less in line with the rest of the Celtic swordsmen. Those "Northern" types have helmets similar to the Gaesataes' plus shirts and trousers, and get a 5 out of it. The "Southern" and Briton types have just trousers and get something like 3 from that, and I don't quite think lime-spiked hair counts for too much. I figure it partly represents their ability to duck behind their large shields for cover, and in the case of the guys with good helmets the fact the part that's mainly visible and reachable behind the shield is well protected by solid iron.

Kull

04-04-2007, 07:18

I dont care how high on drugs they are, their is only so much the body can take, blood loss for starters, you lose a limb, you are going to bleed to death very soon if there is no treatment, or any vital organ hit, muscles destroyed from any weapon will not work no matter how much the brain wants it to, even being stunned by a projectile.
I dont mind a challenge, but when a group of naked men run across a bridge and my men launch 400-600 javelins into them, plus the volleys of arrows, there will be substantial losses.
There may have been accounts of men pulling javelins from their chest and fighting on, but they would have been rare.
I think 2hp is fair, very high morale and attack, but armour on a naked man ?, I think the 2hp is enough to simulate their tolerance to pain.

Reality check. They aren't "naked men running across a bridge". These guys have good sized shields and helmets, which mean that proper defensive techniques will leave about as much flesh exposed to a javelin as would almost any other unit out there. EB didn't make these guys up. They existed and were renowned for ferocity on the battlefield. If nakedness was that much of an achilles heel, they'd have disappeared with nary a mention in the historical record.

bovi

04-04-2007, 07:19

I dont mind a challenge, but when a group of naked men run across a bridge and my men launch 400-600 javelins into them, plus the volleys of arrows, there will be substantial losses.

They die when you put 400-600 javelins into them. You exaggerate. Also, try sending those javelins in from their righthand side or rear. Massive carnage.

Originally Posted by bovi
I believe their armour is not merely from their helmet, but an abstraction for being able to shrug off missiles due to the drugs.

Isn't that what the 2hp is for?

Yes. That too. With no armour, they would go splat from a single volley from their unshielded sides, whether they had 2 or 5 hitpoints.

Rilder

04-04-2007, 07:20

The Errant

04-04-2007, 07:24

Capping human generals might make sense (though it's likely impossible to discriminate), but the AI has a bad tendency to toss it's general units into battle early on, and that makes them quite susceptible to early loss of the general, with subsequent morale hits and easier routing of the entire enemy army.

Personally I prefer a tougher opponent, and it's infrequent to encounter the "general-who-will-not-die", although certainly a fair number escape to fight again. And on one level it IS frustrating to defeat an enemy and then see him return to battle a turn or so later leading a massive force of newly recruited mercenaries. But there's a certain extra *something* about those battles, isn't there? I mean usually the AI army is led by just one more semi-faceless enemy family member. But fighting the same guy 2 or 3 times is a whole other story. It's almost personal. This guy escaped against all odds and he DARES to return and fight again? You can almost feel the adrenaline flowing. How can that be bad?

It's frustrating cause the AI dosen't feel the loss. If an army of the human player gets wiped out, you feel the loss. Worst case you loose two or three cities depending on the protection of that single army and general.
For the AI it's like: OK. I lost. No big deal. I still got a ton of money and since the first assault didn't work I'll just try another one. Only this time I'll do with two stacks of elites and regulars and one merc. stack.
Historically when the AS lost it's field army against the Romans their whole empire started falling apart. Here it's like. No big deal we will just make a new one.
I know the AI generals are often couragous to the point of foolishness. But I've also seen the AI adapt it's armies to better face up to human players. One of my stacks was almost all skirmisher cavalry. After beating a couple stacks with them the AI brought a stack of phalangites, slingers and those bolt throwing warmachines. My poor cavalty got it's ass handed to it in that battle. Same if you use lots of skirmishers the AI will eventually throw a more cavalry heavy army against you.
While far from being competent it's apparent that the AI has atleast faint glimmer of intelligence.
I'm not asking you to make the AI generals into wimps. I'm asking you to make them human instead of supermen. Who knows the AI might actually start to use it's generals in a more sensible way than as early shock units.

Compared to AI generals Gaesatae are a walk in the park. Drugged up and religious zealots they may be, but they still have only 2 HP compared to the AI Superman general 6+ HP their weak. Best part is the bastards on foot. Archers, slingers, JavCav and HA can get on their exposed side easily and hurt them before the Gaesatae hit you. The generals take an insane amount of pounding, and when they finally rout, it's a one turn reprieve unless you manage to kill him. Even then the AI will get a new candidate for adoption and the whole circus starts all over again. :wall:

Sheep

04-04-2007, 07:48

I dunno how relevant it is to the situation, but I have personally seen a (really stupid) warthog headbutt a rhino, get impaled and flipped into the air by the rhino's horn, land twenty feet away, get up, run a couple hundred yards with its intestines dragging behind it, and then chase a baby gazelle around a bit until it finally died. And this was without any drugs at all, just pure adrenaline, stubbornness, and a bad attitude!

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

04-04-2007, 08:05

Personally I prefer a tougher opponent, and it's infrequent to encounter the "general-who-will-not-die", although certainly a fair number escape to fight again. And on one level it IS frustrating to defeat an enemy and then see him return to battle a turn or so later leading a massive force of newly recruited mercenaries. But there's a certain extra *something* about those battles, isn't there? I mean usually the AI army is led by just one more semi-faceless enemy family member. But fighting the same guy 2 or 3 times is a whole other story. It's almost personal. This guy escaped against all odds and he DARES to return and fight again? You can almost feel the adrenaline flowing. How can that be bad?
I agree. Those AI generals who won't die are both annoying and a cool chance of a kind of role play. I remember one Parthian guy named "Zoroaster of Somewhere" (ironic since he was blessed by the gods - 7-8 command, tons of HP, his armies would never break). This guy would attack me with an army every year, often twice a year. A situation where I amagined my "Parthicus" general had a personal conflict with him and a mutual respect. I eventually chased him down with a horse archer army when he was away from his army. It was more of an assassination than a death in battle.

I just wish returning guys wouldn't fully replenish their bodyguards withing a turn.

Watchman

04-04-2007, 08:07

Sheep

04-04-2007, 08:14

Yeah, and this was a captive-raised warthog! Not even a wild one!

Moros

04-04-2007, 09:04

Don't get children, sheep. Don't.

zonks32

04-04-2007, 09:08

"They die when you put 400-600 javelins into them. You exaggerate. Also, try sending those javelins in from their righthand side or rear. Massive carnage."

