What civilization has the worst unit roster in your opinion.

I am going to put my vote in for the saba. They have no effective heavy cav, extremely limited heavy infantry, and only native hellenic pikemen. Their whole unit roster has not one apparent strength. I will admit that I have only played with them in the multiplayer battles and never their campaign, so I do not know if their short comings are made up for other ways. However, I have fought them in my Macedonian campaign and my roman campaign, where they preformed horribly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catmand0

I am going to put my vote in for the saba. They have no effective heavy cav, extremely limited heavy infantry, and only native hellenic pikemen. Their whole unit roster has not one apparent strength. I will admit that I have only played with them in the multiplayer battles and never their campaign, so I do not know if their short comings are made up for other ways. However, I have fought them in my Macedonian campaign and my roman campaign, where they preformed horribly.

---

If you want to play as Saba, master this man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid

Quote:

---

Khalid turned those skirmishing tactics into something that could be used anywhere. Thus he would skirmish the enemy to death: he would bring his army in front of his enemies and wait until the whole battle degenerated into a skirmishing affair between small units. Then, after exhausting the enemy units, he would launch his cavalry at their flanks employing Hammer and Anvil tactics.[116]
Much of Khalid's strategic and tactical genius lies in his use of extreme methods. He apparently put more emphasis on annihilating enemy troops, rather than achieving victory by simply defeating them. For instance his employment of the double envelopment maneuver against the numerically superior Persian army at the Battle of Walaja,[117] and his brilliant maneuver at the Battle of Yarmouk where he virtually trapped the Byzantine army between three steep ravines by stealthily capturing their only escape route, a bridge, at their rear.
Khalid utilized his better understanding of terrain in every possible way to gain strategic superiority over his enemies. During his Persian campaigns, he initially never entered deep into Persian territory and always kept the Arabian desert at his rear, allowing his forces to retreat there in case of a defeat.[118] It was only after all the strong Persian and Persian-allied forces were routed that he penetrated deep into Euphrates region and captured the regional capital of Iraq, Al-Hira. Again, at Yarmouk, the terrain would help him in executing his grand strategy of annihilating the Byzantines.
In their mobility, Khalid's troops had no match until the Mongol hordes of the 13th century.[119] In fact the tactics of the desert Arabs and steppe Mongols were somewhat identical. Entire troops of Khalid would ride on camels while on march, whereas the Mongols used horses, with the difference that the Arabs did not make use of mounted archers.[120] His most commonly used maneuver was surprise attack, also apparently his favorite one. Some of the most brilliant surprise attacks of Khalid were his night attacks from three different sides on Persian camps at Zumail, Muzayyah and Saniyy, his highly mobile army successfully maneuvering in a 100 km area, quickly destroying encampments of the Persians and their Arab allies. The Battle of Maraj-al-Debaj being no exception, where once again his highly mobile army maneuvered around a Byzantine army, appearing from four directions and opening several fronts at a time, a maneuver which later in 13th century became one of the Mongol armies' principal maneuvers.[121]
An example of Khalid's strategic maneuverability was his advance into Roman Syria.[122] Emperor Heraclius had sent all his available garrisoned troops into Syria, towards Ajnadayn, to hold the Muslim troops at the Syria-Arabia border region. The possible route of any Muslim reinforcement was expected to be the conventional Syria-Arabia road in the south, but Khalid, who was then in Iraq, took the most unexpected route: marching through the waterless Syrian desert, to the surprise of the Byzantines, he appeared in northern Syria. Catching the Byzantines off guard, he quickly captured several towns, virtually cutting off the communications of the Byzantine army at Ajnadayn with its high command at Emesa, where emperor Heraclius himself resided.[123]
Khalid's elite light cavalry, the Mobile guard, acted as the core of the Muslim cavalry during the invasion of Syria. It was composed of highly trained and seasoned soldiers, the majority of whom had been under Khalid's standard during his Arabian and Persian campaigns.[124] Muslim cavalry was a light cavalry force armed with 5 meter long lances. They could charge at an incredible speed and would usually employ a common tactic of Kar wa far literary meaning "engage-disengage", or in modern term: “hit-and-run.” They would charge on enemy flanks and rear, their maneuverability making them very effective against heavily armored Byzantine and Sassanid cataphracts.[116] Khalid's famous flanking charge on the final day of the Battle of Yarmouk stands as testimony to just how well he understood the potentials and strengths of his mounted troops.

