Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[Frostwulf]

Never mind the Romans - the 'Germans' were the uber warriors of the age and could beat anyone! You've made some excellent points Frostwulf but besides from Ariovistus' defeat of the weakened Aedui can you give me a list of battles where the 'Germans' defeated the 'Gauls' in battle? And I don't mean Gallic Cavalry against German Cavalry during Caesar's conquest, or the battles of the TCA - as they were most likely a mixture of different tribal groupings.
If you read most of this you would see that I have said multiple times the Romans were superior to the Germans. You seem to mistake my intent and your following in the foot steps of others who claim I'm a Roman apologist and now a Germanophile. I think the Celtic units in EB are overpowered especially considering how the elites match up against others. Historically this doesn't match up if you have read the battles. Just because I believe the historical record bears out that the Romans and the Germans were martially superior to the Celts doesn't mean I'm ebullient over them or any of the ancients for that matter.
As for your question of the Germans defeating the Gauls in battle we only have Caesar and a few others to my knowledge. Other then the 10 years of Ariovistus and the TCA there is nothing written that I'm aware of.
With that do you have any battles in which the Gauls defeated the Germans? Is there any information you have in which the Celts pushed back the Germans at any time period?

How were the Aedui weakened? Would you mind putting down your sources and other such information? When I ask for information its not to be obnoxious, its sincere. I see plenty of people talking about this but yet no one has put down a credible source or even where they heard or read about it.

[Erebus26]

I have no problems with your arguments Frostwulf. I know you're not being obnoxious - far from it!!! I agree that Celtic units are overpowered in EB - the Gaesatae were never that good! :D

I would say that Aedui were weakened by their long conflict with the Sequani. Ariovistus took advantage of the situation and attacked both Gallic tribes when they were both exhausted by constant warfare between each other. I believe Caesar mentions as much in his commentaries.

As for Gauls pushing back Germans - you've got me stumped for sources of specific battles. So I yield to you this time! :D

Overall I think your arguments are sound and I enjoy reading your posts, as you have a good grasp of history.

[Watchman]

What I fail to see if how you could actually weaken the Celtic units without rendering them absurdly feeble compared to those of other, uh, origins. I mean, compare the stats of the rank-and-file Celtic infantry with those of, say, Thureophoroi, taking into account that both are more or less regular, professional troops and in the case of the Celts practically per definition with a decent bit of practical combat experience under their belts. Not much difference fas as I know that isn't directly traceable to the equipement kit...

And given that by some campaign descriptions I've read the Sweboz, even under the sorry AI, can give Polybian Roman armies serious trouble, I also fair to comprehend how a legitimate case could be made for making their line units stronger. Doubly so keeping in mind the better part of them are part-time tribal levies.

[blitzkrieg80]

really though, tribal levies were very uncommon, even among the Germanic tribes. the kind of increased military activity seen during Caesar's era is an increase in tribal levies yes and less so professional warriors, although they could easily have increased as a ratio, but otherwise (before the growing trend which lead to the Migration Age): most typical German warriors were professional, as much as any warrior aristocracy, so there is no reason to state they should have "levy" status and training when in fact they enjoyed the benefits of warrior culture, trained solely for it, and took on its subsequent responsibilities. the Germans weren't all craftsmen and farmers, and those who were only rarely composed the army of the EB era except in extreme circumstances such as defense, or a larger calling, such as Caesar.

it is true that common people of the Germanic tribes participated in ritual warfare, but that cannot be used to argue for part-time levy composition or other cultures with similar practices such as the Celts, could then also be classified in such a manner, which would not be true either.

I do agree that there is no point in reducing the strength of the Celts, though, esp. with consideration to balance and other factions / cultures. a professional warrior should have similar characteristics across the board and no particular culture should have a superior essence... the beauty of the EB system is that the equipment DOES matter stat-wise and concerning gameplay and it gives quirks to every unit and it ideally matches to history and reflects the superior technology and/or tactics of the use of that equipment, ect.

[Moros]

Yeah let us make one thing clear, we won't be making the Gauls weaker. We've ,well Blitz and his team, just made the germans much more historical.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Nice!

[NeoSpartan]

Ok I've been a follower of this discussion since the two theards (this one and the Celts one) came up. And I gotta say, this discussion has helped me learn a lot about Germans and Gauls, and Romans too.

Now I will say this:
NO THE SWEBOZ ARE NOT UNDERPOWERED!
--The ONLY thing they lack is an expensive heavy cavarly, and thats it.

I just played 2 MP battles with the sweboz and they KICK A**!!!! One against carthage and the other one against KH.

Now let me explain why I say the Sweboz are fine:
-ALL their units have a rather hight morale when u campared them other units of similar AND better stats.
-Also they are very cheap to make, exept for the Hundllz (Group of Hundred).
-On top of that, exept for their regular spearman and The Sinotoz ("Swordbondsmen"), all other units are have AP weapons.

What does that mean in terms of gameplay?
-You can train a rather large army on a budget.
--This large army on a budge will NOT suffer from a weak morale, which is a risk u take when u train large armies on a budge with everyone else.
-Ur army will tear a whole through more heavely armored units thanks to the AP.
[In my MP game, the MᲪoz (axemen) and Wodᮡwulfoz (black painted guys) cut the number of Epilektoi Hoplitai from 70some to 50some in about 1 minute.]
-When ur Germans are hit with cavarly from behind most of your units will not rout instantly due to their high morale.
-Thier AP capabilities combines with the Wodᮡwulfoz (black painted guys) ability to scare infantry to have heavier stronger infantry routing IF the enemy's general is not present.
-Although ur cavarly is weak compared to the heavy cavalry of other factions, it is extremely fast, very cheap, has good morale, and is very tough for a medium cavarly.

I kicked A*** with this guys and my cavarly was relaged to "check" the enemies cavarly from outflanking. I rarely used it to engage enemy cavarly, nor did I use it in full force to hammer pinned enemy infantry.
WHICH MEANS: that my Sweboz infantry did most the fighting themselves and ROUTED the enemy without cavarly support.

So.... no the Sweboz are NOT underpowered. If u beat the Ai to easy well... thats because is the AI!! Play MP and u will see thier true power.

Take it from me an almost exclusive Aedui/Arverni player.
WIth my gauls I cannot do what I did with the Germans, I cannot count on my infantry to beat heavy infantry without Gaestae and cavalry support. I may bet lucky and rout some heavy infantry with Gaestae and other infantry alone, but that rarely occurs.

Hell, I think I should start a thread called "Gauls Underpowered" because UNLESS I used Mori Gaesum + Gaestae + Brihentin there is no way I am going to win. Yes, those 3 units must be present!

And is ESPECIALLY hard to win if I am on a budjet. With Gauls my regular units just don't cut it, even Minhalt get beat by Polybian Pricipes! (let alone legionaries). Getting a gallic big army on a budjet is suicide, u ain't winning, ur center won't hold long enough for u to beat the enemies flank (UNLESS u have Mori Gaesum)

Gauls don't have (exept for Casse champions) any AP infantry. Although thier stats are decent, thier moral is not any better. This translates to: NO gauls won't cut a hole through heavier troops like the Sweboz do.

ALSO, the best overall Gallic spearmen are: AljậGae the spearmen you train in towns bordering Germania! WHY? 120men, good stats, decent cost, AND much higher moral than regular Gauls!!! So they don't rout that easy.

So my friend... at the end of the day the Sweboz are FINE! The only thing they lack is a heavy cavalry, which should be insanely expensive due to thier rarity. And even without heavy cavarly support they kick a**!:smash:

[Watchman]

really though, tribal levies were very uncommon, even among the Germanic tribes. the kind of increased military activity seen during Caesar's era is an increase in tribal levies yes and less so professional warriors, although they could easily have increased as a ratio, but otherwise (before the growing trend which lead to the Migration Age): most typical German warriors were professional, as much as any warrior aristocracy, so there is no reason to state they should have "levy" status and training when in fact they enjoyed the benefits of warrior culture, trained solely for it, and took on its subsequent responsibilities. the Germans weren't all craftsmen and farmers, and those who were only rarely composed the army of the EB era except in extreme circumstances such as defense, or a larger calling, such as Caesar.

it is true that common people of the Germanic tribes participated in ritual warfare, but that cannot be used to argue for part-time levy composition or other cultures with similar practices such as the Celts, could then also be classified in such a manner, which would not be true either.Now waittasec. I thought specifically the single biggest "structural" difference between the Celtic and Germanic armies was that only the Celts were rich enough to be able to delegate warfare virtually entirely to a specialist warrior class, whereas the Germans could only form a small hard core out of such (ie. the nobles and their retainers) and had to turn to the common tribesmen to furnish the numerical backbone ?

Such commoner-soldiers are levy/militia per definition AFAIK; how *good* levy/militia is an entirely separate question, and the Germanic one was apparently pretty good.

[blitzkrieg80]

My point was that there would be a small professional element and much of the time no need for the larger backbone of common people, unless in defense or great rare occaision... So I don't think we're disagreeing on this at all ~:) The great "waves" seen in later times is essentially a mobilization of this levy element hithero uninspired/unutilized... no huge undertakings during the EB period aside from the infamous few: TCA, Ariovistus, Arminius, and thus no need to go beyond smaller professional bands

it is true that the small elite could never hope to go without supplementation by some others for larger conflicts, but they could very much be described as more than part-time, simply because they had very important status, land and "favor" from their lord, because of their military responsibility, thus why the "Proven" are referenced repeatedly in Beowulf, the Duguð / Dugunthiz. Definitely NOT a levy, the unit represents the most common and integral element of any Germanic army for 1500 years or so... the shield-wall spearmen, who are experienced, because they're Germanic freemen who deeply understand that a good part of life is war, defense and otherwise, and even if they are merely wealthy land-owners or less-wealthy lower class, they actively partake of booty and ritual warfare, they indeed are usually retainers but do not have "noble blood", such as earls/jarls, or long-term/prefered status as champions and bodyguard who Beowulf himself represents. i would say part-time warrior class, rather than non-warrior class as levy troops are, the churls/karls.

some examples of Duguð (Dugunthiz) as used in Beowulf, courtesy BEOWULF an edition with relevant shorter texts by Mitchell & Robinson:

āhte ic holdra þý lǽs,
dēorre duguðe
þē þa dēað fornam.
(lines 487b-8) which i translate as: "I had less of loyal [men] [for that], of dear proven [warriors], then when death took [them] away"

Scop hwīlum sang
hādor on Heorote.
þǽr wæs hæleða dram,
duguð unlýtel
Dena ond Wedera.
(lines 496b-8) which i translate: "while the poet sang clear-voiced in Heorot. there was the joy of heroes, the great proven [warriors] of the Danes and Weather-(Geats)"

Ymbēode þā
ides Helminga
duguþe ond geogoþe
dǽl ǽghwylcne.
(lines 620-1) which i translate: "Then the woman of the Helmings (Wealhþēow) went [with] a portion around among to each of the proven [warriors] and youth"


Similarly, Cincinatus and early Roman soldiers might be then considered non-professional warriors also yet that wouldn't describe their status or military skills/training fully either; they certainly were not levy troops.

