:idea2: 20 UNITS OF SPARTANS!!! :beam:
Printable View
:idea2: 20 UNITS OF SPARTANS!!! :beam:
Stop arguing about troops, my friends, I, and only I know the unstoppable army:
One single tiny....
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Assassins, my friend...Quote:
Stop arguing about troops, my friends, I, and only I know the unstoppable army:
One single tiny....
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Diplomat, with infinite money in his pokets. No army can resist. Really.
Well, since I never had any of my diplomats killed by ennemy assassins I suppose my proposal is still valid...
I take back my statement that Apgad's general army is the winner. Tristuskhan definitely bested all of us, or at least for now.
Nothing is so well fortified that money can't take it... Thank you Cicero.
Philip II, father of Megas Alexander said the same thing: no wall is high enough that a donkey laden with gold cannot pass it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan
Hah! Everyone knows you need at least two donkeys for that to work!
I rest my case.
OK, I'll see your diplomat and raise you another 5 diplomats, 6 assassins, and 8 spies... That'll let you buy whatever you don't want to take by physical force, help keep all of your generals safe form enemy assassins, and infiltrate settlements to open gate when you want to do it that way, and keep an eye out for ambushes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
pfft a diplomat with unlimited money?
ill beat that with a campaign ending CTD
take that!!! nothing can stop it! nothing can fix it! i win :D:2thumbsup:
You know what else can beat a diplomat with unlimited money? An army made entirely out of Faction Leaders.
A single faction leader is sufficient, as an army commanded by him cannot be bribed. I voted for the full of generals army, commanded by a FL or FH.
Thisone, but with the FL instead one of the celtic:
8 Germanic Mercenary Generals
4 Celtic Lesser Kings
4 Helenistic Mercenary Generals
4 Nomadic Noble Mercenary Generals
Careful, Bovi might hear you...Quote:
Originally Posted by teh1337tim
How about any faction, any units they can recruit in-campaign? Fully Updgraded is assumed.
And all-Armoured HAs isn't unbeatable: Rhodian Slingers + Argyraspidai + Thorakita Agematos Basilikou + Hetairoi. This being a Seleukid Army.
That's exactly what I was proposing too just in case you misunderstood my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
shhhh u didnt hear me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Apgad
I mean seriously guys! mine was the best one, it defeats all !!! lol
How about one unit of Chuck Norris?
Last I checked, Chuck Norris isn't a playable unit in EB...:no:
I'm pretty sure that there aren't enough unit slots in the whole game for one Chuck Norris - this isn't EB's fault, it's hard-coded...Quote:
Originally Posted by desert
Unstoppable Roman Army
After my Roleplay - Reforms wich happend between 185 and 180 BC, a roman regular legion is composed of
1 x FM who is Sharp/Charismatic/Vigorous
1 x Pedites Extraordinarii
5 x Triarii
5 x Principes
4 x Equites Extraordinarii
4 x Dorkim Shardanim / Accensi
(2880 Men + General)
OR if an auxiliary legion
1 x FM who can be as uncharismatic as he wants
19 x whatever non-factional skirmisher and light infantery troops are available.
(between 3000 and 4000 men + General)
Losses are exceptionless replaced by mercenary soldiers, recruited in the very region the legion is stationed. After every move they have to build a Camp/Fort if possible, where they camp till the next move.
A roman Legion is named after its Location + Leader (Example: Legio Africana Scipio or Legio Britannia Ivlia)
A roman (Invasion-) army is composed of minimum 1 regular legion and 1 auxiliary legion
The boarderline of the Imperium Romanum is in this time (172 BC) protected by
1 Legion in Africa at the boarderline to the Ptolemaic empire
2 Legions in Achaia and Macedonia in order to conquer the macedonian empire
2 Legions in the middle of Britannia to protect the boarderline against the still strong Casse ( with the Auxiliary Legions 4 Forts wich represent the Hadrianic Wall *GG*)
1 Legion in Ireland to conquer the Island
+/- 17'000 men
2 auxiliary Legions in Brittania, composed of Gallic and Brittannic troops
2 auxiliary Legions in Macedonia, composed of Italic and Hellenic troops
+/- 14'000 men
In my 60 Settlements are on average 600 men (normally 3 X light infantery, in regions of crisis more), that makes 36'000 Garrison-Troups.
Therefore in my roleplay (Armies and Population 1/10) 310'000 Men serve in the Roman Army , and 360'000 Cohortes urbanae protect the Cities
if lead capably quite unstoppable, hrhr
I'm REALLY not a fan of roman soldiers. I know everyone is SO quick to point out how well regarded they are historically, but when talking about the game EB I find SO many more soldiers that work better for me on the battlefield.