---

PLUS....I believe Saba can recruit both Indian and African Elephants as well. I have Sweboz game going now, and in comparison, I would say Sweboz has a weaker roster IF you let Arverni and Aedui sit and grow massive. BUT, as Sweboz you need 6 or 7 FM per army, who have fantastic infantry BG to make up for limited roster. Sweboz economy in VH camp is horrible bad, which is why, I have a rule that if your starting position has 3 cities or fewer, then H camp. As Sweboz you can send any army running because of the monstrous charisma of your FM. One problem is if the enemy has Gesaitai (sp), which I have never successfully routed in my entire EB history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikepettyrtw

I have Sweboz game going now, and in comparison, I would say Sweboz has a weaker roster

---

i would agree with that. In my current romani game the Sweboz died not due to war but due to their own ineptitude, all their family died. it was thanks to the habit of my EB game rebels venturing out of their cities leaving mostly the rebel FM in place but having rebel stacks roam the countryside.

Now i have no Germanic faction to worry about in the late game or a threat to my entire northern flank unless some gaulish faction ventures into germania.

The Sweboz roster is not "weaker". I think its just more limited. Sweboz armies are very strong and In forests its like impossible to completely rout them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

The Sweboz roster is not "weaker". I think its just more limited. Sweboz armies are very strong and In forests its like impossible to completely rout them

---

I respectfully disagree, I just attempted Khalid Ibn al-Walid's tactics in a custom battle against Pontus that included their Chalkaspides, Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Thureophoroi, Pontic Thorakitai, Persian Hoplites and their BG Cav. I was outnumbered badly as well; I think it was something like 1700 (me) vs 2500 (Pontus). I used only Arabian Light Cav(3 units), Arabian light Inf(4 units IIRC), Sabean Medium Cav (1 unit), I BG and 2 Sabean noble inf plus 2 slingers. No units started the battle with chevrons. I only took roughly 600 casualties. The map was the same for both sides. I used no Elephants even though that's Saba's coup de main.
As Sweboz, such a thing would be impossible without plenty of FM BG or gold chevrons and possibly limited recruitment zone fright Inf and loads of clubbmen. I know so because I have tried it before in custom battles. If one brings lots of clubbmen amd chevron'd FM BG, then all but those on the steppe need to take notice. But that's it for Sweboz. No ele's, no monster cav, no superior skirmisher troops; almost everything Sweboz has can be matched or exceeded by their Gallic Neighbors. Gaesatae and Botaroas/Botraos along with the plethora of other Heavy Infantry the Gauls have, in combo with Brihentin FM BG will destroy a Sweboz army, even with clubbman and FM.
However, Sweboz army's with lots of FM, or post Reform (reform is VERY late game IMO), with lots of EXP could do the defeat an identical Pontic army with similar post battle stats. Indeed those clubbmen are monster anti-roman battering rams. But that's at enormous cost: if you loose a major battle with all those FM in it, one risks their entire campaign, no matter how many chevrons you get. But that amongst other things, makes the Sweboz campaign exilerating fun.
In conclusion, I did not say their army's fighting ability was weak, but rather their roster was weakest considering context (Saba, Arverni, Aedui)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikepettyrtw

I respectfully disagree, I just attempted Khalid Ibn al-Walid's tactics in a custom battle against Pontus that included their Chalkaspides, Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Thureophoroi, Pontic Thorakitai, Persian Hoplites and their BG Cav. I was outnumbered badly as well; I think it was something like 1700 (me) vs 2500 (Pontus). I used only Arabian Light Cav(3 units), Arabian light Inf(4 units IIRC), Sabean Medium Cav (1 unit), I BG and 2 Sabean noble inf plus 2 slingers. No units started the battle with chevrons. I only took roughly 600 casualties. The map was the same for both sides. I used no Elephants even though that's Saba's coup de main.
As Sweboz, such a thing would be impossible without plenty of FM BG or gold chevrons and possibly limited recruitment zone fright Inf and loads of clubbmen. I know so because I have tried it before in custom battles. If one brings lots of clubbmen amd chevron'd FM BG, then all but those on the steppe need to take notice. But that's it for Sweboz. No ele's, no monster cav, no superior skirmisher troops; almost everything Sweboz has can be matched or exceeded by their Gallic Neighbors. Gaesatae and Botaroas/Botraos along with the plethora of other Heavy Infantry the Gauls have, in combo with Brihentin FM BG will destroy a Sweboz army, even with clubbman and FM.
However, Sweboz army's with lots of FM, or post Reform (reform is VERY late game IMO), with lots of EXP could do the defeat an identical Pontic army with similar post battle stats. Indeed those clubbmen are monster anti-roman battering rams. But that's at enormous cost: if you loose a major battle with all those FM in it, one risks their entire campaign, no matter how many chevrons you get. But that amongst other things, makes the Sweboz campaign exilerating fun.
In conclusion, I did not say their army's fighting ability was weak, but rather their roster was weakest considering context (Saba, Arverni, Aedui)

---

I disagree, the sweboz army have huge morale advantage compared to saba. I notice in your battle that you gave yourself 4 units of cavalry while the enemy only had a bg unit. If you look at it that way, of course it will not be too hard since your infantry units are faster and have more stamina.

