Celtic overpowered!

.
Why the hell?! If nothing, I noted down a heap of bibliography to get and read. :book2:

You don't want to see the thread? Then why reading it?
.

I never thought i will say this, but i really think it should be enough.
Frostwulf quotes time and time again well respected authors. On the other hand we have Psycho, who never came up with actual sources that supports his claims about devasting gallic civil wars save his own assumptions.
Well, although even the authors like Goldsworthy and Speidel couldn't agree on the numbers of gauls and germanics that fought against each other or the romans they all support Frostwulf much more than Psycho and now Power 2 the 1 who stepped in.
I think we should rather go with the well known and up to date authors Frostwulf based his posts on than Psycho (who stands rather alone when asking writers and authors educated in the celtic, roman and germanic affairs)
Speidel, Goldsworthy and others would rip Psycho's argumentation apart as Frostwulf already had. Sad that they have better to do than posting in this forum:dizzy2:

B.t.w. talking about civil wars:
The Hermunduri and the Chatti fought a few decades later a very nasty war(no raiding or similar activities but a real war) about salt mines and the chattii lost, but could still put up quite a lot resistance to the conquering romans in the so called chatti wars. This war between the two germanic tribes was so bitterly fought that both tribes sworn to give all of the enmeies and their loot to the gods as sacrifice(Teutoni, Ambroni and Cimbri did the same a few decades earlier).
This is what i call devasting for a tribe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methuselah

Someone has to close this thread...
:uneasy:

---

Don't worry, the discussion is pretty calm here and hasn't lead to any serious personal attacks. The only negative thing is that a new visitor may think that Celts are actually overpowered, just by glancing at the title. But still NeoSpartan, don't blow your head for this. Sometimes a scholarly duel is harder to break than a soccer riot.

.
In 1.0 the fearsome Gaesatae are...well, not fearsome! :laugh4: I fought them a few times with my second rate inexperienced Iberian troops and there are numberless cut off...trunks all over the battlefield. :elephant:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

For the Germans go here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243

Power2the1,Johnny5 and cmacq if any of you or any one else out there have any information pertaining to the supposed "Devastating Civil War" could you please post were you received this information from. I don't care if its a web site, article,book, whatever source it is please post it here.

---

The Celts and what not is my subject in college and Ive never heard of this "devastating civil war" everyone's talking about, so Im with you there.

On the reversal of Celtic expansion in southern Germany - well, the area was one of the first regions to be occupied by Celts, and the later waves of Celtic expansion would come in part from there. From linguistics and archaeology we know the Celts moved, in large numbers, all over Europe. By the time of the migrations of the likes of the Cimbri and Teutones, Germanic tribes arriving in what is now southern Germany greatly outnumbered the Celts still living there and naturaly enough their culture absorbed this smaller native group. Were not talking about the tougher guys coming in and pushing the weaker ones out, were talking about a large population movement resulting in cultural shift.

Just on your point about Gallic tribes boasting of German heritage - this does not necessarily infer German ethnicity, but rather an origin in the German region ie east of the Rhine. (Not that theres anything wrong with being German.) I'll get back to you on where I read that, cant remember the author at the minute.

On your many references to the Romans decisively beating the Celts - A very important thing to remember about the Roman invasion of Gaul is that the vast majority of the Gallic warriors involved were just ordinary farmers desperately trying to defend themselves and their homes from a foreign invader. They were not a professional force, like the legions sent to destroy them. There is a very misled notion that the entire male population of Gaul were all warriors, which was of course not the case.
Although I dont subscribe to this civil war theory, it is a fact that Gaul was fragmented politicaly - the great weakness of all Celtic nations through history. The Romans could play one tribe off against another to their advantage - divide and conquer. When the Gauls finally united under Arverni leadership it was already too late.