I do not exaggerate, read my post again a you may notice that I said "substantial" losses, not no losses.
Because I dont post often does not mean I dont know how to play, Iv'e been playing as long as anyone, though history is my hobby I dont pretend to know everything.
This is your mod and you design it as you see fit, I would not be here if I did not enjoy playing EB, its an awsome achievement.

The naked fanatics may be able to carry on with mortal wounds as portrayed in EB, but in EB these wounds are not mortal, they live to fight in other battles.
So simulating their drug crazed state in game by jacking up their stats is all well and good, but how do simulate when the drugs wear off and they drop dead.

LorDBulA

04-04-2007, 09:29

but how do simulate when the drugs wear off and they drop dead.

Not possible. If we could do it we would do it.

Watchman

04-04-2007, 11:46

They'd have to do something similar with the Soldurii as well you know - those guys do have suicide pacts with each other after all.

Hardcore warrior societies spawn some weird stuff.

Ludens

04-04-2007, 15:04

I just wish returning guys wouldn't fully replenish their bodyguards withing a turn.
I agree. I haven't had a problem with jedi-generals, but perhaps that is because I tend to soften them up with a few missile volleys beforehand. Also, it seem realistic to me that generals should be very hard to kill. In reality, their bodyguards would be actively protecting them, and helping them get away. The only really unrealistic thing is how fast their bodyguard regenerates.

dofod

04-04-2007, 15:14

The only other way (besides assassinating the general) to make soldier die is from a plague...I am just wondering if somehow all this massive deaths in the battle (or battles) can generate that in a randomized event...it would tip some balances, no?

Actually if the 'plague' (kill a bunch of people command for no other apparent reason, simply put) can be implemented in some other use then perhaps they can simulate the post-drug trauma experienced by the Gaesatae...yet I guess the function is hardcoded and not exactly possible to modify...?

antisocialmunky

04-04-2007, 15:19

In BI, you can have recruitable generals. If the general dies, the whole unit dies. Of course they would respawn if the general didn't die but I'm sure you could give the Gaestae general 2 HP like the rest of them.

Centurion Varricus

04-04-2007, 17:07

Just a comment on the overpowerd Generals.

I also found generals escaping when seemingly trapped. I found that my problem was that I was engaging in combat in defensive mode. I assume that this means that as the units hold their formation there are gaps through which the general can escape between the units. I resolved this by taking off the defensive mode and the units soon surrounded the enemy (general or other) and the fighting to the death symbol would appear.

I would like to offer a suggestion for debate.
if the generals bodyguard had increased defensive capabilities but reduced attack capabilities so as to act more like a bodyguard and not an elite attacking unit. Elite units, by contrast to have higher attack ratings but lower defensive attributes. I would imagine then that elite units would be more highly valued and only used to swing battles and comitted at the last.
I know its out of the time frame but think of Xerxes and his Immortals at thermopolye (spelling) Elite units were usually sent in at the end. If the risk of losing your elite unit means you keep them until you have to use them, then I think this is quite realistic. I know there are exceptions to the Xerxes situation, Alexander the Great lead from the front but it was a great personal risk to himself and his plans of empire.

Your thoughts please

Frostwulf

04-23-2007, 21:02

"The Roman commanders advanced their javelin throwers (velites), who moved ahead of the infantry and discharged their missiles, the Gaesatae were soon in difficulties. The shield used by the Celts does not cover the whole body, and so the tall stature of these naked warriors made the missiles all the more likely to find their mark. Yet if the Gaesatae were carrying the usual Celtic oval shield, they were surely well protected?
The Gaesatae found themselves subject to a murderous barrage of javelins while being unable to close with their adversaries. Some of them broke ranks, and rushed forward to engage the enemy, throwing away their lives as they ran forward and thus made themselves a more vulnerable target. The others wre pushed back on the Insubres, who were behind their ranks. They were thrown into disorder. Unable to get near the Roman ranks for hand to hand combat, cut to pieces by the rain of missiles, the Gaesatae were finally broken". -Peter B. Ellis /Battle of Telamon 224 BC.

This is what I was getting at about the lack of armor, and being in melee combat wouldnt be much different. This is the only thing I could find of actual combat involving the Gaesatae. Where can I find more information on these guys including the battles,formation, the drugs they used and etc?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-23-2007, 21:44

Watchman

04-23-2007, 21:55

If the track record of the various Viking berserker-type troops and comparable phenomenoms from other instances and cultures are anything to judge by, skilled warriors who went for the crazed "slay or die" approach to melee combat were rather nasty customers to deal with and way harder to take down than their overall lack of concern with defense and typically noticeable lack of armour as well would make one think.

A projectile, on the other hand, is a dumb object that does not worry about keeping itself alive a few seconds longer, wet its pants in fear, have to concern itself with managing to put in an effective attack while simultaneously trying to stay alive, and generally suffer from the problem human troops have in hand-to-hand combat. Especially against uncomfortably skilled nutcases unconcerned with pain or fear or their own mortality.

mAIOR

04-23-2007, 22:23

Yeah the problem with pre-polybian romans would be that most of them had little armor. And, if you have a dude with little armor, no pain reducing drugs and a wish to come back alive and a dude with no armor, drugged to a frenzin and who doesn't care if you removed a considerable portion of his intestine, I place my money on the second one. Gaesatae are fine in EB as they are I believe. I seldomly have problems with them (ok when they send 2 units in the middle of a battle where you're at numerical disadvantage and your troops are spent, granted they can bother you...) as I'm able to dispatch them easilly (nothing beats a triarii charge from the flanks to teach them rascals a thing or two about warare) thanks to missiles and heavy infantry.
I believe the main problem is most people trying to take them 2 on 1 with weak troops like pre-Polybian Princeps or Hastatii. Those guys have little armor and I imagine in Real life they'd want to get home to their wifes and fields again. So that gives Gaesatae a heads up no?
Also their drug would probably be some kind of Fungus (maybe grain fungus common in France responsible for severe alucinations like werewolves and vampires and lycantropy behavior) as they produce some nasty side effects...

Cheers...

Watchman

04-23-2007, 23:04

Back in 0.81 I once wiped out two Eleutheroi bandit Gaesatae with something like one unit of Brihentin bodyguards, one Leuce Epos, and two Sotaroas (and a lot of running around). And that's just because I didn't feel like taking pointless infantry casualties by bringing those in.

Whenever they turn up as parts of larger armies they tend to attract the undivided attention of most of my missile troops for a while. After that, and swallowing whatever precursor javelins they've got coming, they tend to go down or rout obediently enough in melee.