I will attempt to do the same thing as you except with Sweboz and this time i will give the pontics more cavalry. You gave yourself 2 units of Sabaen nobles so I will give myself a unit of germanic heavy infantry since in campaigns they are available before the reforms as mercenaries.

anndd...heres the proof. This battle was almost too easy. I didnt even micro that much. Swebox units just dont break unlike Saba. If i Had bothered to micro more, my casualties would be around 3-400 I would guess

https://imageshack.us/a/img713/3998/sweboxarmy.png

https://imageshack.us/a/img29/5811/pontus.png

https://imageshack.us/a/img706/733/h...bozvictory.png


see no chevrons on my units and only ONE bodyguard unit with NO chevs. If I had 6-7 with lots of exp like you suggested, that would be enough to wipe out an army twice the size of the one i played against. Even If i didnt add in that unit of heavy german infantry and replaced it with something else, that victory would still have been an absolute breeze.

One more thing, this was on open ground where the pontic cavalry could have done some real damage to me. In the forests, it would have been a joke of a battle

I have finished all faction campaigns at least once and i am going to prefer Swboz；
The sweboz units get bonus in forest and can access to high exp units, but the roster is rather limited.Compared to Saba( can recurit Arabian archer-spearmen, a very good low-tier multifunctional ranged unit, which has a longer range than sabean archer), Sweboz factional units is lack of good ranged units(long range/large ammo archer). In my experience, the ranged units are more reliable assault force in battle H/VH campaign( ai receive attack/defencer bonus), for the reason that the ranged unit is not influenced by the defence skill. And in foreign MIC, the saba can recuirit Hellenic native phalanx which is the highest PPR(Performance to Price Ratio) line infantry in my opinion.

i think we're talking about faction rosters only.

And consider that Sweboz is surrounded by factions that suit its fighting style. Saba is surrounded by two factions which have a completely different fighting style and loads of better infantry and cavalry. Saba's roster doesn't really counter its neighbours all that well unless you do an Arabian light cavalry spam (which in campaign, you wont be able to afford)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidpacific

Saba( can recurit Arabian archer-spearmen, a very good low-tier multifunctional ranged unit, which has a longer range than sabean archer), Sweboz factional units is lack of good ranged units(long range/large ammo archer). In my experience, the ranged units are more reliable assault force in battle H/VH campaign( ai receive attack/defencer bonus), for the reason that the ranged unit is not influenced by the defence skill..

---

you probably didn't use all of the units then. sweboz have archer spearmen: Medjīnīkōs (Baltic Frontiersmen), the best archer spearmen in the game with the longest range i believe

Yes , Baltic one is also good, but it's not a factional unit, most factions in EB can recruit it, including saba. And the arabian one is a saba factional unit, only saba can recruit it. no other faction can recruit it.
Moreover, the saba can recruit arabian one in the 1st turn of the campain, and the sweboz can't access to the region which can recruit Baltic one at least near 20 turns.
And the range of Baltic Frontiersmen is shorter than arabian archer-spearmen, you can check it in edu.
The range of the arabian one is 196 , while range of Baltic one is 187.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

i think we're talking about faction rosters only.

And consider that Sweboz is surrounded by factions that suit its fighting style. Saba is surrounded by two factions which have a completely different fighting style and loads of better infantry and cavalry. Saba's roster doesn't really counter its neighbours all that well unless you do an Arabian light cavalry spam (which in campaign, you wont be able to afford)

---

Ok, focus on factional unit roster. I think , compared to the sweboz one, the sabean one has an evident ranged unit advantage, and a little stamina advantage ( most of sabean factional units have very_hardy attribute, while little sweboz units have this attribute), a little disadvantage on support infantry, a little disadvantage on heavy cavalry because of 190BC sweboz reform.
Consider the neighbors, the sweboz is surronded by galic factions, romani. I think the difference between the galic style(high attack/low defence infantry) and the roman style(low attack/high defence infantry) is much more larger than the style difference between two diadochi kindoms, the AS and the Ptolemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidpacific

Yes , Baltic one is also good, but it's not a factional unit, most factions in EB can recruit it, including saba. And the arabian one is a saba factional unit, only saba can recruit it. no other faction can recruit it.
Moreover, the saba can recruit arabian one in the 1st turn of the campain, and the sweboz can't access to the region which can recruit Baltic one at least near 20 turns.
And the range of Baltic Frontiersmen is shorter than arabian archer-spearmen, you can check it in edu.
The range of the arabian one is 196 , while range of Baltic one is 187.

---

I was not aware that it had a shorter range. In any case, the baltics have the hardy trait and the Arabians dont. It also has higher attack attack and defence and a morale value of 11 compared to the Arabians who only have 9. That means it actually has a chance to hold the enemy in melee for a while. Whenever I use Arabians in melee they don't buy me much time at all.

Also the twenty turn thing doesn't matter as much since the first few years of a sweboz campaign, you're fighting in the densist forests in the whole map where archers aren't worth squat.