Why were the Romans so unsuccesful in their incursions into Germania then? There was a fundamental difference between Gaul and Germania (one that EB cant accurately represent) - Gaul had settled, developed power structures - Germania for the most part did not. The Romans could conquer a Celtic oppida, and they would then control the region that opidda had controlled. There were no such power nodes in Germania, the Romans would have to build them from the ground up, in hostile territory.

You are obviously well read and passionate about the subject, but maybe a little too passionate. You insist Germanic peoples were more vigorous, or more valorous and so on - I dont get it. The ancient Celts and Germans were really very similar afterall, and made war in a very similar fashion.

To come back to the root of the debate, I havnt really looked at the difference in stats (because I dont think its that big a deal) but if the Sweboz really are that far behind the Celtic factions, maybe they should be brought up to par with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny5

The Celts and what not is my subject in college and Ive never heard of this "devastating civil war" everyone's talking about, so Im with you there.

On the reversal of Celtic expansion in southern Germany - well, the area was one of the first regions to be occupied by Celts, and the later waves of Celtic expansion would come in part from there. From linguistics and archaeology we know the Celts moved, in large numbers, all over Europe. By the time of the migrations of the likes of the Cimbri and Teutones, Germanic tribes arriving in what is now southern Germany greatly outnumbered the Celts still living there and naturaly enough their culture absorbed this smaller native group. Were not talking about the tougher guys coming in and pushing the weaker ones out, were talking about a large population movement resulting in cultural shift.

Just on your point about Gallic tribes boasting of German heritage - this does not necessarily infer German ethnicity, but rather an origin in the German region ie east of the Rhine. (Not that theres anything wrong with being German.) I'll get back to you on where I read that, cant remember the author at the minute.

On your many references to the Romans decisively beating the Celts - A very important thing to remember about the Roman invasion of Gaul is that the vast majority of the Gallic warriors involved were just ordinary farmers desperately trying to defend themselves and their homes from a foreign invader. They were not a professional force, like the legions sent to destroy them. There is a very misled notion that the entire male population of Gaul were all warriors, which was of course not the case.
Although I dont subscribe to this civil war theory, it is a fact that Gaul was fragmented politicaly - the great weakness of all Celtic nations through history. The Romans could play one tribe off against another to their advantage - divide and conquer. When the Gauls finally united under Arverni leadership it was already too late.

Why were the Romans so unsuccesful in their incursions into Germania then? There was a fundamental difference between Gaul and Germania (one that EB cant accurately represent) - Gaul had settled, developed power structures - Germania for the most part did not. The Romans could conquer a Celtic oppida, and they would then control the region that opidda had controlled. There were no such power nodes in Germania, the Romans would have to build them from the ground up, in hostile territory.

You are obviously well read and passionate about the subject, but maybe a little too passionate. You insist Germanic peoples were more vigorous, or more valorous and so on - I dont get it. The ancient Celts and Germans were really very similar afterall, and made war in a very similar fashion.

To come back to the root of the debate, I havnt really looked at the difference in stats (because I dont think its that big a deal) but if the Sweboz really are that far behind the Celtic factions, maybe they should be brought up to par with them.

---

Some EB fans or we can say 'people' here are debating Celt-Germania issues.. that you already mentioned..

But ones like me were wondering (or asking actually) why are some - or 'most' - Celtic units (ok, with or without Galatians) powerfull enough to address the best Hellenic or Roman Units.. - offcourse it could be clear that EB team sources are - 'what they are' - their sources.. But they did not answer as they should to a contra questions - 'What do you think what quotas would Italian or Greek Historians give in this debates?'

I remmember that someone debated at me because I said that

:''If Celts are powerfull as they are, why are there no bonuses for civilised factions - like less casulties due to their medic like in Roman armies'' - no, they just typed that Celts invented soap and that basiclly it is a good sign that no Romans or Greeks were ahead of barb factions at all..?? I am still doubting that (as I do also for some high defence skill for many Celts units and a Command atribute)

For students of history, I'm surprised so many of you refer to Nations as if one can be held up to another as "better" or "worse" or "weaker" or "stronger". The success of a culture or nation is dependent not on genes but geographic location at the most fundamental level, which in turn effects their skill in politics, their ability to raise large populations, field large, well supplied armies, etc. I mean, humans are all born the same, they always have been, and will bve for a long time. What makes us distinct is our surroundings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

Some EB fans or we can say 'people' here are debating Celt-Germania issues.. that you already mentioned..