While triarii, pedites extrordinari, and equites extrordinari are good units, I could name any number that I beleive would outperform them. As for the rest of the roman units, I don't hold them in very high regard at all.
i like that they are so well organized. but you are right, looking at soldiers individually, there are loads of others, that are much better than a roman soldier.
That's why I like playing as the Romani. It is more of a challenge. I tried playing Seleukids but quit because Seleukids already had pretty much the best units in the game - Hetairoi, Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou, Peltastai Makedonikoi, Hypaspistai, Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi (with reforms), Galatikoi Tindanotae (regional), etc, it is no simply no fun playing as the Seleukids. You have almost no early-game money problems and in every battle you simply grind the proponent with your endless stacks of elites. One solution to that is having some house rules, but I'm no fan of that. With the Romani, you actually have to conquer various territories to gain access to better units, or regionals in this case. The romani may not be as difficult as Haysadan or the Saka, but they're still fun, especially if you are a Roman History nerd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grriffon
So many other soldiers work(ed) better on the battlefield in reality too. The Roman Army's true claims to fame were/are basically modularity, adaptability and logistical mastery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grriffon
-Glee
Hint: fast, AP axe, morale. Whoever the Sweboz bodyguard who saw either those Wargozez or those Milnaht of my Casse general: he was a sure goner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The Romans had a uniform army that was exceedingly skilled with the Roman sword-fighting techniques, the most effective in the world. Each piece of their equipment was specially designed for a specific purpose. Their sword, the gladius, was not too long, both slashing and thrusting, but primarily used for thrusting, which inflicts the most damage. Their shield, scutum, was very large and practical, being rectangular, with curved edges to better deflect blows. The shields were relatively light but yet strong, with an iron boss. The helmets, specifically the Coolus and Imperial Gallic type were masterpieces of their own, especially with the front ridges, to protect from overhead slashing strokes and with the large ear/cheek pieces that covered most of the face. Similar things can be said about the armour as well. In general, Roman equipment outclassed the enemies'. The enemies of Rome possessed very few select units that were superior to, the early imperial legionaries, for example. The Romans, on the other hand had legions and legions of their standardised soldiers in addition to the supplemental auxilia, which was often just as numerous. Even if the enemies did happen to have superior soldiers, the Roman fighting style (as well as tactics for that matter), in my opinion, far outclassed anything their enemies used, especially the more individualistic fighting styles of the northern barbarians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gleemonex
I'd be content to leave the subsequent post be, but this thread is called "Unstoppable Army". [1]Quote:
Originally Posted by yours truly
They had a uniform army with standardised training. [2]Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Modularity and logistics.
Idea taken from the Celtiberians. (Hint: Its full name is Gladius Hispaniensis)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Adaptability.
The scutum was effective but unremarkable on its own. I would hope it deflects blows -- it's a shield!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The Coolus and Imperial Gallic were both adapted from Celtic designs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Adaptability and logistics.
Because it learned from its enemies -- usually after the Romans getting their asses handed to them in the initial encounter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Adaptability.
Early Imperial Legionaries knew better than to wander into Parthia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Modularity and logistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I can grant you that opinion, but that alone doesn't prove that the Roman Army was "unstoppable". As I said in my previous post, the Roman Army was famous, but its combat prowess alone wasn't the source of that fame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
-Glee
------------------------------------------------
[1] I should point out that I wasn't trying to damn the Roman military machine with faint praise, as you seem to have taken it. Logistics is arguably the most important aspect of generalship! And its modularity allowed generals like Scipio Africanus to fully exercise their genius.
[2] Also, I'd be exceedingly surprised if anyone knew more about Roman sword-fighting techniques than the Romans.
Hmmm, your definition of "adaptability" and "logistics" seems to be rather far-ranging in my opinion. Superior equipment of the Romans is a result of adaptability, but then again, all good choices are based on adapting/learning from experience. If Romans just straight-copied from other people, then why were they the only ones to do so in such an extensive way? Lot of their equipment was somewhat innovative.
---------------------------------------------
[1]You're absolutely right about logistics being important though. As they say, smart generals study logistics and stupid ones study tactics.
[2] ??? What do you mean by that?
Perhaps. It's hard -- for me at least -- to draw clear lines between logistics and equipment readiness and training regimens and discipline and combat readiness. I think (in my own opinion of course) that I have adaptability nailed though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
-Glee
Notice I edited my last post while you were typing yours.