Printable View
It actually makes more sense to have a Christian Priest retinue rather than another unit. What else do you have the Retinue system other than to cover circumstances such as this? In Rome we had the various Priestly retinues, so why change it? the only possible reason i could think of would be if you wanted to add a small retinue to a non family member lead army.
No, they did not use clubs. They stayed far away from the action...their job was to pray, not to fight. I am going to take Steppe Merc's advice...Quote:
Originally Posted by player1
Any way, this is my last post on this subject. Anything further could result in warnings...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zizka
Well said :bow:
well? the fact that CA wastes time and money on such silly things is sad. why bother?Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro Thunder
if they're the only silly unit, no problem. it just concerns me.
meh.
Screaming Women, blerg
/take two
We all know that priests of the Dark and Middle ages believed that it was unGodly to shed another human's blood. And yes, some interpreted it literally enough to indicate that if they used a club or mace they weren't 'technically" shedding another human's blood per-say. Just like all the opther fantasy units we've seen - they were never used in numbers, but what they are depicting was a reality on a much smaller and much less regulated occurance. But just like the Screaming Women and Head Hurlers - I won't build them and I turn my nose to their ahistoricalness.
The catholic church did not exist until the schism, before that people in the western Roman world where orthodox or ayrian(sp) christians, so there should not be catholic priests.
Also christian priests where not supposed to make the enemy bleed, so a club would be a good weapon for a priest.
guys, please only post here if you want to help collect data. :embarassed:
Intrepid Sidekick, Thaks for you response, but why not just give one of them with every unit like R:tr did.
umm.. the pope talked with attilla i am well aware of that, but he didnt fight him, and plus that meating is said to be myth anyways.
The monks should not have clubs, and another point shouldnt they have black robes?
SMZ
Sorry about offending you, the sarcasm was rather a reflection of the fact I was disappointed at seeing CA lurch ahead with more silly units.
Really it is not so much the logic of the unit’s existence. I’m sure CA can find at least one historical or semi-historical incident to support every ‘fantasy’ unit. I just cannot see why CA seems to prefer a rather unrealistic ideal of unit of priests (or head tossing Celts, etc), rather then simply providing a method of adding them to the officer slots (in game via buildings etc). I realize that some units say the pigs in RTW, have to be independent units. But a lot of the moral units could provide color, and faction differentiation, but be more grounded in reality as unit add-on.
The reason im mad cause they are almost slapping their hardcore fans in the face. They know we dont like this fantasy stuff, but they chose to pick something like this first. I dont hate Ca, they mad the best game ever(mtw), but this kind of stuff that is trying to be pulled as realistic is getting kind of sickning. :embarassed:
Not true Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (Pope), followed by Saint Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinus
Ah this unit looked cool. Seriously it did.
One cannot judge the whole expansion by just one unit even though it`s the first unit they presented.
I don`t think I`m gonna train these units often, not because people claim them to be historically inaccurate, but `cause they`re a really weak unit. I think peasants will do a better work than those. Just eye-candy in my opinion.
As long as those innacurate(at least claimed so) units are cool, just exaggerated from reality and not plain stupid as Screeching Women I got no big problem with them. ~:cheers:
It is realistic for Celtic and Germanic women to have accompanied the men to battle, the only thing that was silly about the screeching women was the name.
Besides what would you prefer a beaten up mercenary with 11 troops left or a morale boosting priest group?
Good, so I was not wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
There is a historic reason, why priest, if in need to be armed, would be armed more probably with club, then with dagger.
The thing is they wouldnt be armed, they would just carry a huge cross or something.
Yes. And seeing how Total War's play style is where you statically build a unit of soldiers and send them against the enemy - you can understand how ridiculous it would be for a leader to gather a large number of priests together and send them en masse into the battlefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by player1
It's the static way it's portrayed in Total War which makes it ridiculous.
For consistency sake.
If other morale boosting units were in group (druids, screeching women), then so these ones should be too.