But ones like me were wondering (or asking actually) why are some - or 'most' - Celtic units (ok, with or without Galatians) powerfull enough to address the best Hellenic or Roman Units.. - offcourse it could be clear that EB team sources are - 'what they are' - their sources.. But they did not answer as they should to a contra questions - 'What do you think what quotas would Italian or Greek Historians give in this debates?'

I remmember that someone debated at me because I said that

:''If Celts are powerfull as they are, why are there no bonuses for civilised factions - like less casulties due to their medic like in Roman armies'' - no, they just typed that Celts invented soap and that basiclly it is a good sign that no Romans or Greeks were ahead of barb factions at all..?? I am still doubting that (as I do also for some high defence skill for many Celts units and a Command atribute)

---

I dont see how the medical knowledge the Greeks or Romans possesed would have any effect on the course of a battle. It would help the wounded recover after a battle, but how would it make them any less vulnerable during fighting?

There is a good argument for giving Celtic units a high defence attribute - and that is the Celts historicaly used good quality weapons and armour, on par with or better than equivalents used in Italy and the Greek world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

For students of history, I'm surprised so many of you refer to Nations as if one can be held up to another as "better" or "worse" or "weaker" or "stronger". The success of a culture or nation is dependent not on genes but geographic location at the most fundamental level, which in turn effects their skill in politics, their ability to raise large populations, field large, well supplied armies, etc. I mean, humans are all born the same, they always have been, and will bve for a long time. What makes us distinct is our surroundings.

---

I agree completely, but I would also add there are capable and incompetent, good and bad in any given group of people. Which of these makes the decisions for that group will determine how well they use the resources available to them eg a less competent Roman senate wouldnt have taken on the challenge of building a fleet to beat Carthage, and so gone on to loose the Punic wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny5

....
To come back to the root of the debate, I havnt really looked at the difference in stats (because I dont think its that big a deal) but if the Sweboz really are that far behind the Celtic factions, maybe they should be brought up to par with them.

---

BUT the funny thing is... THE CELTS ARE NOT OVERPOWERED!!!!

Heck, look at the stats, the cost, the AP attacks, the new units, AND the way the units ACTUALLY preform in battle. (which I can guarntee you nobody save the EB team has done). Btw... only Costume and MP battles count SP doesn't if it did then EVERYONE, save my faction, would be underpowered :laugh4:

Additonaly...This thread is OLD, back when .81x was around, and EVEN THEM the Sweboz were NOT underpowered. As I played with them in MP and they preform pretty good for a faction which only had a medium cavarly at the time. NOW, in EB 1.0 yeah its true the Celts got some AP mofo's, some new long swords mofo's, some new cheap wannabeGaesate, etc... BUT the Sweboz ALSO got some really sweet & tough mofo's too. :yes:

So are the Celts overpowered???? HELLS NO! Disagree??? Play the Game and u will see. :smash:

---------------------------------------------------------
BTW... this thread should be RENAMED to:
-Gallic Civil War????
or something like that.

And YES my man PSYCHO V is correct about a rather nasty civil war, because... why would then the Gauls need to hire so many Germanic Mercs, and why the Aedui need call up Ceasar. And why the in the heck are the Gallic tribes UNABLE to come up with large numbers of decent fighting men, and have to rely on regular folk pressed into fight, etc, etc :book:

that's right.

Stricken mortals of this world behold!
Twelve feet of rock and silt were not enough to bury the satanic lust for aggression and contempt that this leviathan craves!

