View Full Version : Celtic elite units
Stone and Blood
11-19-2007, 03:57
Hello, i've been playing with aedui. I defeated arveni, then i defetead romani, after this i exterminated the sweboz and lusotanna, and at 244 BC i left the epeiros with only one city, destroyed half of the koinon hellenon and defeated completely the casse, achieving the victory conditions, and with 65 regions. I did it all playing with gesaetae, archers, slingers and generals. So i got bored and modificated the script to make me get the reforms at 243 BC. And i felt no difference, because gasaetae are stronger and cheaper than solduros and druids.
Yes, gasaetae were realy strong, with big muscles and a crazy drug that they used to drink before battles, but its realy sad too see naked guys killing heavy armoured soldiers like solduros. The only thing that i felt usefull was the recruitment of the brinhentin (Noble cavalry).
After this, in my oppinion, would be nice to decrease gasaetae's strenght, or make solduros and other heavy troops stronger, because waiting so many turns to get a reform that doesn't make much difference is sad.
This is the best mod of RTW i've playied, it's realy cool to read all the texts and informations that apear in each bulding, units, cultures and wonder's description. It's realy a work of love.So i want to help giving this suggestion . thans for your atention ;D.
Malik of Sindh
11-19-2007, 04:21
244 BC?And faction victory conditions done?Thats what i call blitz.
TWFanatic
11-19-2007, 04:24
They are arguably imbalanced. The EB guys seem quite happy with their balance though and won't change anything, so your post is falling on deaf ears.
My recommendation is to go the modders way: reduce Gaesatae stats a bit. I reduced armor a few points (since they have higher armor than many armored units!). This is in keeping with historical accuracy anyways, as it was the Roman pila that was the downfall of these nudists at Telamon according to Polybius. Two hitpoints and 5 armor is a bit high for naked men IMHO, particularly considering that they were easy targets.
About Druids...do they have a unique trait that isn't obvious? I can't think of any other reason for them to be more expensive and harder to obtain (they require a level 5 barracks instead of 4) than the nearly identical Calawre.
Stone and Blood
11-19-2007, 04:47
Thankts TWfanatic for your information, but i hope that someone of the EB team will read this and at least say something, even if they won't change anything...
Malik of Sindh
11-19-2007, 04:49
About Druids...do they have a unique trait that isn't obvious? I can't think of any other reason for them to be more expensive and harder to obtain (they require a level 5 barracks instead of 4) than the nearly identical Calawre.
Druids raise the morale of nearby troops.
Stone,you should not blitz so hard.It raises the fun alot.Just a suggestion.
Stone and Blood
11-19-2007, 04:51
About Druids...do they have a unique trait that isn't obvious? I can't think of any other reason for them to be more expensive and harder to obtain (they require a level 5 barracks instead of 4) than the nearly identical Calawre.
Jabarto, they got Eagles that inspires nearby troops, in my oppinion is the only Elite infantry after reform that is worth to recruit, but they can be recruited in only ONE region... and i haven't created any of these yet.
Stone and Blood
11-19-2007, 04:55
Druids raise the morale of nearby troops.
Stone,you should not blitz so hard.It raises the fun alot.Just a suggestion.
Just a Noob's questions xD: what blitz means? Well, i play at VH/M, and if you guys don't belive me i would take a screenshot of my campaing xD.
blitz from blitzkrieg "lighting war" basically saying you owned the shitz too hard too fast lulz, or something to that degree.
Druids raise the morale of nearby troops.
Stone,you should not blitz so hard.It raises the fun alot.Just a suggestion.
I thought the Calawre did that too?
Stone and Blood
11-19-2007, 05:00
blitz from blitzkrieg "lighting war" basically saying you owned the shitz too hard too fast lulz, or something to that degree.
Lol xD. And jabarto, calaware got eagles too, but the cingetos are much more stronger talking about stats
Stone and Blood
11-19-2007, 05:14
Oh... but a thing that i really like about reforms is the casse's! After making some tests in custom battle i discovered that if you but the casse sword masters(the green guys with long swords) into a line and lose formation you can cover a realy wide area, so big that one group of these guys can ocup 3, 4 or 5 enemy units at the same time! And then resist very well because of theyr eagles, and if you put the general close theyr line is almost unbreackable. so with 4 of these units you keep the whole enemy army occupied while you just move with other troops, flanking and atacking them from back. With 30000 denary a created a army with the casse with 8 casse sword masters, 3 archers, 1 general and some levy troops against the gauls. i play with huge scale, so it was 2700 casse VS 3200 Aedui.They were with 5 gasaetae, many neitos, archers, and heavy cavalry. I killed them all and they killey just 400 units! very impressive, the reform for casse is very usefull, but to arveni and aedui are not much important, Gasaetae rulez O.o
Lol xD. And jabarto, calaware got eagles too, but the cingetos are much more stronger talking about stats
I meant the Drwdae, the ones from Britain. The only difference between those and Calawre is that Drwdae have +1 Defense/-1 Attack.
Frostwulf
11-19-2007, 08:17
My recommendation is to go the modders way: reduce Gaesatae stats a bit. I reduced armor a few points (since they have higher armor than many armored units!). This is in keeping with historical accuracy anyways, as it was the Roman pila that was the downfall of these nudists at Telamon according to Polybius. Two hitpoints and 5 armor is a bit high for naked men IMHO, particularly considering that they were easy targets.
It wasn't just Teleman which the Gaesatae did poorly at:
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.
They are arguably imbalanced. The EB guys seem quite happy with their balance though and won't change anything, so your post is falling on deaf ears.
My recommendation is to go the modders way: reduce Gaesatae stats a bit. I reduced armor a few points (since they have higher armor than many armored units!). This is in keeping with historical accuracy anyways, as it was the Roman pila that was the downfall of these nudists at Telamon according to Polybius. Two hitpoints and 5 armor is a bit high for naked men IMHO, particularly considering that they were easy targets.
2 things
1. There are some upcoming changes to the Gaesatae, regarding their AOR
2. A naked man can dodge pretty well, but in the forecoming Historical Battle of Telamon you'll see for yourselves that a Gaesatae's worst enemy are Velites, lots of Velites with lots of pilae...
We can't restrict their recruitment like we'll be able to in EB2, the AI will have a harder time spamming them but ultimately it's up to the player's restraint to only use them in small numbers, making a stack of general + 5 cavalry + 14 Gaesatae will probably own everything but it's just not EB
We can't restrict their recruitment like we'll be able to in EB2, the AI will have a harder time spamming them but ultimately it's up to the player's restraint to only use them in small numbers, making a stack of general + 5 cavalry + 14 Gaesatae will probably own everything but it's just not EB
You could also (if you're Casse) make a stack of 1 general, 9 Goidilic tanks and 10 Gaesatae :yes:
I personally don't find the Gaesatae so useful, i prefer guys like the classical hoplites and Bosphoran archers
tapanojum
11-19-2007, 10:15
I personally dont like having more than a couple units of Gaesatae because it really ruins my gameplay experience watching thousands of naked guys swing their "spears" around
Geoffrey S
11-19-2007, 11:03
Nothing can stop the player from recruiting them if he so desires. They are strong, certainly, but again the player has an advantage in being able to use missile troops sensibly against these when they are enemies, something the AI fails to do.
About Druids...do they have a unique trait that isn't obvious? I can't think of any other reason for them to be more expensive and harder to obtain (they require a level 5 barracks instead of 4) than the nearly identical Calawre.
I seem to be the only one who has actually used Druids... They have the special ability "chant", which is very cool & creepy in a way.
2. A naked man can dodge pretty well, but in the forecoming Historical Battle of Telamon you'll see for yourselves that a Gaesatae's worst enemy are Velites, lots of Velites with lots of pilae...
Gaesatae can soak up a lot of javelins from the front, because of their shields. It's sad that in RTW javelins don't get stuck in them, forcing the user to drop them.
Pharnakes
11-19-2007, 13:01
If someone was throwing javelins at me, I wouldn't drop my shield. Maybe when it came to close quaters, but I'd damn well hold onto it untill the romans stopped throwing pilla.