[Watchman]

I think our only actual disagreement stems from the term "levy", really. Insofar as I use it it refers simply to part-time soldiery called to fight when needed and (usually) for limited periods, ie. who aren't standing professional troops. Medieval knights were one example of this actually - as were, say, Viking Age Scnadinavian and Anglo-Saxon armies for the most part.
Essentially interchangeable with "militia" as far as I'm concerned.

The fighting qualities of the troops involved have nothing to do with the issue. Historically they ranged from virtually useless to startlingly capable, this being above all a matter of training, equipement and motivation.

[Frostwulf]

I have no problems with your arguments Frostwulf. I know you're not being obnoxious - far from it!!! I agree that Celtic units are overpowered in EB - the Gaesatae were never that good! :D
I appreciate you kind words. The Gaesatae have always troubled me considering their performance in the three battles they were in. Clusium/Faesulae: nothing is mentioned of their performance here. Telamon: They became porcupines and died. Clastidium: They did ok here, but no better then the rest of the Celts and ended up fleeing upon the death of their leader.

Clastidium:

until he came upon the ten thousand Gaesatae near the place called Clastidium, a Gallic village which not long before had become subject to the Romans. 4 There was no time for him to give his army rest and refreshment, for the Barbarians quickly learned of his arrival, and held in contempt the infantry with him, which were few in number all told, and, being Gauls, made no account of his cavalry. For they were most excellent fighters on horseback, and were thought to be specially superior as such, and, besides, at this time they far outnumbered Marcellus. Immediately, therefore, they charged upon him with great violence and dreadful threats, thinking to overwhelm him, their king riding in front of them. 5 But Marcellus, that they might not succeed in enclosing and surrounding him and his few followers, led his troops of cavalry forward and tried to outflank them, extending his wing into a thin line, until he was not far from the enemy. And now, just as he was turning to make a charge, his horse, frightened by the ferocious aspect of the enemy, wheeled about and bore mostly forcibly back. 6 But he, fearing lest this should be taken as a bad omen by the Romans and lead to confusion among them, quickly reined his horse round to the left and made him face the enemy, while he himself made adoration to the sun, implying that it was not p451by chance, but for this purpose, that he had wheeled about; for it is the custom with the Romans to turn round in this way when they make adoration to the gods. And in the moment of closing with the enemy he is said to have vowed that he would consecrate to Jupiter Feretrius the most beautiful suit of armour among them.

7 Meanwhile the king of the Gauls espied him, and judging from his insignia that he was the commander, rode far out in front of the rest and confronted him, shouting challenges and brandishing his spear. His stature exceeded that of the other Gauls, and he was conspicuous for a suit of armour which was set off with gold and silver and bright colours and all sorts of broideries; it gleamed like lightning. 2 Accordingly, as Marcellus surveyed the ranks of the enemy, this seemed to him to be the most beautiful armour, and he concluded that it was this which he had vowed to the god. He therefore rushed upon the man, and by a thrust of his spear which pierced his adversary's breastplate, and by the impact of his horse in full career, threw him, still living, upon the ground, where, with a second and third blow, he promptly killed him. 3 Then leaping from his horse and laying his hands upon the armour of the dead, he looked towards heaven and said: "O Jupiter Feretrius, who beholdest the great deeds and exploits of generals and commanders in wars and fightings, I call thee to witness that I have overpowered and slain this man with my own hand, being the third Roman ruler and general so to slay a ruler and king, and that I dedicate to thee the first and most beautiful of the spoils. Do thou therefore grant us a like fortune as we prosecute the rest of the war."

4 His prayer ended, the cavalry joined battle, fighting, p453not with the enemy's horsemen alone, but also with their footmen who attacked them at the same time, and won a victory, in its sort and kind, was remarkable and strange. For never before or since, as we are told, have so few horsemen conquered so many horsemen and footmen together. After slaying the greater part of the enemy and getting possession of their arms and baggage, Marcellus returned to his colleague, who was hard put to it in his war with the Gauls near their largest and most populous city.9 5 Mediolanum was the city's name, and the Gauls considered it their metropolis; wherefore they fought eagerly in its defence, so that Cornelius was less besieger than besieged. But when Marcellus came up, and when the Gaesatae, on learning of the defeat and death of their king, withdrew, Mediolanum was taken, the Gauls themselves surrendered the rest of their cities, and put themselves entirely at the disposition of the Romans. They obtained peace on equitable terms.
It makes no sense to me why the Gaesatae are as powerful as they are, it sure didn't show in these battles.

I would say that Aedui were weakened by their long conflict with the Sequani. Ariovistus took advantage of the situation and attacked both Gallic tribes when they were both exhausted by constant warfare between each other. I believe Caesar mentions as much in his commentaries.
Is this what you were referring to?
Caesar-"The Gallic War"If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour."

Here is the other translation:

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If there be any who are concerned at the defeat and flight of the Gauls, they can discover for the asking that when the Gauls were worn out by the length of the campaign Ariovistus, who had kept himself for many months within his camp in the marshes, without giving a chance of encounter, attacked them suddenly when they had at last dispersed in despair of a battle, and conquered them rather by skill and stratagem than by courage."book 1,40 Translated by H.J. Edwards

He is talking of the battle of Magetobriga. He makes no mention of Gallic infighting at all in this, he is always referring to the battles with the Germans. He is saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting months for the Germans to emerge and fight them.



As for Gauls pushing back Germans - you've got me stumped for sources of specific battles. So I yield to you this time! :D
I think of this we will never know. The TCA is the first recorded appearance of the Germans excluding the Bastarnae and possibly some German involvement in 222BC along side the Celts.

Overall I think your arguments are sound and I enjoy reading your posts, as you have a good grasp of history.
Thank you, I apply this quote to you as well.


What I fail to see if how you could actually weaken the Celtic units without rendering them absurdly feeble compared to those of other, uh, origins. I mean, compare the stats of the rank-and-file Celtic infantry with those of, say, Thureophoroi, taking into account that both are more or less regular, professional troops and in the case of the Celts practically per definition with a decent bit of practical combat experience under their belts. Not much difference fas as I know that isn't directly traceable to the equipement kit...

For me its not reducing the rank and file tribal levies, its the elites that bother me. One base line unit that does bother me is the Batacorii, these guys should have an increase in moral.


it is true that common people of the Germanic tribes participated in ritual warfare, but that cannot be used to argue for part-time levy composition or other cultures with similar practices such as the Celts, could then also be classified in such a manner, which would not be true either.

I'm not sure I agree with this, I believe the Germans differed in that every free man was supposed to train. The nobles went on raids and battles but battles between tribes the German free man also participated. I'm fairly sure the same is not true of the Celtic system. Ill have to check on a few things first though.

the beauty of the EB system is that the equipment DOES matter stat-wise and concerning gameplay and it gives quirks to every unit and it ideally matches to history and reflects the superior technology and/or tactics of the use of that equipment, ect.
The problem though is things like this:
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228

You have historically unarmored units defeating a more numerous and better equipped units.


Now waittasec. I thought specifically the single biggest "structural" difference between the Celtic and Germanic armies was that only the Celts were rich enough to be able to delegate warfare virtually entirely to a specialist warrior class, whereas the Germans could only form a small hard core out of such (ie. the nobles and their retainers) and had to turn to the common tribesmen to furnish the numerical backbone ?

Such commoner-soldiers are levy/militia per definition AFAIK; how *good* levy/militia is an entirely separate question, and the Germanic one was apparently pretty good.
This is the way I understood it as well.

Neospartan the reason for EB was to have as realistic units as possible, I just don't think that is the case. From my understanding the Germans base line units-levy should be a little better then their Gallic counter parts, but the Celtic elites outstrip the Germans and the Romans and I don't find that accurate. If it takes increasing the cost of the German/Roman units or what ever then so be it, but as far as the statistics are concerned that is where the historical part comes in. Balance the units through cost or some other method.
As far as the moral goes the German units have 10 units with 11 moral and under, and have 2 with 13 moral and 1 with 15 moral 3 with 16 and 1 with 17..
The Celts have 18 under 11 and 5 with 13 moral/3 with 15/5 with 16/1 with 17/2with18/1 with 19/ 1 with 22

[Watchman]

Telamon: They became porcupines and died.That was actually the expected result whenever unarmoured close-order infantry had to suffer the attentions of skirmishers without a skirmish screen of their own to dissipate the effect. Skirmishers rarely did much damage to each other (since they could dodge most of the javelins), but if unopposed could severely hurt close-order troops (who couldn't, and AFAIK even light javelins can pierce shields worrisomely easily).


Is this what you were referring to?
Caesar-"The Gallic War"If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through stratagem and cunning than valour."

Here is the other translation:

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"If there be any who are concerned at the defeat and flight of the Gauls, they can discover for the asking that when the Gauls were worn out by the length of the campaign Ariovistus, who had kept himself for many months within his camp in the marshes, without giving a chance of encounter, attacked them suddenly when they had at last dispersed in despair of a battle, and conquered them rather by skill and stratagem than by courage."book 1,40 Translated by H.J. Edwards

He is talking of the battle of Magetobriga. He makes no mention of Gallic infighting at all in this, he is always referring to the battles with the Germans. He is saying that the Gauls were tired of waiting months for the Germans to emerge and fight them.But didn't the Sequani and Arverni originally engage the services of Ariovistus and his Germans specifically against the Aedui, after which the Germans turned against them and subjugated the Sequani ? That doesn't sound like something factions with their own armed forces in a decent condition would do; in other instances in history such large-scale employement of little short of entire warlike tribes to fight your enemies has tended to be a clear sign of acute weakness of the employer, who has similarly more often than not found he is incapable of keeping his nominal employees in check.

The way Ariovistus ducked into the swamps until the alliance against him began to fragment can also be interpreted as the individual Gaulish factions having by themselves too few effectives to oppose him, and thus had to pool their forces in a bid to get rid of their unwelcome guests.


The problem though is things like this:
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-One might expect that the combination of the long-famed Celtic prowess as mounted warriors with this new state-of-the-art military equipment (to which add spurs, superior ironwork in their weapons and armour and, at first, larger horses) would have proved unstoppable, yet it is the German cavalry who really stand out in Caesar's accounts and we are specifically told they did not have the advantage of saddles. Indeed, Caesar makes clear that the Germans positively scorned such aids as a sign of weakness:' In their eyes it is the height of effeminacy and shame to use a saddle, and they do not hesitate to engage the largest force of cavalry riding saddled horses, however small their own numbers may be'." pg.228

You have historically unarmored units defeating a more numerous and better equipped units.Cavalry fighting is often decided by psychological factors though, and particularly shock and momentum and aggressiveness. Even fairly lightly equipped cavalry that can gain an edge in those has often been able to rout mounted forces of higher calibre simply by the psychological shock of the sudden and determined assault. Once panic sets in even a large and powerful formation can irrecoverably collapse in moments, and cavalry is inherently more volatile than infantry; whereas heavy-infantry clashes could take hours to be decided, shock cavalry actions tended to be resolved in minutes if one side could not reorder its squadrons adroitly enough in the see-saw of charge and counter-charge.

Indeed, cavalry officers were among the few for whom reckless courage and impulsiveness were desirable traits, as they made it that much easier to unhesitantly seize the initiative and gain the upper hand.

The way the Germans in many of the clashes seem to have unhesitantly charged en masse once they caught sight of their opponents - who were conversely often apparently somewhat dispersed and slow to react - might speak of such a factor. 'Course, that one can be a little difficult to model under the RTW engine...