Oh young lords of this age, if only you could see how it strangles the life and credibility from your lips the words they vomit forth like crevasses of Loki.

I call upon you then, my great God, possess my spirit as this thread of curses hath possessed theirs, that they may hear your wisdom - and far deeper understanding of the events that disperse here!

Gaaaargh!

--

Would you mind relinquishing your sacreligious continuance against reality and logic?
Like heathens, you are burning each other at the stake and proclaiming each other heretics over the statistics of a computer game.
In truth, you have been warring so long over this that you have forgotten it is an argument over the tiny on-screen 3D models and their performance against other similar works.

I very much doubt they have the diverse, unpredictable nature of actual human beings, and therefore cannot be held in the same number as say, an army of sixty-thousand Helvetii from antiquity.

Therefore, in the eyes of the Lord - you are all very silly.

God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

But ones like me were wondering (or asking actually) why are some - or 'most' - Celtic units (ok, with or without Galatians) powerfull enough to address the best Hellenic or Roman Units.. - offcourse it could be clear that EB team sources are - 'what they are' - their sources.. But they did not answer as they should to a contra questions - 'What do you think what quotas would Italian or Greek Historians give in this debates?'

---

162 Classical Hoplites beat 242 Gaeroas with 103 casualties 214 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Bataroas with 103 casualties 157 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 240 Galatikoi Kluddolon with 74 casualties 217 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Botroas with 86 casualties 175 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 200 Uirodusios with 117 casualties 173 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 120 Pictone Neitos with 106 casualties 111 kills
162 Classical Hoplites beat 162 Milnaht with 134 casualties 152 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites lost to 162 Neitos with 152 casualties 52 kills.

These "most Celtic units" you speak of... Where are they? Hoplites just happen to be the backbone of KH, not even the elite, still they beat 'most' Celtic units, with the exception of Neitos and Gaesatae.

I even tried your example of Gaesatae beating Argyraspidai. 242 Argyraspidai beat 121 Galatikoi Tindanotae with 180 casualties and 108 kills. That wasn't even a fair fight, with the Galatian captain single-handedly killing 93 Silver Shields (captains' stats are hardcoded). You really should test before complaining.

THANK YOU THAATU!!!


btw for future tests...

In order to avoid the "captain effect" have the AI's captain be a crappy archers and ur captain be a decent medium FAST cavarly (like prodromoi or luges epos).
-WIth the cavarly make the archers retreat and then kill them FAR from the main battle/tests.
-LEAVE the cavarly far away otherwise you'll give the AI's troops a morale hit due to "having flanks exposed".
-u could also make ur cavarly retreat the battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaatu

162 Classical Hoplites beat 242 Gaeroas with 103 casualties 214 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Bataroas with 103 casualties 157 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 240 Galatikoi Kluddolon with 74 casualties 217 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 202 Botroas with 86 casualties 175 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 200 Uirodusios with 117 casualties 173 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites beat 120 Pictone Neitos with 106 casualties 111 kills
162 Classical Hoplites beat 162 Milnaht with 134 casualties 152 kills.
162 Classical Hoplites lost to 162 Neitos with 152 casualties 52 kills.

These "most Celtic units" you speak of... Where are they? Hoplites just happen to be the backbone of KH, not even the elite, still they beat 'most' Celtic units, with the exception of Neitos and Gaesatae.

I even tried your example of Gaesatae beating Argyraspidai. 242 Argyraspidai beat 121 Galatikoi Tindanotae with 180 casualties and 108 kills. That wasn't even a fair fight, with the Galatian captain single-handedly killing 93 Silver Shields (captains' stats are hardcoded). You really should test before complaining.

---

Were you using VH or Medium diffculty? I was realy refering to VH, and, you know, Classical Hoplites are very nice unit, and realy rare in my Macedon campaign. . most of units I use are Native Phalanx, but, ok, did you see my post about command atribute? and you agree? realy? If so, I have no comment, and I will add again
- I HAVE NO PROBS BEATING THE CELTS -
It is because I use tactics all the time - I play on VH and I never loose a battle and I heve reached Italy-Germania-Scythia.. Aegypt-Seleucia..
I was just wondering around and the command atribute is one that is just to much for me .. they could have just make some casse units stronger and by that make them heroes..