Overpowered, meh. You just need to take the correct approach. Granted I've never had to fight multiple-gold-chevron monster editions, but then again unless I had comparable HC killing machines traipsing around I'd just bury such under a mountain of pointy things and pebbles and forget about even trying to eliminate most of them up close.

Kralizec

04-23-2007, 23:16

The only real problem I have with the Gaesatae is that realisticly some of them would die from their wounds after the battle, but RTW can't handle that. Elephants have the same problem but it's rare that someone demands that they be nerfed.

Watchman

04-23-2007, 23:37

Strictly speaking the Solduri with their suicide pacts ought to suffer some excess after-battle casualties as well, but, well...

Frostwulf

04-25-2007, 03:48

The Gaesatae are beserkers, they don't do defence. In reality if you were in melee combat with one you'd be dead sooner than you could blink. You have to gravitate between attack and defence, the big naked guy will just attack until you die.

If the track record of the various Viking berserker-type troops and comparable phenomenoms from other instances and cultures are anything to judge by, skilled warriors who went for the crazed "slay or die" approach to melee combat were rather nasty customers to deal with and way harder to take down than their overall lack of concern with defense and typically noticeable lack of armour as well would make one think.

A projectile, on the other hand, is a dumb object that does not worry about keeping itself alive a few seconds longer, wet its pants in fear, have to concern itself with managing to put in an effective attack while simultaneously trying to stay alive, and generally suffer from the problem human troops have in hand-to-hand combat. Especially against uncomfortably skilled nutcases unconcerned with pain or fear or their own mortality.

I really would hesitate to call them beserkers in the traditional sense. The beserker-gang in history was typically a teutonic thing(with some exceptions). From what I have read the Gaesatae didnt behave like beserkers at all. The beserker works himself into a frenzy(biting shield,howling etc.) then charges into combat. The Gaesatae are very well ordered and disciplined, the beserkers are neither of those. Also the Gaesatae fought with big numbers, historically you rarely find that many beserkers, let alone fighting together. As far as the projectile situation, as you said its a dumb object. The missile may not have fear but the thrower might even though he may be further away. In hand to hand combat you have humans feinting and other tactics, not just a dumb object falling out of the sky.The human in melee combat has more opportunities to inflict damage and death.

Yeah the problem with pre-polybian romans would be that most of them had little armor. And, if you have a dude with little armor, no pain reducing drugs and a wish to come back alive and a dude with no armor, drugged to a frenzin and who doesn't care if you removed a considerable portion of his intestine, I place my money on the second one.
I still state that if the individual that was drugged would be worse off in combat due to his numbed state.
"A UK television programme in 2004 tested the possible use of fly agaric and alcohol by training a healthy volunteer in the use of Viking weapons, then evaluating his performance under the influence of fly agaric or alcohol compared to no influence. It was shown that use of fly agaric or alcohol severely reduced his fighting ability, and the tentative conclusion drawn was that berserk state was achieved psychologically; otherwise, berserkers would have been too easy to kill. Of course, this does not take into account the mindset that the berserker likely would have attempted to place himself in." -wikipedia. Granted this is most likely not the stuff the Gaesatae used, but other studies have been done with similar results(on reflexes and etc.)

This is what I was getting at about the lack of armor, and being in melee combat wouldnt be much different. This is the only thing I could find of actual combat involving the Gaesatae. Where can I find more information on these guys including the battles,formation, the drugs they used and etc?
Still looking for this guys. I had to edit this by saying my view on the Gaesatae is just from this limited information. This is why Im looking for more information on this.

-Praetor-

04-25-2007, 05:50

This is what I was getting at about the lack of armor, and being in melee combat wouldnt be much different. This is the only thing I could find of actual combat involving the Gaesatae. Where can I find more information on these guys including the battles,formation, the drugs they used and etc?

Hi.

The following story is not contemporary to the period that occupy us, but I couldn`t help to remember the examples of an entire regiment fighting under the effects of drugs. In Chile during the pacific war in 1879-1883 between a Peru-Bolivian alliance against Chile, there was a gruesome battle called the assault on the Morro of Arica.

It`s an entrentched eminence, a steep cliff or Cape that rises 130m over the sea, and that in such times was fortified with a series of pits, pillbox and extended trenches, as well as the first extensive use of electric minefields in this war (not sure if the first in the world at all).

A regular practice in those days in the chilean army, was to drink chupilca, a mixed and energetic drink that comprised toasted flour and red wine. You can use sugar if you want to (and tastes pretty nice too). In specially merrier or solemn times, ppl drank this mix, not with red wine, but with 50º distilled grape alcohol (aguardiente or flamingwater).

Since this was a special time (the 4ºth line regiment had the mission to lead the main assault and to penetrate the enemy`s defences, so, it was the one that was to take the most horrific casualties of the entire operation), the people prepared their breakfast drink not with wine, but with the distilled alcohol.

But the officers, knowing that the task was a bloddy one, with huge cassualties, mixed their toasted flour with a generous amount of gunpowder.

After taking the beakfast, people started marching to the hill, and not hearing the orders that claimed to respect the time on which the regiment`s assault shoud begin, charged in before the hour planned, with little regard to eventual minefields and/or killing zones created by the conjunction of fields of fire of several companies on a single zone.

In the attack, people of the 4th attacked with a zeal unheard of, not hearing their officers`s commands, and using first the rifle, after they ran out of ammunitions, the bayonet, and after it bended, the very own rifle as a club. It was horrible, and terrible atrocities were made...

After having massacred the detachment defending the lower forts, the gunpowder house blew up because of maybe a fire or because a defeated defender tried to make a last act of defense. Many were blown to pieces. One voice among the multitude shouted "al morro muchachos!" (to the cliff, boys!), and without complying to the shouts of the officers, the entire regiment swept forward wtihout any organization whatsoever, more disorlerly if possible than in the previous assault, and ran straight across a minefield.

People were blown up into the air 2 or 3 meters, then crashed to the ground with barley a scratch but with all their clothes in rags, and continued on climbing. Some had horrific cuts, hands cut in the previous engagement, feets ripped appart with the explosion, legs broken pecause of the falls, ribs broken because of the concussion shrapnel rock from the mine explosions, and even with such hurts and injuries, people fought with an enormous zeal, ignoring "their officer`s orders on discipline, nor god commands on mercy".

That regiment entered that specific battle with 941 able men.

The cassualties of the entire operation were 474, most (if not all) belonging to that regiment. They didn`t had 2HP.

Conclusion: Don`t do drugs, your dick may be severed, and you might not even notice it.

Cheers!

PS: Hope I wasn`t very boring, just wanted to illustrate a modern massive use of drugs in battle.

