Saba units for next release

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

If we found a rocking inscription from Arabia detailing camel warfare and all its virtues in our era then we would most likely add camels, but so far that hasn't happened.

---

Er...well I read in "Persian Fire" by Tom Holland (p. 14) that in one battle one of Cyrus' generals got him to bring the camels up from the baggage train to the battle-line, which made the Lydian cavalry swerve as they charged at the Persians, because the horses couldn't stand the smell.

Now, this is a different country, about 300 years before the start of the EB campaign, and apparently a one-off, but the point is, camels were at least used sometimes. The Vanilla thing of "camels scare horses" wasn't made up, it would seem.

If you've been around a camel you know they smell like **** . I think there size would also be a factor in scaring off a horse too .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Am Herenow

Er...well I read in "Persian Fire" by Tom Holland (p. 14) that in one battle one of Cyrus' generals got him to bring the camels up from the baggage train to the battle-line, which made the Lydian cavalry swerve as they charged at the Persians, because the horses couldn't stand the smell.

Now, this is a different country, about 300 years before the start of the EB campaign, and apparently a one-off, but the point is, camels were at least used sometimes. The Vanilla thing of "camels scare horses" wasn't made up, it would seem.

---

The EB team hasn't denied that they were used, only denying that they were used in combat in the Southern Arabian regions.

I have to show my ignorance here, while asking some questions:

Did the Saba (not sure of plural form) expand their territory historically, and if so how far?

RTW and EB deal quite bit in "what if". What if they were given a camel unit in a territory to the North, as a regional unit? Presuming, fictionally, that they were confronted with enemies with different thinking and found that Camels were useful to scare cavalry.

I am convinced that the EB team are correct in their assessment that if something didn't exist historically, then it should really have to justify its existence in EB. However, AI and players many times do some very a-historical things and some latitude may have to be given in these cases.

One problem that has come up is Saba economy. There are not many trading ports in this part of the EB world, limiting the trade potential. Looking at the way land trade ONLY happens between neighbouring territories, if the Saba are at war with Ptollies and/or Arche Seleukeia, their trade income can not amount to much. Most of the Saba territories, after expansion have only two neighbouring territories for trading goods (I am looking at the map).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sygrod

RTW and EB deal quite bit in "what if". What if they were given a camel unit in a territory to the North, as a regional unit? Presuming, fictionally, that they were confronted with enemies with different thinking and found that Camels were useful to scare cavalry.

I am convinced that the EB team are correct in their assessment that if something didn't exist historically, then it should really have to justify its existence in EB. However, AI and players many times do some very a-historical things and some latitude may have to be given in these cases.

---

But you also have to realise that we are dealing with a limited number of unit slots and model slots, and we would rather use those precious commodities on something other than a unit, whose only real reason for being added to the game is because it looks unique! Camels are pack animals, I'm sure that at some point people have ridden mules into battle, but we are not going to make a unit just for them because "what if".

Camels look stupid anyway :clown:

Foot

I wanted to include a scythed chariot drawn by bactrian camels cataphracts ~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sygrod

Did the Saba (not sure of plural form) expand their territory historically, and if so how far?

---

Saba was kind of a trade empire. At times they controlled modern day Yemen and parts of Ethiopia/Somalia/Eritrea. Saba didnt' really have a rise and fall, so many different 'Saba's came and went from Solomon's 'Sheba' til Ethiopian isolationists. But I'm far from an expert.

BTW, I like camel units.

More like it had numerous rises and falls. At the start of EB Saba is battling with Qataban to regain its former glory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Camels look stupid anyway :clown:

Foot

---

thats very offensive to us camel fans!:clown:

well i'm pretty sure camels are pretty offensive to horse fans...and horses, too. xP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

If the early Islamic-era armies (from nearly a millenia later date granted) can be used as a yardstick, in pitched battles those apparently chiefly fought as close-order infantry backed by lots of infantry archery ("composite" troops capable of both archery and heavy-infantry melee combat were apparently common). The cavalry mostly acted as a scouting, flanking and pursuit force - largely because there simply wasn't much of it to go around, which rather limited what could be done with it. Or that's what I've read about them says anyway.

Granted, that's a big time leap but it would have been more or less the exact same people with the exact same resources (although mail changed to iron at some point) dealing with the exact same geography and sundry circumstances, without having been severely disturbed by any major foreign incursion I'm aware of, so...

---

Thanks for your insightful input Watchman. Your thought process seems logical enough to me. I wish i could say that my interest in how the Saba waged war and fought their battles was a scholarly pursuit. However, as with most things the truth is alot less appealing. I'm simply playing around with original Darth and Sinuhet Battle formations with EB to see which one i like better and was kind of scratching my head on how to classify the Saba for use with the supported_factions flag. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

If the early Islamic-era armies (from nearly a millenia later date granted) can be used as a yardstick, in pitched battles those apparently chiefly fought as close-order infantry backed by lots of infantry archery ("composite" troops capable of both archery and heavy-infantry melee combat were apparently common). The cavalry mostly acted as a scouting, flanking and pursuit force - largely because there simply wasn't much of it to go around, which rather limited what could be done with it. Or that's what I've read about them says anyway.