Quote:

---

I was just wondering around and the command atribute is one that is just to much for me .. they could have just make some casse units stronger and by that make them heroes..

---

the idea behind this:

all normal casse units have lesser morale than their respective counterpart of other factions, which makes them more likely get defeated by any other faction. The champions should be used to fight alongside the normal units, in order to bolster the low morale they have the command attribute. This allows for some new tactics different to other factions (even celtic ones) adding a unique feature to the casse.

Quote:

---

Were you using VH or Medium diffculty?

---

this makes no difference in costum battle, the stat bonus for VH and H is applied to both the ai and the player

I don't like that idea much, or the history part of 'casse hero cult' - like no one else would deserve such an atrubute (like no other faction deserve it) it is one sort of very nice 'chosen' source (maybe a group of authors) that would confirm facts of the EB creators (and I am sure that there are second views there)..
(In my history classes I had the same lectures for Illyrians and their hero cult)

But, you know what - it is their mod - they can do anything they like, and if adding that atribute should 'fix' what can not be fixed - the fact (if I understood well) that casse are the weakest and that
'it should bring stats in some deasent level so casse would not loose alot'

Well.. then, maybe casse should be replased with some faction of India or Pergamum..

My view

sorry for bringing this up again, be well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Aren't you forgetting the bit (helpfully quoted by someone) where Caesar talks about the Arverni, Aedui and some other major tribe (at the least) having had a major war of supremacy, with Ariovist and his boys having been brought in to break the stalemate that existed or had developed between the sides - and the German mercenaries then developing funny ambitious ideas of their own and turning on their erstwhile employers ?

---

The Sequani is the other and this is a valid point, here is what Caesar says.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"Their spokesman was Diviciacus. "Gaul as a whole," he said, is divided into two factions, headed respectively by the Aedui and the Arverni. The two had bitterly contested the supremacy for many years, until the Arverni and the Sequani hired the Germans. At first some 15,000 of the savage barbarians crossed the Rhine, but when they had fallen in love with Gallic farming and civilization and abundance they brought more over, until now there are 120,000 of them in Gaul. The Aedui and their dependents have fought them repeatedly, but we have been disastrously defeated and have lost all our nobility, all our senate, all our knighthood. It is these disastrous defeats that have shattered a power which our courage and our alliance with Rome once made paramount in Gaul. We have been compelled to surrender our leading personages to the Sequani as hostages and to engage our commonwealth on oath not to ask our hostages back or to solicit assistance from Rome but remain submissive forever to their sovereign dictates." Book 1,31

No major war mentioned, just they had bitterly contested for supremacy. If you read others(Cicero is one I believe) it talks of the source of the dispute being a trade route, and the term they use is dispute.

Dyson "The Creation of the Roman Frontier"-"The delegation's task was made more difficult by the outbreak of fighting between the Aedui and the Sequani, both amici populi romani. This was undoubtedly brought about by the continuing dispute over the control of the increasingly lucrative trade routes up the Saone." pg.170

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

If you ask me that speaks of a fairly severe level of conflict that cannot have done good for the numbers of capable Gallic soldiery available, given that the defeat of whoever it now was who ended up losing was doubtless rather bloody,

---

This is because of your assumption of what you believe Caesar to have said. There is a reason why Dr.James, Dr.Raftery, Dr.Goldsworthy, Dr.Jones, Dr.McIntosh, Dr. Dyson etc. say this was a "struggle","squabble","rivalry", "dispute" etc. not a "Devastating Civil War" .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

and the way Ariovist could run amuck on his onetime allies and employers (and defeating a coalition gathered to get rid of him piecemeal on the side) doesn't exactly suggest the losses were being made good very swiftly.

