Celtic overpowered!

hello i was playing in my lusotana campaign, conquering the celtic cities and well i had this thought for a long time and now i want to let it all out, celtic slingers and the celtic heavy infantry(the cisalpine heavy infantry and the naked guys)are waaaaaaaaaaaaay overpowered in one of the final engagements in a big battle i had against the aedui, they had only 19 iosotae and one unit of naked guys and one unit of the cisalpine infantry i think is geroas i dont remember the name they almost killed by themselves 3 units of vasci shock infantry with one bronze chevron and two units of the loricati caetratii the guys with the golden shields and scale armor it was just ridicuolous i know that the naked guys are strong but the vasci shock armor has better stats than them anyways it was just frustrating to see my heavy infantry just being slaughtered by a few celts, a lot of people complained about the naked guys i do understand that the europabarbarorum team really cares about reallism and they have to do something in order to portrait this guys accurately but this is just too much in my opinion both the loricati caetratii and the vasci shock infantry make excellent heavy infantry anyways is there something that can be done to make the naked guys look less exagerated??also the computer abuses the effective against armour adjective, only 19 celtic slingers where killing all of my infantry they did cause a LOT of casualties just to be 19 guys, sometimes i feel the celtic units are unrealistic, i dont mean to critizice your mod, is the best mod out there and its the only reason i play rtw, and it made me stopped playing mtw2 i just wish something can be done in order for this units to be more balanced!thanks guys!!!!

Wow, I've never seen the AI spam missile units that badly.

Personally I reduced the Celtic slingers' range to 180, making them identical to the Greek ones (except for melee capability, in wich the Celts are still considerably better)

The nudists are super tough but have one considerable achiles heel, their lousy armour rating. I rarely had trouble dealing with them, but then again I usually have the advantage in the missile department against the AI :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwebozGaztiz

.....i do understand that the europabarbarorum team really cares about reallism ....

---

that should do it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Wow, I've never seen the AI spam missile units that badly.

---

I think the OP means that there were only 19 men in one unit of Iosatae (not 19 units of iosatae, which is what I read initially too).

To damage the Gaesatae, use units with javelins, or any ranged units, and charge them with cavalry. Dont let anything get stuck in melee with them unlesss its really unavoidable. Run them around a bit too to tire them out.

Weird I'm playing Lusotannan too and I'm fighting the Aedui without much trouble only seen like 1-2 slingers in a stack at most and the Gaesatae are no problems, I fought a battle recently with like 6 Gaesatae units and they were no problem. (m battle difficulty)

Also, if you have your Lusotannan heavier troops, you can trash Naked dudes no problem... that is, if you're playing in Medium otherwise, you'll get hammered.


Cheers...

You're playing on Medium battle/VH campaign right?

i usually play in my campaigns h/h i really like the challenge but sometimes the ai abuses the bonuses it receives from the difficulty level, well im using the best unit the lusotanan can offer the vasci shock infantry and they where wasted by the gaesetae also the loricati caetrati which are heavy troops too and they do have a very good armor and attack rating too, anyways i feel the celtic units are overpowered, also in one battle a unit of lugoae the levy spearmen, caused a lot of casualties to a full unit of loricati scutari with the armor and attack upgrade and one chevron of experience, hahahaha anyways thanks for the mod guys i really enjoy it!im really waiting for the mod for mtw2 !greetings from mexico!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwebozGaztiz

i usually play in my campaigns h/h i really like the challenge but sometimes the ai abuses the bonuses it receives from the difficulty level, well im using the best unit the lusotanan can offer the vasci shock infantry and they where wasted by the gaesetae also the loricati caetrati which are heavy troops too and they do have a very good armor and attack rating too, anyways i feel the celtic units are overpowered, also in one battle a unit of lugoae the levy spearmen, caused a lot of casualties to a full unit of loricati scutari with the armor and attack upgrade and one chevron of experience, hahahaha anyways thanks for the mod guys i really enjoy it!im really waiting for the mod for mtw2 !greetings from mexico!

---

The stats for EB are not designed for any difficulty level other than medium for battle. The reason that the celtic units appear overpowered to you is because of those bonuses. If you don't play on medium battle difficulty, we can't really help with any complaints.