The Arabians dont have hardy attribute but have a very_hardy attribute.
Let's focus on the factional unit. The arabian one is a factional unit, and the baltic is not.
I don't think the twenty turn thing doesn't matter. In a sweboz campaign , because the poor economy fall in debt from the 2nd turn, the troops recruited in the recurit line in the 1st turn is quiet important. In the first few years of a sweboz campaign, we're assaulting cities in most time. Considering the low-armor/high melee attack slave units in the near reigions, the ranged units is really useful, especially in VH/VH campaigns. In my VH/VH huge scale campaignes, i lost no more than 100 men( most time near 50 men) per slave city in sabean campaign because of the long range of arabian archer-spearmen, while in sweboz campaign lost nearly 200-300 men per slave city because of the lack of good ranged unit. I think if i can recurit a good archer in 1st turn( i can only recurit 4 skirmisheres to instead), i can highly reduce the lost .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidpacific

let's focus on the factional unit. The arabian one is a factional unit, and the baltic is not.
I don't think the twenty turn thing doesn't matter. In a sweboz campaign , because the poor economy fall in debt since the 2nd turn, the troops recruited in the 1st turn is quiet important. In the first few years of a sweboz campaign, we're assaulting cities in most time. Considering the low-armor/high melee attack slave units in the near reigions, the ranged units is really useful, especially in VH/VH campaigns. In my VH/VH huge scale campaignes, i lost no more than 100 men( most time near 50 men) per slave city in sabean campaign because of the long range of arabian archer-spearmen, while in sweboz campaign lost nearly 200-300 men per slave city because of the lack of good ranged unit. I think if i can recurit the baltic one in 1st turn( i can only recurit skirmisher to instead), i can highly reduce the lost .

---

Ok I understand that since I lose a lot of men in my early sweboz campaign as well. However, in my Saba campaigns, I never assault the first three ctities anyway because the spy has never ever opened the gates for me ever (I don't think it's skilled enough that early in the game). As soon as you attack the city they Sally out since their garrison will always be bigger than your starting army.

Even if the Baltic archers were available from turn 1 how many could you afford? You will have to wait extra turns for them to train and meet up with your army which means you will lose more money anyway. 1-2 units won't conquer a sweboz city on VH with only 100 casualties unless of course your using arcade mode =.= which is exploiting very heavily

Apart from that, this thread isn't just about which faction has the best start, it's about which faction has the best roster. The sweboz roster may not look as exotic as the Saba one but they will rip through anything in europe. The Saba one can barely stand up to its neighbours. And that I think is what REALLY counts

In MP (which may or may not factor into your discussion) we consider Saba the universal observing faction. Yes, it is certainly possible to win battles with them but certainly challenging. Sweboz are similarly lightly armored but have much higher morale across the board and have longsword and ap units. The Saba have no longsword units besides their bodyguards who are weaker than the Sweboz ones and the only AP unit they have are Red Sea Axemen who are pretty terrible.

Maybe my army is different from urs in saba campaign. In my saba campaign, i disband all the starting units and recurit arabian archer-spearmen, one unit/per turn. And i can recurit 7-8 archers before i run out the money. Then i can unit the south arabian and ethiopian easily, then, build the mines( the sabean can build the 2-level mines) and ports and recurit hellenic phalanx and then kick the Ptolemy easily.
There is a little tip for sweboz. You can click as many as possible units in the recurit series of the city to run out the mony in the first turn ( i'll destroy the tavern in captal to get bonus gold), for example, u can click 4 units in 1st turn, and then u can receive the 2nd unit in the 2nd turn, even if the money is less than zero, and so on. So, even sweboz, u can recurit 4 archer units if u have.
I think in rtw, the biggest advantage is players vs ai. And in the beginning, u can only access to the factional unit, and use these units to expand.Even for the most difficult factions in eb, if u can get through and expands well in the first 50 turn, and build up the economic, then, u can kick the ai easily. So the factional units in the beginning stage are vital. In the middle stage, u have a lot of money and a lot of foreign units to recurit, u can combine the factional units and the foreign units to form different army to face different enemies. So the importance of the factional units is reduced. Especially the factions with limited faction units recurited areas. Saba and sweboz are both such factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidpacific

The Arabians dont have hardy attribute but have a very_hardy attribute.

---

The archer spearman dont have that trait. It's not on the online units database.

Not even the Arabian light cavalry has that trait.