NeoSpartan

04-25-2007, 06:09

good one K Raso

especially the ending...:laugh4:

Dan_Grr

04-25-2007, 06:45

Very interesting story Raso. As for me, I don't have a problem with Gaetasae, unless they're a full stack of it. In my opinion, if you don't have an army that stands up to a full Gaesatae stack (slinger/skirmisher army, which I find too easy then), then you are supposed to lose, historically and/or gameplay wise. Do we always have to win? A loss is good way to bring us back to earth and add some realism to a campaign.

And if I have one of those inferior and annoying generals who are essentially worthless (Ah! The generals. They are numerous but not good for much) I just martirize him/them and take away as much enemies as I can in the process.

Dayve

04-25-2007, 09:06

I have to agree with the original poster.

The other day, one of my forts in the mountain passes in northern Italy was captured by the Aediu, and i sent a full legion of Polybian troops to retake it... 4 Velites, 4 hastati, 4 principes, 4 triarii, 2 cavalry and a general... Not a good general, he had no command stars, but he also had no traits that would make him a bad general and a +1 morale retinue, armourer.

Anyway, i took two rams... I battered down the gate and the wall next to it and send two units of hastati into each... There were 6 units of gaesatae behind the walls and some lugoae... The gaesatae engaged and the hastati were routing no less than 30 seconds later. I sent in the principes in the same way, 2 into the gate and two into the broken down wall, and had my velites pound the gaesatae with all of their javelins from behind, which caused very few casualties amongst them. 10 minutes later, the principes routed and i sent back in the reformed hastati, who lasted longer this time due to the gaesatae being exhausted.

I rallied the principes and sent them in with the hastati, and sent in my triarii, all 4 units, through the side wall... They managed to break 1 unit of gaesatae and i attacked the unit of gaesatae at the gate from behind with some triarii while i used others to block the passage to the gate by lining them up on defensive mode... Even though surrounded and fighting my elite troops the gaesatae were taking casualties of a rate of like a or 2 per minute and it was taking way too long, so i sent my general and two cavalry in to attack them from behind in the hopes of breaking them, but then my triarii holding the passes to the gate were routed and more gaesatae came through to attack my horsies... The equittes routed very quickly and left the field... I couldn't pull my general away otherwise my other units would get massacred like the rest, and eventually he died in battle and my army routed.

At the end i sent a apy to see what damage i had done, and was amazed to see that they still had 4 full units of gaesatae, 1 just under half strength and one just over half strength...

An entire legion and a dead general for 1 unit of gaesatae behind a wall.

If they aren't overpowered, then Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman.

mAIOR

04-25-2007, 11:25

Wich dificulty are you playing?? also, sending four units of weak hastati against 6 of Gaesatae is suicide. and with such defenses, anything short of 3 Battering Rams is not enough.
Regarding drugs, I bet those voluntaries were not given extasy or LSD or even cocain with gunpowder in it (energetic pain inhibiter drugs). And I talked in another thread of a fungus in Cereals wich caused alucinations and beastly behavior closelly conected to werewolves and vampires. I trully believe the drug they used would be similar probably fungus related because of the effects (if you read reports on "werewolves" you'll see people shot them and they still kept going with wounds that could kill a normal men. howver, if you don't feel pain and your adrenaline is rushing, your body wont go to shock so you'll have more staying power). Take also the Zulu war. There are British reports of Zulus fighting with arms crushed by bullets like they were normal.
If you want to really test the effect of drugs, don't go for the numbing ones.

Cheers...

Birka Viking

04-25-2007, 11:27

Gaesatae are fine as they are...They are good but not too good...Cheers

Danest

04-25-2007, 11:35

They're really only a problem when they're defending a gate and the AI has decided to spam them. It doesn't help if they have max experience and a 10 star general behind them either. But most of all, I think people need to play on medium battle difficulty. I find it strange how many people claim that it's hard to beat certain units on, well, hard battle difficulty.

mucky305

04-25-2007, 15:15

My mother had a friend that was a cop in Glendale, Ca who related the following story. He was involved with pursuing a suspect who had killed his mother by setting her on fire. They cornered the man in an abandoned building and several of the officers pursued inside the building. The man was armed with a shotgun and shot one of the officers. While he had some of the officers pinned, some others circled around and came up behind him. As he turned with shotgun in hand, the officers fired 9 times into his body, seeing the man wasn't falling, one of the officers shot the man in the head with a 9mm Beretta. Assuming the guy was done for, the officer held fire. The man dropped the gun, rubbed his nose, put his hand to the back of his head, probably feeling that his brain was hanging out of it, looked at his bloody hand and looked at the officers. At that point, he stated, "guess you got me with that one" and fell to the ground dead. PCP was found in his system. Now, this guy was a skinny drug addict, so I can only imagine what a 6'2" 225 llbs p.o'ed Celt that has trained his whole life for war could do on a chemical cocktail. *shiver* :skull:

SaFe

04-25-2007, 16:05

Now, this guy was a skinny drug addict, so I can only imagine what a 6'2" 225 llbs p.o'ed Celt that has trained his whole life for war could do on a chemical cocktail. *shiver* :skull:

I will not say anything about the stats, i think they are slightly overpowered, but the team had enough discussion about stats even during the time i was a member, so i think they decided it right.
BUT we should stop thinking that Celts were on average this height, even the good trained and probably well fed warrior elite of the celts.

Swamp and mooor corpses in today's Germany and Denmark tell us a other story about the size of celts, germanics and romans.

It is often noted, that germanics were taller than celts and those were taller than romans.
If the average germanic men reached 175cm - 178 cm (archaelogical findings) and the average roman soldier (not citizen, even here we talk about roman soldiers in the pre-imperial time era, before the most roman units were made of mercenaries from foreign lands) reached ca. 160cm - 165cm, we can guess how tall a typical male celt had grown.
Something between the two numbers i guess.
But 6'2 is definately a super-size man and not the average.
Sure exceptions existed, like for example Teutobod, War-chieftain of the Teutones and numerous others, but we should still stick to the average height of warriors during this time.

Note:
I once had dicussion with Alin and other team members about different height-sizes of units.
Has this feature been dropped?

NeoSpartan

04-25-2007, 19:34

....

Note:
I once had dicussion with Alin and other team members about different height-sizes of units.
Has this feature been dropped?

Now that would be SWEET!!!

I guess you can kind of make a size difference if you put a Gaesatae next to a Hestatii....or may be that my eyes fool me.

Ok back to the ORIGINAL topic. The Gaesatae are NOT overpower. I am playing VH/M in my Aedui campian and honestly I deal with the Rebel Gaesatae with EASE. As a matter of fact I had a hard time believing they didn't kill more of my men (regular Gallic units, non-elites).