Granted, that's a big time leap but it would have been more or less the exact same people with the exact same resources (although mail changed to iron at some point) dealing with the exact same geography and sundry circumstances, without having been severely disturbed by any major foreign incursion I'm aware of, so...

---

If that's the case. Then the Sabaeans should have atleast one unit of native archer-swordsmen. Akin to the Dacian Komatai Agrianai, Kretikoi Toxotai or Syrian Archers. Basically a unit (possibly more than one) with an infantry bow of superior range, and enough armor (heavy, light) plus a sword or axe.

The unit would perform the same type of dual role that the other units listed would. They could pepper the enemy with arrows from outside their range. And once they run out of ammo, they could fight reasonably well in a melee.

Brings to mind the Mongol Foot Archers from M2TW.

Tough, overpowered bastards. You would think Byzantine Infantry could stand against a couple of leather armored archers wielding scimitars. Bastards went trough my infantry like grass. :wall:

Swords were pretty rare in South Arabia at the time. We have the archer with the spear that fulfills roughly that role at the moment, and there may be a Sabaean archer in the works that's more along the lines of what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Swords were pretty rare in South Arabia at the time. We have the archer with the spear that fulfills roughly that role at the moment, and there may be a Sabaean archer in the works that's more along the lines of what you're talking about.

---

The current Sabaean Archer-Spearman type sucks in melee. It's great for baiting enemy generals and shooting flaming arrows against wavering enemy units, but engaging them in a melee against anything but the weakest enemy light cavalry or skirmisher cavalry, is suicide.

They don't have the stats or the morale, for any kind of protracted melee fighting whatsoever. I swear that Persian Archers, although armed with nothing but a knife. Are better in melee then the Sabaean Archer-Spearmen.

Now. If I could get a Sabaean unit with a bow, some armor, and possibly an axe/sword as their secondary weapon. That might actually be a useful unit in a melee.

The only reason Saba outlasts Pontus is that they are located in bum **** nowhere. It takes over a decade just to lug it over to them :whip:.

Since I cannot contribute anything I'll just chime in and agree. They do indeed need a few more units to flesh them out and make them more interesting/competitive.

I'm more pro expand there native AOR .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

I wanted to include a scythed chariot drawn by bactrian camels cataphracts ~:mecry:

---

Don't you mean bartixian camel cataphracts? :clown:

Bartixian ninja camel cataphracts. Let's keep it historically accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Bartixian ninja camel cataphracts. Let's keep it historically accurate.

---

So the camels were the ninjas?

What is that "Bartix" everybody started to talk about? And what does it have to do with something called Khelvan? Just wondering...

Unfortunately. No one can be told what the Bartix is. You have to see it for yourself.

So. Are you interested in staying in wonderland? And finding out how deep the Rabbit Hole goes? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumbass

So the camels were the ninjas?

---

Obviously. That's what made Bartixian camelry so peerless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Obviously. That's what made Bartixian camelry so peerless.

---

Ah Ok, thanks for clearing up that little conundrum.

I've been playing Saba and I think they need a new general unit skin, it looks a bit dull, and there's already and merc and elite unit of the same unit, except with 80 men instead of 50. Also I'm not sure but the general unit may need to be made more powerful, with the unit size made 60 instead of 50.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileus Seleukeia

What is that "Bartix" everybody started to talk about? And what does it have to do with something called Khelvan? Just wondering...

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ghlight=bartix
read every post in there. noob

We will do our best to make their rooster more fleshed out, but remember folks, the wish list is constrained by what is actually accurate, and the Sabaeans just weren't the military powerhouse some of our factions are. By the way though, both the general and general bodyguard are being worked on right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

I wanted to include a scythed chariot drawn by bactrian camels cataphracts ~:mecry:

---

Like dude, I knew you had a weird penchant for chariots... But combining this

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rian_camel.jpg

...with this...

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/16600/166...t_16657_lg.gif

...Yeah, no comment ~:joker:

I mean look at the damn camel, how can you not laugh :laugh4:

I'm already dreaming of the next preview, btw is that guy who made the getai general still with you the details on that model were awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redmeth

I'm already dreaming of the next preview, btw is that guy who made the getai general still with you the details on that model were awesome.

---

We are very lucky to have Xprime working with us. A few hours ago he posted another splendid unit :verycool:

Why not the camel riders? compares from the time of Ciro the Great, look the battle of Magnesia Antioco have some camel riders-archer mounted all ARABS.

Is instead historical correct to insert the camel but is incorrect to exclude this, you can insert this troops as regionals in northern Arabia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Principe Alessandro

Why not the camel riders? compares from the time of Ciro the Great, look the battle of Magnesia Antioco have some camel riders-archer mounted all ARABS.

Is instead historical correct to insert the camel but is incorrect to exclude this, you can insert this troops as regionals in northern Arabia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Completely different. Camels were used as transport to and from battles, more like pack animals than anything else. Celtic chariots were used as transport during battles to get soldiers to and from key points quickly.

Anyway, the Sabaens didn't use camels in battle, that's pretty much the long and short of it. There's a chance we might have a northern arab camelry unit at some point, but nothing in the south.

---

They were very rarely if ever used. Camels were used to take soldiers to and from battle, but they were rarely used in battle. Horses were avaliable and much better in battle.

Foot