Foot

It seems to me that the units are overpowered as well. I did a cursory check of the units from Celtic type peoples (Aedui, Galations, etc.) and for the infantry units anyway they seem to be more powerful then even the Romans. It seems to me that the the Celts infantry units from the light,med,hvy and special units are in general more powerful then units of other factions.
I have a problem with this because the Romans and Germans consistently beat up on the Celts. It seems strange that some of the Celt units are even stronger then the elite Roman Praetorian guard. I readily admit Im not a historical scholar but as an amature historian of several readings on this period these stats dont fit.
As far as the Gaesatae are concerned I still have a problem with their stats. I know people keep saying these guy were hopped up on drugs etc. There was a study done in 2004 on drug induced volunteer and how effective they were with melee weapons. These volunteers where trained to use these weapons and when they used the drugs there effectiveness severely decreased. Granted this study used different drugs then the Gaesatae used, but if your body is numb to that much to pain I doubt the effectiveness of your abilities to use weapons. It might be a different situation if ignoring pain was due to adrenaline.

I do think the EB team did an exceptional job on this mod, I just happen to disagree with the Celt stats. If anyone has any information I could find on the Gaesatae and Celtic fighting in general, I would greatly appreciate the information.

As I recall, most decent Celtic units are more expensive than the Roman counterparts, which accounts for a bit of that; there aren't enough of the good soldiers to fight their equivalents, due to their cost. Mind Romans did have trouble with actual soldiers in Celtic territories, as opposed to levies-augmented-by-soldiers that Julius Caesar had to fight (as the Gallic armies were so worn down by fighting between the Sequani {who's royal house taken control of the kingdom the Arverni had built} and the Aedui Confederacy). Most Gallic soldiers in those days would've probably been spearmen, incapable of raising 'regulars', who the Neitos represent. Mail-equipped companies of Gauls were trouble for the Romans, but most were spent retarding the Germanic expansion or fighting eachother; had they been spent against the Romans, it may have been at least a bit different, at least slowing the conquest of Gaul.

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:

Punctuation... :dizzy2:

I don't think Celtic units are overpowered at all. In my Aedui campaign I had hard times fighting against Romans on one side and Garthage on the other. Despite having Celtic slingers. Try to use em against Roman Triarii and you will be running around the battle map a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:

---

Thats definately too simple but it is also much too simple to say that the gauls just lost vs. the germanic tribes because of inner-tribal struggles.
They were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes a few decades before Ariovist beat the Aedui or Ceasar conquered Gaul.

The Celts did sack Rome once, and they also inflicted heavy damage on the Greeks (slightly before the time frame, IIRC). Also, as the Lusotannan, on medium, I've had my proverbial ass sort-of-handed to me by rebels (I lost 4-5 average units for just two units caetrati) because of situational bonus terrain gives. Just throwing units in isn't guaranteed to work in overwhelming particular units, particularly units going down hill seem to nail everything.

By what I've read of it thus far here, I've gotten the impression the developements along the Celtic/German border in fact rather closely paralleled the later Roman/Germanic border overall... Internal troubles on one side allowed ample opportunities for the other to grow stronger at their expense, and eventually begin graduating from raiding and pillaging to outright invasion and conquest once the defenders have become ragged enough. That success an profit from raiding the richer Gallic areas and/or being paid for mercenary service there only improved the prestige, resources and power of the Germanic border chiefs and attracted even more enterprising groups and individuals from further away to try to get a slice of the cake cannot have helped.

That really doesn't belong here, but the ideal display of the germanics in EB should be as a emerging faction ca. 130 BC- 110 BC.

But i also say it is much too easy to give the germanic tribes only credit for their successes because of inner-celtic struggles.
They fought hard on the Belgae border, drove th Helvetii from their homelands and took many oppidas from their gallic enemies before the war between the Averni and the Aedui as the two major celtic powers.

The Arverni and Aedui were already fighting as major powers by the start of the EB period, well before the driving off of Helvetii, which was also combined with pressure from the Boii (mind wars like the Cimbrians war with Rome were under Boii kings; the Cimbrians and Teutones were probably vassals of the Boii at the time of the Cimbrian war). Mind not to lump Gauls with the central European kingdoms and tribes of Celts. The Aedui and Arverni both should be able to put up substantial resistance. The fighting is a major factor, but they had little concern for central European Celts. The only ones there of substantial power were the Boii, who were likely more powerful than either of our Gallic powers, and held off the Germans successfully into the ADs, when the Germans overwhelmed combined with steppe invasions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anthony