If you play smart they shouldn't be a problem, even in VH.

CrownOfSwords

04-25-2007, 19:39

Yeah the thing about units wearing no armor is.... they go down preeeeeeeeeeettty easily to missile fire, every time i see one of those Gaesatae buggers just get your legionaires to throw their pilum at um really devastates them. I think its the morale they have that makes that unit so tough they wont break no matter what even when surrounded by an entire army.

Moros

04-25-2007, 20:02

Note:
I once had dicussion with Alin and other team members about different height-sizes of units.
Has this feature been dropped?
Certain units are bigger than others. The gaesatae for example are a tiny bit bigger than the romans. Also I noticed that the casse two handed swordsmen were a little bigger than their fellow countrymen as well. (This however is an old model and is going to be replaced in a future build)

Fondor_Yards

04-25-2007, 20:12

Watchman

04-25-2007, 22:38

Not to mention that such "breach assault" situations are where tough elite infantry like Gaesatae really shine. Outflanking next to impossible and numbers mainly good as "attrition absorbers" (and irrelevant once the unit breaks), of course they will cheerfully eat up normal troops, burp rudely and ask for more. And their "frighten_foot" attribute only makes the hapless enemy infantry break that much sooner, as if the stark disparity in attack, defence and lethality factors wasn't enough.

I really would hesitate to call them beserkers in the traditional sense.:dizzy2: Good job missing the point, which was not the specific nature and operating principle of the "fanatic" shock infantry in question but rather the general principle and phenomenom.

The beserker-gang in history was typically a teutonic thing(with some exceptions). From what I have read the Gaesatae didnt behave like beserkers at all. The beserker works himself into a frenzy(biting shield,howling etc.) then charges into combat. The Gaesatae are very well ordered and disciplined, the beserkers are neither of those. Also the Gaesatae fought with big numbers, historically you rarely find that many beserkers, let alone fighting together."Make the sacrifice" shock troops haven't been an all that unusual thing in history, actually. Although the exact techniques used rather varied. Anyway, the Gaesatae work by a combination of applied chemistry and sheer bad attitude, whereas if I've understood correctly the Viking bärsärkagång was at least partially a neurological issue. In any case I've read the Vikings at least typically formed their various crazed warriors into small shock units which were employed as "forlorn hopes" to lead assaults and take down enemy leaders.

As far as the projectile situation, as you said its a dumb object. The missile may not have fear but the thrower might even though he may be further away.Such crazed loons are way less intimidating from a distance, especially to a skirmisher who knows he won't have to tackle them mano y mano and can most likely just outrun them if need be anyway. The Roman velites seem to have had no particular problems turning the Gaesatae at Telamon into pincushions anyway.

In hand to hand combat you have humans feinting and other tactics, not just a dumb object falling out of the sky.The human in melee combat has more opportunities to inflict damage and death.I take it you're not very familiar with the basic principles involved ? Having a psychological edge over your opponent, particularly through fear, is a major advantage in hand-to-hand combat. Moreover there is, as it was taught to me, the fact that generally you can parry about three successive blows, tops; after that you'll either need to break contact or launch an effective attack of your own, forcing the other guy onto the defensive, because else your chances of being able to keep up with the other guy's successive attacks will start falling fast.

Now, it's a given fanatical maniacs on combat drugs like the Gaesatae aren't going to be particularly intimidated by about anything (short of an elephant anyway), but they're going to be damn scary to face especially for troops who already have some issues with the ferocious and intimidating Celtic way of doing battle. And being skilled swordsmen unconcerned with pain, fear and fatigue they're going to be real whirlwinds on the attack, and the Celtic longsword was doubtless a most unpleasant device to be at the receiving end of at the best of times. Good luck trying to get them to even pay much attention at your feeble attempts at landing in a blow (especially given their large Celtic infantry shields) - they'll probably quite happily take a down the road lethal wound in exchange of slicing your head off anyway, and not even notice it...

I still state that if the individual that was drugged would be worse off in combat due to his numbed state.
"A UK television programme in 2004 tested the possible use of fly agaric and alcohol by training a healthy volunteer in the use of Viking weapons, then evaluating his performance under the influence of fly agaric or alcohol compared to no influence. It was shown that use of fly agaric or alcohol severely reduced his fighting ability, and the tentative conclusion drawn was that berserk state was achieved psychologically; otherwise, berserkers would have been too easy to kill. Of course, this does not take into account the mindset that the berserker likely would have attempted to place himself in." -wikipedia. Granted this is most likely not the stuff the Gaesatae used, but other studies have been done with similar results(on reflexes and etc.)Alcohol is, whatwasitnow, a depressant. While it was actually fairly often used to relieve fear, officially or not, its effects on the nervous system are notoriously debilating.

It's not like there was any shortage of toxic substances available from Momma Nature anyway. Fungi and many plants produce one kind or another, as do many reptiles (although most forms of snake venom are so distinctly hotile in their qualities they can be safely counted out), and a lot of fairly venomous chemicals tend to result from all kinds of human activity and industry. The Celts may have simply stumbled upon a combination which had the desired pain-inhibiting and psychoactive effects (and given the warrior culture's psychological conditioning for warfare, I doubt if all that much chemical assistance was required to produce the sort of excessive bravery of the Gaesatae...) that may well have had some quite nasty side effects down the road and whose recipe was later lost. It's not like we knew what exactly "Greek fire" was made of either, and that was used by numerous high cultures that actually bothered writing such stuff down.

And given the Will Die For Glory basic attitude of these guys, I sincerely doubt if they were very concerned with any long-term side effects. The buggers probably planned to "live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse" from the start anyway, judging by what I've gathered of the Celtic concept of afterlife and the mindset of some of their other elite warrior groups.

And I talked in another thread of a fungus in Cereals wich caused alucinations and beastly behavior closelly conected to werewolves and vampires.I rather doubt if it was that pesky one. By what I know of it the hallucinogenic states it brought tended to be rather disabling, and people busy scampering around on all fours, drooling a lot and with most of their higher brain functions turned off don't really sound like prime shock trooper material. Didn't keep those afflicted from thinking they had committed all kinds of horrible deeds in their delirium of course, and it looked pretty darn disturbing, and given how these stories tended to grow in telling...

mAIOR

04-25-2007, 23:03

I rather doubt if it was that pesky one. By what I know of it the hallucinogenic states it brought tended to be rather disabling, and people busy scampering around on all fours, drooling a lot and with most of their higher brain functions turned off don't really sound like prime shock trooper material. Didn't keep those afflicted from thinking they had committed all kinds of horrible deeds in their delirium of course, and it looked pretty darn disturbing, and given how these stories tended to grow in telling...

