Less Civilized Factions

I don't seem able to play those factions, well I did tried many times. Factions like Aedui, Arverni, Casse, Getai, Lusotannan, Saba, Sweboz and ... (Romani :wall:)

I mean it's not I dislike them in a sense they are "barbarians", and I do enjoy nomads factions (for ancient and medieval Chinese they are considered barbarians). I just can't seem to help myself play those factions. All of them, after playing a few turns results to quit. May be it's due to their buildings? Or their units are not consider professional army as a whole?

You may ask why the Romans too? I don't know, they still look less civilized to me during 272BC. But I love the AD Romans, especially helping the struggled WRE.

Can anyone give me a reason to play those factions. :yes:

Same here, I find the less civilized ones not as fun (though Saba's voicemod is funny and awesome :laugh4:) but the Romans? They're one of my favorite factions.:juggle2:

I don't really share the same problem. I love playing barbarians as much as I do love civilized faction.

However, my favourite faction is KH by far. And that is because I actually know the ethnicity like Spartan, Athenian, Korinthos, Kretan, Rhodian etc. And that makes the role playing easier.

Perhaps that is why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chenkai11

...Can anyone give me a reason to play those factions. :yes:

---

You'll accelerate your desire for more historical understanding?

Actually for me the loop runs more th other way. I read something on say silver age Athens and suddenly I feel an urge to RP KH without Rhodes and Sparta.

Or I read something on the Indo Greeks and I'm off playing Baktria.

My most recent RP heavy campaigm was as Carthage, after reading a book on Scipio and Punic War 2 (this time, its personal!). Having read about the authors opinion of typical Carthaginian tactics (they had a few tricks on the bag) I was keen to RP them on the virtual battlefield. Also I had some ideas about likely strategies: eg the main Punic armies tend to go home (ship ahoy) between wars leaving mercs and locals in garrisons which was expensive and had a different flavour to my usual 4 x akontistai garrisons (and their elephanst died off in Italy all the time :sad: so I disbanded them from time to time). Very very satisfying (especially sacking Rome and putting in an Etruscan dictator).

I'm currently playing Pontos because I like the idea of them, and I wanted to get a handle on chariots. However I have no deep knowledge of that mid-late Republican schemozzle in Asia Minor, so the backstory eludes me.

So I'd put your cart before your horse there. Read a nice deep text on the Averni and get into a light green campaign with a few house rules based on your new-found knowledge.

Or dabble in some Getic history, maybe look at the Dacians and project backwards how you'd think they behaved in the EB period. I love those drapani and rhomphaioi: if you think of them as the footsoldiers of a dynamic immortality cult determined to build shrines across the balkans there's a story for you to play out right there.

Hear- hear Cyclops!! :2thumbsup:

You can peruse the thread where ATHN asks which faction to play next, here is a link, https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=121382

And here is copied, my reason for my choices and why I think you can get enjoyment out of the Sweboz (and probably other barbs as well).

Quote:

---

I am sort of on the "You have not played EB till you have played Roman"- wagon as I love playing them.

However, they are still embroiled in Mediterranean politics and culture. Influenced by Hellas and will have to fight many of the same enemies as you ahve already faced. Using the same H&A tactic against them.

My other favorite faction is IMO a much better choice Raaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!

They are nothing like any civilised faction and face different enemies (I always go for Casse as my first major conquest when I have put my economy in order and created a safe base). The units are different (get Medininkas), the buildings are different, the FMs are different, and you run about in the big northern woods. It is such a different experience from any other faction I have tried (Rome and Macedonia) that it is as starting on EB anew...

---

That is basically it. Starting EB anew, perhaps your problem is that you simply cannot be bothered to have to adjust to new tactics, buildings and ways of thinking- it is easier to stick to what one knows... Before flaming me for attacking you (if you are the flaming and sensitive kind of person- which I dunno), it is not an attack but a suggestion from my own experience. I have yet to finish a game with the VC cause of CTDs but I have "won" with the Sweboz (owning Germany, Gaul, Italy, the British Isles and part of Luso and invading the Balcans held by Greeks), but when I do I will try and force myself to try something totaly new; a Phalanx faction (Bactria likely) or a HA one. But I will have to force myself to do it and learn anew.