Geoffrey S
11-19-2007, 13:05
If someone was throwing javelins at me, I wouldn't drop my shield. Maybe when it came to close quaters, but I'd damn well hold onto it untill the romans stopped throwing pilla.
That's what you'd want to do, but try holding a shield upright and balanced with a number of pila sticking out of the front, dragging it down...
That's why I carry 18 shields.
Elminster12
11-19-2007, 18:38
Yeah, the reason javelins are underpowered in RTW is that the engine doesn't simulate shield damage. Even so, Gaesatae aren't too hard to manage. I generally like to have a unit of them if I can manage, and use them as sort of a crack troop, even when I play Pontos. Them and Hoplitai add a nice mobile wing to the army.
Stone and Blood
11-19-2007, 19:39
Well, if you look at the gasaetae's status, you will see that his armour is something around 5 or 6, i don't remember very well, and 3 defense of shield. All that these guys got of armour is a helmet, would be nice to decrease theyr armour to 2 or 3, or make them vulnerable to missile atack, specially for the reason of realism. And i agree with the 11 or 12 of defense skill, because these guys were realy awesome fighters.
Decimus Attius Arbiter
11-19-2007, 21:30
They were also great skirmishers since they were named after their javelins. So they would know about avoiding those attacks. Defense skill only covers melee. I would think you'd need some velites with more practice to hit them. And as has been said in many other posts, they have mental armor(Watch the Matrix a few times) since they are drugged up and their pain receptors are shot.
You're free to change the stats so you can get a traditional RTS elite. The elites in this game are very role-playing oriented.
Also I do believe when you get the reforms, those new units would have been few and therefore expensive seeing as Rome was buying them over to their side.
NeoSpartan
11-19-2007, 22:10
2 things
2. A naked man can dodge pretty well, but in the forecoming Historical Battle of Telamon you'll see for yourselves that a Gaesatae's worst enemy are Velites, lots of Velites with lots of pilae...
:yes:
Thank you.... and as Thaatu said: the RTW engine can't model pilums sticking to shields and the user dropping them.
and I say....Nor can the RTW engine model horsemen being dropped from cavarly, nor can the RTW model phalangites dropping thier pike to fight with swords and then having to pic them up from the ground, spend about 5-10minutes regrouping before using them again.... etc, etc.....:whip:
Gaesatae spamming is sure to lead to victory vs an AI that doesn't know how to fight. The only time spamming of elites is acceptable is when ur fighing VH/VH!! Even VH/H with fatige off IS NOT acceptable :smash: (as I am doing right now) Why??? Because ELITES of any faction were few and far between they should only make up a fraction of your army.
ALSO did u look at the Gaesate's cost???? Is like $3300-$3200 (btw is higher than it was in .81x), and only 60 guys. In SP that doesn't really mean much as U can train 2-3 full stacks of them and still have a profit so long as u keep sacking enemy cities and have a good economy. BUT try to do that in MP with a $25,000-$40,000 budjet, and you WILL NOT be spamming no Gaesatae. :smash: (trust me I tried in .81 MP when they were a bit cheaper, I was stuck with having 2-4)
Stone and Blood
11-20-2007, 00:22
Well, my armies were like this: 4 gasaetaes, 1 general, 2 slingers. Thats all. And with these units i conquered cities with 8, 9, or 10 units garrisoned,and only 20 gasaetaes of my army getting killed. So, there was 2 armies marching to north killing casse, one armie marching to west, defeating lusotanna, 2 armies at the east killing what remained of sweboz and epeiros, and 2 on greece. From each turn, playing vh/m, i could take 2, 3 or 4 cities.
I used to end eachturn with only 6000 denarii, but was very rare to left one citie with no structures getting built. I never had a good amount of money, like 20000, or 30000, because all my money was used to recruitment and bulding. So i think its possible to upkeep many gasaetaes and conquer many cities. But anyway, ill create a new campaing VH/VH, and see if recruiting more levy or medium units will be more effective.
I agree with you that AI doesn't know how to fight gasaetae, they almost dont create missile units and use them with the porpuse of killing my naked man, and thanks forthe information Decimus Attius, i didn't know that defense skill only covers meele xD... but, anyway, thanks for the discussion guys, i realy earned good information, and i'll make more tests to take new conclusions ;D.
I once walked around with an army of 5 gaesatae and nothing else. I took out an army of 25 lugoae and 2 other not so poor units (obviously some were reinforcements), in a very close battle where I only had left slightly more than one unit. It was in an intermediate version where I was creating the money script for the freemen, and it gave way too much money to them, so they spammed levies like crazy. But it goes to show that those naked guys can chew up nearly any amount of weaklings.
I seem to be the only one who has actually used Druids... They have the special ability "chant", which is very cool & creepy in a way.
Carnutes can, yes. But I'm talking about the Drwdae, as in the Casse unit, which doesn't posess that ability and yet is more expensive than the Calawre with nearly identical stats.
just nerf their defense stats or something in the file, rather than constantly complaining?
NeoSpartan
11-20-2007, 05:51
Well, my armies were like this: 4 gasaetaes, 1 general, 2 slingers. Thats all. And with these units i conquered cities with 8, 9, or 10 units garrisoned,and only 20 gasaetaes of my army getting killed. So, there was 2 armies marching to north killing casse, one armie marching to west, defeating lusotanna, 2 armies at the east killing what remained of sweboz and epeiros, and 2 on greece. From each turn, playing vh/m, i could take 2, 3 or 4 cities.
I used to end eachturn with only 6000 denarii, but was very rare to left one citie with no structures getting built. I never had a good amount of money, like 20000, or 30000, because all my money was used to recruitment and bulding. So i think its possible to upkeep many gasaetaes and conquer many cities. But anyway, ill create a new campaing VH/VH, and see if recruiting more levy or medium units will be more effective.
I agree with you that AI doesn't know how to fight gasaetae, they almost dont create missile units and use them with the porpuse of killing my naked man, and thanks forthe information Decimus Attius, i didn't know that defense skill only covers meele xD... but, anyway, thanks for the discussion guys, i realy earned good information, and i'll make more tests to take new conclusions ;D.
NONONNONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!
IF your going on VH/VH you HAVE TO spam Gaesatae:yes: Anything less won't do trust me on that.
Anyways... whatever difficulty your playing now.. start a new campaing AND do the following:
TAKE FATIGE OFF!!!!
this will make the AI in battle much more of a challenge as it won't tire its troops. As u know tired troops have lower morale and being attacked by Gaesate drops thier morale even more so they will ROUT in an instant. Fatige Off doesn't let this happen. Nor does it let u sit back and the AI tire its troops to get to you when ur defending :smash:
Another thing u can do when you ARE NOT in VH/VH is after u kill the Arverni is to start taking some rebel settlements. The big strong garrison makes it harder in 1.0 and DON'T attack Rome until it attacks you. In my Aedui Campain Rome took unitil 250some to attack me, the Boii Gallum and Sagistanii (SP, the guys next to the Boii Gallum) held Rome back for YEARS!
pezhetairoi
11-20-2007, 09:00
Well, considering half-naked units like the Botroas and the Pictones only have 1 armour, I have in the interests of fairness decreased my Gaesatae and Tindanotae to 1 armour as well, but to maintain their eliteness, i have increased their skill by 1. I'm expecting they will be weakened now, but are still superior to Pictones, who are practically 1HP equivalents of the Gaesatae.
NeoSpartan
11-20-2007, 11:07
Botroas and pictones don't have a helmet.
Look at unit without helments, and no other type of armor you will see they have 1 armor points. (some have 2 points but I think they have a leather cap or something [Sweboz unit, forgot the name])
ps: do not confuse Botroas with Bataroas. Its easy to mix the names up, I used to all the time.
Carnutes can, yes. But I'm talking about the Drwdae, as in the Casse unit, which doesn't posess that ability and yet is more expensive than the Calawre with nearly identical stats.
My bad.
About the Gaesatae helmet armor, I think it'd be plausible to divide the helmet bonuses between armour and defence skill. Considering that a helmet, especially cheekguards, are more protective in melee, since in a swordfight the juiciest target is the head, while with javelins and arrows and such you usually aim for the chest. If the Gaesatae armor was divided something like +3 armor, +3 defence skill, would that make a difference?
pezhetairoi
11-20-2007, 12:44
Right about the helmet, I had forgotten about that. I'll nerf that one skill and add 2 back for the helmet. Yups.
My bad.
About the Gaesatae helmet armor, I think it'd be plausible to divide the helmet bonuses between armour and defence skill. Considering that a helmet, especially cheekguards, are more protective in melee, since in a swordfight the juiciest target is the head, while with javelins and arrows and such you usually aim for the chest. If the Gaesatae armor was divided something like +3 armor, +3 defence skill, would that make a difference?
Happy birthday man :beam:
Here is a dancing elephant and his little band for ye: :drummer: :elephant: :thrasher:
Thanks mate, I'm a big fan of the pink elephant.
NeoSpartan
11-20-2007, 15:59
Right about the helmet, I had forgotten about that. I'll nerf that one skill and add 2 back for the helmet. Yups.
Pez... why don't u run a test take ur Gaesatae and have then fight another melee elite? Like Agyrastidai (sp), or some of those guys.
You will notice that Gaesatae don't tend to overwhelm them, even though they have 2 hps.
The Gaesatae's a**kicking nature is that they only take MIC IV to make (they used to be at MIC III!), but the real power is that they will rout your regular units when they are down 50-60/80. (unless u have a really good general)
Slim_Ghost
11-21-2007, 01:09
I use naked fanatics mainly as a fear-inducing unit. Kind off a cheap but durable alternative to elephants or chariots.
NeoSpartan
11-21-2007, 03:02
I use naked fanatics mainly as a fear-inducing unit. Kind off a cheap but durable alternative to elephants or chariots.
Exactly :yes: thats what makes Gaesatae powerful right there.
I remember in MP Gauis was holding my Helvetii phalanx with some cheap units, and even though they were down to 30/120 they stayed fighting. I got pissed so I moved in my Gaesate (exposing them to javelings) behind my phalanx... and the Gaesatae said "BOO!" and they all ran away :yes:
Digby Tatham Warter
11-21-2007, 19:53
More than one post has stated that playing on VH battle, requires armies of Elites to win. So what is the point, in that surely it's no different from playing M or H battle using more balanced armies, after all the challenge is no greater is it?
In my ignorance, the only reasoning I can come up with, is that people can have the satisfaction of saying, they play on the hardest settings possible(even though they have unrealistic numbers of Elites to be able to do so).
No criticism intended just curious.
NeoSpartan
11-21-2007, 22:46
naahhh VH is a "different" ball game, than M.
Its a different way to have fun.. you need to field elites, and the AI elites beat ur elites. You need to use ground advantage ALWAYS, you need to RUSH the AI so that (a) it doesn't get stronger (b) you can get $$ from sacking to keep training armies.
Its fun! Its a challenge because the AI can beat u in straight fight so u have to improvise and break all rulez of roleplaying.
VH is for people who are NOT that interested in HEAVY roleplaying, and sim-city style game.
but listen.... don't worry about all the fuzz you hear about difficulty settings and whatnot. At the end of the day... the ABILITIES of a player are shown in:
MULTIPLAYER!!!! :thrasher:
NeoSpartan
11-22-2007, 04:28
Does MP work in 1.0?
NOT exacly.
madmatg got it working (along with a few other guys) BUT factions are missing a many of their factional units. Some factions are missing more than others:
ex:
Romani are missing ALL Roman units exept velitets and other levies.
KH is missing Classical Hoplite, and copy-Pezetaroi (sp).
Its really a mess.... and it makes me wanna :boxing: somebody
I am HOPING the EB team gets MP fixed by 1.1. :shame:
Is it just the MP edu that's screwed up, or is it something deeper?
Stone and Blood
11-22-2007, 22:48
At Multiplayer battle the player shall use two things: First:Good sense about how to uuse the money.Second: Good tatic in battle. And gasaetae would not become overpowered, or anythink like that, because we, humans, with our superior intelect, know how to use missile against gasaetae, or charging them with cavalry. So the player will find cingetos, or solduros realy usefull, with theyr big armor rating ( what doesn't hapen playing agains computer). And you could not create an army full of elites because your money would not afford it. So your army will have a good variety of units, in order to use tatics that a human could use against you, and AI cannot.
But anyway, as generals, we know that battles are realy important, but, maybe more important is the campaing, wich we can't use through Multiplayer. But it is not impossible, is it? Just a dreamer's words xD.
Pharnakes
11-23-2007, 02:44
I remember just beofre I left, I created a "fear stack" with pontus, that relied on the following strategy: Use cheap phlaignites to hold the line for a while, exhuasting the enemy soldiers. Use money saved to stock up on naked galatains (I know, he shame, but that was before Admetos revelaed the truth to me) and cavalry.
Then exhaust oponent with pike, wait untill there is a large mass of enemy untis clumped toghether, then charge chariots right throught the middle of the whole lot, and follow imediatley with Tindantonae. This creates optimal conditions for the tindantonae, the only inf that stand a chance against them are disciplened troops that can hold a decent line of battle, but when you have disorganised their line with pike and chariots, thats not possible.
Plus as chariots and tindantonae cause fear to foot, combined with casulaties and exhaustion, total rout was the invetiable result.
One battle I fought against a complete noob, who had onlly preatorians and camilian equites in his army, my chariots soon rounted his cav, and returned to defeat his praetorians with an overall loss of 17 percent...
I loled. prehaps I even rofled, now I come to think of it...
i;ve never really fought chariots.
best strategy to take em down anyone?
NeoSpartan
11-23-2007, 04:20
I F*ing hate charriots.
I remember when Madmatg 1st deployed them... kicked my a*** REALLY bad.
(he was seleucid, I was ptolemoi)
The 2nd time.. it was a CLOSE match. But he still won.
(He was seleucid, I was Aedui)
The 3rd time... it didn't work for him..
(he was Casse, I was Seleucid)
The 4th time... he ctded, it was very close to me, but he said I won.
(he was seleucid, I was Mak)
Eventhough I am better at dealing with the Charriots I STILL hate them.
NeoSpartan
11-23-2007, 04:25
i;ve never really fought chariots.
best strategy to take em down anyone?
Strategy???? hell.. I can tell a few guidelines, but the strategy is going to vary in MP as a human player is very unpredicable
1-Don't let them close to ur cavarly.
2-Don't let them hit u in the rear of ur line.
3-Attack them with archers/slinger.
5-He peltats in reserve and then...
4-Send PELTATS to charge them, throwing javelings is a waste of time as they are always moving.
5-Don't send heavy infantry to them.
antisocialmunky
11-23-2007, 04:38
Those things are pretty chaotic. No real strategy except when you unleash them in battle to disorganize an enemy.
It wasn't just Teleman which the Gaesatae did poorly at:
Same with the 'mighty legions', they failed on more than one occasion
Frostwulf
11-23-2007, 20:22
Same with the 'mighty legions', they failed on more than one occasion
I completely agree with you. Of course there are some differences. The Gaesatae have some really incredible stats, some deserved (frighten others) and most are not.
Now certainly the 'mighty legions' failed, but from my cursory view they were more successful then not, the same could not be said of the Gaesatae. Now if you could show me where the Gaesatae deserve their stats(sited sources) I would love to see some as I have been begging for them for quite some time now. From the written sources the Gaesatae performed poorly.
I completely agree with you. Of course there are some differences. The Gaesatae have some really incredible stats, some deserved (frighten others) and most are not.
Now certainly the 'mighty legions' failed, but from my cursory view they were more successful then not, the same could not be said of the Gaesatae. Now if you could show me where the Gaesatae deserve their stats(sited sources) I would love to see some as I have been begging for them for quite some time now. From the written sources the Gaesatae performed poorly.
The sources - ask team EB about that, I am just a forum memeber. One know the frightening infantry stat should be there, it has been stated in sources that fighting nude shock up many troops. Playing the game the Gaesatae are not too hard to beat ironically the best way to defeat them is with skirmishers :p bascilly the do what the Romans did at Telamon
pezhetairoi
11-24-2007, 07:46
I second that. So essentially the Gaesatae do deserve their stats. It only remains to be seen whether you can use them in a setting that puts those stats to best use.
Mykingdomforanos
11-24-2007, 07:54
In custom battles my Elite Thracian Infantry (Rhomphaiorii?) sliced up the Gaesatae 3/3 times, (flatland, 2 exp, and 1 armour + light/heavy weapon upgrade each) and falxmen are really AP specialists whereas Gaesatae dont have much armour so they may look scary but falxmen are w1n :D
Frostwulf
11-24-2007, 22:35
The sources - ask team EB about that, I am just a forum memeber. One know the frightening infantry stat should be there, it has been stated in sources that fighting nude shock up many troops. Playing the game the Gaesatae are not too hard to beat ironically the best way to defeat them is with skirmishers :p bascilly the do what the Romans did at Telamon
I second that. So essentially the Gaesatae do deserve their stats. It only remains to be seen whether you can use them in a setting that puts those stats to best use.
It wasn't just Telamon they performed badly at, but also at Clastidium and Mediolanum:
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.
As I have stated earlier I have no problem with the Gaesatae having the fear factor, as that was stated by Plutarch at the battle of Telamon. The rest of the stats I have a problem with, which I will address in another thread later.
In custom battles my Elite Thracian Infantry (Rhomphaiorii?) sliced up the Gaesatae 3/3 times, (flatland, 2 exp, and 1 armour + light/heavy weapon upgrade each) and falxmen are really AP specialists whereas Gaesatae dont have much armour so they may look scary but falxmen are w1n :D
Two things about this.
1. The Gaesatae are outnumbered and have 60 while the Elite Thracian have 80.
2. Every time you are the Thracians the Gaesatae always try to run away to throw their javelins, where upon they take casualties. Try playing as the Gaesatae against the Thracian elites, you will win every time.
Spendios
11-24-2007, 22:59
It wasn't just Telamon they performed badly at, but also at Clastidium and Mediolanum:
Two things about this.
1. The Gaesatae are outnumbered and have 60 while the Elite Thracian have 80.
2. Every time you are the Thracians the Gaesatae always try to run away to throw their javelins, where upon they take casualties. Try playing as the Gaesatae against the Thracian elites, you will win every time.
7 months of membership here, and 100% of posts complaining about celtic units stats ?
As a gift will should maybe release a special "EDU Frostwulf edition" with 3 HP Gaesatae and 80 men per units ? :clown:
blitzkrieg80
11-25-2007, 02:26
I think Frostwulf, as many reasonable people might, expects all units in EB to actually be based on evidence rather than conjecture, especially in consideration to how much is drastically required for other factions than the Celts. Contemporary literature doesn't even speak highly in the case of the unit mentioned yet somehow the words of alleged authority carry weight beyond / in lieu of academic record and available material. Or where is such evidence, if I am mistaken?
Watchman
11-25-2007, 03:39
Now I can't speak about whatever research led the EB team to stat the Gaesatae like they did as I know jack all about that, but something I do know is that Frosty's particular examples here blow.
At Telamon the "naked Gauls", whom we can I think legitimately guess to have in EB terms been a mix of Gaesatae and Uirodusios, were caught in a situation unarmoured infantry basically should never end up in lest it be decimated; under the tender attentions of enemy skirmishers without a skirmish screen of their own. There's preciously little close-order heavy infantry can do in such a situation except huddle behind their shields (which even light javelins penetrate dangerously readily, which would not all have been large enough to be truly sufficient cover, and were in any case bound to soon get severely weighed down by javelins) and bleed. Sure, they can toss javelins - both theirs and, if they have the time to pick them up and pull them out of their shields, the enemy's - right back, but that's something of an exercise in futility against nimble open-order skirmishers who can simply dodge them (javelins are large and relatively slow), a luxury close-order troops can straight out forget.
It's sort of like capital ships and torpedo boats; without suitable light and nimble escort ships of their own, the big hitters were wont to get decimated by the cheap little torpedo craft which their main guns were too cumbersome to track and whose attacks they were too big and clumsy to ereliably dodge... or WW2 capital ships regarding bombers, should they be lacking fighter cover, if you want. Same thing. Those skirmish screens were a dire enough necessity, as the Greeks also found out back when they first ventured into Thrace and got hounded to death by the javelin-tossing locals.
Unsurprisingly when the Roman skirmishers finally ran out of ammo and the maniples came forwards - with their salvoes of hard-hitting, shield-crippling, short-ranged and easily dodged (if you had the room to move in...) pila, the Gaesatae were shortly kibbled. The result could not have been anything else in the circumstances.
That's like arguing riflemen in a trench aren't a workable form of defense because an enemy assault preceded by a massive artillery preparation rolled over the survivors... :dizzy2:
As for the second - Clastidum and Medionalum - one rather suspects Plutarch is there using the name "Gaesatae" rather loosely, for there seems to be no mention at all of naked warriors - and given how strange and disquieting the Romans seem to have found that particular practice, it seems quite unlikely they would not have been mentioned had they been present. Nevermind now that such freebooting mercenaries are rather unlikely to have ever had a "king" of some sort. My hunch is "Gaesatae" could be - or at least here is - used to refer to any kind of freebooter or mercenary from across the Alps (and not necessarily even from that far away; in other words, these would be the two types of Curoas rather than Gaesatae in EB terms), and Plutarch is for one reason or another using the term as the name of both the mercenaries and whatever Cisalpine tribe was employing them. Probably because he couldn't find the actual name of the latter anywhere and had to use something.
Summa summarum, the "Gaesatae" Plutarch is talking about there are something quite different than the EB unit of the same name.
As it goes, Telamon is the only recorded instance of the Romans fighting the weird naked warriors from across the Alps that I've read of (which of course doesn't prove too much...); and as they were at a grossly disadvantageous situation there and decimated by skirmishers, it reveals preciously little of their combat prowess if and when they could deploy sans such a serious handicap to do what Celtic shock infantry did best - charge their heavy-infantry opposite numbers and try to tear them to pieces in hand-to-hand combat.
Frostwulf
11-25-2007, 04:13
7 months of membership here, and 100% of posts complaining about celtic units stats ?
As a gift will should maybe release a special "EDU Frostwulf edition" with 3 HP Gaesatae and 80 men per units ?
This is true if you ignore the posts on the Romans,Germans and a few other things.
Some people have been nice to give you explanations, if you disagree with them you can express it without using arrogant and insulting tone.
Interesting quote, wonder if you would consider this about your own posts?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1752348&postcount=69
yeah they were homo sapiens like you and me
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1748769#post1748769
Can a moderator please lock this thread ?
this subject has been discussed ad nauseam :wall:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1748601#post1748601
blah blah blah if you have so much problems with the comand attribute why don't you just remove it from your game ?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1746288#post1746288
"if you disagree with them you can express it without using arrogant and insulting tone."
I was simply addressing TWFanatic, and then those that responded to me. If you have some relevant material or something constructive to the debate, then please, by all means put it down.
I think Frostwulf, as many reasonable people might, expects all units in EB to actually be based on evidence rather than conjecture, especially in consideration to how much is drastically required for other factions than the Celts. Contemporary literature doesn't even speak highly in the case of the unit mentioned yet somehow the words of alleged authority carry weight beyond / in lieu of academic record and available material. Or where is such evidence, if I am mistaken?:yes: I thought as well, that the objective of EB was being as close to historical units as possible.
Watchman
11-25-2007, 04:20
This is true if you ignore the posts on the Romans,Germans and a few other things.I seem to recall those were mostly about how they were statted too low relative to the Celts (or vice versa), though... :inquisitive:
lazy people just demand constant appeasement
NeoSpartan
11-25-2007, 05:32
I seem to recall those were mostly about how they were statted too low relative to the Celts (or vice versa), though... :inquisitive:
NOT vice versa!
Those were (and are?) Romans>Sweboz>Celts.
Frostwulf
11-25-2007, 06:46
Unsurprisingly when the Roman skirmishers finally ran out of ammo and the maniples came forwards - with their salvoes of hard-hitting, shield-crippling, short-ranged and easily dodged (if you had the room to move in...) pila, the Gaesatae were shortly kibbled. The result could not have been anything else in the circumstances.
From what I read the Gaesatae were already on the retreat when the Romans began their advance. This is from Wikipedia which seems close to the accounts I have read.
Regulus put his troops in fighting order and advanced, attempting to occupy a hill above the road by which the Gauls must pass. The Gauls, unaware of Regulus' arrival, assumed that Papus had sent some of his cavalry ahead, and sent some of their own cavalry and light infantry against them to contest the hill, but as soon as they knew what they were up against they deployed their infantry facing both front and rear. They placed the Gaesatae and Insubres at the rear against Papus, and the Boii and Taurisci at the front against Regulus, their wings protected by wagons and chariots. A small force guarded the booty on another hill nearby. The battle over the main hill was fierce, and despite Papus sending cavalry to assist, Regulus was killed and his head brought to the Gallic leaders. Eventually, however, the Roman cavalry secured possession of the hill.
The Romans advanced from both directions, throwing volleys of javelins, which devastated the vulnerable Gaesatae at the rear, who were fighting naked with small shields. Some rushed wildly at the enemy and were slaughtered. Others withdrew into the body of the army, their retreat causing disorder among their allies.
The Roman javelin-throwers withdrew into the ranks, and the infantry advanced in maniples. The Insubres, Boii and Taurisci held their ground tenaciously, but the Roman shields and thrusting short swords were more effective in close combat than the Gallic smaller shields and slashing long swords, and the Romans gained the upper hand. Finally, the Roman cavalry rode down the hill onto the Gauls' flank. Their infantry were slaughtered and their cavalry put to flight.
Around 40,000 Gauls were killed and 10,000, including Concolitanus, taken prisoner. Aneroëstes escaped with a small group of followers, who committed suicide with him. Papus conducted a punitive expedition against the Boii, and later used the spoils taken in his triumph.[6]
Lets pretend Telamon was the only battle recorded for the Gaesatae, what would even come close to giving them the stats. awarded them? They did not do anything except die, so what can you possibly say?
As for the second - Clastidum and Medionalum - one rather suspects Plutarch is there using the name "Gaesatae" rather loosely, for there seems to be no mention at all of naked warriors - and given how strange and disquieting the Romans seem to have found that particular practice, it seems quite unlikely they would not have been mentioned had they been present. Nevermind now that such freebooting mercenaries are rather unlikely to have ever had a "king" of some sort. My hunch is "Gaesatae" could be - or at least here is - used to refer to any kind of freebooter or mercenary from across the Alps (and not necessarily even from that far away; in other words, these would be the two types of Curoas rather than Gaesatae in EB terms), and Plutarch is for one reason or another using the term as the name of both the mercenaries and whatever Cisalpine tribe was employing them. Probably because he couldn't find the actual name of the latter anywhere and had to use something.
Summa summarum, the "Gaesatae" Plutarch is talking about there are something quite different than the EB unit of the same name.Both Plutarch and Polybius use the term Gaesatae, you are incorrect assuming they are different.
34 Next year the Celts sent ambassadors begging for peace and engaging to accept any conditions, but the new Consuls Marcus Claudius and Gnaeus Cornelius strongly urged that no peace should be granted them. 2 On meeting with a refusal, the Celts decided to resort to their last hope and again appealed to the Gaesatae on the Rhone, and hired a force of about thirty thousand men. When they had these troops they kept them in readiness and awaited the attack of the enemy. 3 The Roman Consuls, when the season came, invaded the territory of the Insubres with their legions. 4 Encamping round a city called Acerrae lying between the Po and the Alps, they laid siege to it. 5 The Insubres could not come to the assistance of the besieged, as the Romans had occupied all the advantageous positions, but, with the object of making the latter raise the siege, they crossed the Po with part of their forces, and entering the territory of the Anares, laid siege to a town there called Clastidium. 6 On the Consuls learning of this, Marcus Claudius set off in haste with the cavalry and a small body of infantry to relieve the besieged if possible. 7 The Celts, as soon as they were aware of the enemy's arrival, raised the siege and advancing to meet them, drew up in order of battle. 8 When the Romans boldly charged them with their cavalry alone, they at first stood firm, but afterwards, being taken both in the rear and on the flank, they found themselves in difficulties and were finally put to rout by the cavalry unaided, p3279 many of them throwing themselves into the river and being swept away by the current, while the larger number were cut to pieces by the enemy. 10 The Romans now took Acerrae, which was well stocked with corn, the Gauls retiring to Mediolanum the chief place in the territory of the Insubres. 11 Gnaeus followed close on their heels, and suddenly appeared before Mediolanum. 12 The Gauls at first did not stir, but, when he was on his way back to Acerrae, they sallied out, and made a bold attack on his rear, in which they killed a considerable number of the Romans and even forced a portion of them to take to flight, 13 until Gnaeus, calling back the forces in advance, urged the fugitives to rally and withstand the enemy. 14 After this the Romans, on their part obeying their Consul, continued to fight vigorously with their assailants, 15 and the Celts after holding their ground for a time, encouraged as they were by their momentary success, were shortly put to flight and took refuge on the mountains. Gnaeus, following them, laid waste the country and took Mediolanum itself by assault, 35 upon which the chieftains of the Insubres, despairing of safety, put themselves entirely at the mercy of the Romans.
As it goes, Telamon is the only recorded instance of the Romans fighting the weird naked warriors from across the Alps that I've read of (which of course doesn't prove too much...); and as they were at a grossly disadvantageous situation there and decimated by skirmishers, it reveals preciously little of their combat prowess if and when they could deploy sans such a serious handicap to do what Celtic shock infantry did best - charge their heavy-infantry opposite numbers and try to tear them to pieces in hand-to-hand combat.I understand you didn't know of the other recordings but still the problem remains. How can you justify just from the battle of Telamon the stats awarded to the Gaesatae, one of the most powerful infantry units in the EB? The ones that did reach the Roman infantry were "easily dispatched". They did nothing at Telamon but die, and yet with this knowledge your ok with the way the stats are assigned to them?
And now in light of this new(to you anyway) information, are you still ok with the stats?
I seem to recall those were mostly about how they were statted too low relative to the Celts (or vice versa), though...
While most were, certainly not 100% as claimed. I have discussed things about the Romans and Germans that had nothing to do with stats or Celts.
lazy people just demand constant appeasement
Sorry not sure if this is directed at me or others. If it is at me please expand on it.
NOT vice versa!
Those were (and are?) Romans>Sweboz>Celts.
You are correct on what I said.
all the time people spend complaining could easily be spent changing one or two stats.
russia almighty
11-25-2007, 07:34
I wish EB was fascist dictatorship and just got nay sayers banned .
Thats one of the things that I like about EB, there is more balance to this mod. If your going to fight a Punic war against Carthage, it will as it was historically, a very hard war. A few mods and this is especially true for Vanilla RTW having the Roman infantry as uber troops. In the orginal RTW would basiclly have to pray that Rome would be destroyed before the marian reforms. As I have stated before I like the balance EB. Every faction under the conditions can beat any other faction.
Frostwulf
Lighten up on the EB staff, they try very hard on this mod, this mod has taken many hours of the own free tiem to do. Lets all respect that
About Telamon, in RTW engine it's impossible to simulate such terror that is present when an army is surrounded by all sides, with everyone knowing the battle can't be won. Actually it is possible. It was done in vanilla, but that meant that battles lasted five minutes, because the morale of units was much too low. The morale penalties brought by being surrounded and such are pretty much hardcoded, so they can't be tweaked for EB. Too bad though...
The account that wikipedia gives describes Gaesatae as very different from the EB Gaesatae, especially the part about the small shields. They remind me more about Uirodusios. I wonder about other references to Gaesatae.
They remind me more about Uirodusios. I wonder about other references to Gaesatae.
Fine post Thaatu, what are these Uirodusios? It sounds Greek? I don't believe I've ever seen that term before?
They are 'Celtic Naked Spearmen'. They have a spear along with javelins and a relatively small shield. I reckon a Gaesatae force in game is compiled of one unit of Gaesatae and two to three units of Uirodusios
Can be seen here, with a little searching:
https://www.europabarbarorum.org/ebcomwww/factions_aedui_units.html
Can you please, tell the classical source for these Uirodusios? The name looks like the Greeks got ahold of it. Thus, possibly, were these Uirodusios found in, or from the Danube Basin?