---

You have to remember that Ariovistus gave Caesar a hard time and pressed his left flank. Ariovistus and his warriors were defeated by Caesar but Ariovistus certainly wasn't a push over.

Caesar-"The Gallic War"-"What then of the defeat and rout of the Gauls? If that case were examined it would be found that the Gauls were tired out by the long campaign, because Ariovistus hid in his camp in the marshes and offered no chance for an engagement, and then when the Gauls had given up hope of a battle, and were dispersing Ariovistus attacked and won by stratagem rather than courage. Against naive natives there was room for a stratagem, but not even Ariovistus could expect that our army would be taken in by it." Book 1,40 Translated by H.E.L. Mellersh/published by Random House Inc./distributed by Heron books.

Ariovistus did what Caesar did when Caesar was facing the Belgae for the first time. Caesar was heavily outnumbered and waited till the Belgae started to disperse and then attacked them as they were leaving. He later went on to attack them piecemeal. Ariovistus waited till the Gauls were dispersing as well then attacked were he wouldn't be so heavily outnumbered. It was then that Diviciacus went to get help from the Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Enter Caesar and the additional drain he brought on the manpower pool (both through recruiting and enlisting, and as battle casualties both for and against) and I don't really see where exactly the major Gallic powers would have had ample opportunity to regenerate their pool of fully competent fighting men, doubly so given the somewhat time-consuming nature of the process in the Celtic "heroic" system.

---

Caesar was able to raise 4,000 cavalry from the Aedui and their allies, the Bellovaci (who would have been involved in the supposed "Devastating Civil War" as allies to the Aedui) could field 60,000 "picked" troops. Arminius had "picked" troops as well, they proved their value at the expense of the Romans.

The Aedui lost all their nobles, senate etc. when Ariovistus showed up. How is that possible if there was such a "Devastating Civil War"? Shouldn't they have mostly been dead by then? If there was such a supposed "Devastating Civil War" why did the Aedui wait till Ariovistus to maul them before going to the Romans? The Aedui had been "friends of the Roman people" since around 120 BC but they wait till 61 BC?

Where is this loss of manpower mentioned anywhere? Where is this supposed "Devastating Civil War" mentioned?

Johnny5 I hope you don't mind but I answered you on this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86612

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

Speidel, Goldsworthy and others would rip Psycho's argumentation apart as Frostwulf already had. Sad that they have better to do than posting in this forum

---

I would love to see some of those authors debating, I'm sure there would be much more information to come out of it.

Thaatu and Neo-spartan I'm not willing to say that the Celts in 1.0 are overpowered like they were in the one before, I will have to take time to check out the stats. From my cursory check though, they still seem overpowered.
Thaatu I'm still planning on getting that summery out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

I don't like that idea much, or the history part of 'casse hero cult' - like no one else would deserve such an atrubute (like no other faction deserve it) it is one sort of very nice 'chosen' source (maybe a group of authors) that would confirm facts of the EB creators (and I am sure that there are second views there)..
(In my history classes I had the same lectures for Illyrians and their hero cult)

But, you know what - it is their mod - they can do anything they like, and if adding that atribute should 'fix' what can not be fixed - the fact (if I understood well) that casse are the weakest and that
'it should bring stats in some deasent level so casse would not loose alot'

Well.. then, maybe casse should be replased with some faction of India or Pergamum..

My view

sorry for bringing this up again, be well!

---

What part of "That's How They Fought" do you not understand??? Is like not giving the Romani the gladius short sword, or not giving pikemen to the Successor's because "I don't like that idea much..." Come one dude... Seriously, come on.


Frostwolf... its good to know your gonna do those tests, you will see, the Gallic units are not overpowered. Just don't test a phalanx unit vs a non-phalanx one in a frontal assult 'cause thats just silly. Oh and don't forget about the "Captain Effect" in my preview post I described how to solve it.