The only units I've seen with the very hardy trait are the Numidian cavalry and the gaesatae which are the best light cavalry and best heavy infantry in the game

U can check it in EDU
;358
type arabian missile northern arab levy
dictionary arabian_missile_northern_arab_levy ; Giusim Aravim Tsfonim
category infantry
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier eastern_missile_eransahrarshtbara_northernarab, 40, 0, 0.95
mount_effect horse -2, elephant +1, chariot +4
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, hide_long_grass, very_hardy, can_swim
formation 1.6, 2, 3.2, 4, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 5, 0, arrow, 196, 25, missile, archery, piercing, none, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 11, 0, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr light_spear
stat_pri_armour 2, 9, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -2
stat_mental 9, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 842, 211, 149, 50, 842
ownership saba
In fact, most saba units have very_hardy trait.
the online units page also refers.
http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...t&unit=arabian missile northern arab levy&text=Giusim &ownership=any&class=any&category=any

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidpacific

Maybe my army is different from urs in saba campaign. In my saba campaign, i disband all the starting units and recurit arabian archer-spearmen, one unit/per turn. And i can recurit 7-8 archers before i run out the money. Then i can unit the south arabian and ethiopian easily, then, build the mines( the sabean can build the 2-level mines) and ports and recurit hellenic phalanx and then kick the Ptolemy easily.
There is a little tip for sweboz. You can click as many as possible units in the recurit series of the city to run out the mony in the first turn ( i'll destroy the tavern in captal to get bonus gold), for example, u can click 4 units in 1st turn, and then u can receive the 2nd unit in the 2nd turn, even if the money is less than zero, and so on. So, even sweboz, u can recurit 4 archer units if u have.
I think in rtw, the biggest advantage is players vs ai. And in the beginning, u can only access to the factional unit, and use these units to expand.Even for the most difficult factions in eb, if u can get through and expands well in the first 50 turn, and build up the economic, then, u can kick the ai easily. So the factional units in the beginning stage are vital. In the middle stage, u have a lot of money and a lot of foreign units to recurit, u can combine the factional units and the foreign units to form different army to face different enemies. So the importance of the factional units is reduced. Especially the factions with limited faction units recurited areas. Saba and sweboz are both such factions.

---

i que two units of arabian skirmishers. i use my starting army to attack carna straight away. They will always Sally at the end of the turn. I take around 100 casualties. I take the army tamane and do the same. I then go straight to sabata. And repeat. After that, my starting army is pretty much done. I disband and build mines ASAP and build an economy good enough to support a stack of 12-14 units. I take Axum and the ptolemies descend on you with 6 medium sized armies with heavy units. This is on hard. I can't imagine how bad it is on VH.

And your telling me that you build the level 2 mines in both ethipia as well as southern Arabia. I'm sorry but I find that very hard to believe. Even after turtling up in Arabia, it will be more than 100 turns before you can afford to get all three mines up and running and to build an army. that is assuming you dont unite the rest of south arabia. by that time, ptolemies will be so big that you will never get a foothold. As soon as you take Axum, they will hit you with endless stacks. And you said that you built up the mines in Axum and Meroe as well so you would have to defend that and it would need to be a fair sized army. So that's another 100 turns? And you can't even afford to sustain an army as well as to build. Sabaens economy is not that good.

So by 220 at best, you will be ready with a stack and maybe a half to attack Egypt. You will be facing thousands of phalanghites. Ptolemies are very fond of heavily armoured Galatians and kelrouch phalanghites.both of which absorb missiles like sponges. Brown coats are rubbish(not that you can really afford to have many) the only good units I've found are he factional cavalry and the levy spearman and he infantry still take staggering losses without expliotation. And you said you were playing VH/VH and that you could kick them easily

i've played VH/VH saba campaignes for 3 times and need't to cheat on such things. Since u only played with them in the multiplayer battles and never their campaign yesterday, i suggest play longer to say impossible.
I just say saba can build lv 2 mine, but i haven't say i build all lv2 mines before i build up the army. it's difficult to take axum and meroe before 30 turns. By the time of 30 turns, slave have built lv1 mines for most time.and then we build lv1 mine in carna. Then, build lv2 mine in carna and meroe. I finish these things in no more than 80 turns.
And now ,the economy can afford 2 full lower-tier stacks( fm, archers, slingers, javelin, phalanx, light,cavalry).And it's easy to kick ai ptolemy's phalanx stack with such army, even in VH battle.

Lets just admit that its ridiculously easy to destroy AI armies using lots of ranged units. The AI does not prove a sufficient challenge in this regard.

The question is which faction has the worst unit roster, not which has the more difficult starting scenario. The question needs to be asked in a vacuum in order to be answered properly. The best/most useful Sabaic units are the bodyguard infantry (by far) the noble spearmen, arabian archer-spearmen, and levy spearmen. If I had to pick cavalry with them I'd be tempted just to go with Arabian light cavalry since it is so much cheaper than Sabaen Medium Cavalry and the Sabaen Mediums get torn to shreds by most other cavalry of the same price.

The best Sweboz units are the bodyguard infantry (naturally), the Germanic Heavy Infantry and Heavy cavalry, Germanic and Cherusci swords, Dugundiz, and Sloxonez. I generally don't factor Bastarnae in because that tribe is so far removed from Sweboz territory that they are more of a Getic unit. In a straight up fight there is no way that Sabaen Noble infantry and levy spears will stand up to longswordsmen, especially ones with such tight formations and high morale as the Germanic ones. Cavalry I'd give a slight edge to the Germans as well, its only in ranged units that I'd give the edge to the Saba. That means a lot against silly AI which wanders units around in missile range but against a competent opponent who would quickly close, it matters much less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidpacific

i've played VH/VH saba campaignes for 3 times and need't to cheat on such things. Since u only played with them in the multiplayer battles and never their campaign yesterday, i suggest play longer to say impossible.

---

I have played close to 10 sabaen campaigns for your information. 1 of them I actually nearly finished all the victory conditions. I know how hard it is so please don't just assume that I haven't played one and don't know what I'm talking about. The reason I gave up 9 of the campaigns was precisely because it was difficult and I incurred many losses fighting ptolemies on one side and arche Seleucids attacking homna on the other side.

Oh and btw, you said on one hand that the sweboz roster is limited and on the other hand you said you used 7-8 units of archer spearman ONLY to unite Arabia and Axum. That seems rather limited to me. You kinda contradicted yourself there mate

And I wasn't suggesting that you cheated. I was saying I find it hard to believe how easy you made it sound and that I find it hard to believe that you had an easy time after turtling up. I've trued that. It took me forever to build those mines. even then, i can only afford a stack of average troops to attack Axum and Egypt

Your only real argument that Saba is better than sweboz seems to be the fact that they get cheap archers early on which can take cities. That doesn't make the Saba better than sweboz.

What I do know is that, to fight a battle with Saba takes about 2 times as long as a battle using sweboz. Sweboz routs enemies quite quickly and kills them without the need of a whole lot of microing. Saba battles usually involve more casualties as well

Doesn't that alone tell you something pacific?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Lets just admit that its ridiculously easy to destroy AI armies using lots of ranged units. The AI does not prove a sufficient challenge in this regard.

The question is which faction has the worst unit roster, not which has the more difficult starting scenario. The question needs to be asked in a vacuum in order to be answered properly. The best/most useful Sabaic units are the bodyguard infantry (by far) the noble spearmen, arabian archer-spearmen, and levy spearmen. If I had to pick cavalry with them I'd be tempted just to go with Arabian light cavalry since it is so much cheaper than Sabaen Medium Cavalry and the Sabaen Mediums get torn to shreds by most other cavalry of the same price.

The best Sweboz units are the bodyguard infantry (naturally), the Germanic Heavy Infantry and Heavy cavalry, Germanic and Cherusci swords, Dugundiz, and Sloxonez. I generally don't factor Bastarnae in because that tribe is so far removed from Sweboz territory that they are more of a Getic unit. In a straight up fight there is no way that Sabaen Noble infantry and levy spears will stand up to longswordsmen, especially ones with such tight formations and high morale as the Germanic ones. Cavalry I'd give a slight edge to the Germans as well, its only in ranged units that I'd give the edge to the Saba. That means a lot against silly AI which wanders units around in missile range but against a competent opponent who would quickly close, it matters much less.

---

That's what I've been saying. Saba units are obviously good against the south arabian unarmoured rebels but when they reach the ptolemies they get ripped to shreds.

Any player can beat the ai but its just a lot of effort to win those battles against ptolemies. It starts getting annoying after 2-3 such battles. Sweboz may lack archery but its surrounded by forests where archery isn't as effective anyway so it doesn't matter as much

I'm really sorry, i thought u'r the author of this thread because of the same image icon. So i think u haven't played saba campaign.Pls don't mind it. I beg ur pardon.
My native language is not English, so maybe i express somthing not clearly. I don't know which word u mentioned. If u mention 17# 'Especially the factions with limited faction units recurited areas. Saba and sweboz are both such factions', then i mean, compared to victory conditions, these two factions can only recurit faction units in rather limited areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidpacific

I'm really sorry, i thought u'r the author of this thread because of the same image icon. So i think u haven't played saba campaign.Pls don't mind it. I beg ur pardon.
My native language is not English, so maybe i express somthing not clearly. I don't know which word u mentioned. If u mention 17# 'Especially the factions with limited faction units recurited areas. Saba and sweboz are both such factions', then i mean, compared to victory conditions, these two factions can only recurit faction units in rather limited areas.

---

Yes I'm sorry too, this didn't need to have become a big argument.

What im saying is that you said in one post that the sweboz roster was "limited" but in another post you said you used mainly Arabian archer spearman to unite Arabia which contradicted itself.

Also, being a limited roster doesn't make it a weak one and this thread is about which faction has the weakest roster. Look at the late roman roster. They don't have that many factional units either but you can't say that they are weak

Also keep in mind the context. As Saba you fight in the Middle East against two heavily armed superpowers who use heavy infantry and phalanxes extensively who also have extremely good cavalry (ptolemies were recruiting companion cavalry by 250 bc last time I played Saba). You only have cheap but very light foot infantry and some ok cavalry. No doubt you can beat them since they are ai but its not easy.

As sweboz you have the highest morale barbarians. Your armies will not face phalanxes or super cavalry in Europe so you will find your campaign easy. That's why I believe sweboz has abetter roster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Lets just admit that its ridiculously easy to destroy AI armies using lots of ranged units. The AI does not prove a sufficient challenge in this regard.

The question is which faction has the worst unit roster, not which has the more difficult starting scenario. The question needs to be asked in a vacuum in order to be answered properly. The best/most useful Sabaic units are the bodyguard infantry (by far) the noble spearmen, arabian archer-spearmen, and levy spearmen. If I had to pick cavalry with them I'd be tempted just to go with Arabian light cavalry since it is so much cheaper than Sabaen Medium Cavalry and the Sabaen Mediums get torn to shreds by most other cavalry of the same price.

The best Sweboz units are the bodyguard infantry (naturally), the Germanic Heavy Infantry and Heavy cavalry, Germanic and Cherusci swords, Dugundiz, and Sloxonez. I generally don't factor Bastarnae in because that tribe is so far removed from Sweboz territory that they are more of a Getic unit. In a straight up fight there is no way that Sabaen Noble infantry and levy spears will stand up to longswordsmen, especially ones with such tight formations and high morale as the Germanic ones. Cavalry I'd give a slight edge to the Germans as well, its only in ranged units that I'd give the edge to the Saba. That means a lot against silly AI which wanders units around in missile range but against a competent opponent who would quickly close, it matters much less.

---

Yes, i agree. In faction units aspect, compared the swboz, the saba has better missle units, weaker melee units; has better low-tier light units, weaker high-tier heavy units. I haven't played mp. But in my opinion, full stack vs full stack, with no more than 15000 gold( low-tier/light units battle), i think saba could win because of better ranged unit and better stamina; with more than 25000 gold( high-tier/heavy units battle), i think sweboz could win because of better heavy units and better ap ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidpacific

Yes, i agree. In faction units aspect, compared the swboz, the saba has better missle units, weaker melee units; has better low-tier light units, weaker high-tier heavy units. I haven't played mp. But in my opinion, full stack vs full stack, with no more than 15000 gold( low-tier/light units battle), i think saba could win because of better ranged unit and better stamina; with more than 25000 gold( high-tier/heavy units battle), i think sweboz could win because of better heavy units and better ap ability.

---

The point is not a fulllstack v full stack between Saba and sweboz. Obviously, if its a custom battle and between the two, the Saba will use sheer missile power to kill the sweboz but that is not the case. As Saba you will not face unarmoured barbarians but heavilyarmoured phalanxes and cavalry

I never thought the faction with limited roster is weak.
In 8#, i just want to say "Sweboz factional units is lack of good ranged units", and i expressed not clearly.
'I have finished all faction campaigns at least once and i am going to prefer Swboz；
The sweboz units get bonus in forest and can access to high exp units, but the roster is rather limited.Compared to Saba( can recurit Arabian archer-spearmen, a very good low-tier multifunctional ranged unit, which has a longer range than sabean archer), Sweboz factional units is lack of good ranged units(long range/large ammo archer). In my experience, the ranged units are more reliable assault force in battle H/VH campaign( ai receive attack/defencer bonus), for the reason that the ranged unit is not influenced by the defence skill. And in foreign MIC, the saba can recuirit Hellenic native phalanx which is the highest PPR(Performance to Price Ratio) line infantry in my opinion. "

Another question is, the moral advantage of sweboz. The moral of sweboz units is high, but i can't find sweboz has a huge advantage on it. Most time I'm using medium tier(3 level MIC) unit as the backbone.The backbone units of my sweboz campaign in factional roster is germany spearmen, with 11 moral. It's good, but don't have a big advantage over other factional 3-level units. For saba, even the arabian light infantry has a 11 moral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidpacific

Another question is, the moral advantage of sweboz. The moral of sweboz units is high, but i can't find sweboz has a huge advantage on it. Most time I'm using medium tier(3 level MIC) unit as the backbone.The backbone units of my sweboz campaign in factional roster is germany spearmen, with 11 moral. It's good, but don't have a big advantage over other factional 3-level units. For saba, even the arabian light infantry has a 11 moral.

---

Robin might be speaking from his MP experience where the Sweboz have been given higher morale than what they have in SP. (For example, the Dugundiz - the Germanic spearmen - have 16 morale there.)

As for which is better, on its own, I think it might depend on whether we allow for elephants in the Sabaean army, but I don't know if those are factional or not. Without them I'd say Saba is the worst, but with them it's more debateable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Robin might be speaking from his MP experience where the Sweboz have been given higher morale than what they have in SP. (For example, the Dugundiz - the Germanic spearmen - have 16 morale there.)