Spendios
11-25-2007, 13:03
If you have some relevant material or something constructive to the debate, then please, by all means put it down.
It's very interesting to see that you are asking me to bring something constructive. And what about you ? I've browsed through all your posts and the EB minimod section but unfortunately I haven't found your corrected EDU with your corrected stats for celtic units.
Do you plan to do one so we can check how it works in game ?
I mean if the EB celtic stats are so calamitous (and that's globally what 100% of your posts are telling) you are free to propose other ones.
It seems that you are happy to post quotes of authors but never translate them in RTW stats. Can you give me the reason ? If you were so concerned about the stats you would surely change them right ? Or maybe you just want to complain, criticize but don't do any work ?
Please prove me that I'm wrong and post your code of celtic units stats and not the account of Telamon battle for the 15th time.
Can you please, tell the classical source for these Uirodusios? The name looks like the Greeks got ahold of it. Thus, possibly, were these Uirodusios found in, or from the Danube Basin?
I'm just a punk who knows nothin' 'bout nothin'. In game their recruitment area seems to compose roughly of eastern zone of Celtic influence and Britain and Ireland. I don't know whether it's Greek, or some custom Celtic term an EB researcher came up with. They just represent Celts who fought naked to show their bravery. I wonder why they're not recruitable in western Gaul...
Tellos Athenaios
11-25-2007, 15:40
I think that the name looks anything but Greek, though. I would even go as far as to say it's more close to Latin (Ui, -os plural suffix); but seeing that virtually all Celtic units have that -os suffix, and the taste for O's & U's in their words... (The Greeks were rather more fond of A's & E's.)
As we all know the ancient kelts preserved few words, and the Greeks and Latins preserved many.
Watchman
11-25-2007, 19:51
From what I read the Gaesatae were already on the retreat when the Romans began their advance. This is from Wikipedia which seems close to the accounts I have read.Retreat ? The heck you're talking about ? At Telamon the Celts were trapped between two Roman armies; they weren't going to retreat anywhere. If you actually read the Wiki quote it just says the Gaesatae were along with the Insubres deployed at the "rear" of the Celtic host to face the Romans under Papus approaching from that direction. None of that changes anything I've been saying, ie. the Gaesatae in particular were decimated by the Roman skirmish screen before the heavy infantry took over. Indeed the quote almost makes it sound like the G-boyz were all but wiped out by the skirmishers already, and those that did not perish under the rain of missiles or in futile frustrated rushes against the elusive velites dissolved as a combat formation and the melded into the other Celtic units...
Lets pretend Telamon was the only battle recorded for the Gaesatae, what would even come close to giving them the stats. awarded them? They did not do anything except die, so what can you possibly say?That seeing as how they were done in by skirmishers already before there was any infantry fighting Telamon makes for some damned poor clues as to their effectiveness in their actual job, ie. close combat.
Sort of like if you were deeming the Republican legions to be crap based on the singular example of Cannae. See the problem inherent in the assessement.
Both Plutarch and Polybius use the term Gaesatae, you are incorrect assuming they are different....so they're both using it as a catchall term for Transalpine mercenaries, and in the case of Clastidum Plutarch for some reason seems to talk about them as if they were an actual kingdom/tribe ("king of the Gaesatae"; one would logically presume that to be a particularly high-ranking and influental member of the mercenary army who had been made its de facto commander).
Again, I direct your attention to the little detail neither author says one word of any naked warriors - and given the impression that fighting tradition seems to have generally made on the Romans it is hard to believe they and their sources would just have passed over the matter had such been present.
I understand you didn't know of the other recordings but still the problem remains. How can you justify just from the battle of Telamon the stats awarded to the Gaesatae, one of the most powerful infantry units in the EB? The ones that did reach the Roman infantry were "easily dispatched". They did nothing at Telamon but die, and yet with this knowledge your ok with the way the stats are assigned to them?
And now in light of this new(to you anyway) information, are you still ok with the stats?Like I keep telling you the Gaesatae at Telamon were apparently all but shredded already by the Roman skirmishers (who they couldn't do anything about), before being attacked by fresh full-strenght heavy infantry with a full supply of notoriously hard-hitting precursor throwing-spears. All that tells us is that, yes indeed, close-order infantry and one without armour in particular could be horribly maimed by missiles troops if they lacked the proper countermeasures, which I think should not come as any kind of revelation to anyone who's read jack all about warfare of the period.
And as I've been likewise telling you I've no idea personally what sources the team based the Gaesatae stats on. I'm just pointing out that your argumentation in the matter makes about as much sense as arguing the Legions were crap based on the treatment they received from the Parthian horse at Carrhae.
While most were, certainly not 100% as claimed. I have discussed things about the Romans and Germans that had nothing to do with stats or Celts. Please don't get literal-legalist with me, and IIRC what I've seen of it that was mostly in the context of why Celtic stats should be nerfed. I also seem to recall arguing the matter with you back and forth for quite a few pages, although that's somewhat beside the point anyway.
NeoSpartan
11-25-2007, 22:11
edited
A note on reading sources:
I'll just point out one thing about Telamon and a similar Roman-Galatian battle at Mount (is it called Olympus in Livy?) under Titus Manlius. In both cases large contingents of nude Galatian warriors faced a Roman army, which contrary to its traditional culture of warfare decided to engage in a prolonged missile exchange. There are very few other examples of a Roman army sitting back and letting missile troops do so much of the hard work against another "hand-to-hand" opponent (the Seleukid phalanx at Magnesia is the only example coming to mind at the moment). This implies that there was something particular about the troops opposed to the Romans at those engagements. In the case of Magnesia, as our non-nude-Celtic-warrior example, concern about facing a cohesive and dangerous enemy led Romans to consider discretion the better part of valor. The situation at Telamon and at Mount __ may be quite similar. Given that, we would be mistaken to attribute to the Gaesatae poor combat ability: rather, we would understand them as a more formidable close combat opponent than most of the other armies that the Romans faced.
edit: another common feature to the three examples is a defensive enemy occupying an uphill sloped position. I'm not sure if there are comparable examples of that particular feature in which the Romans opted for hand-to-hand combat. Anyone else know?
Frostwulf,
please carefully read Watchman's last post.
In EB I always shred the Gaesatae with missile troops, skirmishers, and other light infantry. You must stay flexible, take care not to become decisively engaged with them, and give them a clear direction to route. I've never really had a problem with handling them in the open. You may try adjusting your battle tactics?
Mykingdomforanos
11-25-2007, 23:34
Two things about this.
1. The Gaesatae are outnumbered and have 60 while the Elite Thracian have 80.
2. Every time you are the Thracians the Gaesatae always try to run away to throw their javelins, where upon they take casualties. Try playing as the Gaesatae against the Thracian elites, you will win every time.
Yep I just tried and Gaesatae won but they took heavy punishment, but I think the Rhomphaiaorii look better value all round, anyway thats not the topic
Also, O/T but when "frighten enemy troops" is listed in description, do all frightening units have the same fear factor or are Gaesatae more morale-dropping than say cheapo Naked Spearmen?
They both have the same "frighten enemy infantry" description.
Watchman
11-25-2007, 23:45
It's a fixed-effect unit trait, kind of the opposite of the "command" trait those Briton champion units have.
Frostwulf
11-26-2007, 08:00
all the time people spend complaining could easily be spent changing one or two stats.
Yes that would be easy, and it would be easy just to let things go without responding. Figuring that I'm lazy because I don't go in and change stats wouldn't exactly be fair. If you look at the posts I make, most of them are backed up by academics, and that requires time and effort to do. Perhaps I made a mistake in figuring people on this forum were interested in this game being as historically accurate as possible.
Frostwulf
Lighten up on the EB staff, they try very hard on this mod, this mod has taken many hours of the own free tiem to do. Lets all respect that
My hope would be that this wouldn't be taken personally by any of the EB staff as I have said that they have done an excellent job. When I respond to others I try not to be offensive, though I have failed at times. My posts are not intended to be attacks(though a few can be called that) but mostly to prove/disprove things. I noticed most the people tend to get angry with me, not for my demeanor but for the information I submit.
all the time people spend complaining could easily be spent changing one or two stats.Fair enough, though I did figure that the purpose of most forums including this one was for the exchange of ideas.The idea of this mod. was to make this game more historical compared to the original game. Seeing as how my interest was on the historical aspect of this game I engaged in such an exchange of ideas.