Oh and one more thing. AFTER doing the unit vs unit battle. Choose a budget (30k for example) and try to see how much of a war winning army you can make with that budget. You will see that Polybian Romani (thanks to the Allied Cavarly) & Successors have the best "unit-cost/ars-wooping" ratio. Probably KH too due to their new Pike guys.
(fyi unfortunatly MP isn't working so army vs army battles & tests cannot be done. In Costum battle is silly because the Ai doesn't know how to fight, Darth mod helps it a little.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

But ones like me were wondering (or asking actually) why are some - or 'most' - Celtic units (ok, with or without Galatians) powerfull enough to address the best Hellenic or Roman Units.. - offcourse it could be clear that EB team sources are - 'what they are' - their sources.. But they did not answer as they should to a contra questions - 'What do you think what quotas would Italian or Greek Historians give in this debates?'

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

- I HAVE NO PROBS BEATING THE CELTS -
It is because I use tactics all the time - I play on VH and I never loose a battle and I heve reached Italy-Germania-Scythia.. Aegypt-Seleucia..

---

Then stop saying they're overpowered. EB is not meant to be played on VH battle difficulty, and all the balancing is done for M (which must have been mentioned about a dozen times already). All I know about Casse is that I didn't notice much difference, although I haven't fought with them against mainland factions, only against independents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Thaatu and Neo-spartan I'm not willing to say that the Celts in 1.0 are overpowered like they were in the one before, I will have to take time to check out the stats. From my cursory check though, they still seem overpowered.

---

Take NeoSpartan's advice with the captains. They can dish some whooping when they're in the mood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Thaatu I'm still planning on getting that summery out.

---

:2thumbsup:

ok.. I will play my game and... maybe I will win something here?
Is there any competition in place - for EB? how does it work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

ok.. I will play my game and... maybe I will win something here?
Is there any competition in place - for EB? how does it work?

---

yes actually there is a price each time you play, really.

its called:
"Education via Playing" or simply "learn by play" Its freaking awesome as u learn a LOT about ancient history, plus the threads on history debates you learn even more. :yes:

Sorry for sounding a little prickish. It's Fall and all.



Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

ok.. I will play my game and... maybe I will win something here?
Is there any competition in place - for EB? how does it work?

---

There are two places where one can boast of his campaign:

1.0x AI Faction Progression Thread
and
Post Empires!


The goal is to make others envious. It's a reward in its own right.

It's just I dont know how to 'take' a picture of my campaign.. realy, I have never done it before.. I do have ASUSGamerOSD if that is what I need?
Any help?

Hit "Print Screen" before you quit, open paint or something like that and paste the shot in a blank picture. Cut out the map (you do not need to enlarge it, the default size is sufficent for a thread) and paste it in another blank image, save & upload it - finish.

Oh.. I see now.. well I am in the middle of my Armenia VH campaign.. so I will post it .. thank you konny... btw did you managed to 'enforce' that generals -stars issues? If you have.. that is great!

fraps is also commonly used, or disable Anti Aliasing and use the print scren button.

I'm having problems accessing certain Roman units in the custom battles. I can't find some (cohors, Praetoriana,etc.) unless I do random army generator which may only give me one of the desired units. How do I go about retrieving these units that don't show up on the selection screen?

Quote:

---

I'm having problems accessing certain Roman units in the custom battles. I can't find some (cohors, Praetoriana,etc.) unless I do random army generator which may only give me one of the desired units. How do I go about retrieving these units that don't show up on the selection screen

---

you might find the costum and multiplayer battle edu usefull. It limits the ownership only to faction troops. You find it in th EB folder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I'm having problems accessing certain Roman units in the custom battles. I can't find some (cohors, Praetoriana,etc.) unless I do random army generator which may only give me one of the desired units. How do I go about retrieving these units that don't show up on the selection screen?

---

yep costume battles is messed up, maybe what Bonny said will help. MP however, is completely F*ed up :wall: