Printable View
The standard 'scary' trait on naked units is rather ridiculous. The effect can rout units along the other end of the line by their crazy range. Is it possible to give them the bee/diseased stat instead on their primary weapons so they only scare the units they engage? This would be more realistic. Elephants can be seen and heard by everyone in the army and have an ability to kill the whole army but the scary infantry would only affect their immediate opposition...
Although if I was a farmer with a spear, shoved into battle the first time (or 10th time for that matter), I would find a bunch of naked screaming guys standing in the opposing battle line pretty scary. I wouldn't wait until they cut my buddy's head off before I realised "ohh, they are actually scary".Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
What you are suggesting might be worth tweaking a bit if range can be changed, but I think the bee thingy status would be the wrong way of going about it.
If I saw a raging naked maniac tear a guy in two twenty meters from me, I'd be scared, even if he wasn't attacking my unit - he might be attacking us next...
Big naked men standing fearlessly in battle, waving huge swords and shouting loud battle cries, seemingly unafraid of death... that strikes me as rather terrifying to the Roman soldier.
"Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets."
-Polybius
Yes, it should be scary if you're near it but if thsoe guys are a few hundred meters down the line, its unrealistic.
Only the bee/diseased trait wouldn't be any more realistic, since that would only effect those attacked, when attacked. The naked guys scared the enemy - and not just the specific guys they attacked - long before that by their look, their sound, their reputation and their crazy, drugged up charge... not to mention their Superman-like stunts such as pulling javelins out of their chests and throwing it back before they charge.
The scare trait might not be perfect, but it is IMO the best option available.
Hey, if tweaking the "scare range" is possible, why not use both that and the bee/disease trait? The effect would be that they slightly scared the enemy around them but scared the hell out of those they attacked. Or does the "scary" trait already have that effect?
Ick, that would require a ridiculous amount of morale on all units as neither effect or range are moddables.
Oh. Stupid hardcoding. :(
Maybe we could have a better result if we put the levies' morale on "low" rather than normal?
No, dammit. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
What?
He doesn't get enough attention probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Didn't someone mentions that Gaesatae were going to be revised in EBII?
Of course every single unit is going to be redone from scrap. Both historically as moddelingwise. Actually the unit lists as well. They won't be based on EBI.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Some very, very elites may say if he is naked he would be easier to kill....:smash:
Just because something is naked does not mean it is easily killed. Example: Bears are naked and not particularly easy to kill even when not drugged up to their eyeballs though the latter is much more entertaining.
Er... bears usually have a thick fur and are more massive than humans...Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
THIS IS CANADA!Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
No drugs. No evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Edit- Since I got a PM from Ludens, I guess I should make myself clear. This isn't some crusade against the team. Your game is fantastic and deep and intellectual. However, in a few spots, for whatever reason, some theoretical or a-historical content made it into the game.
I don't think there's anyone on the team who still (at least publicly) believes any of the fantastical things added by you-know-who, but unfortunately a lot of the members here today weren't around when these facts were in contention.
If people bothered checking their assertions before posting them, we wouldn't have this issue. But unfortunately a lot of people are content with simply hearing it from someone else. Again, I'm not attacking the team, I'm attacking the lack of intellectual rigor exhibited on the forums.
When someone fights without any disregard of pain he will be hard to kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
General live expectancy of a berserker was one battle, and I can bet they killed more then they were killed.
So are Celts. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
Aparently the occupation of acting as crazy half-naked shock troops wasn't that fatal, the Vikings actually had problems dealing with all the out of work beserkers that were bumming around after the Norse civil wars were done with.
That is a debate that I won't get in to, and it is irrelevant for my point anyway. Whether they took some substance or if they were just "high on battle" or whatever, the effect was the same. If you want me to say "frenzied charge" rather than "drugged up" I can do that, but the contextual difference is slim at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I could live with them having an amazing initial charge + fear. It might insta-rout many units.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Also, does anyone have that gif of the EBII Gaesatae sword swinging animation of amazingness?