It may also be that at least the lighter Gallic cavalry was more distinctly skirmishers than a shock arm in outlook, and was thus ill disposed to take on the highly aggressive Germans.


Neospartan the reason for EB was to have as realistic units as possible, I just don't think that is the case. From my understanding the Germans base line units-levy should be a little better then their Gallic counter parts, but the Celtic elites outstrip the Germans and the Romans and I don't find that accurate. If it takes increasing the cost of the German/Roman units or what ever then so be it, but as far as the statistics are concerned that is where the historical part comes in. Balance the units through cost or some other method.
As far as the moral goes the German units have 10 units with 11 moral and under, and have 2 with 13 moral and 1 with 15 moral 3 with 16 and 1 with 17..
The Celts have 18 under 11 and 5 with 13 moral/3 with 15/5 with 16/1 with 17/2with18/1 with 19/ 1 with 22But by what concrete justification can it be argued well-trained professional troops with practical combat experience should not have at least a slight advantage over even quite competent part-timers ?

[Sarcasm]

You do realize that our Gaesatae are merely the elite part of the entire Gaesatae force, right?

And I seem to recall an entire Spartan mora - the premier fighting force of Greece - wiped out by lightly armed peltasts, so there's really no point in saying a unit is weak because it fell victim to skirmishing tactics.

[Sarcasm]

Cavalry fighting is often decided by psychological factors though, and particularly shock and momentum and aggressiveness. Even fairly lightly equipped cavalry that can gain an edge in those has often been able to rout mounted forces of higher calibre simply by the psychological shock of the sudden and determined assault. Once panic sets in even a large and powerful formation can irrecoverably collapse in moments, and cavalry is inherently more volatile than infantry; whereas heavy-infantry clashes could take hours to be decided, shock cavalry actions tended to be resolved in minutes if one side could not reorder its squadrons adroitly enough in the see-saw of charge and counter-charge.

Indeed, cavalry officers were among the few for whom reckless courage and impulsiveness were desirable traits, as they made it that much easier to unhesitantly seize the initiative and gain the upper hand.

The way the Germans in many of the clashes seem to have unhesitantly charged en masse once they caught sight of their opponents - who were conversely often apparently somewhat dispersed and slow to react - might speak of such a factor. 'Course, that one can be a little difficult to model under the RTW engine...

It may also be that at least the lighter Gallic cavalry was more distinctly skirmishers than a shock arm in outlook, and was thus ill disposed to take on the highly aggressive Germans.

But by what concrete justification can it be argued well-trained professional troops with practical combat experience should not have at least a slight advantage over even quite competent part-timers ?

Arabian light cavalry defeating Sassanian clibanarii anyone? Should they have lesser stats?

[Watchman]

As I understand it the Clibanarii of the Muslim Conquest period were much lighter than had been the norm previously - essentially heavy horse-archers, with just the horseman clad in body armour - but yeah, more or less. They were still probably rather heavier armed than the Arabs.

It's not actually particularly difficult to find cases of even quite excellent cavalry forces being put to flight by markedly "lesser", or at least lighter, squadrons simply by the virtue of a poor tactical approach or "getting caught napping" so to speak. Just for one example around the "pike and shot" period even quite light cavalry, so long as it attacked aggressively, could regularly defeat the heaviest armoured horse around that was using the caracole "heavy skirmish" technique. ('Course, once the heavies started getting straighforward too the lights were in trouble...)

[Sarcasm]

As I understand it the Clibanarii of the Muslim Conquest period were much lighter than had been the norm previously - essentially heavy horse-archers, with just the horseman clad in body armour - but yeah, more or less. They were still probably rather heavier armed than the Arabs.

Clibanarii of that period did have some sort of horse armour, but at most probably only the front of the horse was protected. Still, even if they didn't, they were in a full suit of mail (or plate mail or lamellar over mail) and adding to that a heavy iron helmet and probably even cheires for the legs and arms, they were considerably heavier than our celtic brihentin. And they were defeated by light cavalry loosely equivalent to the ridarharjoz.

That *still* doesn't mean they should have worse stats than Arabian light cavalry.

[Watchman]

I understand cavalry so heavily armoured was actually somewhat unusual among the Sassanids by that period, but that's not really relevant here. I'd actually rather rank the Arab cavalry by terms of the Saba horse, as the two were probably quite similar - mostly light opportunistic skirmishers, with some better equipped formations better suited for shock action (the richer Arabs wore mail, after all).

Doesn't much change the point of course. Heck, even full-blown cataphracts seem to have been routed with relative ease even by comparatively light infantry if caught unprepared...

[Erebus26]

Watchman - your points about skirmishers doing damage to unarmoured close order troops I agree with, but the Gaesatae have be looked at more closely in the context of the overall way they performed it battles like Telamon or Clastidium.

To the Romans these guys are going to be scary - 6ft naked warriors taunting you and making a loud noise, and then charging you with long spears and swords - but the Gaesatae quickly faltered when their charges failed, pretty much like any other Gallic attack, the examples being hurt by Javelins and Pilum at Telamon or by losing their leader at Clastidium. I think these guys were elite mercenaries, but when it came to the crunch they seemed to have performed poorly. In fact at Telamon it was the Insubres, the Boii and Taurisci, who formed into lines and made the battle hard fought for the two Roman armies, who come out with the most credit.

Frostwulf & Watchman - As for the quotes from Caesar's Gallic Wars regarding the state of the Aedui and Ariovistus, I'm inclined to agree with the first quote about the Gauls wearing themselves out and then Ariovistus seizing his moment, as this is the quote I have read. But the second quote is interesting about Ariovistus waiting for the Gauls to lose interest and disperse, as Caesar used this tactic against a massive Belgae force in 57BC.

[Watchman]

Although it may also have just been that the Romans identified the front-rank Gaesatae ("point men" you could say) as something both worrisome in psychological terms at least and relatively easy to whittle down with skirmishers (which the Celts apparently didn't use much themselves, when it comes to that - macho warrior-class mentality at work no doubt), and singled them out for some extra "softening up" so by the time the heavy infantries made contact the nekkid dudes were no longer much of a factor.

I mean, that's exactly what I do to the buggers in EB and it has exactly the same effect...

[NeoSpartan]

....
Neospartan the reason for EB was to have as realistic units as possible, I just don't think that is the case. From my understanding the Germans base line units-levy should be a little better then their Gallic counter parts, but the Celtic elites outstrip the Germans and the Romans and I don't find that accurate. If it takes increasing the cost of the German/Roman units or what ever then so be it, but as far as the statistics are concerned that is where the historical part comes in. Balance the units through cost or some other method.
As far as the moral goes the German units have 10 units with 11 moral and under, and have 2 with 13 moral and 1 with 15 moral 3 with 16 and 1 with 17..
The Celts have 18 under 11 and 5 with 13 moral/3 with 15/5 with 16/1 with 17/2with18/1 with 19/ 1 with 22

And if u look and play the game German basic units are a little better than Gallic ones. Especially in the morale side of the story. Only Minhalt and Bataroas can give a real hard fight to Germanic non elites. Now, part of the reason Gallic non elite infantry will hold up against germanic infantry is because they won't get hit with the AP of most Germanic units.

Only Gallic elites are better than the Germanic troop line up. BUT, exept for the Gaestae, they will all suffer from the AP damage most Germanic units do.

Now u have to understand these Gallic elites are outragusly expensive!!! Only the Mori Gaesum have a good cost, and u can only get them in one province. The Cornutos are EXTREMELY expensive and you can only get them in one province too.
Also, all Gallic Elites GET BEAT by Cohorts Imperatoria, each and every time. PLUS the Cohorts are cheaper. So YES the roman troop lineup already beats the Gallic Elites, especially the Cohorts imperatoria.
-The only exeption is the Brihentin who is a very good cavarly and I am not afraid to have it fight Hetairoi.

As for Polybian troops, in my post I explained the Polybian Principes beat Minhalt. They also happen to beat all other non-elite Gallic infantry.:smash:

[blank]

So this topic is about Celtic elites being better than Germanic counterparts?
I can say that the Sweboz will get some new 'elite' units, so that should solve the problems, no?

[Oleander Ardens]

Some very good posts here.


Actually I'm quite happy with the germanic lineup, although I personally miss a heavier cavalry unit, let us say a Ridóharjoz with mail and higher attack, possibly linked to a reform. Economic and cultural changes through intertwined relationships led some interesting changes in Germanic warfare. I still wonder whe the first germanic tribes started to use the composite bow, given that he was kown in nowadays southeastern Germany and Bohemia around 500 BC.

A dedicated and locally recruitable archer with a composite bow (range around 170, 20-25 missiles) would definatly be correct in some central-easter european regions

Anyway good work.

[Frostwulf]

But didn't the Sequani and Arverni originally engage the services of Ariovistus and his Germans specifically against the Aedui, after which the Germans turned against them and subjugated the Sequani ? That doesn't sound like something factions with their own armed forces in a decent condition would do; in other instances in history such large-scale employement of little short of entire warlike tribes to fight your enemies has tended to be a clear sign of acute weakness of the employer, who has similarly more often than not found he is incapable of keeping his nominal employees in check.


Frostwulf & Watchman - As for the quotes from Caesar's Gallic Wars regarding the state of the Aedui and Ariovistus, I'm inclined to agree with the first quote about the Gauls wearing themselves out and then Ariovistus seizing his moment, as this is the quote I have read. But the second quote is interesting about Ariovistus waiting for the Gauls to lose interest and disperse, as Caesar used this tactic against a massive Belgae force in 57BC.
Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"Early in the first century BC the two most powerful tribes, leading opposed factions, were the Aedui and the Arverni. For years they struggled for supremcy until the Arverni, in concert with the Sequani, employed 15,000 'Germanic' mercenaries against them. A series of conflicts ensued, during which the Aedui and their dependants were seriously weakened. After an appeal for Roman help failed, they seem to have become dependants of the Sequani and, as the Sequani were swamped by increasing inpourings of Germans, so the Aedui had to face the depredations of the incomers." pg.118

The Aedui became weakened after the arrival of the Germans. Most of the fighting was a matter of shifting alliances of clients, that is till the Germans showed up. I will have more on this in a later post.