Actually, that fungi also caused bestial behavior and imagine if they found a way to make it only cause bestial behavior and remove the allucinations and inability to move. If you read the suposed encounters with "werewolves" they talk about them fighting with wounds that would kill a normal men... it's like you said, mother nature has a miriad of ways to make us feel invulnerable. They only needed one. I talked about that particular fungi as an example and, cause more "recent" reports add up to it.

Cheers...

Frostwulf

04-26-2007, 02:14

Watchman I shouldnt have lumped your quote in with Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, he did say there were beserkers.

"Make the sacrifice" shock troops haven't been an all that unusual thing in history, actually.
I was talking about true beserkers being rare, not "Make the sacrifice" shock troops.

Anyway, the Gaesatae work by a combination of applied chemistry and sheer bad attitude, whereas if I've understood correctly the Viking bärsärkagång was at least partially a neurological issue. In any case I've read the Vikings at least typically formed their various crazed warriors into small shock units which were employed as "forlorn hopes" to lead assaults and take down enemy leaders.
I would agree with what your saying, except I cant find any historical documents on the Gaesatae and I havent seen anyone but me put any historical reference to them. The Viking part I agree with from what I read, the only thing I would add is that they were infrequently used as royal bodyguards(king Harald Fairhair).

I take it you're not very familiar with the basic principles involved ? Having a psychological edge over your opponent, particularly through fear, is a major advantage in hand-to-hand combat.
Im familiar with it, it does happen in sports as well such as MMA, Boxing and other Martial sports. In some of these sports, especially if you face someone like Bob Sapp, you can see fear in their eyes. But regardless the person may start of with a disadvantage due to fear but the training takes over and they can overcome which has happened many times. From my understanding soldiers who are well trained can over come this because "their training takes over" -Andy McNab SAS.

Now, it's a given fanatical maniacs on combat drugs like the Gaesatae aren't going to be particularly intimidated by about anything (short of an elephant anyway), but they're going to be damn scary to face especially for troops who already have some issues with the ferocious and intimidating Celtic way of doing battle. And being skilled swordsmen unconcerned with pain, fear and fatigue they're going to be real whirlwinds on the attack, and the Celtic longsword was doubtless a most unpleasant device to be at the receiving end of at the best of times. Good luck trying to get them to even pay much attention at your feeble attempts at landing in a blow (especially given their large Celtic infantry shields) - they'll probably quite happily take a down the road lethal wound in exchange of slicing your head off anyway, and not even notice it...
The Gaesatae may be good on the attack but they didnt even do to well against javelins. If they cant defend against javelins how do you expect them to avoid constant thrusting and slashing from swords or spears? Not all the soldiers are going to be paralyzed with fear, they will fight back. Depending on the soldiers these attempts are hardly feeble, a thrust to the heart a cut off head and other places are for the most part an instant kill. The Gaesatae were dieing to javelins! They were not just waltzing through them. Again if these things falling from the sky were killing them, then competent soldiers would have a better chance of killing them. As far as fear is concerned, the Gaesatae did break when they were pushed back.
Now for the drugs. Most drugs now are much stronger now because of the technology we have, everything now is enhanced. The drugs the Gaesatae were raw and primitive, therefore most likely not nearly as effective as has been claimed on these forums. Yes they could help over come fear, but they most likely will not make you immune from pain. If it did think of novacane and trying to talk with that in your mouth! If you want to say adrenaline that I can understand up to a point.

if you don't feel pain and your adrenaline is rushing, your body wont go to shock so you'll have more staying power). Take also the Zulu war. There are British reports of Zulus fighting with arms crushed by bullets like they were normal.
If you want to really test the effect of drugs, don't go for the numbing ones
mAIOR I agree with what your saying, though I never heard that about the Zulus doing that. Im not disagreeing with you, I just never heard that before.

AGAIN Ill ask. Where are you guys getting the information on the drugs they take? What battles did they participate in and who wrote about it? I already heard enough about peoples thoughts, now how about the facts to back this up.

zonks32

04-26-2007, 05:34

The word "Gaesatae" is Celtic for "Spearmen". This implies that the Geasatae warbands could have fought either in a phalanx or that the spear was their primary weapon instead of the sword.

The Gaesatae Order was most likely founded in the 4th Century BC in Gaul. The Gaesatae offered their services to other Celtic tribes or anyone who needed men to fight. The Gaesatae are most renowned for their service for the Celts in the Po Valley, such as the Boii and Insubre tribes. They provided around 15,000 men at the Battle of Telamon and fought alongside the Insubres at the Battle of Clastidium. After the Gallic War of 225 BC to 223 BC, the Gaesatae fade away into history. They most likely had warbands in Gaul during the Gallic War of 225 BC to 223 BC, and took part in local tribal wars until the military order died out in the mid 2nd Century BC.

Watchman

04-26-2007, 07:57

I would agree with what your saying, except I cant find any historical documents on the Gaesatae and I havent seen anyone but me put any historical reference to them.It might be more productive to ask the EB guys about that.

Im familiar with it, it does happen in sports as well such as MMA, Boxing and other Martial sports. In some of these sports, especially if you face someone like Bob Sapp, you can see fear in their eyes. But regardless the person may start of with a disadvantage due to fear but the training takes over and they can overcome which has happened many times. From my understanding soldiers who are well trained can over come this because "their training takes over" -Andy McNab SAS.To a degree, yes. But I would rather imagine few people had much opportunity to train for the kind of psychological offensive the sorts of Geasatae put out, coupled with the detail most of the Mediterranean cultures at least found the nudity alone jarring. The Celts and other "barbarians" themselves may have had less issues with the actual nakedness, but on the other hand would have been much more familiar with its symbolic and magical aspects amounting to more or less the same end result.

Plus of course the nekkid nutjobs themselves can be counted to not be particularly overawed by anything, so even if they're not necessarily able to thoroughly intimidate particularly crack troops at the very least that'll just be even then.

The Gaesatae may be good on the attack but they didnt even do to well against javelins. If they cant defend against javelins how do you expect them to avoid constant thrusting and slashing from swords or spears?Basic difference: javelins are not that easy to parry with your sword or similar, and reasonably close-order infantry will have to rely on shields and armour to stop such projectiles as they won't have much room to dodge. Anything that get through or around those, hurts you.

In hand-to-hand combat the very fact you're also attacking puts a limit on the other guy's effective attacks - if nothing else your weapon will simply be getting in the way, and there exists the very real possibility you may literally "do unto him before he does unto you", that is, manage to land a telling enough blow while his attack is still "in process". And yes, this sort of thing can lead to "mutual slaying", as the Japanese called it.