The account that wikipedia gives describes Gaesatae as very different from the EB Gaesatae, especially the part about the small shields. They remind me more about Uirodusios. I wonder about other references to Gaesatae.
Ill explain this a little further in the post.
It's very interesting to see that you are asking me to bring something constructive. And what about you ? I've browsed through all your posts and the EB minimod section but unfortunately I haven't found your corrected EDU with your corrected stats for celtic units.
Do you plan to do one so we can check how it works in game ?
I mean if the EB celtic stats are so calamitous (and that's globally what 100% of your posts are telling) you are free to propose other ones. Nope I don't plan on posting one.The items I brought to the table is historical information and some suggestions on some units as well as a unit to be added.
It seems that you are happy to post quotes of authors but never translate them in RTW stats. Can you give me the reason ? If you were so concerned about the stats you would surely change them right ? Or maybe you just want to complain, criticize but don't do any work ? Not many would be interested in my view on what the stats would be, as shown by most of the responses I get. I have already explained above my reasons for posting.
Please prove me that I'm wrong and post your code of celtic units stats and not the account of Telamon battle for the 15th time.
If you think I'm wrong, then show me how. You seem to think that research is not a problem and I'm being lazy because I didn't edit the Edu. So Ill throw it back in your corner, do some research and prove me wrong. Contrary to what you would like to believe there are those who do appreciate the effort I put into the historical aspect of the game. If you don't like what I write try to disprove it or ignore it, there is no reason to be rude.
The situation at Telamon and at Mount __ may be quite similar. Given that, we would be mistaken to attribute to the Gaesatae poor combat ability: rather, we would understand them as a more formidable close combat opponent than most of the other armies that the Romans faced.
This is an interesting situation, thank you for mentioning it. As far as the Gaesatae if we went strictly with Telamon we wouldn't know how good/poor they would be. Something else to take into consideration:
the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, 2 but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front
another common feature to the three examples is a defensive enemy occupying an uphill sloped position. I'm not sure if there are comparable examples of that particular feature in which the Romans opted for hand-to-hand combat. Anyone else know?At Telamon there was a hill that was contested, the Romans ended up taking it.
Frostwulf,
please carefully read Watchman's last post.
In EB I always shred the Gaesatae with missile troops, skirmishers, and other light infantry. You must stay flexible, take care not to become decisively engaged with them, and give them a clear direction to route. I've never really had a problem with handling them in the open. You may try adjusting your battle tactics? My discussion was more of the historical abilities of the Gaesatae then the game version, but I thank you for your advice.
Retreat ? The heck you're talking about ? At Telamon the Celts were trapped between two Roman armies; they weren't going to retreat anywhere. I should have explained it better:
4 At length, unable to drive off the javelineers owing to the distance and the hail of javelins, and reduced to the utmost distress and perplexity, some of them, in their impotent rage, rushed wildly on the enemy and sacrificed their lives, while others, retreating step by step on the ranks of their comrades, threw them into disorder by their display of faint-heartedness.
That seeing as how they were done in by skirmishers already before there was any infantry fighting Telamon makes for some damned poor clues as to their effectiveness in their actual job, ie. close combat.
Sort of like if you were deeming the Republican legions to be crap based on the singular example of Cannae. See the problem inherent in the assessement.I agree with you on this. My point being that if you only with Telamon how could you justify the stats of the Gaesatae? But as you have already said you can't, which I agree with.
..so they're both using it as a catchall term for Transalpine mercenaries, and in the case of Clastidum Plutarch for some reason seems to talk about them as if they were an actual kingdom/tribe ("king of the Gaesatae"; one would logically presume that to be a particularly high-ranking and influental member of the mercenary army who had been made its de facto commander).
Some of the ancient authors were not sure if they were a tribe or mercenaries. But as far as a king, it would be their leader. So your presumption would be correct in my understanding.
Again, I direct your attention to the little detail neither author says one word of any naked warriors - and given the impression that fighting tradition seems to have generally made on the Romans it is hard to believe they and their sources would just have passed over the matter had such been present.
7 The Insubres and Boii wore their trousers and light cloaks, 8 but the Gaesatae had discarded these garments owing to their proud confidence in themselves, and stood naked, with nothing but their arms, in front of the whole army, thinking that thus they would be more efficient, as some of the ground was overgrown with bramblesa which would catch in their clothes and impede the use of their weapons
7 Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, 8 all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. 9 The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight. 30 But when the javelineers advanced, as is their usage, from the ranks of the Roman legions and began to hurl their javelins in well-aimed volleys, the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, 2 but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament. 3 For the Gaulish shield does not cover the whole body; so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were5 the better chance had the missiles of going home. Book 2 29(7-9)-30(1-3)
There is this foot-note:
5 so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were. . .: Literally "so that the more naked and the bigger they were. . ."
As far as the shield, it doesn't cover the whole body.
Polybius goes on to describe what happened at Clastidium and Mediolanum in which the above mentioned Gaesatae played a part.
This link leads to Polybius:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/2*.html#21
Power2the1
11-26-2007, 09:08
A note on reading sources:
I'll just point out one thing about Telamon and a similar Roman-Galatian battle at Mount (is it called Olympus in Livy?) under Titus Manlius. In both cases large contingents of nude Galatian warriors faced a Roman army, which contrary to its traditional culture of warfare decided to engage in a prolonged missile exchange. There are very few other examples of a Roman army sitting back and letting missile troops do so much of the hard work against another "hand-to-hand" opponent (the Seleukid phalanx at Magnesia is the only example coming to mind at the moment). This implies that there was something particular about the troops opposed to the Romans at those engagements. In the case of Magnesia, as our non-nude-Celtic-warrior example, concern about facing a cohesive and dangerous enemy led Romans to consider discretion the better part of valor. The situation at Telamon and at Mount __ may be quite similar. Given that, we would be mistaken to attribute to the Gaesatae poor combat ability: rather, we would understand them as a more formidable close combat opponent than most of the other armies that the Romans faced.
edit: another common feature to the three examples is a defensive enemy occupying an uphill sloped position. I'm not sure if there are comparable examples of that particular feature in which the Romans opted for hand-to-hand combat. Anyone else know?
First, I have to honestly congratulate you on being an actual member of the EB team that comes forth with a source or battle and some information on why something is the way it is. Thats uncommon from what I've seen despite the fans repeatedly asking for information and sources and things like that.
You make a good point. The naked warriors that were fought in Galatia do not remind me of Gaesatae though. It mentioned the slings, javelins, rocks, etc...taking terrible toll on them. If they were drugged, the account should have mentioned those missiles doing very little in terms of damage to some of them IMHO.
Something kinda funny about that section of Livy is how the Romans viewed their defeat of Antiochus as something wonderful, but the Asians viewed their defeat of the Galatians as even better. An excerpt:
...During this winter Cn. Manlius, who was passing the season in Asia first as consul and then as proconsul, was visited by deputations from all the cities and nationalities west of the Taurus. Whilst the Romans regarded their victory over Antiochus as a more notable one than their subsequent victory over the Gauls, their Asiatic allies rejoiced more over the latter than the former. Subjection to the king was a much easier thing to bear than the ferocity of the ruthless barbarians and the terror which haunted them from one day to another, for they never knew in what direction that ferocity might sweep them like a storm upon plundering and devastating raids. They had regained their liberty through the repulse of Antiochus and their peace through the subjugation of the Gauls, and now they brought to the consul not only their congratulations and thanks but also golden crowns, each according to their ability...
If anyone wants to read about this account, let me open the door of perceived elitist academic knowledge and provide a useful link for the fans that want something substantial to chew on:
This link leads to Livy
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy38.html
Livy's account of the Galatians and the Romans, plus some other goodies.
Draw your own conclusions...
Frostwulf
Looks like Paton's translation of Polybius’ Histories, chapter 29, book 2, line 7-9.