J.E.Drinkwater-"Roman Gaul"-"The trouble appears again to have been caused by pressure from the Germans. The study of these people has long been bedevilled by prevailing nationalistic and ideological prejudices. Nevertheless, it now seems that we can talk, if only with much qualification, of early 'German' peoples in northern Europe from around the middle of the fifth century BC. Expansoin, leading to contact with the Mediterranean world, took place from the third century BC, including, of course, the movement of the Cimbri into Gaul at the end of the following century. It is likely that full German settlement across the lower Rhine (involving Caesar's Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi, and so on) and a fusion of Germanic and Celtic peoples around the Eifel (to form, above all, the future civitas of the Celtic-speaking Treveri) also belong to this period. There is no doubt that the Gallic nations were seriously disturbed by this activity, particularly the Cimbric invasions, but they seem to have learned to live with the new circumstances. However, towards the middle of the first century BC there was renewed and increased pressure in Gaul as a result of the arrival of Germanic latecomers, who plunged Gallia Comata into further unrest. The stress manifested itself in two distinct bu related forms, both potentially dangerous to Roman interests. In the first place German penetration into the upper Rhineland threatened to displace the nation of the Helvetii. A Celtic people who had originally lived beyond the Rhine, they had been increasingly forced into the area of modern Switzerland from about the third century BC onwards. They lost their last foothold across the river probably around 100BC, and from about the late 70s BC began to feel embattled in their new habitat. They started to plan a retreat through central Gaul, which would have disrupted the peoples already settled there, including their neighbors, the Allobroges, who were the direct responsibility of Rome, and the Aedui, who could claim a 'special relationship' with the City.
In the meantime, the very unrest which these and similar events were provoking among the Gallic civitates was also promoting the German cause. In the course of the long-running rivalry between the Arverni and the Aedui, the Sequani, allies of the former, were tempted to invite in a German princeling and his followers, Ariovistus and the Suebi, as mercenary troops, to be paid in land. Militarily, this policy proved a great success; the 'friends' of the Roman People were severely mauled, which must have reflected very poorly on the credibility of Roman power and influence. Further de-stabilization of the Gallic situation was then threatened by the Germans' turning on the Sequani and seizing most of their land (which in its turn would have had the effect of further alarming the Helvetii by threatening them from over the Jura). Overall, therefore, Roman interference in some fashion or other must have been unavoidable, particularly since her friends in Gaul were now appealing for aid. In fact a senatorial decree confirming Roman support for the Aedui was passed in 61BC; and in March of the following year we find Cicero writing to his friend Atticus forecasting a Gallic war. The war which eventually occurred, however-Caesar's war-turned out to be something more important than imperial police-work." pg.12-14

Goldsworthy disagrees with the idea that the Helvetii were coming over to help get rid of the Germans.


Cavalry fighting is often decided by psychological factors though, and particularly shock and momentum and aggressiveness. Even fairly lightly equipped cavalry that can gain an edge in those has often been able to rout mounted forces of higher calibre simply by the psychological shock of the sudden and determined assault. Once panic sets in even a large and powerful formation can irrecoverably collapse in moments, and cavalry is inherently more volatile than infantry; whereas heavy-infantry clashes could take hours to be decided, shock cavalry actions tended to be resolved in minutes if one side could not reorder its squadrons adroitly enough in the see-saw of charge and counter-charge.

Indeed, cavalry officers were among the few for whom reckless courage and impulsiveness were desirable traits, as they made it that much easier to unhesitantly seize the initiative and gain the upper hand.

The way the Germans in many of the clashes seem to have unhesitantly charged en masse once they caught sight of their opponents - who were conversely often apparently somewhat dispersed and slow to react - might speak of such a factor. 'Course, that one can be a little difficult to model under the RTW engine...

Again what about these situations:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1683868&postcount=245
These situations do not fit your model except for the aggressiveness of the Germans.

It may also be that at least the lighter Gallic cavalry was more distinctly skirmishers than a shock arm in outlook, and was thus ill disposed to take on the highly aggressive Germans.
This I'm sure this would be true, however if you read the make up of Caesar's cavalry and that of the Gauls, it seems to me most were of the heavy armored type, and also we shouldn't forget the Remi that were among Caesars cavalry who the Germans routed.


As I understand it the Clibanarii of the Muslim Conquest period were much lighter than had been the norm previously - essentially heavy horse-archers, with just the horseman clad in body armour - but yeah, more or less. They were still probably rather heavier armed than the Arabs.

It's not actually particularly difficult to find cases of even quite excellent cavalry forces being put to flight by markedly "lesser", or at least lighter, squadrons simply by the virtue of a poor tactical approach or "getting caught napping" so to speak. Just for one example around the "pike and shot" period even quite light cavalry, so long as it attacked aggressively, could regularly defeat the heaviest armoured horse around that was using the caracole "heavy skirmish" technique. ('Course, once the heavies started getting straighforward too the lights were in trouble...)
Yes examples here or there, but here we have the Germans always beating the Gauls! Why do you think Sidnell,Goldsworthy,Speidel etc. were impressed?


And if u look and play the game German basic units are a little better than Gallic ones. Especially in the morale side of the story. Only Minhalt and Bataroas can give a real hard fight to Germanic non elites. Now, part of the reason Gallic non elite infantry will hold up against germanic infantry is because they won't get hit with the AP of most Germanic units.

The average of both German and Celtic basic units are 11.

Only Gallic elites are better than the Germanic troop line up. BUT, exept for the Gaestae, they will all suffer from the AP damage most Germanic units do.
6 of the 18 Germanic units have AP and two of those are redundant club units.

Now u have to understand these Gallic elites are outragusly expensive!!! Only the Mori Gaesum have a good cost, and u can only get them in one province. The Cornutos are EXTREMELY expensive and you can only get them in one province too.
Cost is irrelevant, only unit stats are what I'm interested in. Cost will be used to balance out the unit once it has been restored to more historical accuracy.

Also, all Gallic Elites GET BEAT by Cohorts Imperatoria, each and every time. PLUS the Cohorts are cheaper. So YES the roman troop lineup already beats the Gallic Elites, especially the Cohorts imperatoria.
-The only exeption is the Brihentin who is a very good cavarly and I am not afraid to have it fight Hetairoi.
The stats don't reflect what they should. The reason the Cohorts win is because each unit is 100 while the Celtic elites are 60. Match 5 elite Celtic units against 3 of the Roman units and watch what happens.

Cohors Imperatoria: sword 12/ defense 25/ moral 15
Rycalwre : spear 13/ defense 26/ moral 16
Solduros: sword 13/ defense 26/ moral 16
Carnute Cengetos: sword 12/ defense 27/ moral 18
Arjos : spear 14/ defense 26/ moral 15
Uachtarach : sword 13/ defense 29/ moral 18


If these stats were of individuals and not units I would for the most part be fine with it. But these reflect a group of men where the Romans are clearly superior in tactics. These stats don't reflect the tactics of the units and they should.
So this topic is about Celtic elites being better than Germanic counterparts?
I can say that the Sweboz will get some new 'elite' units, so that should solve the problems, no?
This thread originally began stating that the Sweboz were slightly underpowered in comparison to the Celts, with the main problem being there was a lack of heavy German cavalry. I believe a few tweaks in the German forces would be fine, but there should be a general reduction in the stats of the Celtic elites. I do not want to see the Germans get the same kind of Celtic treatment were they end up being more powerful then their Roman counter parts.

[Moros]

.

The stats don't reflect what they should. The reason the Cohorts win is because each unit is 100 while the Celtic elites are 60. Match 5 elite Celtic units against 3 of the Roman units and watch what happens.

Cohors Imperatoria: sword 12/ defense 25/ moral 15
Rycalwre : spear 13/ defense 26/ moral 16
Solduros: sword 13/ defense 26/ moral 16
Carnute Cengetos: sword 12/ defense 27/ moral 18
Arjos : spear 14/ defense 26/ moral 15
Uachtarach : sword 13/ defense 29/ moral 18

If you indeed would match 5 elite Celtic units against 3 romans, the romans might lose. But the problem in you theory is, that the roman units, are not Elites units. They have abou the strenght and moral of elite units of other factions. However for the Romans they are the backbone unit. In other words, the Romans are still much stronger as their main normal unit is just a bit weaker than the Celtic elite units...

Think about it.

A celtic army isn't supposed to have 5 of those elite units listed above, while the romans are supposed to have much more than 3 or 5 units of Cohors Imperatoria.

[NeoSpartan]

The average of both German and Celtic basic units are 11.

6 of the 18 Germanic units have AP and two of those are redundant club units.

Cost is irrelevant, only unit stats are what I'm interested in. Cost will be used to balance out the unit once it has been restored to more historical accuracy.

The stats don't reflect what they should. The reason the Cohorts win is because each unit is 100 while the Celtic elites are 60. Match 5 elite Celtic units against 3 of the Roman units and watch what happens.

Cohors Imperatoria: sword 12/ defense 25/ moral 15
Rycalwre : spear 13/ defense 26/ moral 16
Solduros: sword 13/ defense 26/ moral 16
Carnute Cengetos: sword 12/ defense 27/ moral 18
Arjos : spear 14/ defense 26/ moral 15
Uachtarach : sword 13/ defense 29/ moral 18


This thread originally began stating that the Sweboz were slightly underpowered in comparison to the Celts, with the main problem being there was a lack of heavy German cavalry. I believe a few tweaks in the German forces would be fine, but there should be a general reduction in the stats of the Celtic elites. I do not want to see the Germans get the same kind of Celtic treatment were they end up being more powerful then their Roman counter parts.

Say what???

-Double check the unit cards, Gallic infantry (non elite, non-levy, no Mori Gaesum) have morale between 10-11. The Minhalt have a morale of 15. And that is it, there is no more normal Gallic infantry, all the rest are elite troops.
-While Sweboz infantry varies from 11-15 (not includid the elite mail clad ones, or the Black painted ones)

-Gauls have NO units with AP. Casse had the Cluddargos (big sword guys) and those are elite outregulsy expensive, and they only have a high "lethality" not AP. The only Celtic AP unit are clingers and Irish hammer guys.

-Cost is irrelelant??????? What!!!!!!!!!! Cost is very relavant, both in MP and SP. Cost limits how many Elite Gallic units you can field!! Not only the recruitment cost, but the upkeep cost hits you. Make 20 Gallic elites, thats 1 full stack, and you will be loosing 10K-14k in UPKEEP alone cost each turn, let alone paying 60000-70000 just to recruit them. Make 3 full stacks and you are loosing 30k-42k on upkeep alone each turn. And is only 3 stacks!!!
--How many stacks of Imperial Legionaries can u make with this $$$? How many elite only stacks can I get with KH with this $$????
....And don't get me started on MP. :whip:
(Gallic elites cost 500-600 in upkeep each, and 3000-3300+ to train.. and its only 60 of them!)
Cost is EXTREMELY relevant. As a matter of fact the high cost of Gallic elites is used to illustrate the time and expense it took for Gallic society to produce such fine and elite soldiers.

-Exaclty Legions beat them because of #'s, good stats (although a bity less), AP PILUM!, (which Gauls don't have, and gallic elites don't throw anything), and cost.
Those Gallic elites, individually were better soldiers than the Legionaries, but as a group they were not that numerous, very expensive to maintain, and thats thier true weakness. (and is a major one). Compare that to Silver Shields who are also expensive, but its 120 of them!

The only Gaul that is good and cheap is the Mori Gaesum. The Neitos is still more expensive than Imp. Legions.

Oh and don't forget, the AP value of many (cheap and good moral) Sweboz units reduces the armor advantege of the Gallic Elites (exept for Gaesatae).

Again the only thing missing for the Sweboz is a heavy cavarly wing. And like all heavy cavarly it should be very, very expensive.

[Geoffrey S]

Interesting. You finally post stats to back up your claim that the Celts are overpowered compared to the Germanics, and it turns out that in fact, they're not. Moros and NeoSpartan have made a strong case for why your selection is unrepresentative and misinterpreted.

[SaFe]

Naturally Frostwulf is correct with his saying about costs.
The stats are important, if it makes you happy than make the germanics realistic statswise and increase their costs.
But stats matters not costs! But i think someone else knows the stats better, so i leave this out.