It's the difference between being subjected to an archer's arrows, and exchanging blows with that archer up close. Surely the difference in the dynamics is blatantly obvious ?

Not all the soldiers are going to be paralyzed with fear, they will fight back. Depending on the soldiers these attempts are hardly feeble, a thrust to the heart a cut off head and other places are for the most part an instant kill. The Gaesatae were dieing to javelins! They were not just waltzing through them.I don't think anyone claimed they were invulnerable supermen. The point is just that unlike troops in a normal state of mind they cared rather little about their injuries, and instead kept going until their whole system gave out. Unconcern with odds and casualties doesn't even require anything more than sheer bravado and lack of concern with death (something which, judging by some other elite formations like the Solduri, the Celts weren't half bad at conditioning for), rank stubbornness, and so on as perfectly possible for more normal troops.

As far as fear is concerned, the Gaesatae did break when they were pushed back.Pretty much anyone cracks eventually. Humans are built that way, and I personally suspect the somewhat over-exuberant mindset their funny concotion and "hyping up" put them into rendered the Gaesatae somewhat more volatile in this regard than fanatical "elite guard" type units and similar groups.

Now for the drugs. Most drugs now are much stronger now because of the technology we have, everything now is enhanced. The drugs the Gaesatae were raw and primitive, therefore most likely not nearly as effective as has been claimed on these forums. Yes they could help over come fear, but they most likely will not make you immune from pain. If it did think of novacane and trying to talk with that in your mouth! If you want to say adrenaline that I can understand up to a point.I'd actually say they'd get pretty far on just relatively mild psychoactives in any case, so long as those allowed them to put themselves in a state of mind where they believed themselves immune to such things. Autosuggestion, basically. People have literally gnawed their own arms off (or down to the bone anyway) in sufficiently deranged states of mind and only fainted of the blood loss; I wouldn't be surprised if the prime effect of the Gaesataes' war-drug was to put them in a suitably, uh, altered mental state to allow assorted personal and group psychological tricks to produce the results, with some helpful chemical side support. I understand the Celts were fairly good at applying certain kinds of intentionally produced group-hysteria effects.

mAIOR

04-26-2007, 09:26

AGAIN Ill ask. Where are you guys getting the information on the drugs they take? What battles did they participate in and who wrote about it? I already heard enough about peoples thoughts, now how about the facts to back this up.

Well, about the drugs, I already told that it was my opinion on what kind of drugs they took. I never read anyhting telling they took this kind of drug or that. I'm just a fan of Fungi :)
Battles I only heard about Tellamon but I'm sure EB team members will answer this (I'd also like to know more about these dudes).

Cheers...

Orb

04-26-2007, 09:39

The Gaesatae may be good on the attack but they didnt even do to well against javelins. If they cant defend against javelins how do you expect them to avoid constant thrusting and slashing from swords or spears? Not all the soldiers are going to be paralyzed with fear, they will fight back. Depending on the soldiers these attempts are hardly feeble, a thrust to the heart a cut off head and other places are for the most part an instant kill. The Gaesatae were dieing to javelins! They were not just waltzing through them. Again if these things falling from the sky were killing them, then competent soldiers would have a better chance of killing them. As far as fear is concerned, the Gaesatae did break when they were pushed back.
Now for the drugs. Most drugs now are much stronger now because of the technology we have, everything now is enhanced. The drugs the Gaesatae were raw and primitive, therefore most likely not nearly as effective as has been claimed on these forums. Yes they could help over come fear, but they most likely will not make you immune from pain. If it did think of novacane and trying to talk with that in your mouth! If you want to say adrenaline that I can understand up to a point.

Fighting back - not all are going to tremble in fear, but a *lot* of people would, fighting these men for the first time. The Gaesatae would also be attacking all this time, and threatening the enemy, not just leaving their guard open for enemies to stab them.

'Instant kills' - according to a friend who would know, cutting through someone's neck (especially if you can't really get at it, thanks to an enormous shield) or stabbing through the heart is very, very difficult, I doubt the majority of soldiers would have the training to do this. The Gaesatae probably have the training to put their shield in the way of direct thrusts at the heart, as well.

Men with javelins are not necessarily incompetent soldiers. Remember that the Gaesatae were not the only ones who would have to parry blows in close combat, and the average man would be more concerned with staying alive than in inflicting difficult to achieve single-hit-kill blows.

Now for the drugs. Most drugs now are much stronger now because of the technology we have, everything now is enhanced. The drugs the Gaesatae were raw and primitive, therefore most likely not nearly as effective as has been claimed on these forums. Yes they could help over come fear, but they most likely will not make you immune from pain. If it did think of novacane and trying to talk with that in your mouth! If you want to say adrenaline that I can understand up to a point.

There is, supposedly, a hypnotist who can teach patients to self-hypnotise so that they can undergo surgery with non-medical (Black&Decker drill) equipment without feeling any pain whatsoever. There are also reports from the Falklands conflict that some Argentinians through adrenaline alone managed to keep going *until* they were shot in the head, despite the fact that they should have been dead or decrepit. These are both without psychoactive drugs, with them, presumably, this could be amplified.

You'll have to badger Psycho for the sources, I'm not one of the historians.

Ludens

04-26-2007, 10:38

SaFe

04-26-2007, 10:42

Not necessarily: it may have referred to the javelin. BTW, hastati also means spearmen.

I agree, names don't mean everything.
For example the Cheruscii, the tribe of the Heruskoz translate into Sword-People. Although not every cheruscain warrior had a sword.

zonks32

04-26-2007, 19:25

Not necessarily: it may have referred to the javelin. BTW, hastati also means spearmen.