Looks that you are a really bad non-phalanx infantry general...

Well, it looks like that you forgot their strong points (except Saba)....

Train more SWORDSMEN!!! And don't train too much triarii... train hastati instead.....
Just try to spam more cheap swordsmen and all will be ok.....

But also try to get some spears since we didn't know, when the AS, or Ptolies start spamming hetairoi...

:laugh4:

Thanks for the suggestions...It seems that I can't RP those factions as conquerers to an extend of building an empire (with the exemption of Romani... my sig. can explain why I can't play them). May be SABA can be a contender for an early Arabian Empire, but the rest...I mean like Sweboz, conquering and may be sacked Rome :devilish:, then what? I don't want to say it, might offend Sweboz fans, but I just cant imaging how to rule an empire with them. RP as historical as possible might meant just playing EB by clicking end turns and doing nothing.

Your contempt for the Romaioi is growing healthily, you are seeing them for what they truly are. This is a good sign.

Your desire to sack and pillage Barbaropolis, proves you have good nobility and purity within you. Nurture it by destroying their legions.

Be it the Great Keltoi, the noble Germanoi or the resourceful Lusotanan...Their strength lies in their bravery, valour and eagerness for heroic deeds. Harness that.

I believe there's no faction in EB which we can describe as "less civilized": every faction (EB one and historical one) had it's own culture and thus they all were civilized in their own way: they all had their culture: religion, language, arts, their table of "Good and Bad": in one word: their own values. I really don't know what measure could we use in order to distinguish "more" and "less" civilized cultures: many cultural anthropologist tried to do that, and the main problem in that kind of approach is that they all toked their own subjective views, their own culture as a measure. That's called cultural centrism, and that ain't good way to approach to phenomenon of culture.

civilised is a relative term and in "our accepted culture," the celts and germans were barbarians in those times.

i cant seem to play barbarian factions for over a couple of turns either. i just cant seem to stop thinking they are inferior.

Inferior eh?

Yes, perhaps in terms of organization and arms and armour - but think about the personal bravery and heroism of the barbarians for a bit. You don't seem to get that out of the Romani, I guess.

RPing does help much......

inferior? tell that the late roman empire^^

play as Sweboz(the most "barbaric" faction afterall) get all VC provinces + rome, that's enough fun in the process and when you still cannot afford spamming Merc generals or after the reforms: heavy infantry^^, go and attack the casse with a fleet of weak and terribely overpriced ships.
non phalanx and non HA factions often are forced to use terrain to their advantage whereas Phalanxes and horse archer tactics work best on open fields with no obsicles whereas "barbaric" spearmen need the cover of the woods to hide or avoid arrows and can still use theri superior speed and mobility to ambush and outflank the foe.

I usually can't play factions about whom I know too little. I suggest you to find some book or movie which features that faction. Perhaps when you will know more about their life, war, religion, culture, ideals... you will find there something appealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

play as Sweboz(the most "barbaric" faction afterall) get all VC provinces + rome, that's enough fun in the process and when you still cannot afford spamming Merc generals or after the reforms: heavy infantry^^, go and attack the casse with a fleet of weak and terribely overpriced ships.
non phalanx and non HA factions often are forced to use terrain to their advantage whereas Phalanxes and horse archer tactics work best on open fields with no obsicles whereas "barbaric" spearmen need the cover of the woods to hide or avoid arrows and can still use theri superior speed and mobility to ambush and outflank the foe.