This is what angers me much more:
Also i'm sick of hearing that the authors Frostwulf again and again mentioned are simply ignored because we have Psycho's work on the celts...
Come on, those writers did their homework.
Especially Speidel give us some great insight on germanic warfare.

Also im getting sick of hearing the not so good hidden comments that say a lot about the thoughts from a few members here about the germanic "uber-warriors".
It would be a good sign for civilized discussion to leave this out in the future. Nobody here believes in this nazi crap here, so please stop making those little comments.


Sorry for the direct and perhaps harsh words, but it's becoming lame to again and again read respected authors and feel them ignored, because of...
Right, that is the question, because of what?
Nothing Psycho, Watchman or someone other has come up with is backed by modern and "up to date" historical researchers (on the germanic-celtic affair, gallic civil war or even the helvetii)

[Frostwulf]

If you indeed would match 5 elite Celtic units against 3 romans, the romans might lose. But the problem in you theory is, that the roman units, are not Elites units. They have abou the strenght and moral of elite units of other factions. However for the Romans they are the backbone unit. In other words, the Romans are still much stronger as their main normal unit is just a bit weaker than the Celtic elite units...

Think about it.
I did do a small sampling of battles but I used the Cohars Evocata which have one better defense then the Imperatoria. I didn't use the Praetoriana but one time because some one said that the praetoriana was not working properly. With equal units the Romans one every time except for the Uachtarach. When I played the Romans with 3 units vs 5 units of the Celts which would be equal numbers of men, I lost the majority of the time. I did win some but not often. When I played the Celts I won the majority of the time.


A celtic army isn't supposed to have 5 of those elite units listed above, while the romans are supposed to have much more than 3 or 5 units of Cohors Imperatoria.
A good point, but the problem remains the same. Its all about the stats and the Celtic elite is higher then the Roman elite.


-Double check the unit cards, Gallic infantry (non elite, non-levy, no Mori Gaesum) have morale between 10-11. The Minhalt have a morale of 15. And that is it, there is no more normal Gallic infantry, all the rest are elite troops.
What is designated as elite? Neitos-13/Cwmyr-13/Pictone-17/Calawre-15/Noricene Gaecori-13/Kluddargos-16 etc.

Gauls have NO units with AP. Casse had the Cluddargos (big sword guys) and those are elite outregulsy expensive, and they only have a high "lethality" not AP. The only Celtic AP unit are clingers and Irish hammer guys.

Remi Mirepos/ Brihentin/Laecha(javelin)/Taramonnos/Myrcharn

-Cost is irrelelant??????? What!!!!!!!!!! Cost is very relavant, both in MP and SP. Cost limits how many Elite Gallic units you can field!! Not only the recruitment cost, but the upkeep cost hits you. Make 20 Gallic elites, thats 1 full stack, and you will be loosing 10K-14k in UPKEEP alone cost each turn, let alone paying 60000-70000 just to recruit them. Make 3 full stacks and you are loosing 30k-42k on upkeep alone each turn. And is only 3 stacks!!!
--How many stacks of Imperial Legionaries can u make with this $$$? How many elite only stacks can I get with KH with this $$????
....And don't get me started on MP.
(Gallic elites cost 500-600 in upkeep each, and 3000-3300+ to train.. and its only 60 of them!)
Cost is EXTREMELY relevant. As a matter of fact the high cost of Gallic elites is used to illustrate the time and expense it took for Gallic society to produce such fine and elite soldiers.


Cost is irrelevant, only unit stats are what I'm interested in. Cost will be used to balance out the unit once it has been restored to more historical accuracy.
I believe your misunderstanding what I'm saying and getting at. Cost is irrelevant until you get your stats down first. The unit is then balanced out by increasing/decreasing cost of said unit.

-Exaclty Legions beat them because of #'s, good stats (although a bity less), AP PILUM!, (which Gauls don't have, and gallic elites don't throw anything), and cost.
Laecha-AP javelin-5
Elites: Uachtarach-8/Deaisbard-6/Gaesatae-7

Those Gallic elites, individually were better soldiers than the Legionaries, but as a group they were not that numerous, very expensive to maintain, and thats thier true weakness. (and is a major one). Compare that to Silver Shields who are also expensive, but its 120 of them!
I agree as individuals they were most likely better, but when they formed up into lines and acted as units, the Romans were superior. As far as the expense, it needs to be fixed. Reduce the stats to historical accuracies and reduce to cost to reflect that.

Oh and don't forget, the AP value of many (cheap and good moral) Sweboz units reduces the armor advantege of the Gallic Elites (exept for Gaesatae).
Take any one of the German units against any of the elite Celtic units and tell me who wins.

Interesting. You finally post stats to back up your claim that the Celts are overpowered compared to the Germanics, and it turns out that in fact, they're not. Moros and NeoSpartan have made a strong case for why your selection is unrepresentative and misinterpreted.
Perhaps you should look at the cards again and tell me about the elites and the cavalry not to mention what I have said in the beginning of this thread.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1567094&postcount=1

Thank you SaFe what you said was needed.

[blitzkrieg80]

Neospartan, I'm very happy to see you've taken the time to comment your ideas concerning Germanic units... from your description, it sounds very reasonable how they are as of .82a, so i am very hopeful for the adjustments to be seen in the next release.

I think Moros hits the nail on the head, there really should not be stacks of any Elite units... sure you can do it if you want, but technically that's "cheating" against the AI who isn't as smart and hopefully is more diverse... besides that being totally anachronistic. It may not make sense that the Germanic peoples' power lies in their heavy breeding, but that's something else, although part of what you're trying to get at Frostwulf... unfortunately, RTW is RTW.

I completely agree with SaFe... nobody brings up Mussolini BS concerning the Romans and being overpowered. I think the 2250 years of history concerning the various Germanic peoples otherwise removed from the WW2 timeline is a much better representation than a easy and meaningless jab for caring to have thought about Germans. There is NOTHING wrong with talking, thinking, or admiring Germanic peoples. It has NOTHING to do with racism... get over it, people! Similarly, there is nothing wrong with admiring Romans... even if they did steal Greek culture and pass it off as their own ~;) Americans and French, Japanese (insert your nationality here) just as much think they're damn superior in nature, so whatever Great White Hope propaganda you're trying to blame the Germans for isn't even well-founded... It just so happens that scientists of German heritage were leading those fields at the time of those notions, which were well-abandoned pretty quickly by serious scientists.

Having been a member of EB means absolutely nothing in terms of being "right" or "wrong"- puh-lease (rolls eyes). There is no certification program or degree system for becoming an EB member and we're all human, thus imperfect by nature. What should make all EB members great, and all historians, scientists, and non-professional but passionate hobbyists who have just as much authority is the fact that our evidence should do the influencing rather than our popularity and social grace. Love your peeps all you want, but don't think for a moment you can convince us their "presence" means anything concerning qualification but thoughtfulness and interest in discussion / EB. Btw, this is aimed at nobody in particular, obviously this is a pet-peeve of mine, both actually.

btw, question for native-German speakers: wtf is up with "uber" = "super"?! I never understood that. Superman is Supermann and uber means "over" so is that a Saturday Night Live reference or what? where did this come from I'm curious ~:)

[Geoffrey S]

Where did all these allegations of nazi-implication suddenly spring from? :inquisitive:

Perhaps you should look at the cards again and tell me about the elites and the cavalry not to mention what I have said in the beginning of this thread.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1567094&postcount=1
Perhaps you should stop in every post insulting my intelligence by implying that I've either not followed the debate or don't understand it. It's condescending and quite frankly pissing me off.

Try this: you say costs are irrelevant. It has been pointed out that they're all-important here. Average Germanic units beat average Celtic units. Average Germanic units get beaten by elite Celts (and those elites will struggle against enemy numbers and clubtroops). Because of the cost and small unit size of those elites for the larger part Germanics will have a numerical and/or qualitative advantage over their Celtic adversaries. Ergo:

The Celts don't have an advantage over the Sweboz and the Sweboz aren't underpowered!

At worst it can be said that the Sweboz need a heavy cavalry unit. Blitzkrieg has already made clear one is in the making or already finished. I really, really can't see the problem.

[blank]

At worst it can be said that the Sweboz need a heavy cavalry unit. Blitzkrieg has already made clear one is in the making or already finished. I really, really can't see the problem.

Two. But only one of them will be in the next release

[Oleander Ardens]

Two. But only one of them will be in the next release

Excellent. Thanks for the info.

I personally gave one of the baltic archer a composite bow to reflect one aspect of archery in this large area between the short scythian and the long shelfbow. Usually an composite bow goes also with more but lighter arrows, which is reflected in the design and weight of the remaining arrowheads - as EB rightly shows.

Cheers
OA

[blitzkrieg80]

Yep, our mighty and knowledgeable skinner Blank did both. :applause: The Cimbri regional medium cavalry is extraordinary, i can't wait for everyone to see it... when SaFe was FC of the Sweboz, from what I can tell in the forum, a Noble Cavalry and Teuton regional were planned actually, so I can't say that these ideas are uniquely my own... I definitely felt those were the elements missing in the lineup though, since the infantry is well-covered: time will only tell if the fans agree ~:)

the Germanic Heavy Cavalry is in fact a better unit (stat-wise) than the Brihentin, which should satisfy Frostwulf and others imo, and thus is VERY expensive and rare, only available after a working Sweboz Reform included in the next build, sort of reflecting the uniqueness of it existing and keeping it from being common... The redone Gastiz better named "Mercenary Thanes" are also only available after the reforms, so no more early mailed units, except bodyguard and Gastiz types as MERC. No more flat-top graphics for those either ~;) I can't wait until you guys see the Bodyguard, they're my personal favorite, no small feat amidst the many new and beautiful Sweboz graphics

[Anu]

was referred to this thread.
I was wandering whats the deal with the Wodanawulfoz and the Swardimannoz costing what they do? I usually don't feel they are worth recruiting.

Talked about this a bit in The unit changes in EB 1 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=92852)

[Erebus26]

Also im getting sick of hearing the not so good hidden comments that say a lot about the thoughts from a few members here about the germanic "uber-warriors".
It would be a good sign for civilized discussion to leave this out in the future. Nobody here believes in this nazi crap here, so please stop making those little comments.

I mentioned the term 'uber - warriors' in a previous post of mine. This does not mean that I'm a fascist, and I think it shows a total lack of respect for you to suggest that I am. I don't think anyone who participates on this forum practises or is involved in any kind of fascist politics. My post actually concerned the fact that people were making statements regarding Ariovistus and his Suebi being an all conquering force taking over the whole of Gaul from the 'weakling' Gallic nations. I was trying to state that the Suebi wouldn't have thought of themselves as 'Germanic', as that was just a general name given to tribes from that side of the rhine by Caesar, and in fact that they were just a powerful coalition of tribes from the eastern side of the rhine taking advantage of internal Gallic strife.

I don't anyone has been ignoring respected authors on this thread. I in fact have had friendly and meaningful discussions with frostwulf, and although we disagree on a couple of things, I agree with him on a lot more and I fully respect his views. I have respect for a lot of the authors that have been mentioned in various threads like Cunliffe and Goldsworthy, but I also use Caesar and despite his obvious political and personal bias he does have one advantage - he was there at the time!