Its also reasonable to assume that trying to kill a bear that was covered in thick armour is harder than trying to kill a bear with no armour. So by that same account trying to kill a crazy naked guy is easier than trying to kill a crazy armoured guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
Not necessarily, for example Gothic Plate is hardly the most manuverable of a equipment especially when compared to "au naturale" berserker performing stunts in the middle of a Roman Formation. Although yes, the guy in Gothic Plate is much more likely to see another days battle rather than the berserker who is much more likely to see a white light with various spats of blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blxz
Oh hi abokasee! Great to see you still around. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Abokasee
They should be more susceptible to projectiles and arrow fire, it doesnt really matter how skilled you are if your naked, unless your in the matrix then you can dodge between the arrows.
I agree the fear they cause should be fixed, but maybe there is a better solution??
***What about the trait they had in medieval total war original, they had a trait "causes fear to undisciplined units", so your undisciplined troops would usually break if they faced them but the highly skilled would stand strong.
Also within your own army all of the undisciplined units that would rout would not effect your trained disciplined troops. I wish they kept this feature...
I dont know if you can port the trait in somehow or recreate it.
Source?? I am- as you might have noticed- a Danish Viking Age/medieval historian and I can think of no source saying this. Enlighten me please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
Quote:
Aparently the occupation of acting as crazy half-naked shock troops wasn't that fatal, the Vikings actually had problems dealing with all the out of work beserkers that were bumming around after the Norse civil wars were done with.
Again I would very much appreciate a source for this assertation...
Although fanatics ignored pain and would be harder to bring down than the average scantily clad soldier. I find myself pretty doubtful that one could ignore a sword in the gut (the gladius was meant for stabbing right?)
Naked fanatics should have a high attack and charge along with great morale and stamina and speed along with frightens nearby infantry, but for defence it should be purely defence skill and a little shield (if one will be given to them) IMHO but i dont think they should be able to stand up in a long pitched battle so much as be shock infantry meant to finish what the archers have started in one swift appendage swinging blow.
I don't recall that particular trait. In M:TW there was a distinction between standard, disciplined and elite troops: the routing ordinary troops caused only a minor morale penalty with disciplined and elite units. Maybe you are thinking of that? I doubt it can be recreated if it is not already present, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iasonis
It was something I heard a long time ago so I don't remember the source but as you know. However, as you know they were quite plentiful and made themselves troublesome when there were no wars and were outlawed for a variety of reasons. They were also considered traitors because they had a bad habit of killing friend and foe alike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
I would love to hear your opinions of how crazed shocktroop type guys faired in battle.
There are so many misconceptions about "Berserkers", they fascinate us, tingle the mind... and we know so very little, so there is so much scope for our fantasy to create interpretations. Ranging from elite armoured troops wearing bear coats as a special sign of their elite status, over individuals with troll blood going crazy (Egil and Skallagrim) to just normal combat rage and to naked, religious fanatics on mushrooms...Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Personally I think they would fare well on the initial charge, but then be cut to ribbons as does anyone who does not care about defense- RL is not like the Hollywood "all-offense" doctrine we see in films... Ignoring pain or not, it is hard to walk, run or fight for long with your guts hanging out, a sarrissae in the throat/eye that you neglected to defend, your leg sinews cut and the like. I suspect a trained warrior using the distance advantage his sword and height gives him and keeping his head cool is much more dangerous.
Consider also that Poybius might have embellished for effect, all authors of antiquity and the middle ages did that. Indeed, all authors tend to for effect, even myself. Taking them (us?) at face value is a dubious thing.
What would be scary would be seeing them pull out javelins and such, but... veterans would know that they themselves, when on a combat high, would not notice non-debilitating wounds. Cause that happens to all men.
Viking berserkers I cannot comment much on, for I know enough to know that we know very little but fantasy, but not enough to make an analysis (and I know more than most mind you).
Gallic naked dudes... I think would be in trouble against veterans, but might scare green troops. But again we know too little, and have too few actual sources to make a real analysis. And as with the Vikings, this leaves much room for fantasy to work its unenlightening ways...
Sorry guys (I'm actually lmaf, while typing this) but are you nuts? A bear is firstable, bevor everything else an especially... a BEAR!
I mean it is not particularly dangerous because it is naked but because its much bigger and stronger than a human. And since we are talking about interhuman warfare lets stick to humans.
About naked units: Of course they are easier to kill. This disadvantage might be slightly but not entirely taken away by the higher dexterity (yeah I know thats sounds like D&D talk...) but dont forget its harder to evade in a shield line or whenever you have someone at your sides and behind you. If they are fanatic/drugged up they may have a diminuished sensation of pain.
I think their skill and reputation was what counted a lot.
Hi guys, I'm Swiss and passionated by the Celts :2thumbsup:
For the naked warriors, I think that many stereotypes were showed by several illustrations. It is necessary to understand in which circumstance a warrior can want to put himself naked. A noble warrior does not have any reason to put himself naked, it has sufficient means to protect itself. Moreover, the nobles and the rich men fight in front of the adversary. Difficult to survive a long time in full battle while being naked. During the combat, the warrior will be crushed by the mass of the combatants, he will have much weapon who will pass very close to his body. He will walk on stones, corpses and sharp weapons. His comrades will pass very close to him with their weapons. And the weather, the forests where he can fight or to flee etc. There is thus little chance that the shockwarriors fought naked. Especially that the Celts were the inventors of the chain mail and that they developed their means of defense.
The combatants who could have fought naked would be the skirmishers. And there still nothing is sure, because to run agreeably, it's better to have shoes! Especially that it still remains of other problems referred to above.
Then the most frequent quotation used to speak about the Celtic warriors is that of Polybius. The Battle of Telamon is particular, because the Celtic army is taken by two sides and is in numerical disadvantage. It is possible that Gaisatoi (Gaesatae) had a heroic behavior because they knew that they were going to die. Because to die bravely at the battlefield does not have anything ashamed for the Celts. But it is not a normal behavior for the Gaisatoi, because in all the other battles they are equipped and their king carries even a sumptuous armor during the battle of Clastidium.
There is also another possibility. It is that Polybius were in the wrong. Polybius is not contemporary of this battle, he writes this battle during his exile in Rome which began in -167. It is Greek and not Romain. He don't know the Gallics, he writes simply on the base of the military reports. He confuses even the ritual of the sacrifice of the sword by believing that the Celtic sword twisted in full battle. He confuses this fact because he sees only the Celtic swords twisted in the Celtic sanctuaries. Certainly recovered after the conquest of Cisalpine and stored in Rome. And for the naked warriors, he could be inspired of the statues which it had seen in Greece before or other works of art residing at Rome. This Statues are naked because it is symbolic as much among Greeks that among Celts. However the Greeks didn't fight naked during the battle.
Thus in conclusion, the naked warriors were to be very rare. Half-Nude maybe for the skirmishers only.
A page of a French Comic Book showing a Celtic Battle between Bellovaci and Senones:
https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7785/img019.jpg
Welcome to the forum.
Thank you Genava, we all know how accurat French Comic books are.
Anyway, can this please go back to the original topic, of fear rather than how easy it is to kill a naked person?
I think that the fear factor would be enormous, but perhaps if you trained or re-trained troops in 'barbarian' territory, then they should have somewhat of an immunity from naked unit fear, being used to it.
But, any unit that is less than a certain amount of chevrons would be very succeptible to the scare.
Don't know if it is possible, but it makes sense.
Also: In my opinion, I think naked units (berserkers, if you want to call them so) should go a bit faster than everyone else, but also have maybe 3/4 of normal unit size, and not be able to stand up in a fight. That would represent the fact that most warriors would use armor if they could, and they would only be able to be really effective in the first mayb e 10-15 seconds of an engagement due to low defense (but they can still block and dodge, so not 0, maybe 4-5?)
This book was drawn with the collaboration of several historians, in particular Jean-Louis Brunaux and Christian Goudineau.Quote:
we all know how accurat French Comic books are.
http://www.lecasquedagris.com/assets...jpg?1244617659
Yes, you're right.Quote:
Anyway, can this please go back to the original topic, of fear rather than how easy it is to kill a naked person?
Naked warriors aren't exactly commonplace, the location of training should be irrelevant. By that logic, Celts and Germanics should be completely immune to their effects, which would put into question why such a unit even exists.
I think the current system of morale works as well as they can get it.. Gaesatae can route a group of levy spearmen after a short bit of combat. Against career soldiers, they have a tougher time, but can still make it through, while they are only effective against elites because of their two hitpoints.
Yes this is it, your right it want a trait so much as something hard coded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
This is too bad its not still in there and cant be recreated. This and the being able to recover sitting in the desert irks me. It seems like when total war series started out it was a real in depth strategy game, then they began to branch out to have more of an audience and it became less strategy and more arcade. At least EB came along and did as much as possible about it.
To support a previous point by Macilrille, yeah, if the life expectancy was only one battle, do really think that anybody would have picked that career path. It would have simply been a glorified form of suicide, which while practiced quite often among jihadists(Think truck bomb), was not as common among hired soldiers.
On the other hand, berserker death rates were probably pretty high. Think about it. The berserker has no armor and fights off about 20 guys while probably being stabbed several times. No matter how berserk you are, a stab wound through your intestines is going to kill you eventually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius Augustus
Exactly, to be a Berserker isn't a path you'll be following for very long.
You understand everything you said here is baseless conjecture, right? And none of it can be taken seriously because you have presented no evidence? Or even pretended like you have evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius Augustus
I hope you guys understand the difference between Berserker and Naked Berserker.
Remember: Berserkers do not necessarily have to run around with no armor. No matter how they are portrayed, there's no way eveysingle Berserker just ran around without armor. Especially in an army where they were hired.
I cannot confirm what he said about berserkers, but the part about jihadists (or whatever you might call them) is absolutely correct, if that was the part you were pointing at. The "glorified suicide" is a well-known phenomenon of our days, though I know of no evidence for it happening in ancient times.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
...So you just made a post that says "jihadists make truck bombs."Quote:
Originally Posted by athanaric
Thank you, Sherlock, but I know. Three guesses as to whether or not I come to ancient history discussion forums to debate the (absolutely provable, because it's documented by the media) practices of modern day religious nutjobs.
I think I shall quote myself, narcissist as it is,
Quote:
Gallic naked dudes... I think would be in trouble against veterans, but might scare green troops. But again we know too little, and have too few actual sources to make a real analysis. And as with the Vikings, this leaves much room for fantasy to work its unenlightening ways...
Nobody has responded to this: Berserkers don't have to be naked or unarmoured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
I am going to repeat lobf's and macrille's requests for sources. For the benefit of the discussion, can the next person that makes a claim about berserkers (of any kind) back it up with references?
I mean, the existence of berserkers is hazy enough to start with.
Quote:
I mean, the existence of berserkers is hazy enough to start with.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=9bId...age&q=&f=false
Page 57. :clown:
that was a very interesting section. reading a couple pages more talks about the Assyrian berserkers, and where they might have come from. thanks for that excellent read!
Well, but then everything would be scary. In one hand, you have a naked guy that, sure, can scream a lot and has raging complexion but when in the middle of a battle if by chance you manage to do cut mildly his calf (Not that difficult with a medium-sized sword), at the very least, he'll be limping for the rest of the battle. On the other hand, you got a tank (A Dosidataskeli, for instance) which no matter where you try to cut him (By chance or not), he'll just plow through you, even though he doesn't scream very high or not. Or you get a random group of horsemen running straight at your fellow comrades, and you know wherever they crash, there will surely be dead men, despite anything you can do. I'd say any horsemen or walking tanks would be much more scary to me than a shouting man (Or a group of them)Quote:
Originally Posted by The General
Yes this is true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
I think the more impressive and scary units were the more disciplined and organized units fighting in dense formations.
In my mind, testudo can frightened a disordered group of men... much more than an open horde of naked men.
Gaesatae are a bit overpowered in eb1: they have 2 hitpoints(why?), high defence value(why?), high attack value (i agree), excellent morale (i agree) and frightened enemy(so so).
Right fear balance is a very hard thing to do...
The two Hitpoints supposedly are derived from the facts that apparently they took numbing drugs before going into battle, so getting stabbed in somewhere where it doesn't hinder your mobility, but doesn't kill you, isn't effective.
I've skimread the text, and it doesn't convince me. The author seems to include every example of soldiers fighting impetuously and without armour (naked or not). That's not berserk, that normal tribal warfare. He also designates a figure on Trajan's column a berserker because his great stature and northern look are the hallmark of a berserker... There's more of such questionable examples: which I think proves my point that berserker is an ill-defined concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
The section on Scandinavian berserkers seems more reliable, though.
Well I think he's believable, he also talked about the Chatti in that book and how their youth didn't actually cut their beirds but simply removed the hair in front of the face(and iron/bronze necklace) and trow it backwards, he then calls a number of Germanics looking just like that found portraying that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Though he uses a bit of speculation.
He basicly sums up the warriors usually going by the word Berserker warriors:
Wolf warriors, Bear warriors, Long hairs(because of their extreme loyality and their frenzy to avenge a fallen leader, he also mentions the Germanic Bodyguards of some Emperors doing just this and killing his murderers), Naked Berserkers.
Also a interesting thing is that he mentions they would get themselves in a frenzy which would cause them to get high on adrenaline which docters also use to stop down bleeding in surgery. Which might be why we always hear them to be "invulnerable" to weapons and fire. And also why they were always very weak after a battle.
Well I dropped thier armor value from 5 to 0, shield from 4(same as a roman shield) to 2 and increased thier attack by 2 or 3. I left thier skill the same. They work perfectly now, very suceptable to pilium and arrow fire and very lethal up close. Maybe this will help?
Well I can say officially that the EB1 roster is getting an overhaul because I'm the one doing the overhauling. :yes:
Its true that there are some things in EB1 that made it into the game but appear to be unsourced or unreasonable claims. Drug use will not play the huge role that it did in EB1. Drugs and medicines were certainly known back then, even thousands of year before the Iron Age, and it would be kinda strange to think that the Celts (who did indeed use surgery and surgical tool have been found aplenty), had no concept of pain numbing methods: plants, herbs, concoctions, potions, smoke inhalation, or whatever.... that could be given to someone that wished to have their senses numbed or pain lessened.
Alcohol is certainly known to have played a part in Celtic ritual or prebattle preparation as the Celts have a couple deities with the sole association for "drunkenness/intoxication before battle." Its certain that alcohol would be used in surgical procedures as its still used today. However, on the flip side of the coin other ancient warriors all over that globe were known to have taken non alcoholic drugs of some kind before battle. So we know its certain that drugs could be used, but we are not saying that every single Gaesatae used drugs before battle or they made it some kind of norm. Chances are only a minority would use them. Drugs, herbal concoctions, potions, mixes, inhaling smoke, etc...can be applied to religious rituals for whatever the purpose was, such as visions, talking with the gods, making a warrior invincible in battle, etc...the possibilities are many so as far as I'm concerned the door to drug use before battle must remain open and we must keep an open mind about this, but drug use will certainly be toned down significantly to a more realistic ritual level for EB2.
As for the scariness aspect, if the Romans were somewhat frightened of the naked guys, "who were in the prime of life and finely built men," I am sure that plenty other ancient armies would be scared of them as well, even some rather experienced troops that otherwise had little history fighting against them. The scariness of a naked warrior (cult) could certainly work. In Liberia a general or warlord that claimed to be under the influence of the Devil sent his warriors naked (only guns and shoes) into battle as a scare tactic. I dunno, I guess it can still work today even...
I guess it would be something like African militiamen getting their aggression kicked up by stimulants. I think there were reports of Muslim Rebels during the American - Phillipine War taking some sort of drug so they could charge through small arms fire and take out American soldiers before collapsing.
Quote:
The shamans first fed the mushrooms to reindeer, whose urine was drunk by soldiers on the eve of battle on the eve of battle, a practice later adopted by the Vikings.
Source? I do not know everything as I sometimes pretend, but I believe I would know if there was any source stating this. So I am curious.
Phalanx, I am unconvinced, as Ludens says he seems to quote any example ever that he can find. However a counterargument would require getting a sh*tload of books home from the Uni library (including his) and spending a lot of time researching and writing a counterargument, or rather my own interpretation of Viking "Berserkers", my vague idea BTW, includes people in armour.
Anyway, I am unconvinced.
funniest quote in this thread!Quote:
The shamans first fed the mushrooms to reindeer, whose urine was drunk by soldiers on the eve of battle
How exactly would this be a bad thing if its still fits the bill? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
I fixed the link, Macrille, should work now. I did a quick search for "urine vikings reindeer" in Google. It appears that the ancient practice of doing this (not just Vikings, but others) could be how the saying of "getting pissed" originated. Interesting stuff about the mushroom drug effec tand mind altering substances.
Phalanx, it is if you cannot come up with more examples than he does. I have an extensive knowledge of the sources for Viking Age Denmark- Scandinavia and though I cannot deny or disprove the existance of naked warriors, I find it unproven as well. At some point I guess I will have to write my own interpretation...
Power, your link did not show me any source saying that Vikings drank Reindeer urine after feeding them mushies, nor did a google search for "Urine- Reindeer-Viking". In fact with my knowledge of sources for the Viking age I can say with 99.5% certainty that there is no such source. There is but a lack of knowledge and a fascination with Berserkers giving birth to various wild fantasies and with the I-net everybody can spread their ideas- the wilder, the more popular...
- There are no original Viking written sources really, unless you count runestones.
- Our foreign sources does not mention the practise.
- Our later (medieval) sources I am 95% certain do not either.
- Only very- very few Vikings in the absolute furtherst parts of Norway owned reindeer, most of the northern Norwegians just taxed the tribes up there, Sami, Finns etc (they had other names then).
That is why I can say with a fair degree of certainty that Vikings might have gotten p*ssed, but they did not drink Reindeer p*ss to get high.
Now Odin is the ultimate Shaman (read how he acquired the Runes) and he was the God of Battles and Dead (and also of Skaldic inspiration...), and no doubt Vikings would go into battle rage- in fact it is often attested and fits their culture and what we know of their ideology and belief, but it is for many other peoples as well. I bet you some of the guys in Iraq and Afghanistan have tried it... so to go from there and elaborate to a special elite corps of naked berserkers (and ulfhednir/wolfskins) it a bit far-fetched for my taste, sorry but I was weaned on source criticism...
The presence of nude Celtic combatants is well established in the historical record. There may be some who desire to paint the occurence as a rarity, an "out in a blaze of glory" tactic at Telamon and the practice of a small set of champions, but both historical accounts and representative art provide overwhelming testimony that a good many Celtic warriors fought in the nude. While we might be tempted to excuse the Pergamene Gauls and a few other examples as artistic renderings of the nightmare Galatian, we'd still have to deal with the presence of naked "friendly" Gauls, such as those depicted in Ptolemaic terracotta or the one shown on the painted Amazonomachy sarcophagus from late 4th century Etruria.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscariaQuote:
In eastern Siberia, the shaman would consume the mushrooms, and others would drink his urine.[90] This urine, still containing active hallucinogens may actually be more potent than the A. muscaria mushrooms with fewer negative effects, such as sweating and twitching, suggesting that the initial user may act as a screening filter for other components in the mushroom.[91]
Good thing I know a bit about them shrooms.
I really hope that there is only 1 entry of that in the google seach/Alexa statistics reporting page...Quote:
"Urine- Reindeer-Viking"
Off course it's not a problem in itself, but in this case the author seems to drag in everything that looks vaguely related. Caligula's Germanic bodyguard killed a couple of senators after Caligula was murdered: how does that prove them to be berserkers? It's possible, but he should provide more evidence. As it is, he seems to think that angry Germanics equal berserkers. He even includes Julian the Apostate because he was killed in a skirmish where he did not wear armour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
That's stretching it, and while skimreading I saw several more of such questionable examples. And given we are dealing with a subject that is so prone to myth-forming and other distortions, I expect an author to be very careful with his evidence and assertions.
Admittedly, I didn't read that far, but I agree calling someone a berserker for not wearing armor (or even clothes) is stupid. It's not like every soldier (especially in non-professional armies, where they have to pay for their own equipment) has enough money to either:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
A) Pay for their own armor/clothes in a non-professional army
or
B) Be considered important enough to be anything more than a simple skirmisher, with either no need of armor, or not be considered worthy of armor.
Perhaps then the EB team should therefore adopt an ends justify means mentality and create a unit that is phsycially just a naked guy with some naked guy on pain kill stats but on the proper occasion can be used to achive things reserved for myth and legend.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Perhaps make a high charge(for fighting a ferocious naked guy)/near unbreakable morale/fast(for being naked)/naked guy armor/slightly greater than average naked guy defense to account for pain killers/slightly higher attack(for being a ferocious guy)/scary(for fighting a ferocious guy).
That way they become pretty much a cavalry on two legs that aren't detered by mount effect or spear bonii. They can insta-rout tired units but are quite average in prolonged melee. It would make them quite capable of achieving spectacular results but at the same time, only be quite average and therefore live up both to myth and reality at the same time.
I jest but it seems like this is where Gaesatae are going with the information that has been leaked so far(including the greatest charging animation ever).:clown:
sorry to disagree but i read everything past page 87 (?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
and what the author claims is that there is evidence that there´s a type of cult/religion/tradition in indo european speakers with adopt a fighting style that may or may not be called bezerkers.
he actually discredit the use of drugs saying that there are certain rituals to increase adrenalin when someone decides to adopt that fighting style and that men could choose if they would fight in that style or not
he clearly makes the distinction beteween the wold bear and bezerkers style of fighting but claims that they all come from an old tradition of fair fight to prove one´s worth bravery and masculinity
even today in my own fam my father passed me the tradition of emptying my pockets and pulling up my sleeves before i engage in any type of competion to both dispose myself of the means to cheat and to prove that i´m not playing to obtain anything (either it may be cigarets keys cash or whatever i have in my pockets it must be out of me when going against others)
so we can say there´s a type of tradition of both fair play and bravado in some sence that as remained
not saying one should adopt the unit since he himself proves this fighting style weakpoints but admiting that the more tribal traditions did had this type of fighting style of "loosing your mind and throw yourself into batle not caring for tomorrow" does exist.
if this is usefull for eb2 ? i doubt it since these warriors could exist anywhere even in "civilized" factions sometimes a certain man in the right circumstances could go bezerk with bloodlust and pumped up in adrenallin but it´s still a worthy thing to debate
Maybe, with the Medieval 2 engine, it could be like a unit only recruitable in cties/castles with certain temples/shrines, at certain levels, with only 1-2 in the recruitment pool, and a 10-turn waiting period to get a new one from that city. and only barbarians and some easterners could recruit them, and only in a small area?
than it would be kinda balanced.