Is EB 1.2 the most sophisticated turn based computer strategy wargame to this date?

Granted this question is very subjective, and there are a few things about EB that drive me nuts, like cavalry charges failing against enemies that are running away but not yet routing, and troop tracking in barbarian cities during siege battles. But that said, I don't have any games that I think would hold interest against EB nowadays, due to the wealth of cultural content, and strategic/tactical sophistication and general replayability of EB. The amount of history and culture imbued into this game makes it rank extremely high in my estimation. Just recently, for example I totally revised my combined arms system, totally removed archers from my armies and refocused on light cavalry skirmishing and rapid encirclement, with oblique gaesatae flank attacks, to try and get the fastest chainroutes possible. The range of tactical possibilities and development strategies in this game, varying from faction to faction, have to make it rank as one of the most sophisticated turn based wargames to this date. Are there any turn based games that compare favorably with EB for overall depth/sophistication/replayability? Is EB 1.2 the ultimate wargamer's turn-based strategy game to this date?

EU3 is better on all three fronts, but it's not turn based. Civilization is more replayable, but it's not really a war game. So honestly, I don't really know of many other games that do what EB does, though it's certainly an incredibly high quality game and is probably near or at the top of the heap.

Master of Orion 3 was the most complex thing I've ever played... except it wasn't really a game... or fun... or playable...

In Antarian Galaxy, turn based game plays you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Master of Orion 3 was the most complex thing I've ever played... except it wasn't really a game... or fun... or playable...

In Antarian Galaxy, turn based game plays you!

---

I was wondering about that one, I played MOO1 a lot back in the day, Klackons FTW. I didn't play MOO2 much but I know some consider it the best of its genre. But I think the tactical system of the early MOO games was a lot simpler than EB.

He's not referring to tactical battles, but to the economy and the running of the empire.

The economy in MOO3 is so complicated no human can handle it without AI assistance. Or monk-level patience and time-commitment.

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

I was wondering about that one, I played MOO1 a lot back in the day, Klackons FTW. I didn't play MOO2 much but I know some consider it the best of its genre. But I think the tactical system of the early MOO games was a lot simpler than EB.

---

Playing MoO3 is like filling out your tax forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

---

I think what makes EB/RTW so much better than EU3 is the (R:TW engine) battles. If one could combine certain aspects of EU3 stratmap realtime play, factions/in-fighting/subfactions etc.) with the battle engine of R:TW (with some of the AI mods incorporated), the sea battles of E:TW and the cultural background/militay units and know-how of the EB team then I would likely become a hermit, deeply entrenched within the alternative 'reality' of that game. So, its probably as well that it doesn't exist.

CA should just contract Paradox to code their diplomacy system.

Also EU: Rome while extremely flawed and barren introduced some interesting features in its Vae Victus expansion. I wish Rome TW had a comparable political system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

I think what makes EB/RTW so much better than EU3 is the (R:TW engine) battles. If one could combine certain aspects of EU3 stratmap realtime play, factions/in-fighting/subfactions etc.) with the battle engine of R:TW (with some of the AI mods incorporated), the sea battles of E:TW and the cultural background/militay units and know-how of the EB team then I would likely become a hermit, deeply entrenched within the alternative 'reality' of that game. So, its probably as well that it doesn't exist.

---

Well, what "we" would need from the TWs are the battles, the units and the maps which look better than in EU3 in my opinion, nothing else.

EB 1.2 is a mod for a wargame. That wargame would do well to have been made with many more things in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

---

Heh, how could I forget to mention my all-time favorite game series? Heroes 2 was solid gold.

Do not underestimate the RTW campaign engine, especially with BI.
AI does know when it's beaten and will negotiate peace with you just like in paradox games, but unfortunately the "I'm beaten" parameter is coded in a relavitely narrow window.

This is unfortunately not seen in most mods as modders always give extra money to AI one way or the other, plus the "snowball effect" plus the huge trade multiplier effect which makes income grow much more than in a linear way.
This basically causes AI to think "I'm rich, I still have a chance" while we know better.