By the way I used uber as a slang word for super. I did not use the word to link ancient 'germanic' warriors to the wehrmacht or the SS of WW2. This word usage of mine was meant as no disrespect to any German people, and I will not be branded a nazi and I expect an apology SaFe!

[blitzkrieg80]

Lots of people use "uber" as super and make jabs as Germans, so I don't think SaFe was particularly complaining about your usage, I know I wasn't... more like the stereotype that certainly exists... moreso, the problem lies in the ideas that anyone who likes German stuff is automatically a Nazi and it's totally trendy (at least in the USA- tribal tatoos anyone?) to like Celtic culture and favor it over being a Nazi, when both should be respected for their unique ancient culture and stereotyped less.

Erebus, I have noted your attention to detail and particular open-mindedness as well as polite interaction on several of these threads, so I hope you don't take our pet-peeves as any attack on you.

[Erebus26]

Thanks for your kindness Blitzkreig. I just didn't want anyone looking back at one of my previous posts after reading SaFe's comment and thinking that I am something that I'm not.

[NeoSpartan]

Geoffrey S.... you are the man, you cut my ensuing rambeling by 3/4!!!!!!!:2thumbsup: :applause:
Very well said, in a nice concrete and short manner...

Howerever, I will say the last 1/4 ~;)


.....

A good point, but the problem remains the same. Its all about the stats and the Celtic elite is higher then the Roman elite.


-That is not a problem. A Gallic Elite, pound for pound, 1vs1, was a better fighter than a Legionary. Yes, and the stast show that.


.....
What is designated as elite? Neitos-13/Cwmyr-13/Pictone-17/Calawre-15/Noricene Gaecori-13/Kluddargos-16 etc.


-An elite??? hum thats a hard question you see you really have to open the files and it really depends u know...
or u could look at The Unit Description.
-for the record lets point out the NON-Gallic INFANTRY Elites:
Gaul:
Lugoae, AljậGae (celti-german spearsmen), Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Botroas, Bagaudas, Bataroas, Noricene Gaecori (celt-greek spearmen), Batacorii (balgrae spear), Milnaht (only non elite with good moral).
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_aedui_units.html

Casse:
Cemmeinarn, all they share all other Gallic non-elite infantry exepct for Bataroas.
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_casse_units.html


.....
Remi Mirepos/ Brihentin/Laecha(javelin)/Taramonnos/Myrcharn

...Thanks for pointing something out:
Laecha are the only Gallic (casse actually) with AP javeings! No other gallic infantry has AP javelings. And as I said before, no gallic infantry has AP melee weapons.

The rest are ALL CAVALRY! I am talking about Gallic Infantry.
I know as of 8.xx Sweboz lack a heavy cavarly, thats why I am talking about infantry.


.....
I believe your misunderstanding what I'm saying and getting at. Cost is irrelevant until you get your stats down first. The unit is then balanced out by increasing/decreasing cost of said unit.


No my friend. I do undestand you...
you are saying to reduce the Gallic stats and then balance out thier cost (probably lower it).

-But I am telling u NO!. As of right now the Gallic Elites are fine. They were superior soldiers hired accross the known world. They kicked a***!!! :boxing:
Additonaly thier High Cost if fine too, because it reflect the time it took for these type of soldiers to come about.

--Their stats SHOULD not be reduced, just because Ceasar happen to encounter VERY few toguether with levys and Ceasar/Germans proceeded to beat.


.....
Laecha-AP javelin-5
Elites: Uachtarach-8/Deaisbard-6/Gaesatae-7

woopsy, my mistake... I skipped those Javeling throwing Gallic Elites. But as we know, these gallic elites don't have AP javelings. One good new for all thought, its that Neitos don't have javelings due to some modeling issue hopefully that will be solved for 1.0.

And Leacha are the only Gauls with AP javeling and they are Casse only.


.....
I agree as individuals they were most likely better, but when they formed up into lines and acted as units, the Romans were superior. As far as the expense, it needs to be fixed. Reduce the stats to historical accuracies and reduce to cost to reflect that.


no no no.... history says Gallic Elites kicked A***!! Their stats show they are really good fighters, and their cost and low numbers shows these men were not easy to get.


.....
Take any one of the German units against any of the elite Celtic units and tell me who wins.

THE CELITC ELIETE!!!!!!!!! Yes they do! pound for pound, 1v1, hell even 3v1 they will win!!!

However, you ain't making that many celtic elites with a budject of, say 20k, but u sure are making a LOT of germans. And you can basically envelope the gallic elies with them. And that AP can come in really handy too....

see where I am getting at... Sweboz are NOT underpowered.

HOWEVER... now I will tell you this. u do a battle 1 battle, full stack vs full stack, as in MP, and u use a budge of 60k. Then AS will beat just about anybody, Silver Shields only, Hypastasy (sp), Thorakitai Argyraspidai, Hetaerio.... not an easy enemy to beat, it doesn't matter who u are.

In the campain map however, in SP, this means a different thing, it means that AS army Vs 1 and 1/2 full stacks of quality troops from anybody else.

Why do I say this:
-So that u don't go about comparing a Full stack of Gallic Elites (infantry) vs a full stack of the best Swebi infantry in an MP style battle.

Now to another guy...

.....
But stats matters not costs! But i think someone else knows the stats better, so i leave this out.
....

OH NO my friend. I can't let this one slide.

I know you wanna keep this discussion ONLY on the stats. That way you can go on "proving" Gallic elites are overpowered based on stats.

BUT U CANNOT INGORE COST, AND THE IMPACT IT HAS! Sorry, man, nothing personal here, but I can't let u get away with ommiting cost.

ok... let me calm down for a sec. 1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10...
ok I am good now.

Look, when we compare units you have to understand that there are several variables that will affect the result of ur comparison.
-If we only look at stats, and argue based on stats only. All the while ignoring costs (upkeep and recruitment), and # of units we get different results.

Here is what I mean:
By looking at stats only you might just say "Hey pound for pound the Gallic Elite infantry is better, this isn't right because bla, bla, bla...." HOWEVER if you look at the cost of and # of units you will see that the Gallic Elites are good, but a player will be able to make are too few, thus get beat.

Test this, go to MP or just Costum Battle. Have a set budget of 10k and buy Gallic elites vs Imperial Cohorts. You will see you will be outnumbered, both in terms of individual soldiers and in terms of units. Then do the same thing this time against the Sweboz and you will be outnumbered even more (and watch out for those AP mofos)

[Frostwulf]

Perhaps you should stop in every post insulting my intelligence by implying that I've either not followed the debate or don't understand it. It's condescending and quite frankly pissing me off.

I didn't mean to come across as condescending,rude or any other impolite manner. I thought the discussion between us was civil until your last post. I do apologize if my demeanor came across as so. My post to you prior to this one was not in spite either, or wasn't meant to come across that way.

Try this: you say costs are irrelevant. It has been pointed out that they're all-important here. Average Germanic units beat average Celtic units. Average Germanic units get beaten by elite Celts (and those elites will struggle against enemy numbers and clubtroops). Because of the cost and small unit size of those elites for the larger part Germanics will have a numerical and/or qualitative advantage over their Celtic adversaries. Ergo:

The Celts don't have an advantage over the Sweboz and the Sweboz aren't overpowered!
I understand what your saying here, my point is that I don't believe it to be historically accurate. Change the stats and reduce the cost.

-That is not a problem. A Gallic Elite, pound for pound, 1vs1, was a better fighter than a Legionary. Yes, and the stast show that.
I do agree for the most part a Gallic elite warrior would be better 1vs1 against a legionary. But here we are not talking about 1 on 1, we are talking units of men in which the Romans were clearly superior. A bunch of individuals who are good warriors will lose to a group of soldiers who train together. It's like when the dream team went against a college basketball team and lost. Later the Dream team came back and won, but the idea is the same. The Celtic warriors fought together as individuals, the Romans fought together as a unit.

-An elite??? hum thats a hard question you see you really have to open the files and it really depends u know...
or u could look at The Unit Description.
-for the record lets point out the NON-Gallic INFANTRY Elites:
Gaul:
Lugoae, AljậGae (celti-german spearsmen), Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Botroas, Bagaudas, Bataroas, Noricene Gaecori (celt-greek spearmen), Batacorii (balgrae spear), Milnaht (only non elite with good moral).
I did look there, and thats what confused me. From the way you were saying things there were not that many good moral units that were not elite. The units I listed:Neitos-13/Cwmyr-13/Pictone-17/Calawre-15/Noricene Gaecori-13/Kluddargos-16 etc. do not have the term elite in their description. In fact I didn't bother to put the Carnute Cingetos, Rycalawere and others because their stats were so high I just figured they were elites, even though its not in their description. This is the reason why I asked what is considered elites.

The rest are ALL CAVALRY! I am talking about Gallic Infantry.
I know as of 8.xx Sweboz lack a heavy cavarly, thats why I am talking about infantry.
I didn't know you were only referring to cavalry, as nothing was said about it till now. When it comes down to it though I would rather have fast moving AP then the slower infantry, but thats just my opinion.

-But I am telling u NO!. As of right now the Gallic Elites are fine. They were superior soldiers hired accross the known world. They kicked a***!!!
Additonaly thier High Cost if fine too, because it reflect the time it took for these type of soldiers to come about.
The Gallic cavalry was superior to the Romans but the infantry were not, as shown in the many battles fought between the two.

--Their stats SHOULD not be reduced, just because Ceasar happen to encounter VERY few toguether with levys and Ceasar/Germans proceeded to beat.
It wouldn't even have to do with Caesar, the pre Marius semi-conscript army defeated them the majority of the time while most of the time outnumbered.

no no no.... history says Gallic Elites kicked A***!! Their stats show they are really good fighters, and their cost and low numbers shows these men were not easy to get.
No doubt the Celts were tough, but they were not a match for the Romans proved many times in many battles.

NeoSpartan I see what your saying and I just simply disagree with you. The Celtic elite stats are to high and should be brought down to historical perspectives. Once that is done then lower the cost of the unit to better reflect playability of the faction.


Yep, our mighty and knowledgeable skinner Blank did both. The Cimbri regional medium cavalry is extraordinary, i can't wait for everyone to see it... when SaFe was FC of the Sweboz, from what I can tell in the forum, a Noble Cavalry and Teuton regional were planned actually, so I can't say that these ideas are uniquely my own... I definitely felt those were the elements missing in the lineup though, since the infantry is well-covered: time will only tell if the fans agree

the Germanic Heavy Cavalry is in fact a better unit (stat-wise) than the Brihentin, which should satisfy Frostwulf and others imo, and thus is VERY expensive and rare, only available after a working Sweboz Reform included in the next build, sort of reflecting the uniqueness of it existing and keeping it from being common... The redone Gastiz better named "Mercenary Thanes" are also only available after the reforms, so no more early mailed units, except bodyguard and Gastiz types as MERC. No more flat-top graphics for those either I can't wait until you guys see the Bodyguard, they're my personal favorite, no small feat amidst the many new and beautiful Sweboz graphics
I like these ideas. It does satisfy me that the German cavalry unit is more powerful and does cost more, makes sense to me.

[NeoSpartan]

I understand what your saying here, my point is that I don't believe it to be historically accurate. Change the stats and reduce the cost.


-Do you realize what that means????
I'll tell you:
Weaker but Cheaper Gallic Elites means that they can be more COMMON on a Gallic army. It means I can trian more of them in both MP and SP campains! It turns them into a Good Heavy Infantry, like the Thorakitai are also a good heavy infantry.

now.. IF you still don't get it:
-Once u have Gallic Elites become another "Common & Reasonable costing Good Heavy Infantry" u have now made the Gallic Factions A-HISTORICAL!!! why?? bacause Gallic Elites were FEW in any Gallic army, and by reducing their cost it makes them common place, GET IT!
---how come?? Because a player can now AFFORD to put more of them in their MP and SP armies.

(This is also why COST of troops cannot be ignored when comparing units!!!)



I do agree for the most part a Gallic elite warrior would be better 1vs1 against a legionary. But here we are not talking about 1 on 1, we are talking units of men in which the Romans were clearly superior. A bunch of individuals who are good warriors will lose to a group of soldiers who train together. It's like when the dream team went against a college basketball team and lost. Later the Dream team came back and won, but the idea is the same. The Celtic warriors fought together as individuals, the Romans fought together as a unit.


-Let me point out something:
When you guys refer to Gauls being individual fighters not team-cohesive fighters, you guys (everyone posting) is refering to "Gallic Army". I don't see any refences to Soldurus, Neitos, etc..... By Gallic army it can mean levys, medium infantry, skermishers, whatever.... Therfore I don't think Gallic Elites preformed badly when fighting in a group.

-OK now to my point. Give me 60 Soldurus vs 60 Imperial Cohorts and I'll put my $$ on the Soldurus. WHY?

Imperial Cohorts were well drilled, had good combat training, and conditioning. Making them a very good infantry fighting force and cheap for the state (or general) to produce.

Soldurus (as all other Gallic Infantry Elites) aquired thier combat knowledge and conditioning through years of "tutoring" and "combat expirience", (as long as they didn't die in the process). This makes for a VERY good fighting unit, but unfortunatly the tribe would not be able to train and equip troops with thier or close to thier quality.

--This is why they are SO good, so few, and so expensive in the game. And being so few 60 Soldurus usually face 100 Imp. Cohorts. They loose after killing about 80 (give or take) Imp. Legions.

p.s play the game some more



I did look there, and thats what confused me. From the way you were saying things there were not that many good moral units that were not elite. The units I listed:Neitos-13/Cwmyr-13/Pictone-17/Calawre-15/Noricene Gaecori-13/Kluddargos-16 etc. do not have the term elite in their description. In fact I didn't bother to put the Carnute Cingetos, Rycalawere and others because their stats were so high I just figured they were elites, even though its not in their description. This is the reason why I asked what is considered elites.


Good... I am not being sarcasting I mean it. Good

Now keep that description in mind and read the description of the ones u didn't mention due to thier high stats. You will see its kind of like 1st Elites and then 2nd Elites (or Very Good Heavy Infantry, whatever)

With that in mind compare thier description to the description of (just some of them will give u an idea:
-Lugoae, AljậGae (celti-german spearsmen), Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Botroas, Bagaudas, Bataroas, Noricene Gaecori (celt-greek spearmen), Batacorii (balgrae spear), Milnaht (only non elite with good moral).

That will show you 2 things.
1-These were the "bulk" of gallic armies.
2-These is what non-elites look like.
---And i just so happens that Sweboz non-elites, or "bulk of the army" units can beat them (although with difficulty).
-----Why do I know this?? Cause I've done some tests, and I've tested these armies in MP (where there is no AI making really dumb decitions) and the Sweboz have prefromed Better. SP campains don't count.



I didn't know you were only referring to cavalry, as nothing was said about it till now. When it comes down to it though I would rather have fast moving AP then the slower infantry, but thats just my opinion.


I am sorry that was my mistake, :shame: I though I had said "Infantry" in my previews posts more regularly but I didn't. I just said "Units". Although I name Infantry units all the time, exept when I explicetly talked about cavarly, I was not clear enough.
Looking back the only time I said "Infantry" was on 09-29-2007, 00:51

Anywho... like I said... No gallic INFANTRY has AP, exept for the hammer guys and those are in Ireland. IF a the Aedui/Arverni wants them they have to build a REGIONAL MIC. So.... if your playing "historical accurate battles" as the Aedui/Arverni you are not gonna put the hammer guys and Geastae in that army. Unless ur very late in a SP campain.

Well actually you want both... A fast moving (cavarly) hard hitting force and a strong infantry. Either one alone, and you are asking for trouble. Unless ur facing the AI.

ok back to topic



The Gallic cavalry was superior to the Romans but the infantry were not, as shown in the many battles fought between the two.


It wouldn't even have to do with Caesar, the pre Marius semi-conscript army defeated them the majority of the time while most of the time outnumbered.

No doubt the Celts were tough, but they were not a match for the Romans proved many times in many battles.

NeoSpartan I see what your saying and I just simply disagree with you. The Celtic elite stats are to high and should be brought down to historical perspectives. Once that is done then lower the cost of the unit to better reflect playability of the faction.


I am not going to get in a History debate with you, I'll let that to my man PSYCHO V, Watchman, and whole bunch of other...

I WILL argue based on the current units in EB. HOWEVER, not just "stats" based argument but "preformance" based argument. Because its been my expirience that what you read in the "stats" doesn't always hold true in the battlefield, you have to do your own tests either in Costum Battle or MP. Again SP campain don't count.

NOW.... Frostwulf.... Honestly man, you must not have been paying attention when I said that POLYBIAN PRICIPLES BEAT BATAROANS & MINHALT!!!! yes that is right MINHALT!!! The oh so powerful Minhalt who cost about $600 more than Bataroans could NOT beat Plolybian Priciples! Don't believe me... TEST IT.

now what does it all mean, I'll tell you:
Polybian Pricipes can beat ANY INFANTRY GAUL of the Aedui/Arverni army (I have not tested Casse so I am gonna mention thier units, although Casse share some of the Aedui/Arverni troops). With the exeption of the 4 Aedui/Arverni Infantry Elites.

Lets now take this "BATTLE PREFORMANCE" that EB has developed with thier modding and stating of units and see how the above compares with your last quote.

1-...the pre Marius semi-conscript army defeated them the majority of the time while most of the time outnumbered....but they were not a match for the Romans proved many times in many battles.....
---In the battle the Gallic non-elites outnumber and get beat by pre-marian troops.
---In MP the only way I can hope to beat a Romani army is to bring in Mori Gaesum a phalanx to hold their center. That way I can use there rest of my weaker Gauls along with a few Geasates (maybe a Neitos) to ROUT the Romani Flanks. However9/10 the won't rout immediatly so I have to bring in a cavarly hit. So Geasata scare+taking casualties+Cavarly hit= Early Romani Rout in the Flanks. Now I can deal with the center.
----IF I don't use Mori Gaesum to tie thier center, MY center will collapse 1st. Unless I put Neitos or Gaesatae in it, but I need those guys to rout the flanks otherwise it won't happen.
----Oh and I am talking about BOTH Polybian and Post-Marian Romani. The difference is that Post-Marian Infantry are a little harder to rout, but the postmarian Cavarly is weaker so that makes up for it. :yes:

2-...The Celtic elite stats are to high and should be brought down to historical perspectives. Once that is done then lower the cost of the unit to better reflect playability of the faction.
----Oh ok so I can now train LOT more Good Infantry units than before. Although they are not as tough as they use to, I can get more of them and don't have to be worry that my other Gauls will rout. Hey that ain't so bad...
----BUT now u made my Gallic army a-historical.
----Normaly, I can afford 3-4 Gaesatae with 1-2 Neitos, and 2 Brenhim (sp) Cavarly and the rest are non-elite Gallic infantry. (IF MP I will be short of a full stack to spend the $$ on 3-4 Mori Gaesum, but we won't use that in this example)
----But now (after your changes) I can get 4 Gaesatae, 4 Neitos, 4 Soldurus, 2 Coretus (sp), and the rest of the army looks the same. WOW... Thats a lot of Elites for a Gallic Army don't you think. Hell, the Gauls RARELY put so many of thier Elites in the field.

This is not the only problem Frostwulf, IF we do what you say:
--The Minhalt (the best non-elites of Aedui/Arverni) will now be beaten by Camilian HESTATI!
--And the Gaesates, etc will get beat by Polybian Pricipes.
--Additionaly the Gaesatae, etc will get beat by non-Elites Sweboz Infantry (all exept for the black painted ones and mail clad ones)

WOW... do you know what that also means...
Thorakitai, Hoplitai, Thrakioi Peltastai, Scortamareva (Lusotannan Medium Spearmen), and ALL other Good heavy infantry will be able to kill Gaesatae and the like too.

WTF do these changes make the Arverni/Aedui, when they can ONLY get Gaesate at 1st, and the rest of thier Elites come after the 1st and 2nd Reform????

A Freaking Cake walk man, a cake walk. Anybody, anybody will be able to beat them easely. Hell even after the Gauls get thier reforms and can train the rest of thier Elites, they will STILL be a cake walk!

And you know what.... Gauls were not a cake walk. Believe PSYCHO or not, the Gauls were weak by the time Ceasar came, plus Ceasar (for the most part) was successful in keeping the Gallic tribes divided.

Look at the stats man, play the game, run some tests, and you will see what the "stats" don't tell you.

you want an example of what the stats don't tell you:
--The only way the Soldurus can kill 80 lmp. Legionaries is if you delete the spears from the Soldurus.
--AP is creazy! Germanic units with AP, plust the guys that scare infantry can make stronger infantry FLEE without bringing in your cavarly! Its great!
--AP is really creazy... Slingers do more damage that the BEST archers!
--Yeah sure Gaullic infantry non-elite have a higher attack than Romani, but they get beat either way. Even by Polybain!!! Its not "even" at all, you gotta use carefull troop selection and manouvering to win!
--Brihentin Cavarly is good!! I am not afraid to toss them against Hataroi for a lil' while.
--Charriots are B! Don't let them touch ur cavarly they will slaughter it, yes kill many of them at once.
--Remi Mairepos (Belgae heavy cavarly) are BS, not much better than Brihentin at all!!! And they cost $500 more. Even more BS!
to name a few....

[Frostwulf]

Sorry this took so long neo-spartan, I had already typed something out and my computer glitched and I lost everything(very annoying). I went on to type out a response to the Celts overpowered thread then came back to this one again.

Weaker but Cheaper Gallic Elites means that they can be more COMMON on a Gallic army. It means I can trian more of them in both MP and SP campains! It turns them into a Good Heavy Infantry, like the Thorakitai are also a good heavy infantry.

now.. IF you still don't get it:
-Once u have Gallic Elites become another "Common & Reasonable costing Good Heavy Infantry" u have now made the Gallic Factions A-HISTORICAL!!! why?? bacause Gallic Elites were FEW in any Gallic army, and by reducing their cost it makes them common place, GET IT!
---how come?? Because a player can now AFFORD to put more of them in their MP and SP armies.

If I'm not mistaken the AI spams elites, then that alone negates your argument. If the computer spams the elites therefore making the game A-historical. If your worried about to many elites for the sake of realism the solution is simple, don't buy them. On the other hand the game is A-historical because the Celtic units(mostly elites) are overpowered compared to their historical basis. It is easier to not buy more elites then it is to go into the program and change the stats to match the historical parameters for the units.