The Arverni and Aedui were already fighting as major powers by the start of the EB period, well before the driving off of Helvetii, which was also combined with pressure from the Boii (mind wars like the Cimbrians war with Rome were under Boii kings; the Cimbrians and Teutones were probably vassals of the Boii at the time of the Cimbrian war). Mind not to lump Gauls with the central European kingdoms and tribes of Celts. The Aedui and Arverni both should be able to put up substantial resistance. The fighting is a major factor, but they had little concern for central European Celts. The only ones there of substantial power were the Boii, who were likely more powerful than either of our Gallic powers, and held off the Germans successfully into the ADs, when the Germans overwhelmed combined with steppe invasions.

---

I agree with many things you say Anthony ( the Helvetii for example ) but i totally disagree that the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones were vassals of the Boii.
That is a bold and very disputable point you bring up here.
I'd really like to see some proof here, if you believe in this argument.
I hope the point is not that the mentioned chieftain and war-king of the Cimbri was named Boiorix. It is logical that after many years of wandering through europe other chieftains and smaller tribes were integrated and it is in my opinion also logical that some Boii chieftains saw this as a great oppotunity and took part with their men in the migration.

Also the Boii could hold out longer vs the suebian tribes ( the Marcomannii should be mentioned here ), because the germanics took their effort further west- and southwards and not east into Boii territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
:thumbsdown:

---

I hate to be pedantic or demeaning but, "Gaelic" refers to people in Ireland (& Scotland) of a little later period, and "Gallic" refers to the Celts who were in what is modern France. Probably just a typo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I hate to be pedantic or demening but, "Gaelic" refers to people in Ireland (& Scotland) of a little later period, and "Gallic" refers to the Celts who were in what is modern France. Probably just a typo...

---

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

---

Though, I'll have to consult my copy of "A Thousand and One Tempuses" to be certain on this one.

Hmm, "I will have" does sound a bit off.

Regarding the thread topic, playing Celtic factions I've always found them to be a bit weaker than the others, at least until the reforms (which, for the Celts, take a long time. 20 years longer wait than the Romans to get weaker troops than they do, then another 100 years to get troops about as good as Marian troops, that can't be recruited in nearly as many places).

Those Celtic swordsmen (Batoras, or something similiar?) are ok, but don't seem to hold up well to Roman or German heavy infantry. The Gaesatae are great, but extremely expensive and vulnerable to missile fire.

I do remember the Lusotannan shock infantry being a bit on the weak side, though... Lusotannan spearmen, on the other hand, are much better than the celtic spearmen. Post 1st reform Celtic spearmen have a lower attack, and something like 5+ lower defense than the Lusotannan "light" spearmen. The Lusotannan also get those crazy looking guys with the chainmail veils, and a cataphract type unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Haha. I just remembered this "rule" I heard about a while back stating that any time you post in a thread to correct somebody's spelling or a grammar mistake, you always make one of your own.

I wonder what kind of mistake I'll have made in this post...

---

That is really funny. I actually grabbed a dictionary and looked that word up to spell it. I found it, looked at the spelling, read the definition, then didn't change it. Not I feel really stupid and I wasted time.

If I may comment..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Thats definately too simple but it is also much too simple to say that the gauls just lost vs. the germanic tribes because of inner-tribal struggles.

---

Well, of course there is an element of luck and skill in battle but ‘weakness’ is regarded the underlying issue by most scholars I’ve read. The Germanics, like the Celts before them and their own Germanic descendants after, took advantage of circumstances and situations. I’m currently reading a work by Dr Michael Kulikowski on the Goths, and he bears this out quite clearly. The eb and flow of large demographics / peoples / tribes / nations is a dance of power, influence and commerce. The Germanics were drawn south initially due to the weakness and wealth of the surviving Halstatt chiefdoms in central Europe, then into the more prosperous Gallic, Rhaetian, etc lands …and finally the Greek and Roman lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

They (Gauls) were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes a few decades before Ariovist beat the Aedui or Ceasar conquered Gaul.

---

I’m sorry but that is just so completely wrong. This ignores almost everything we know about the Celts, Halstatt and La Tene culture, the material record, etc etc. The Gauls migrated long before the Germanics were even a blip on the historical radar.

The Gauls (Halstatt Celts) began arriving in ‘Gaul’ / France during the 8th and 7th C BC, over running the weaker indigenous Urnfield peoples, Ligurians, etc. They did so due to the lure of rich trade routs already established with the mediterrainian, better soil and climate, etc etc. In this group came the likes of the Arverni (‘superior ones’), Cavari (‘giants’), Cubi (‘Victors’ – later known as Bituriges ‘World Kings’), Parisii (effective ones’), Vicontii (‘twenty septs’), Salluvii (‘Those settled by the sea’), etc etc.

Thence came the La Tene Celts in the 5th and 6th C BC also seeking wealth and exploiting the weakness of their predecessors. These newcomers included likes of the Ligones (‘energetic ones / leapers’), Aedui (‘followers of the fiery one’ – Aedos the sun god), Boii (‘Attackers’), Volcae (‘wolves’), Redones (‘Chariot drivers’), etc etc. This wave of La Tene Celts pushed even more (then Halstatt / proto-La Tene tribes) west / south-west..like the Senones (‘Old inhabitants’), Cenomani (‘Far removed ones’), Sagii (‘Seekers’), Allobroges (‘foreigners’), Aulerci (‘exiles’), Sequani (named after the river in their new home ‘Sequana’) and their relatives the Helvetii (‘much land possessors’), Pictones (‘Belligerent ones’), Santones (‘Journeyers’), etc etc.

The Cubi, with their capital at Avaricum (modern Bourges) managed to absorb the influx of these new arrivals and adopt La Tene culture. Then under their renown king Ambicatus (‘He who turns battles’), they managed to unite through diplomacy and force of arms, all of greater Gaul by mid 5th C BC. This caused further migration to places like Britain.. as some subjected nations / tribes sought to flee the power of the Cubi, eg the Eburovices (‘yew conquerors’) becoming the Brigantes (‘High ones’), Cenomani becoming the Iceni, the Parisii becoming the Coritani and Parisi, etc etc ..all before these tribes had fully converted to La Tene culture.
...Itlay, Hiberia, etc etc.

The final ‘Gallic’ /Celtic wave was that of the Belgae (‘Furious ones’) in the 4th and 3rd C BC. The Belgae people and their various nations / tribes retained many peculiarities of the old Halstatt culture but meshed them with a proto-La Tene / La Tene ‘A’ flavour. Again they invaded and sought to exploit the weakness and ultimate collapse of the Cubi / Biturige empire, first invading and then over running the Aulerci who had been critically weakened in their struggle against the Cubi. The Belgae continued to advance all down the western coast to Armorica, before being checked by a resurgence of Aedui power through their sub-tribe the Carnutes (‘People of the Horned One’). So successful was the Aedui confederacy that the Belgae were completely pushed back over the Seine and groups like the Viromandui who bcame known as the Trinovantes, Casse / Catuellauni / Cauvellauni (‘Battle superiors’) either migrated to Briton, or in the cases of some of the Casse dispersed into smaller groups (eg Veliocasse, Baiocasse, Viducasse, Tricasse, Vadicasse, etc) and sought the protection other more power nations / tribes like the Remi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

But i also say it is much too easy to give the germanic tribes only credit for their successes because of inner-celtic struggles. They ..drove th Helvetii from their homelands and took many oppidas from their gallic enemies before the war between the Averni and the Aedui as the two major celtic powers.

---

Again I’m afraid this is wrong. The Arverni and Aedui had been fighting for centuries before the Germans arrived or the Helvetii migrated. The later doing so in an attempt to seize power for themselves in a war ravished land. Remember the Aedui had none of their council left alive and the Sequani, so bereft of fighting men had been forced to mobilise old men, young boys and seek the help of thousands of German mercenaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

I agree with many things you say Anthony .. but i totally disagree that the Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones were vassals of the Boii. That is a bold and very disputable point you bring up here.

I'd really like to see some proof here, if you believe in this argument..

---

I agree. There is no evidence that I’m aware of that suggests that they were clients of the Boii. What is worth noting at this juncture is that the Cimbri (and Tuetones by this point) were defeated in battle by the Boii and force to go around their lands.

As far as the name goes, most scholars state that Boiorix was probably the name given him by his Gallic allies / followers, they being the ones who acted on his behalf in diplomacy and recounted the detail for Roman records. But we will never know for sure. I don't believe one can jump to conclusions about clientage just from this one name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Also the Boii could hold out longer vs the suebian tribes ( the Marcomannii should be mentioned here ), because the germanics took their effort further west- and southwards and not east into Boii territory.