When the Hastati where oringinaly created their main weapon was the spear (hasta), shortsword (Gladius), oval sheild (Parma).
The oval shield was replaced with the rectangular shield (scutum), that covered the entire body. The hasta spear was replaced by two throwing javelins (pila, singular pilum) which where thrown against the enemy within range, and the short sword (gladius) which was used for thrusting in close combat.

mucky305

04-26-2007, 20:09

:dizzy2: As my membership to the Oxford achaeology department has expired and since the Celts didn't really have a true written language and that the vast percentage of written accounts were made by their enemies, it's been difficult finding reliable information in books or the internet. So here it goes 1) The Chemical Cocktail - Mandrake is just one of the myriad of plants/natural substances that will render someone immune to pain. Since Celtic Druids spent lifetimes studying and worshipping nature, I don't think it a stretch to deduce that they could have been able to brew some sort of substance that would improve reaction time and protect the user from pain (aspirin is just one such substance that provides pain resistance and is naturally occuring). Modern medicines may or may not be more effective than ancient ones in all aspects. It's a tough argument to make since we really don't know what the ancients had and that people still die from things like TB and rheumatic fever.
2) The Instant Kill - In 6 years in the military, I never had the displeasure of engaging in CQC, been shot at and shot back, but never hand to hand. I have though, studied warfare for over ten years and judo/aikido for over twenty. In that time, I learned many things. The most important of these is that the instant kill is the best way to dispatch an enemy yet the most difficult to achieve (funny how that works). Even today, shock/blood loss is the combat medics worst enemy and most advances in trauma medicine have been geared toward that. Alot of the advantage of combat is related to what I like to call the OMG factor. It's the reason why green troops run and veterans stand and it also severely affects the way a soldiers will deal with a shocking situation. Picture the following: You are a Hastati in the Roman army. You've had some training and have put in time as a Velite so you have some combat exp. though you are still 'green' as the true grimness of hand to hand has not yet touched you. You're standing in line and watching a bunch of naked crazies jumping up and down on a hillock screaming bloody murder. They begin their charge (sword and shield in hand). Your skirmishers are first. They run in between your ranks, javelins in hand. You watch as your enemy is pelted by javelins. Some fall with grievous wounds (head, neck) others take javelins in legs, arms, shoulders etc. Some of these fall and just get back up, the others shrug off their wounds as if it were nothing and keep coming. In a rather brash action, one of these naked psycho's pulls a javelin out of his leg and hurls it toward you. You raise your scutum just in time to block the missile which rocks you back on your feet as it impales itself into your shield. The Velites are now falling back through your lines. The centurion orders your unit to ready pilum. At about 75 yards you throw your first. Once again, some fall, others receive bad injuries but don't seem to notice. You throw the second at 50 yards, same result. The enemy is close now and the usual stoicism of your tent mates is replaced by the muttered Roman equivalent of OMG. The centurion orders preparation to receive the charge. You ready your shield and sword and begin to have serious doubts about your ability to survive this battle unscathed. You pick out your target (who looks to be a good 6 inches taller than you) as he closes and brings his sword slashing down as you bring your shield up. The block leaves his body open and you stab him authoritatively in the gut. Instead of recoiling in pain and falling down like he's supposed to, he just looks mad and while you're doing this :jawdrop: he's converting you from a righty into a lefty. Believe it or not, being mean and nasty in combat accounts for alot.

GodEmperorLeto

04-26-2007, 20:09

Gaesatae can be beaten if you pin them against a phalanx and then nail their unshielded flanks with missile fire or cavalry hits repeatedly (i.e. after hitting, pull back and reform). It tires your cav out, but if you keep it up, they break.

Anything other than phalanxes and they'll carve your boys up, but the long spears keep them out of hand-to-hand range usually.

Also, yeah, the Gaesatae are drugged up. Although they were not on it, PCP can do incredible things to a regular human being, making them almost super-human for a short time. I knew a guy who kicked a police-car door off, jumped out of the speeding vehicle, breaking his ribs and a leg, and ran five miles home still handcuffed, all on PCP.

In comparison, the Gaesatae don't seem so bad.

Ludens

04-26-2007, 20:36

When the Hastati where oringinaly created their main weapon was the spear (hasta), shortsword (Gladius), oval sheild (Parma).
The oval shield was replaced with the rectangular shield (scutum), that covered the entire body. The hasta spear was replaced by two throwing javelins (pila, singular pilum) which where thrown against the enemy within range, and the short sword (gladius) which was used for thrusting in close combat.
True, but what is your point?

mAIOR

04-27-2007, 12:02

Believe it or not, being mean and nasty in combat accounts for alot.

Well, I brawled a lot and enjoyed immensely your description :) must be your 20 years in aikido and judo that gave you the insight ;) . It's true the best way to defeat someone in hand to hand is the psychological factor.
If you manage to scare your opponent to death before you engage, he'll die of fear and you wont need to worry. Now, this is nearly impossible so if you just scare him, his moves will be uncertain, shaky (not very good in sword fighting I can assure you) and weak compared to a prepared opponent.
One simple example, to all of you who do some martial art, when you fight, if you get punched hard, the next time you fight with that guy you wont go with the same spirit (unless like me you're there to fight like a real fight every single time, be sure your opponent knows this tough :p). So, your opponent gains the Psychological advantage.

Cheers...

Watchman

04-27-2007, 12:13

The folks in the martial arts school my brother trains in actively try to cultivate a really intimidating "crazy stare" just to try to unnerve each other in sparring matches - and because it looks darn funny if you're not on the receiving end. :laugh4: No, they're not all that reverent about many things. On the more practical side that also gives them practice in dealing with such psychological attacks...

Anyway, in mass warfare intimidation had a rather important role - besides sheer vanity, that's the primary consideration behind all kinds of tall crests, highly polished and decorated armours, war cries, beating shields, and so on and so on. After all, you won battles by making the other buggers run away and then cut them down at your leisure. Particularly important in cavalry-infantry match-ups, where psychological factors make the critical difference between a charge pulling short and the footsloggers being ridden down down with near impunity.

QwertyMIDX

04-27-2007, 14:50

There's an even simpler element to the psychological factor than all this. Most soldiers aren't trying to kill the enemy, they're trying not to die. In the context of pre-modern warfare they will be slow to attack and spend most the battle with their shields raised (today they keep their heads down and never fire a shot). Even hardened elites are still pretty much trying to come home alive, they're more aggressively certainly, more sure of their abilities, more used to the terror of combat, and know that often the best defense is a good offense, but they will still be fairly conservative in the way they attack. A drugged up maniac who is also a hardened warrior and psychologically primed to be a killing machine on the other hand, will actively be trying to kill the enemy, not trying to avoid death. This will probably get them killed, but it will take down quite a few opponents of the way there. Tightly cohesive units even tended to emphasis this. As a hoplite or legionnaire your main job was to keep your shield up, if you stab once and a while too that's great, but the main thing was to keep your shield up.

I feel like Hollywood has confused all of us as to what melee was actually like. Most of tip the people exchanging blows were doing so at a pretty slow pace, and were way more concerned about keeping themselves defends than about attacking the other person. Not too many people were beheading enemies left and right while doing backflips and drop kicking people. If battles were fought the way hollywood likes to show, they would last about 5 minutes, and most of the people would end up dead. As we all know, they generally lasted a full day, and most of the deaths actually came in running people down after one army broke. RTW is pretty lousy at letting us demonstrate this, but its good to keep in mind.