-Let me point out something:
When you guys refer to Gauls being individual fighters not team-cohesive fighters, you guys (everyone posting) is refering to "Gallic Army". I don't see any refences to Soldurus, Neitos, etc..... By Gallic army it can mean levys, medium infantry, skermishers, whatever.... Therfore I don't think Gallic Elites preformed badly when fighting in a group.

-OK now to my point. Give me 60 Soldurus vs 60 Imperial Cohorts and I'll put my $$ on the Soldurus. WHY?

Imperial Cohorts were well drilled, had good combat training, and conditioning. Making them a very good infantry fighting force and cheap for the state (or general) to produce.

Soldurus (as all other Gallic Infantry Elites) aquired thier combat knowledge and conditioning through years of "tutoring" and "combat expirience", (as long as they didn't die in the process). This makes for a VERY good fighting unit, but unfortunatly the tribe would not be able to train and equip troops with thier or close to thier quality.

--This is why they are SO good, so few, and so expensive in the game. And being so few 60 Soldurus usually face 100 Imp. Cohorts. They loose after killing about 80 (give or take) Imp. Legions.

"Their request was granted and they proceeded to hand their weapons over as ordered. But while the attention of all our men was focused on this transaction, their commander-in-chief Adiatumnus went into action in another part of the town with 600 followers whom they called soldurii. The rule of this order is that they share in the enjoyment of all life's advantages with the friends to whom they have committed themselves, and if the friend succumbs to any violence they either share his fate or commit suicide; there is no record of one who refused to die when the man to whose friendship he had committed himself was killed. It was with such followers that Adiatumnus attempted his sortie, but a shout was raised in that part of the fortification. The soldiers ran to arms, and after a sharp engagement Adiatumnus was driven back into the town. But he petitioned Crassus for the old terms of surrender and obtained his desire. Book 3,22


Now keep that description in mind and read the description of the ones u didn't mention due to thier high stats. You will see its kind of like 1st Elites and then 2nd Elites (or Very Good Heavy Infantry, whatever)

With that in mind compare thier description to the description of (just some of them will give u an idea:
-Lugoae, AljậGae (celti-german spearsmen), Gaeroas, Gaelaiche, Botroas, Bagaudas, Bataroas, Noricene Gaecori (celt-greek spearmen), Batacorii (balgrae spear), Milnaht (only non elite with good moral).

That will show you 2 things.
1-These were the "bulk" of gallic armies.
2-These is what non-elites look like.
---And i just so happens that Sweboz non-elites, or "bulk of the army" units can beat them (although with difficulty).
-----Why do I know this?? Cause I've done some tests, and I've tested these armies in MP (where there is no AI making really dumb decitions) and the Sweboz have prefromed Better. SP campains don't count.
If we go with the way your dividing these up then the German Swaiiut units are in general(varies) then the Gallic levy's. The Celtic units of the Milnaht and Mori Gaesum are still better then any of the German Swaiiut (levy) units. Historically it should be assumed that the basic German tribal unit should beat the levy units of the Celts.
As far as the 2nd elites the Germans(if I understand the way you have it lined up) Swardimannoz,Sahsnotoz,Gaizaharjoz and Wodanawulfoz. When you compare the stats with the Neitos,Kluddagaros,Cwmyr etc. you will find only the Wodanawulfoz are the only ones close to them. I'm not even including the likes of the Solduros,Deaisbard etc. If you consider the top elites the German Gastis,Merjoz and Hundaskpiz do not even compare with the Celt elites.
So from my understanding of the way you have things lined up the German levy type troops are a little better but the Celts are easily better from above them.
From here I would say there is little point in proceeding, you are fine with the way things are and continue to use the cost of units in the debate. I disagree and say the Celtic units(mostly elite) are overpowered, address the stats then assign appropriate costs to them.

[NeoSpartan]

I gotta play the new EB more man (I suggest you do the same).... the stats have changed, new units are up, and the Aeudi/Arverni can recruit Soldurus BEFORE the 1st reform :2thumbsup: and the Sweboz got Pikemen :yes:

Its a different ball game now.... so I can't continue the same argument. Well I could kinda if I simply looked at the "stats" but "stats" don't always translate neatly to ingame preformance. Only Costum battle test and MP can really show the strenghs/weaknesses of units (which is another reason why I don't play with upgrades in MP).

[blitzkrieg80]

any discussion concerning the Sweboz (comments / criticism) non-pertinent to Frostwulf's last argument(s) should be transferred to the Sweboz Feedback (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=93470) thread, if you please ~:) because the Sweboz aren't "underpowered" even if the Bodyguard or another unit needs some stat -tweaks... please respect this

[SaFe]

@sorry, i totally forgot this thread, but i can tell Erebus i didn't mean him with the comment about discussion and the "uber" germans.

I've heard time and time again from two different members of EB(partially one ex-member) during discussion the "uber"german spoldiers mentioned in a should be ironic(hopefully, i really hope for this persons) way every time they seem to loose the argument.
This was what i meant and now hopefully this thread has ended and those two people recognize this is simply dumb! Blitz has said it in a clearly better english than mine.

So, let's stop this argument and continue discussing in the thread blitz mentioned.

[Frostwulf]

This was transfered over here as I would like to keep these threads somewhat separate.

On the reversal of Celtic expansion in southern Germany - well, the area was one of the first regions to be occupied by Celts, and the later waves of Celtic expansion would come in part from there. From linguistics and archaeology we know the Celts moved, in large numbers, all over Europe. By the time of the migrations of the likes of the Cimbri and Teutones, Germanic tribes arriving in what is now southern Germany greatly outnumbered the Celts still living there and naturaly enough their culture absorbed this smaller native group. Were not talking about the tougher guys coming in and pushing the weaker ones out, were talking about a large population movement resulting in cultural shift.
The reversal of the Celtic expansion in the 3rd century wasn't in southern Germany, it was in Belgium and the southern part of Holland. As far as southern Germany the TCA(Teutons,Cimbri,Ambrones) may have sacked Manching, which was a large oppida. Manching to my knowledge wasn't abandoned till around 50BC, nearly 70 years later. I am curious about the information you have from southern Germany though, where did you find it?

Just on your point about Gallic tribes boasting of German heritage - this does not necessarily infer German ethnicity, but rather an origin in the German region ie east of the Rhine. (Not that theres anything wrong with being German.) I'll get back to you on where I read that, cant remember the author at the minute.
I agree with this but according to Caesar the Eburones and others did speak a German language, giving more reason to believe these were indeed Germans. Also the scholars I cited think that certain tribes were of German ancestry. I hope you can give me the information on that, the more the better.

On your many references to the Romans decisively beating the Celts - A very important thing to remember about the Roman invasion of Gaul is that the vast majority of the Gallic warriors involved were just ordinary farmers desperately trying to defend themselves and their homes from a foreign invader. They were not a professional force, like the legions sent to destroy them. There is a very misled notion that the entire male population of Gaul were all warriors, which was of course not the case.
Speaking strictly of Caesars time I agree with you that the majority of the Celts were not a professional fighting force(even before Caesars time). By this time the majority of the professional fighting force(nobles,retinues,etc.) were mounted. If you look at the number of cavalry available not to mention the amount of Gauls encountered that were referred as "picked men", Soldurii and other such listings there were certainly many warriors(made a living as a warrior) around. The tribal levy's which were in the majority I wouldn't really call them "warriors".

Although I dont subscribe to this civil war theory, it is a fact that Gaul was fragmented politicaly - the great weakness of all Celtic nations through history. The Romans could play one tribe off against another to their advantage - divide and conquer. When the Gauls finally united under Arverni leadership it was already too late.
I agree with this completely. I believe Caesar would have been defeated by the Belgae alone had they had the opportunity to get to him on good ground.

Why were the Romans so unsuccesful in their incursions into Germania then? There was a fundamental difference between Gaul and Germania (one that EB cant accurately represent) - Gaul had settled, developed power structures - Germania for the most part did not. The Romans could conquer a Celtic oppida, and they would then control the region that opidda had controlled. There were no such power nodes in Germania, the Romans would have to build them from the ground up, in hostile territory.
Again I agree with you. The only time the Germans gave trouble to the Romans around this time is because of powerful leaders such as Arminius and Maroboduus.

You are obviously well read and passionate about the subject, but maybe a little too passionate. You insist Germanic peoples were more vigorous, or more valorous and so on - I dont get it. The ancient Celts and Germans were really very similar afterall, and made war in a very similar fashion.
I believe you to misunderstand my stance on this. I came across this mod and things didn't seem right to me as far as the Celts were concerned. I was comparing the stats of the Celts to the Romans and it didn't seem right. The "elite" Celts portrayed in this mod were to powerful compared with the Romans. I did some studying and came to the conclusion that the Celts were indeed overpowered. I began to look at the Germans and figured they could use a little boost, as I was comparing them strictly to the Romans. The thread I started there tended to involve the Celts and things went on from there.
The Germans and the Celts were very similar in many respects as you have said but when it came to war the Germans tended to get the better of the Celts. The "valorous and vigorous" simply means to me skill at arms and moral, I came to this conclusion from reading what Caesar had written. Many years later I came to this mod and did research and my thoughts were backed up by the likes of Goldsworthy,Spiedel,Sidnell etc. As the Romans were superior in skill at arms to the Germans, the Germans were superior to the Celts(all being generalities).
As far as my passion is concerned it is not of Germans or Romans(I have basically been called an apologist for both) but of historical accuracy.

To come back to the root of the debate, I havnt really looked at the difference in stats (because I dont think its that big a deal) but if the Sweboz really are that far behind the Celtic factions, maybe they should be brought up to par with them.
I think the Sweboz are done well, good going Blitz,Viking and team. I still think there should be a heavy cavalry along the lines of the Remi Mairepos, but that is for another time.
My problem really hasn't been with the Sweboz it has always been that the Celtic units (mainly the elite) stat wise are to powerful.

[konny]

btw, question for native-German speakers: wtf is up with "uber" = "super"?! I never understood that. Superman is Supermann and uber means "over" so is that a Saturday Night Live reference or what? where did this come from I'm curious ~:)

"über" comes from "oben" and means "above". It can mean "over" in the sense of "across", example "fahr über die Brücke" (go over the bridge) or "er geht über die Strasse" (he is crossing the street). In both sentences there is "above" implemented, because of the bridge above the water and the paved road above the ground. So, the correct translation of the Latin word "super" is "über".

"super", if not part of a forgein word, is used in colloquial German in the sense of "fine", "cool", "rocks", "agreed" and such things; example "we will have roast today" - "super". Or, "you did that super" But also often ironical; for example "we are 10k in the minus" - "super...".

[burn_again]

Konny is right, but Superman is only Supermann if you refer to the comic character, you could also translate it as Übermensch. However the usage of "über = super" seems to be a computer-slang-thing, mostly used by native english speakers. I have never heard the word being used like that here in Germany, except from computer freaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I think it's a pun on "Deutschland über alles ― Germany over all/everything" or Übermensch.

Also sprach ein Ausländer -former- Deutschsprecher. ~;p
.

[konny]

.
I think it's a pun on "Deutschland über alles ― Germany over all/everything" or Übermensch.

Yes, I think it's Nietzsche.