Once you "deflate" the economy AI becomes more passive (which in player's eyes is a bad thing) but less money also means that the player will be slower as well.
On the bright side, it allows you to see things like a faction you're bordering and you've been at war with for 20 years asking your for peace if it comes under pressure on another front.

This may or may not also be affected by the presence of another hated institution in game: the senate.
While I'm still researching that front, descr_senate.txt is the only txt file in game that shows an editable AI threshold, although the lack of research and testing does not give a 100% correct estimate of its effect globally.

That said, EB's huge amount of historical reseach and gameplay mechanisms bring a very solid layer of sophistication in game that more than compensates for AI flaws and gives the experience we all love.

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

---

Just to be clear, you are talking about Europa Barbarorum 1.2 when you say "EB", right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Just to be clear, you are talking about Europa Barbarorum 1.2 when you say "EB", right?

---

Yes Vartan, it would be safe for you to assume so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

---

Greater depth of unit rosters, greatly improved and more evocative unit graphics, greater FM character development, in many ways improved cavalry behavior-- I always hated vanilla cavalry doing hairpin turns in mid charge. As for imbalance in favor of barbarians, maybe you see it from a Rome centered view, granted barbs have some advantages like lethality, more ogrish elites like gaesatae and rhompaiaphoroi, better cavalry stamina, the Sweboz chevron factory et al. But I always play Eurobarbs and from my side of the Po, the advantages of the civilized factions are very clear- better armor, heavier shields, greater missile resistance which conduces to cohort survival and chevroning up during long campaigns. And the Roman cavalry weakness is mitigated by options like Campanian cavalry which in reality make Rome IMO cavalry strong, and then the bombproof Polybian principes factory once Polybian reforms, which are much easier to reach than Gaul's time of soldiers, or the Sweboz reforms. Myself I am a Roman military historian, which in part explains my interest in EB, yet the advantages of the Roman roster are to me so obvious that I have never been able to bring myself to play the Romans. Conquer Italy and Sicily, get Polybian reforms, spam Polybian hastati/principes, supplement with Campanian cav/Equites ex., chevron way up, win win win. It is so obvious. In addition the campaign mode overrates the economic value of trade and underrates agriculture, where is the famous agricultural and livestock wealth of the Po valley Celts? But overrated as trade is, it makes Mediterranean coastal territories the most desireable. I can conquer all inner Gaul or inner Germany and it amounts to very little, playing as Gauls the real way to boost the economy is to sack Rome, Gallicize Italy, and take Britain, coastal trade in EB is the real key to economic strength, and the Mediterranean coastlands are the ultimate prize. This situation in my view makes the Romans, Karthaginians and Ptolemaioi the real uberfactions in the game, not to mention Karthadasts superversatile troop roster, with PedEx clones, Celtiberian Swordsmen clones, elite phalanxes, quality bodyguards, elite Iberian cavalry etc. again playing Kart-Hadast just strikes me as an obvious win. And then there is the Ptolemaioi with superior Neitos (!), Cretans, phalanxes, and decent cavalry again a very versatile roster. If, playing as Gauls, my neitos had level 4 shields, they would be unstoppable. But that said, I think campaign mode is weighed in favor of whoever gets Mediterannean thalassokracy, and I think Roma and Kart-hadast have the best combo of starting position and troop roster. But I think that multiplayer, with the customary equal money system, tends to favor the eastern barbarian factions like the Sarmatians and Getai and Saka, whose armored horse archer/lancers are IMO the single most dominant troop in the game. So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

---

If you had access to a vault of EB MP replays could you make a (relatively?) reliable and accurate assessment of whether in fact MP does represent medieval Asiatic steppe warfare? (Because I do realize the power of heavy cavalry in the RTW engine by way of EB statting).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Greater depth of unit rosters, greatly improved and more evocative unit graphics, greater FM character development, in many ways improved cavalry behavior-- I always hated vanilla cavalry doing hairpin turns in mid charge. As for imbalance in favor of barbarians, maybe you see it from a Rome centered view, granted barbs have some advantages like lethality, more ogrish elites like gaesatae and rhompaiaphoroi, better cavalry stamina, the Sweboz chevron factory et al. But I always play Eurobarbs and from my side of the Po, the advantages of the civilized factions are very clear- better armor, heavier shields, greater missile resistance which conduces to cohort survival and chevroning up during long campaigns. And the Roman cavalry weakness is mitigated by options like Campanian cavalry which in reality make Rome IMO cavalry strong, and then the bombproof Polybian principes factory once Polybian reforms, which are much easier to reach than Gaul's time of soldiers, or the Sweboz reforms. Myself I am a Roman military historian, which in part explains my interest in EB, yet the advantages of the Roman roster are to me so obvious that I have never been able to bring myself to play the Romans. Conquer Italy and Sicily, get Polybian reforms, spam Polybian hastati/principes, supplement with Campanian cav/Equites ex., chevron way up, win win win. It is so obvious. In addition the campaign mode overrates the economic value of trade and underrates agriculture, where is the famous agricultural and livestock wealth of the Po valley Celts? But overrated as trade is, it makes Mediterranean coastal territories the most desireable. I can conquer all inner Gaul or inner Germany and it amounts to very little, playing as Gauls the real way to boost the economy is to sack Rome, Gallicize Italy, and take Britain, coastal trade in EB is the real key to economic strength, and the Mediterranean coastlands are the ultimate prize. This situation in my view makes the Romans, Karthaginians and Ptolemaioi the real uberfactions in the game, not to mention Karthadasts superversatile troop roster, with PedEx clones, Celtiberian Swordsmen clones, elite phalanxes, quality bodyguards, elite Iberian cavalry etc. again playing Kart-Hadast just strikes me as an obvious win. And then there is the Ptolemaioi with superior Neitos (!), Cretans, phalanxes, and decent cavalry again a very versatile roster. If, playing as Gauls, my neitos had level 4 shields, they would be unstoppable. But that said, I think campaign mode is weighed in favor of whoever gets Mediterannean thalassokracy, and I think Roma and Kart-hadast have the best combo of starting position and troop roster. But I think that multiplayer, with the customary equal money system, tends to favor the eastern barbarian factions like the Sarmatians and Getai and Saka, whose armored horse archer/lancers are IMO the single most dominant troop in the game. So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

---

Quote:

---

I always hated vanilla cavalry doing hairpin turns in mid charge. As for imbalance in favor of barbarians, maybe you see it from a Rome centered view, granted barbs have some advantages like lethality, more ogrish elites like gaesatae and rhompaiaphoroi, better cavalry stamina, the Sweboz chevron factory et al. But I always play Eurobarbs and from my side of the Po, the advantages of the civilized factions are very clear- better armor, heavier shields, greater missile resistance which conduces to cohort survival and chevroning up during long campaigns. And the Roman cavalry weakness is mitigated by options like Campanian cavalry which in reality make Rome IMO cavalry strong, and then the bombproof Polybian principes factory once Polybian reforms, which are much easier to reach than Gaul's time of soldiers, or the Sweboz reforms. Myself I am a Roman military historian, which in part explains my interest in EB, yet the advantages of the Roman roster are to me so obvious that I have never been able to bring myself to play the Romans. Conquer Italy and Sicily, get Polybian reforms, spam Polybian hastati/principes, supplement with Campanian cav/Equites ex., chevron way up, win win win. It is so obvious. In addition the campaign mode overrates the economic value of trade and underrates agriculture, where is the famous agricultural and livestock wealth of the Po valley Celts? But overrated as trade is, it makes Mediterranean coastal territories the most desireable. I can conquer all inner Gaul or inner Germany and it amounts to very little, playing as
Gauls the real way to boost the economy is to sack Rome, Gallicize Italy, and take Britain, coastal trade in EB is the real key to economic strength, and the Mediterranean coastlands are the ultimate prize. This situation in my view makes the Romans, Karthaginians and Ptolemaioi the real uberfactions in the game, not to mention Karthadasts superversatile troop roster, with PedEx clones, Celtiberian Swordsmen clones, elite phalanxes, quality bodyguards, elite Iberian cavalry etc. again playing Kart-Hadast just strikes me as an obvious win. And then there is the Ptolemaioi with superior Neitos (!), Cretans, phalanxes, and decent cavalry again a very versatile roster. If, playing as Gauls, my neitos had level 4 shields, they would be unstoppable. But that said, I think campaign mode is weighed in favor of whoever gets Mediterannean thalassokracy, and I think Roma and Kart-hadast have the best combo of starting position and troop roster. But I think that multiplayer, with the customary equal money system, tends to favor the eastern barbarian factions like the Sarmatians and Getai and Saka, whose armored horse archer/lancers are IMO the single most dominant troop in the game. So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

---

What you failed to realize in my previous post was that the balance referred to is, literally, historical balance...

Vanilla portrayed them very fictionally and, hence, very unbalanced historically... Why were numidians so un-unique?... Why were Gaulish infantry so fragile?...

These are things that are a result of the fact that the unit rosters were totally not made to be historically balanced, but rather for entertainment balance: Carthage with Elephants, Romans with Everything, Greeks with Pikes, Easterns with Cataphracts, Barbarians withh Druids/Berserkers, etc., etc...

So, it is natural for you to feel that your faction has certain disadvantages and, hence it is unbalanced. But this can only be felt if you take, as you said, a very subjective approach. Why not try and play other factions to the same degree as you do as Gauls or Germans? If others also have relative disadvantages, why would that not be considered balanced? What would be unhistorical about trade not being good above the Po under the Gauls and Germans... trade has never, ever been good without the seed of civilization!... Isn't that the mark of the barbarians?... profiting from plunder??...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What you failed to realize in my previous post was that the balance referred to is, literally, historical balance...

Vanilla portrayed them very fictionally and, hence, very unbalanced historically... Why were numidians so un-unique?... Why were Gaulish infantry so fragile?...

These are things that are a result of the fact that the unit rosters were totally not made to be historically balanced, but rather for entertainment balance: Carthage with Elephants, Romans with Everything, Greeks with Pikes, Easterns with Cataphracts, Barbarians withh Druids/Berserkers, etc., etc...

So, it is natural for you to feel that your faction has certain disadvantages and, hence it is unbalanced. But this can only be felt if you take, as you said, a very subjective approach. Why not try and play other factions to the same degree as you do as Gauls or Germans? If others also have relative disadvantages, why would that not be considered balanced? What would be unhistorical about trade not being good above the Po under the Gauls and Germans... trade has never, ever been good without the seed of civilization!... Isn't that the mark of the barbarians?... profiting from plunder??...

---

Yes I agree to some extent that Vanilla RTW unit statistics and design were partly created for fun factor, while EB is a more serious effort to shrug off the effects of Helleno-Roman misobarbarism and reflect that around 270 there were many strong martial cultures and the future was uncertain. As for Roman troops in EB, well on the one their advantages to me are obvious, and having played the Celtic factions a great deal, playing the Romans would be almost the same thing, its all swordsmen armies, the Romans are just tougher and have better javelin volleys, while their melee impact is weaker. And that is the other reason I won't play them, when I send swordsmen charging on the flank, I want to see a lot of bodies dropping but the Romans with their inferior lethality just don't satisfy me. I've played Getai and ran falxmen too much, the 0.13 lethality gladius just don't cut it. 0.225 is about as low as I want to go. Now in reality I think the 0.13 Roman principes lethality is a statistical nerf, designed for game balance issues, and in reality Roman principes were some of the more lethal regular infantry in the world at that time. The Celts, in a more realistic system, would have statistical variance within cohorts, not all would be equally well armed, and the heroes would surpass most anything individually that the Romans could field. And charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality. That's my take anyways.
But I won't play Romans simply because the 0.13 bores me, that and the Polybian principes are just too good in that 0.13 boring way.
As for profitting from plunder, the Romans were just as good at that as any "barbarians". One of the Roman axioms, often repeated in Livy, is that the Romans considered nothing to be more properly their own, than that which they siezed by arms during war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

If you had access to a vault of EB MP replays could you make a (relatively?) reliable and accurate assessment of whether in fact MP does represent medieval Asiatic steppe warfare? (Because I do realize the power of heavy cavalry in the RTW engine by way of EB statting).

---

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear. I did see one replay about a month ago with a good Sarmatian army with Sarmatian nobles, Roxalani lights, mass HA levy spam and Skythian nobles in reserve, maybe it was you playing I'm not sure but the Sarmatians crushed a pretty tight KH infantry box in guard mode. I'd be curious to see it done at 40K with some Sarmatian warlords, or Saka bodyguards (not the FM type but the regular hetairoi lance/axe type). But its not too complex really, the main thing would be crescent formations rather than rectangles, doing simultaneous HA sweeps of both flanks and rear, firing concentrically when possible, skirmishing and riding down stray troops, and punctuated by a decisive heavy cavalry charge.

I usually go with a 3 part army with steppe factions, 1/2 the horses go around each side and 1/2 the horses stay up front. I think a cresent is asking too much though TW controls don't lend to any geometrically complex formations.

More importantly, HA only armies are pretty useless after missiles are out. Its better to bring foot archers and infantry since levy HA will rout on charges.

Quote:

---

The Celts, in a more realistic system, would have statistical variance within cohorts, not all would be equally well armed, and the heroes would surpass most anything individually that the Romans could field.

---

Yes, you too are right, but in the virtual reality system of a videogame, such discrepencies must be overlooked directly, and be indirectly assessed by the law of averages no? In other words, we must look at each unit as a whole rather than as a multitude of pieces.

However, the point you raise sheds light on the preventable descrepencies in the game that cause historical unbalance. The fact is that the typical gallic swordsman (such as the Southern or Northern) were quite under-equipped when compared to legionnaries in every sense. They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs! because sometimes the only way to be able to kill with such a sword was by sheer blunt trauma, not slashing or gashing.

Also, keep in mind that certain technicalities of history, such as the fact that most barbarian armies primarily consisted of those lowly soldiers, should not be considered when attempting to set certain stat values... Just because the Gauls could never develop a socio-economic system where they would be able to afford the maintenance of a real professional army (Neitos), doesn't mean such things should not be allowed to be generated in the game, whether sp or mp. I hear many times how Neitos, in real life, only consisted of an elite squad, not a whole force (as players usually get 6-8 of these units in a typical mp game), but that is fine within the confines of a videogame.

Quote:

---

And charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality.

---

What you are asking for here is... RTW: EB... 2050!!!

Quote:

---

As for profitting from plunder, the Romans were just as good at that as any "barbarians". One of the Roman axioms, often repeated in Livy, is that the Romans considered nothing to be more properly their own, than that which they siezed by arms during war.

---

Yes, this is very true, but as you also failed to recognize in my statement was that it was the barbarian way to profit by plunder. Although the Romans also did, they much more profitted from conquest, colonization, and, ultimately, the establishment and proliferation of modern civilization!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear.

---

Tell me, Geticus, apart from Hannibal, who else in history ever used the crescent defense formation deliberately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

However, the point you raise sheds light on the preventable descrepencies in the game that cause historical unbalance. The fact is that the typical gallic swordsman (such as the Southern or Northern) were quite under-equipped when compared to legionnaries in every sense. They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs! because sometimes the only way to be able to kill with such a sword was by sheer blunt trauma, not slashing or gashing.

---

...the archaeological evidence doesn't necessarily back this up though. There is a danger of reading too much into the hyperbole of Roman endorsed 'histories'....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Also, keep in mind that certain technicalities of history, such as the fact that most barbarian armies primarily consisted of those lowly soldiers, should not be considered when attempting to set certain stat values... Just because the Gauls could never develop a socio-economic system where they would be able to afford the maintenance of a real professional army (Neitos)

---

I would swap the term "could never develop..." to "had not, at this time developed..."

Gaul, as an example, was at the time of Caesar's invasion at a crossroads. It could have been overrun by Germanic tribes (Ariovistus and the Suebi..), or - as with the reaction to Caesar's interference, they might have finally found the motivation to unite (against the threat of these invading Germanic tribes, and the encroachment of the Belgae from the north..) and a strong enough character(s) to do so (Vercingetorix, Ambiorix etc.)

Rome didn't begin with the socio-economic system that allowed them a standing army, it gained those evolving systems through internal/factional confrontations, and through charismatic personalities who perceived the best response to the dissent and implemented the necessary reforms. The Gauls (in particular) already were evolving their political-economic systems. So, it's not that the Gauls could never develop such a system, it is - rather - that they had not by the time Caesar took advantage of their factional in-fighting, to the benefit of Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality.

---

That's one of the features I'm working on for the new battle engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear. I did see one replay about a month ago with a good Sarmatian army with Sarmatian nobles, Roxalani lights, mass HA levy spam and Skythian nobles in reserve, maybe it was you playing I'm not sure but the Sarmatians crushed a pretty tight KH infantry box in guard mode. I'd be curious to see it done at 40K with some Sarmatian warlords, or Saka bodyguards (not the FM type but the regular hetairoi lance/axe type). But its not too complex really, the main thing would be crescent formations rather than rectangles, doing simultaneous HA sweeps of both flanks and rear, firing concentrically when possible, skirmishing and riding down stray troops, and punctuated by a decisive heavy cavalry charge.

---

That would be Horsies.rpy if I recall correctly, gamegeek2 (Sauromatae) vs Antisocialmunky (Koinon Hellenon), I forget the money. Here's the problem, more money doesn't mean more units. The game unfairly and unjustly only lets you choose 20 unit cards. This is of course an implementation used to prevent the explosion of computers from having to render too much darn graphics, but that's only that way because the game doesn't have dynamic range for rendering (AFAIK) that allows the engine to render at a lower quality (or to use lower-polygon models) when fielding over a certain number of men. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

...the archaeological evidence doesn't necessarily back this up though. There is a danger of reading too much into the hyperbole of Roman endorsed 'histories'....

---

Polybius was never shy to glorify Rome's opponents on several occasions when he thought they merited praise. Take, for instance, the description he gives of the Gauls themselves, during the war I mentioned, when they aligned on two opposing fronts to fight the Romans... his description of the Carthaginians and Hamilcar... his description of Gaestatae. He only strayed from objectivity when dealing in more "personal" matters.

Quote:

---

I would swap the term "could never develop..." to "had not, at this time developed..."

---

Well, my friend, as Aristotle said: If they lived and died and never did it, then they could never do it. Right??? :laugh4:

Oh and Vartan about this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

That's one of the features I'm working on for the new battle engine.

---

Let me help you while you teach me everything you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs!

---

Strange, then, that the Romans would adopt both Celtic shield and Celtic ironworking and equip their legions with it. I can only repeat what the EB team has said: Polybius' story may be a misinterpretation of the iron-age practice of "killing" enemy weapons. It's not confirmed by the archaeological record.

On a balancing level: yes, the barbarians get +1 armour compared to civilized armies, but that was done to increase historicity, not for game-play reasons. I suspect it can be justified by the fact that barbarian warriors would often have supplemented their equipment by looting from fallen enemies and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Well, my friend, as Aristotle said: If they lived and died and never did it, then they could never do it. Right??? :laugh4:

---

Given that their life was cut short by the Romans...

I think you are taking a too black-and-white view when it comes to barbarians. Remember that the Roman and Hellenistic states had not left their tribal history far behind. Voting in Athens and IIRC Rome still occurred on a tribal basis, and Hellenistic treaties were only valid as long both of the signers were still alive. Given that the more sophisticated Celtic tribes (the Aedui and the Sequani/Averni) had a senate and a justice system, with procedures in place to prevent abuse of power, it looks to me like they were developing along the same lines, if a century or so behind the Romans.

MOO3 was a joke, yet Moo2 is very complex. Almost to the level of SidMeiers Alpha Centauri, most in-depth strategy game ever. In terms of strategy, EB and RTW engine are pretty weak contenders. They triumph in terms of tactical gameplay.

Quote:

---

Strange, then, that the Romans would adopt both Celtic shield and Celtic ironworking and equip their legions with it.

---

Indeed, the Romans, like others, implemented equipment into their military standard that had much Celtic influence, but not Celtic materials or workmanship. The famous "Monteforino" helmet, for example, that so many cultures adopted. But, like the helmet, when you say it is of Celtic influence, it is a reference merely to size, shape, etc. It does not refer to its strength of material, its workmanship, or any other variations that may have been introduced (such as the Iron Boss, which was implemented by the Iberians and, then, the Romans - the boss was taken by the Romans from the Iberians, whom had introduced this variation to the Celtic scutum). So just because something has its origins somewhere, doesn't make the place of origin the cause for its many developments.

Quote:

---

On a balancing level: yes, the barbarians get +1 armour compared to civilized armies, but that was done to increase historicity, not for game-play reasons.

---

Wait, if I understand many of the barbarian myths, barbarians would usually sacrifice such spoils into the rivers where they're Gods dwelt or in some other way (i.e. Battle of Teutoborg Forest and the many weapon fragments still found there to this day and accounted for in Tacitus' history).

Quote:

---

I suspect it can be justified by the fact that barbarian warriors would often have supplemented their equipment by looting from fallen enemies and so on.

---

How could this ever be applied as a standard that does not cause historical, let alone basic gameplay, imbalance? Every people that ever wins a battle, to this day, gets the spoils. It is a fact of life. So why would the non-barbarian peoples not be allowed such advantage of spoils? Or is that you assume them to be so haughty as not to deem their opponents barbarian weapons good enough??? :idea2:

Quote:

---

I think you are taking a too black-and-white view when it comes to barbarians. Remember that the Roman and Hellenistic states had not left their tribal history far behind. Voting in Athens and IIRC Rome still occurred on a tribal basis, and Hellenistic treaties were only valid as long both of the signers were still alive. Given that the more sophisticated Celtic tribes (the Aedui and the Sequani/Averni) had a senate and a justice system, with procedures in place to prevent abuse of power, it looks to me like they were developing along the same lines, if a century or so behind the Romans.

---

I understand your point - that barbarians too had civilizations - and I agree. But 100 years of difference is much more than a result of bad luck, and the scale with which each (Rome v. Gauls) is compared is too much to categorize any tribe organization with the level reached by Rome. Rome had tribes, but it began and always was a city-state, centralized by the Senate. The Gauls too had tribes, but each tribe was his own state, his own government. Yes, certain tribes were subject to others, varying from time to time, but such was the organization of Rome when it began in 758 BC. So then, either, as I said, the Gauls were a people incapable of reaching greatness, or simply were 700 years behind... :idea2:

Just imagine if the United States, when declaring independence, did so as individual states, united only in that one instance of independence. Do you really think they would've achieved anything as great as they have to this day? Do you really think the many innovations brought about by this nation would've been achieved as they have been??... I don't think so.

This is excessively speculative since the evidence on Gallic politics, based on Caesar, Strabo, and whatever Greek historians comes pretty late in the day after the decline of Gallic martial culture. When the Gauls fought Rome for the first time c. 390, Roman historians recollected that the Gauls invaded Latium in vengeance for a Roman ambassador fighting alongside the Etruscans and slaying a Gaulic warrior in battle. Who was showing respect for justice? The Roman accounts of the battle of the Anio which led to the Gallic sack of Rome and the plebian *desertion of the city as lost*, are so short in detail as to exasperate any serious military historian--the Roman explanation for the defeat, devoid of technical knowledge and respect, ascribes the victory to divine retribution. What cultural advantages did the Gauls demonstrate at the battle of the Anio? Why did the plebs, the backbone of the legions, give up the city? Remember that Rome was not a weak military power at this time, like the Gauls from the north the Romans were breaking the power of the Etruscans from the south, they had just destroyed the once opulent Etruscan city of Veii in an allegedly 10 year siege, at a time when the Spartans had failed miserably to adapt to long sieges vs. Athens. So why did the Romans lose so crushingly? What was the state of Gallic cavalry and chariotry at that time? The Roman historians offer no help.

Your assumptions of Gaulic cultural mediocrity are right in line with Roman historiography. But the Romans didn't have that arrogance in the 4th century BC, it developed over the next three centuries as Gallic power declined, and was cemented by Caesar. But there is a Roman saying- mortuo leoni etiam lepores insultant (even rabbits jump on a dead lion.) Caesar for his part respected the Gallic nobles who sided with him enough to make them senators.

One might consider the case of Makedon. Southern Hellenes viewed them as semi-barbaroi. They were rustics. They partially submitted to the Persians during the Persian wars when the Spartans protected the independence of Hellas. But somehow the semibarbaroi came down from the hills and conquered the world. Would you ascribe this to Makedonian attainment of "civilization"? To Alexander's education by Aristotle? What did any Hellenic philisoph ever accomplish in war? In martial affairs civilization is very much overrated. Have you read Latin histories at all? The Romans ascribed their victories mainly to disciplina militaris and virtus, both of the soldiers and of the generals. They did not ascribe their victories to living in a city. That was the line of the Byzantines later on, but it was a pompous claim, they were generally mediocre in war and their greatest successes under Justinian were reliant substantially on barbarian manpower, notably of the Huns, the most uncivilized of them all. Where do you think the greatest Roman generals came from. Gaius Marius was a rustic. Quinctius Cincinnatus was a rustic. Manlius Torquatus, the exemplar of extreme severe discipline, was a rustic, raised on a farm and worked like a slave alongside the slaves. Granted Caesar and Scipio, Pompeius, the Romans had more urbane generals, but the uniting element was virtue and prudence, personal authority, and knowledge of the art of war. And where did the masses of the soldiers come from? They were farmers for the most part, or their homeless offspring in a later era- the capite censi of the post Marian legions. The fortified urbs of Rome was a commercial and political center but you overrate the importance of urban residents for providing robust manpower for the armies. Look at the Augustan imperial era, how many emperors actually came from Rome? After the Julio-Claudian dynasty very few. Because the culture in that city became increasingly luxurious and enervating. Most later emperors just stayed away from the city.

I might as well argue that Celtic warlords conquered much of Europe during the 5th and 4th century, and their cultural degeneration through luxury opened the way for the expansion of the Roman imperium. In history most conquering martial cultures don't last much more than two centuries after they reach their zenith anyhow. The Median hegemony lasted all of 60 or so years after their conquest of Assyria. The Persians who succeeded them lasted about 200 from the time of Cyrus the Great. The Makedonian dynasties who succeeded the Persians came out of nowhere just like the Persian, and lasted all of 150-250 years. What did the urban poleis of Greece accomplish in the meantime? None of these hegemonic martial cultures originated in a polis. And as for Sparta, the martial hegemon of classical Hellas, well their city scarcely even resembled a regular polis. So "civilization" and "city life" that you cite as some great characteristic are of very dubious value in military affairs. A general or warlord need not reside in a city to have perception and intelligence. People need not reside in a city to have courage, honor, and fortitude.

So I don't really see much connection between military excellence, whether of Rome or of anyone else, and urban life, or civilization for that matter. Rome rose from under the shadow of Gaul, and they fell under the shadow of the Huns. They had 300 or so years of supreme excellence from the time of Marius to the time of Severus. And the peculiar genius of Rome during wartime, wasn't a product of "civilization" and their quarrelsome constitution, unless you follow Polybius' line but I do not- since the history of the Republic is a history of endless political strife. It was mainly a reflection of the culture and character of the Roman people, which gave profound respect to authority, discipline, and martial virtue. Transpose that kind of culture into a semi-barbarian kingdom like Makedon, or a nation of rustics like pre-imperial Persia, and the outcome is pretty similar.

Well I think it is, here are my reasons:

RTS games (Rise of Nations like): Well, they are quite entertaining but lacks the customization of characters

Turn based (UFO Afterlight and or Jagged Alliance): You are allowed to play, but you are capped to the units and or number of units that the games gives you. You can customize character, bases, weapons but none the fact that I have mentioned

Rome Total War was the first of his class, it lacks a new engine and some options that can see in actual games BUT MAN what do you expect?? this mod is what I have been expecting. As someone mentioned above, games like Master of Orion 3 are the kinds of game that plays you (like in sovie7 russi4 lol).

We all were aware of all the new things that M2TW had over RTW, now... lets get EB into M2TW and... voila, perfection spotted. It is normal that some bugs will pop in the firts versions but we are here to test ^.^