ᾇεκπλὑκτικὑ δ᾿ ὑν και τὀν γυμνὀν προεστὀτὀν ανδρὀν ηὑ τ᾿ επιπηανεια και κινὑσισ· ηὀσ αν διαπηεροντὀν ταισ ακμαισ και τοισ ειδεσι, παντεσ δ᾿ ηοι τασ πρὀτασ κατεψηοντεσ σπειρασ ψηρυσοισ μανιακαισ και περιψηειροισ ὑσαν κατακεκοσμὑμενοι, προσ ηα βλεποντεσ ηοι Ρηὀμαιοι τα μεν εχεπλὑττοντο· τα δ᾿ ηυπο τὑσ του λυσιτελουσ ελπιδοσ αγομενοι διπλασιὀσ παρὀχυνοντο προσ τον
my rendering
Shocking were the gestures and gyrations of unclad warriors in the front ranks, upon which were expressed chiseled-forms, and foremost amongst these men were sowed those wearing only gold torcs and armlets. The Romans whom witnessed this were unnerved by the commotion, yet spurred on to action by redoubled expectations of the plunder due.
The Paton Translation
Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. 9 The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight.
The E. S. Shuckburgh Translation
Not less terrifying was the appearance and rapid movement of the naked warriors in the van, which indicated men in the prime of their strength and beauty: while all the warriors in the front ranks were richly adorned with gold necklaces and bracelets. These sights certainly dismayed the Romans; still the hope they gave of a profitable victory redoubled their eagerness for the battle.
There are some problems with the Paton translation (too many words unrelated to the text). It may prove little help to cite Polybius if the translation is not that good.
Watchman
11-26-2007, 18:04
At Telamon there was a hill that was contested, the Romans ended up taking it....which was a cavalry action, what now the Celts also mixed in some light infantry for support. A not unusual practice those days, but in any case all that tells us is what the cavalry of the Romans and their allies could do on a good day.
7 The Insubres and Boii wore their trousers and light cloaks, 8 but the Gaesatae had discarded these garments owing to their proud confidence in themselves, and stood naked, with nothing but their arms, in front of the whole army, thinking that thus they would be more efficient, as some of the ground was overgrown with bramblesa which would catch in their clothes and impede the use of their weapons
---
7 Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, 8 all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. 9 The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight. 30 But when the javelineers advanced, as is their usage, from the ranks of the Roman legions and began to hurl their javelins in well-aimed volleys, the Celts in the rear ranks indeed were well protected by their trousers and cloaks, 2 but it fell out far otherwise than they had expected with the naked men in front, and they found themselves in a very difficult and helpless predicament. 3 For the Gaulish shield does not cover the whole body; so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were5 the better chance had the missiles of going home.
Book 2 29(7-9)-30(1-3)
There is this foot-note:
5 so that their nakedness was a disadvantage, and the bigger they were. . .: Literally "so that the more naked and the bigger they were. . ."
As far as the shield, it doesn't cover the whole body.
Polybius goes on to describe what happened at Clastidium and Mediolanum in which the above mentioned Gaesatae played a part.
This link leads to Polybius:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/2*.html#21
...and unless I'm completely mistaken all that is talking about Telamon, whereas I was referring to Clastidum and Medionalum where the term "Gaesatae" is used but no naked warriors are described...
Geoffrey S
11-26-2007, 18:13
Was the term Gaesatae literally used in Roman writings? If so I'd have thought that's some indication of the impact they made.
AFAIK Gaesatae was also a named used for a whole tribe, now some of the warriors in this tribe fought naked and then a small part of the naked ones are the Gaesatae of EB.
So the accounts can get confusing when comparing it to EB directly.
Frostwulf
11-27-2007, 04:46
..and unless I'm completely mistaken all that is talking about Telamon, whereas I was referring to Clastidum and Medionalum where the term "Gaesatae" is used but no naked warriors are described...You are not mistaken. My point being that Polybius was familiar with who the Gaesatae were. He mentions them at Telamon and again at Clastidum and Medionalum, they are the same type of mercenaries. Cowan,Montagu, and others state something to that effect. Connoly puts it something like this "Gaesatae the naked guys" when referring to Clastidum and Medionalum after talking about them at Telamon.
AFAIK Gaesatae was also a named used for a whole tribe, now some of the warriors in this tribe fought naked and then a small part of the naked ones are the Gaesatae of EB. V.Kruta had mentioned something to that effect with the Gaesatae may have been confused with the Allobroges, is that the same thing your talking about?
No, I don't think he does.
The Gaesatae, from what I've been explained, were as much as a religious order as a tribe. Let me try and find a somewhat analogous situation...
Ah, the Teutonic Order, for example. They were a religious order as much as kingdom disguised as the former. It depended on a larger "Empire" for which they could fight, not to mention they could side with similar thinking forces (in this case other Christians; a broad kind sense of common identity). They had their knights (the Gaesatae would have their elite naked front-rankers) as well as an assortment of allied and dependent contingents (the remainder of the "Gaesatae" force).
It's also worthy of note that the Teutonics were something that terrified children at night, in Lithuania and they still got beat. Numerous times. On catastrophic proportions. Did that make them any less formidable?
blitzkrieg80
11-27-2007, 06:48
Good points on tribal/army compostion.
Still, the lack of evidence either way, victory or defeat is lacking in reference amount and content, nothing from which we might gain any true perspective on who they might have been.
I, for the record, love the unit because it is berserkr :grin: similarly as i love all hardcore heroism, manliness at its finest. I just cannot seem to find any information that would lead to conclusive evidence saying this or that, but many have some great points! Please enlighten us, if anyone has evidence unmentioned.
Frostwulf
11-28-2007, 00:14
No, I don't think he does.
The Gaesatae, from what I've been explained, were as much as a religious order as a tribe. Let me try and find a somewhat analogous situation...I like the analogy but I don't think it applies here. From the multiple authors I have read they say pretty much the same thing, the ones from Telamon are the same type from Clastidum and Medionalum. None including Polybius or Plutarch say anything about what your describing.
It's also worthy of note that the Teutonics were something that terrified children at night, in Lithuania and they still got beat. Numerous times. On catastrophic proportions. Did that make them any less formidable?Another good point. The difference I believe is that the Teutonic Knights had many victories while the Gaesatae may(they were there but don't know if they participated) have had one victory(which they outnumbered the Romans) with 3 defeats. If you look at the situations the Gaesatae performed poorly where the Teutonic Knights varied.
If you wouldn't mind could you put down where you received your information, I would like to find as much as I can about this.
I, for the record, love the unit because it is berserkr similarly as i love all hardcore heroism, manliness at its finest. I just cannot seem to find any information that would lead to conclusive evidence saying this or that, but many have some great points! Please enlighten us, if anyone has evidence unmentioned.
It would be nice if a 12 man unit would be useful, then you could have "real" berserker's. Wonder if your trait that you gave some of the Sweboz leaders could come with the 12 berserker bodyguard.:beam:
I second what you say, any information benefits all.
Often, the important thing is not, knowing where to look, rather its, what to look for. I had to actually dig these books up out of my extensive library, then I relocated some of them here.
For a brief overview of the subject under discussion please see below.
Note: the link is below.
Title: The Celts
Please find the TOC and read the following from the, The First Historical Expansion Fourth Century B.C. section for a well-rounded overview of the available background material. This includes a brief overview of the Celt domination of northern Italy and the Roman conquest.
Kruta, Venceslas
The First Celt Expansion: Prehistory to History.
Pauli, Ludwig
The Alps at the Time of the First Celtic Migrations.
Vitali, Daniele
The Celts in Italy
Charpty, Jean-Jacques
The Champagne Region under Celtic Rule during the Fourth and Third Centuries BC.
Joachim, Hans-Eckart
The Rhineland.
Uenze, Hans-Peter
Bavaria.
Sankot, Pavel
Bohemia.
Next, read all of the The Age of the Warriors, Third Century B.C. section.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=62941063
Note: the link is below.
Title: Celts and the Classical World
Read all.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103475919
Note: no link.
Title: Gallia Narbonensis: Southern Gaul in Roman Times
Read all.
I've several others, but they're written in either German, French, or Italian.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.