But they tended form a mass on non-combatants behind the battle line, not formal units.Quote:
It is realistic for Celtic and Germanic women to have accompanied the men to battle, the only thing that was silly about the screeching women was the name.
Well, they are just that way for consistance sake.
Since all other morale boosting units function as that (like druids).
It also gives some tactical possibilities, like keeping them at the rear of your central line, and freeing up general for flanking.
None of those units should have been included....
Anyways this threa isnt just about those units, if BI ,, is anything like rome then their will be tons of historical innaccuracies.
edit
Someone is deciding to invade a territory and wants something to bolster his troops. Plenty of strong arms are found but the foes ahead will be savage and some men may be prone to flee. Moral Units are nice dimension to add to the battlefield but we can probably all agree that the concept is both ridiculous and also believable. How so? It's the way it's implimented is all. A solid mass of civilians partaking in the fighting of an army was a practice which almost never happened, and was never planned for except for an endeavor such as a Crusade-type practice. It is true that it happened on smaller scales though.
It should really be, as others have said - merely a retinue unit of your General. Or alternatively - a Standard Bearer. I'll explain:
In the timeframe we're dealing with here there were times when a battle would ensue and, indeed, individuals whom had control over a fighting man's mentality may find their way onto a battlefield. Be they Religious Leaders, Women or particularly ruthless warriors, there were people who affected the bloodthirst of an army. Usually this was probably done through a General or otherwise leader leading their troops through a battle with chanting, war-songs, displays of might and words of encouragement to his fellows. Priests and Women would have a very limited ability to be even near a battle seeing as 95% of War is travelling to the battlefield and thus would either have to be with the army or have the enemy be invading their territory.
If you build any of these statically produced Moral-Increasing units they should deffinately increase/reduce moral. However - they should be attached to the army in some way such as being the one who carries the Standard of a given faction or with gather around a said standard. A Priest would hold the cross and be attached to some unit or other and perhaps if you build one Priest unit and you attach it to your army once you get into the battle they would disperse amongst your soldiers, increasing the moral of your entire army.
That would certainly help suspend my disbelief. Sure - you should have a feature which calls all Moral increasing men/women to a certain area of the battle which is in dire need of help for those fatigued sword-swingers.
Simple ideas like this - they would go a long way to smoothing the rough edges of such great ideas of Moral Units into a more realistic and believable fashion.
My 2 cents on the priest unit.
Which is the stronger army ?
a. One combat unit + one priest unit.
b. Two combat units.
Which just about sums up why the AI has such a hard time putting up a
decent challenge.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
The Druid unit stands behind the battle line singing while i waste em with arrows me thinks they would do much better to join in the melee. and i modded them to unit size 60. and if more than one Druid unit per AI
army, only one Druid unit sings the rest fight.
So if more than one priest unit in AI army do they all sing ?
I believe that the younger mainstream players would enjoy the game more
if it were more of a challenge.
Which is exactly what the hardcore minority want too.
http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/bis1.jpg
Judging from that maybe they're like Prophets from EE and summon sodomy on the heathen hordes.
I think CA does care about their fans but they care more about making the most money. The way to make more money is to make the game mainstream which they did in RTW and are continuing in BI. Now even though the hardcore fans think RTW was completely unrealistic I still think it was more realistic than most games.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
Why did my thread get mixed into this. :embarassed:
:balloon2:
I don't know, but it makes for some interesting reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
Finnaly, I found the merged thread.
And I though they all got "deleted".
To sum up all the arguments that the "warrior priest are real"
it would be very hard to do that. There is no source that says the romans didnt use aliens as archers, but I am sure there are also none that say they did.Quote:
prove they didnt use clubs
sure if they were going to fight, which some did, they would probably use clubs, but they didnt fightQuote:
clubs are cheaper than knives
The pope talked to atilla, but even this meeting is probably myth.Quote:
the pope and bishops beat attilla