---

That might just be one of the reason to help me start a campaign with barbarian faction. And yes, I was interested more in histories of those "more civilized" (for me) factions. I can see one of my problem is that I don't have a direction for them, I can't even think of what I want to do if I am going to lead their people. Unlike Hayasdan, I want to create a new Persian Dynasty. Carthaginians, I want to continue the colony and proof to the known world the might of Carthage. Greeks, united again and controlled all their previous colonies. All about changing history...:sweatdrop:

I believe that Arverni/Aedui´s reason to exist is unite Gaul and other celtic towns under their rule and then kick roman @ss, however Aedui feels that their are the only rulers of Gaul and the strongest and they should remain ruling it, Arverni alliance feels that the time of the Aedui has passed and they are no longer strong and able to rule Gaul so it´s time for a change. Sweboz just want to lead all german people and make it a European superpower, raiding and pillaging Gauls and Romans in the way (that´s pretty nice,). Getai wants to unite Thrace and make those Greeks fear them once more, conquering and pillaging them, etc (well that´s not cool). And Lusos wants to kick Carthaginians out of their Peninsula, conquering all iberian tribes and taking Ireland in the way also pillaging some north African towns i believe? Oh! i almost forget kick those Roman @sses! they will invade you sooner or later. And last but not less important, Casse tribe feels that all the Tin island should be theirs, some great money there.. Also they want some territory in Gaul. that´s all i believe, sooo CYA.:smash::smash::smash:

What I keep thinking of doing is playing Sweboz and taking a horde of Germanic warriors over to Britain to play out the Anglo-Saxon invasion centuries early.

Angleland will be mine! The Casse can have smelly Wales and Scotland :clown:

Beware with using the term "Unite" for a barbarian faction and its supposed geographic "natural border". There was no supra-national identity between the tribes that made them part of a single "Gaul" or "Thrace", so it is impossible that these can be more than just geographic terms. The correct wording would be akin to "subjugating" or "integrating" all other tribes into one dominant confederacy or a stronger tribe, e.g. the Arverni.

+1 rule(i think if they were more politicized they would say unite ;) ) all tribes which are worthy of being ruled by you(as tribes of your blood and tounge will make less problems - you can build level 1 or 2 govs) and kill all that are not worthy of being ruled provided that they either pose a threat or occupy land which you want to settle on. an other plus on "barbaric" factions is that you CAN increase the difficulty level by invading certain regions(like the steppe or the alps)

imo the "plan" for most "barbaric" factions is basically:
1. "unite" the tribes
2. subjugate your neighbours(celts mostly)
3. ransack Rome or Hellas

after that you should either abandon the campaign or try to conquer the steppes:clown:

I can't play barbarian factions that much because the game engine makes them feel like a Roman or Macedonian army but with different skins :/ I always felt they were more about ambushes, night attacks, and fighting more of a guerilla war than a conventional one.

Kevin, try to google "Arausio" or "Hadrianopolis"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaiscedach

Yes, perhaps in terms of organization and arms and armour - but think about the personal bravery and heroism of the barbarians for a bit. You don't seem to get that out of the Romani, I guess.

---

Actually, barbarians were simply reckless, not brave. Most were notorious for wavering quickly, after the initial charge did not break the enemy. Romans were definitely not that in the Republican and Principate - they very rarely ran unless the situation was hopeless, and even then, many units would continue to fight while others fled. And Roman legionaries were by no means elite, upper-class troops equal to the "barbarian" bodyguard units, nobles and such. But yet Romans fought better than most of those upper-crust barbarians.

Hannibal trusted his Gauls the least, and he turned them into cannon fodder, putting them in the centre, where they took the brunt of casualties and almost always ran, enticing the Romans to fall into the trap. Even the Spaniards did better. Of course, then came the cunctatio, which denied Hannibal of his tactical brilliance.

At the same times, the Romans did turn into cowards by the late Roman times. I cannot help but recount when Valentian, (frustrated at the decades of having to deal with potential recruits who cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, despite the laws forbidding very specifically such form of self-mutilation) simply instituted the penalty of death by slow immolation. Then came Theodosius who repealed that, and instead decreed that landowners must supply another recruit for every mutilated one. That stopped it, but the problem did resurface some time later. That is when the Romans turned to the "barbarians" to almost wholly supply their army with soldiers.

Still, just think the desperation of the Romans - to slice off your thumb just to avoid the army... Your opposable appendage, with one that you are enabled to grasp things. Of course, the streaks of defeats, the innumerable hordes of invading nomads and other tribes, the much lower professionalism of the Roman Army, but still... The Romans were indeed decadent and pampered by then.

I believe Hannibal positioned himself just behind the center, to encourage his barbarian troops, yet of course they fell back against the massive roman army that attacked straight on. AFAIK he left 8000 gauls at his camp on the day of the battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Kevin, try to google "Arausio" or "Hadrianopolis"...

---

Haha, I'm not much of a history guy so whatever I know I got from movies :laugh4: Though those battles were interesting, they happened a while past EB times didn't they? Whatever :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

I believe Hannibal positioned himself just behind the center, to encourage his barbarian troops, yet of course they fell back against the massive roman army that attacked straight on. AFAIK he left 8000 gauls at his camp on the day of the battle.

---

Yes, the Gauls were one unreliable lot. Most notoriously, they buckled in the Battle of Trebia, the Romans broke through the centre, and the Gauls' lacking in courage cost Hannibal a victory.

Well, he still won, of course, but most of the Romans escaped - the battle could have been equal to the future victory of Cannae, but it was not, all because of the astounding cowardice and absence of steadfastness in the Gaulish warriors.



EDIT: I wonder what Ranika would say about this, if he was still with us :cry:. But he was a Casse/little-bit-of-Goidilic historian more than he was a Gallic one.

More accurate would be to say "what Psycho V would speak of this?" since he was nominally in charge of Continental Celts.

Best of course would be to ask to a current EB Celtic Team Member, like Power2the1.

As for Gauls and courage, I believe that EB represents this well. Celts are probably the least steadfast warriors in the field, all other points taken in notice - in fact there's a description saying "despite the Celtic propensity to become easily discouraged when facing determined resistance and to suffer under a hot sun", also not counting that average Celtic morale is also lower than that of the Sweboz and the Getai. Many times I've managed to break an opposite Celtic line with a fierce charge, and you'll be surprised at how much the morale of your soldiers floats with battle, more so than with any other faction I've seen in EB.

The conclusion we can take from, though, is that the Celts were not cowards. They lacked discipline, that's true, and discipline is the deciding factor when the going gets tough and battle eagerness gives on to bitter reality, which would require people to forsake their high bids and stand together at all costs - this is what seems to be lacking in their "ethos", at least from the limited grasp I can take. Else, they are superior warriors, and they are very brave.

The propensity to change sides was really just a mercenary affair than anything within the Celts in particular. It wasn't uncommon for people to switch sides all the time when large numbers of mercenaries were on the field, example being when a large detachment of German mercenaries deserted Sweden after Nordlingen, due to debt, defeat and the likes. It's why mercenaries can be unreliable some times, but that also depends on the commander; we have Hannibal, for example, keeping together a quite heterogeneous bunch of mercenaries for a long time, and many fought to death for him. The advantage of a system of citizen soldiers (continuing our discussion from other thread) is that the citizen soldiers owns more allegiance to the state, and while he may not be the best, IIRC Roman armies had a structure that was far simpler for a run-of-the-mill politician and his subordinates (chosen more for political acumen than military skill) to grasp and conduct than the kind of army Hannibal had to command.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name

The conclusion we can take from, though, is that the Celts were not cowards. They lacked discipline, that's true, and discipline is the deciding factor when the going gets tough and battle eagerness gives on to bitter reality, which would require people to forsake their high bids and stand together at all costs - this is what seems to be lacking in their "ethos", at least from the limited grasp I can take. Else, they are superior warriors, and they are very brave.

---

Where are your sources? Because you sound like most people on these forums - speculating, being vague, making up your own interpretations, lacking in any serious scholarly knowledge, except for a few odd books and a number of TV documentaries. It really humours me when i encounter people here who beleive they have the authority to speak on things simply because they have played EB. My sources mainly include: the Punic Wars by Brian Caven and another of the same title by Adrian Goldsworthy, as well as The Ancient Celts by Barry Cunliffe (very long, professional, and informative book, something I rarely see in the books on Celts).

To call the Gauls cowards is too much, it is true, as they were not. But whatever it was, they ran from the battle "faster than you can say blastoff!" (+10 if you get the reference :beam:). That is the truth, the fact. Whther you call that a lack of discipline, determination, or courage, I do not care. The point is, Gauls ran from the battle faster than most equivalent warriors of the nations of their day.

Well one thing is to point sources out of whim, another is to analyze these sources and the facts we have at hand in the right way :clown:. We have examples where the Celts ran, we also have examples where the Romans ran and the Celts won or that a Celtic line of battle was especially brave... You get it. At Arretium the Celts won over the Romans, at Alia ditto.

It seems to be common knowledge though that the Celtic warrior ethos was more focused on a)training a strong professional warrior class, b)valuing individual acts and bravery more over "group work". Equipment, training et all were more focused on individual feats, and it is also true IIRC (from my own readings on the subject) that the average Celtic militia was of lower quality, not only because it lacked the sort of attention the Germans and Romans gave to lower tier troops but because there was never an emphasis in collective training and war-making outside of the *admittedly large* warrior class.

The Romans, on the other hand, adopted the opposite approach - they had no "warrior class" in the sense of the word, rather focusing on giving militias as much collective training as possible and emphasize the "group" aspect of the legion. So a legionary in average spent more time training how to act effectively in formation, while a Gaesatae (rough comparisons, I say) would spend far more time duelling, or training alone, or being told that his own courage alone was enough to win and to earn him glory and fame, and the like.

Fact is though that the Celts seemed more impetuous and more prone to "individual challenges" on the battlefield than the rest. Literally everywhere I've read that touches the subject even remotely agrees. Last time was in a book about the Etruscans (written by Raymond Bloch) that gives a side glance at Celtic warrior ethos and says that it was not uncommon for a Celtic warrior to get off his line and challenge other individual enemies for a duel. Not that hard to imagine since we're all familiar with the Knightly Ethos too.

All in all I can presume that an "ethos" that values collective identity over individual identity would also give far more discipline to the group as a whole, since all the people would need to act in unison for most things. 1 vs. 1, though, my money is on the Celts, and it is not like Celts were completely averse to group work either, or that some Celtic bands did not equal the collective discipline of more "civilized" warriors. It's a rough generalization frankly.

Quote:

---

At the same times, the Romans did turn into cowards by the late Roman times. I cannot help but recount when Valentian, (frustrated at the decades of having to deal with potential recruits who cut off their thumbs to avoid military service, despite the laws forbidding very specifically such form of self-mutilation) simply instituted the penalty of death by slow immolation. Then came Theodosius who repealed that, and instead decreed that landowners must supply another recruit for every mutilated one. That stopped it, but the problem did resurface some time later. That is when the Romans turned to the "barbarians" to almost wholly supply their army with soldiers.

---

Actually no, unless you can provide credible statements. The Late Roman army was still capable of defeating "barbarians", and the majority of late roman soldiers was never of "barbarian", but of roman origin. Roman armies always had a sizeable amount of foreign auxliaries and that time was no exception.

The cause of the decline of the Western Empire was not military but economical. With the money for self-defense decreasing, there was no way troops could be sustained thus, and the majority of "conquests" at the time by "barbarians" was made not by destroying resistances but by simply occupying what was being constantly neglected or undefended. At Chalôns, however, Atilla got it handed to him and the Eastern Roman Army reached its peak under Narses and Belisarius.

Quote:

---

Still, just think the desperation of the Romans - to slice off your thumb just to avoid the army... Your opposable appendage, with one that you are enabled to grasp things. Of course, the streaks of defeats, the innumerable hordes of invading nomads and other tribes, the much lower professionalism of the Roman Army, but still... The Romans were indeed decadent and pampered by then.

---

Myth, of course. Was the re-institution of Decimation by Crassus a sign of decline and cowardice of all Roman armies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name

Actually no, unless you can provide credible statements.

---

Define "credible"? What use to me to cite my things when I know you will not read it? First read some material, then come back and after that I will cite things. What do you need cited? Tell me, and I will try. I have a stack of books from my Uni library that I have been reading for the past month, so I can even look up the page number, if I had all this evening to myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name

The Late Roman army was still capable of defeating "barbarians", and the majority of late roman soldiers was never of "barbarian", but of roman origin. Roman armies always had a sizeable amount of foreign auxliaries and that time was no exception.

---

I never said that was not true. Romans lost, but also won even more against barbarian tribes. But the Romans could not afford to lose, and their losses were more numerous and disastrous in a time when their foes were uncounted, coming in waves, one after another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name

The cause of the decline of the Western Empire was not military but economical. With the money for self-defense decreasing, there was no way troops could be sustained thus, and the majority of "conquests" at the time by "barbarians" was made not by destroying resistances but by simply occupying what was being constantly neglected or undefended. At Chalôns, however, Atilla got it handed to him and the Eastern Roman Army reached its peak under Narses and Belisarius.

---

I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, and it is pointless to debate on it, especially with a regular person like you and me, and not a professor. Do not lecture me, we all know the reasons, and I have never stated that it was the weak military that brought the Romans down. I find it suspicious that you seemingly so grossly misinterpreted my post.

But while we are at it, no, it was not economical. Well, it was, but to say that it was one thing is clearly erroneous. For one thing, why do you say the money was decreasing? What is your source - this is not an obvious statement. Economy indeed was not prospering, but this was a symptom of something instead of the malady itself. Even with the weaker economy, the Romans actually held more troops, which goes directly against what you have said. In fact, it is supposed that one of the causes of the fall of the Western Romans was the fact they had too much troops. Augustus had only about 150,000, and Diocletian particularly greatly increased that amount, thus destroying the treasury, instead of what you said, or the treasury destroying the army.

And did you ever notice that it so happen that the fall of the Roman Empire coincided with momentous Migration Period, with uncounted tribes of barbarians and nomads shifting and ravaging lands, pushed by yet more peoples form the East. At the same time, the Parthians evolved into the Persians, for a time free of civil strife, ready to take on the Romans in maximum efficiency. That really was the single major factor in the fall of Rome. At no other time the Romans had to face so many significant enemies at once, with more foes to come, all driven by the nomadic tribes originating all the way from Mongolia and Eastern-Central Asia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name

Myth, of course. Was the re-institution of Decimation by Crassus a sign of decline and cowardice of all Roman armies?

---

WTH? It is not a myth, but one of the most common problems of the 5th century and later. What makes you think it is a myth?? In what book did you ever read "the saying that Roman recruits cut off their fingers is nothing but a myth"? You do not know if what I said is true or not. What makes you think you are correct? This is ridiculous... It is like saying that decimation was a myth...

This is so obvious, as there is so much clear evidence, and you refute it? Have you actually read anything on Late Roman Times? My sources for the "cutting off thumbs" thing is Pat Southern, The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History. It is a clear fact that many laws were created to prevent potential recruits from cutting their thumbs off. Many Emperors battled this occurrence, and usually failed. This was a serious problem.


Decimation is one thing. Soldiers always run from battle when things are desperate. If not all, then at least some. Crassus instituted decimation to punish those who shamed themselves in front of Spartacus. Routs always happen. What did not happen, however, (or until Later Dominate), was such unwillingness of people to join the legions. Romans always had plenty of recruits, even in the direst of times, during the Hannibalic War. Some were unwilling during that Second Punic War, but still, they fought. In regular times, there was no trouble recruiting men.

But by the time of Valentinian and Theodosius I, very few wanted to join the army, specifically the limitanei, which was were most fresh recruits are hypothesised to have went. There were dire problems in recruiting of sufficient numbers of men. And face it, to chop off your thumb, you simply have to be more desperate than a cornered rat.

@AP I won't reply to the whole of your post now... But it seems that the main source of the statements about the "cowardice" of the later Roman army and their relative "inferiority" to Principate forces is Vegetius, who was called more than once by people more well-read than me more of a dubious, armchair source.

Anyway there's a wealth of debate in the matter, especially in TWC. Try to search for their threads, and a similar engagement between the "traditional" view and mine was fought fiercely and in detail, and by people who provided all kinds of sources yet again.

I know we're not professors and all (even though I dream of getting a history degree before my 30's), but nevertheless I stand by my position. There are many things which seem so self-evident that in fact are myth, Roman invincibility and superiority of all of them. Fair enough.