---

I’m sorry but by the time the Marcomannii turn up to ravage the ‘lands of the Boii’, the Boii had almost a century earlier ceased to exist in any form of significant power.

The Dacian king Boerebistas had managed to unite the Getae and Boeri into one Darcian kingdom and unleashed his reputed forces of 200,000 on the hapless Celts / Gauls. First to feel the sting were the Scordisci who had only some decades before suffered a genocide at the hands of the Romans. Then Dacian attention was turned on the Boii and Taurisci (Volcae). At the Battle of Tisza (60 BC) in modern day Hungary, Critasiros king of the Boii suffered a crushing defeat. His people were subsequently massacred, the survivors fleeing west and their land becoming hence forth known as “The desert of the Boii”. The Germans had played a part in weakening the Boii but they merely moved into Boii lands once the Dacians had done their work and left.

my2bob

That's a very interesting read.
:book:

I agree. Especially the translations of the celtic tribe names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSYCHO V

If I may comment..


I’m sorry but that is just so completely wrong. This ignores almost everything we know about the Celts, Halstatt and La Tene culture, the material record, etc etc. The Gauls migrated long before the Germanics were even a blip on the historical radar.


my2bob

---

Have you ever heard about Jastorf or Hapstedt culture. It seems you just mention the celtic cultures but totally ignore other ones.
There is proof about those cultures around ca. 500 BC.
I find it a little curious as you are implying the germanics were a blip on the historical radar as those mentioned cultures are closely connceted with later germanic culture.

I agree with you about Halstatt culture, but during the La Tene culture there is proof about extensive trading contact between celtic and germanic tribes. Especially fine celtic art and jewellry.

The regions where the most trading occured where today's Bohemia and Mähren (sorry - don't know the english word for those region) B.t.w. It is logical that this trading included fine celtic weapons too.

Last week i had a really interesting discussion with a member of the Römisch-Germanisches Museum in Cologne about those points.
It seems often, that some people just took some of Tacitus remarks in his Germania, but ignore others totally. Germanics had no swords ( this i hear over and over from some members - just because Tacitus said so and there are no proofs of germanic grave-belongings / look above) But Tacitus also wrote about half-men half-beast in the nort-eastern part of Germania... Tacitus said so, so it must be correct:-)

One last remark about the lack of germanic ( or better translated traded or raided ) celtic sword in graves during the time B.C.
This is a point where i'm really dissapointed, because of the lack of knowledge of many members here.
It is a fact that germanics burned their dead in those times. It was just not possible to give the dead some things for their last journey, as they had no graves!
Those behaviour only changed in the first century AD, where it became more and more uncommon to burn the dead. So, it is logical that we could not have much archaelogical findings of the time B.C.
B.t.w. there is proof about germanic iron working around the time 300 BC - 100 BC.
Those items that looked a lot like celtic work are from a material that is known as "Raseneisen" and which only was found in those now germanic-settled regions.
Those iron was inferior to other iron, found elsewhere, but it was used!

It is a myth, that germanics used no swords.
Even after the Varus battle, where the germanics gained more than enough roman arms ( swords!) ,there were almost no grave offerings. Why?
Logical: The dead had to suffice with shields and spears as swords were too important.





As ever - please excuse my poor english

Psycho wrote:
If I may comment..

Again I’m afraid this is wrong. The Arverni and Aedui had been fighting for centuries before the Germans arrived or the Helvetii migrated. The later doing so in an attempt to seize power for themselves in a war ravished land. Remember the Aedui had none of their council left alive and the Sequani, so bereft of fighting men had been forced to mobilise old men, young boys and seek the help of thousands of German mercenaries.


And this is what i have to say here:
This is correct, but again you seem to forget that celtic oppidas were not given up without a fight. Perhaps it is my rather poor english, but you seem to argue with the point that celtic tribes just left their homelands without pressure from the germanic tribes. This is simply not true.
There are clearly signs of battles on these locations.
Concerning the migration of the Helvetii.
I really hope you at least agree with the fact that the were under great pressure from the germanics and did not leave their homelands just to seize power in other lands.
About those mercenaries( who turned out to be rather clever, as the just stayed in those new lands aftr defeating the gauls). At this time they were already just over the river border - becaue of conquering celtic lands for many decades.