As for which is better, on its own, I think it might depends on whether we allow for elephants in the Sabaean army, but I don't know if those are factional or not. Without them I'd say Saba is the worst, but with them it's more debateable.

---

Ah I should have specified. Morale is not necessarily higher for the vanilla stats but Sweboz units are often disciplined which makes a huge difference in terms of how easy it is to rout a unit.

Often disciplined? I disagree. From a quick look they all seem to be impetuous except for the elite (i.e. bodyguard, brunjadoi & the heavy cav; speudogordoz and Chatti spearmen being the exceptions). That's only 1 more than Saba's 4. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Robin might be speaking from his MP experience where the Sweboz have been given higher morale than what they have in SP. (For example, the Dugundiz - the Germanic spearmen - have 16 morale there.)

As for which is better, on its own, I think it might depend on whether we allow for elephants in the Sabaean army, but I don't know if those are factional or not. Without them I'd say Saba is the worst, but with them it's more debateable.

---

Thanks for ur reply, i understand it.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Often disciplined? I disagree. From a quick look they all seem to be impetuous except for the elite (i.e. bodyguard, brunjadoi & the heavy cav; speudogordoz and Chatti spearmen being the exceptions). That's only 1 more than Saba's 4. ~;)

---

Actually the Chatti spearmen are only highly trained, they don't have disciplined trait but HT and tight spacing makes up for it so they are great lineholders.

Objective way to compare factional rosters would be by considering how they would fare in campaigns which would have human controlled factions, in such scenario I'd imagine the steppe factions would fare worst due to their lack of decent melee infantry (even Sabae have units that can succesfully assault cities). AI of course is stupid enough to face us in open battle where army composed of 5 HA's + bodyguard can annihilate almost any fullstack.

Sabaens greatest strength should be the ability to endure harsh desert climate, but RTW engine doesn't have a "bonus when fighting in desert" trait so they are somewhat handicapped when compared to other factions that all have some special strengths.

In MTW 1 & 2 units that weren't suited to desert climate received penalties to stamina which was great way to portray the fact that unit of heavy infantry/cavalry can't fight for long under blazing sun, something that's sure to be featured in EB2.

There are penalties for fighting in deserts. There is a line in the edu for each unit showing how they do in desert like conditions.

I'd love to see a campaign where every faction was controlled by human players. Unfortunately I cannot see a scenario where Carthage would fail to be victorious.

Shame on me for not recognizing that, I tested it and results were clear: on non-desert map it took 5 min for Sabaen levy spearmen to beat indian spearmen unit whereas in desert map it only took 3 min, so I guess they shouldn't be viewed as ultimate underdogs.

On the part of Carthage being victorious on every game: quite probable considering that they have resources to fund strong armies and powerful navy, SPQR players would have quite the challenge.

Also, Carthage really has no faction to challenge their holdings early game. Rome would have to worry about Epeiros and to a lesser extent the Gallic factions and Carthage. Carthage really only has to worry about the Lusotann and the Lusos can't challenge their African holdings, only the Iberian ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Also, Carthage really has no faction to challenge their holdings early game. Rome would have to worry about Epeiros and to a lesser extent the Gallic factions and Carthage. Carthage really only has to worry about the Lusotann and the Lusos can't challenge their African holdings, only the Iberian ones.

---

True, but if it were a total human player game then the biggest factor is diplomacy. If people could stop the rome hating then an alliance of rome, lusotan and Ptolemy could give Carthage a real run for their money. Of course then you end up with Carthage being able to seek alliances with Gaul, Epirus and Seleucids. Schemes within Schemes. Man I'd love to play a multiplayer EB game...

Yeah, a MP campaign would be so sweet. We actually managed to get a hotseat going some time back but it died before any action could start. :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinnishedBarbarian

Actually the Chatti spearmen are only highly trained, they don't have disciplined trait but HT and tight spacing makes up for it so they are great lineholders.

---

You sure you're not confusing them with Chauci spearmen? I checked again in the eb units list site and it lists Chatti spears as being disciplined. One of you must be wrong. :p

Yeah I forgot that EB documentation unit list is full of inaccuracies/outdated information.

Concerning hypotethical MP campaign alliances, I can't come up with any good reason for ptolemies allying with romans.

- There's great distance between karthies and ptolies so holding those provinces would be pain in the ptolemaic arse
- karthies aren't real threat to ptolies from early to midgame
- rome can't really provide troops against seleucids (something that would make this alliance sensible to ptolemies)
- rome's coffers can't finance ptolemaic armies so there's no monetary gain

IN a hypothetical EB MP campaign, I think that Rome's best bet would be an alliance with the Sweboz. They would be able to open up a two front war with the Gauls. I also think that due to territorial constraints the gallic tribes would be at each others throats making a rome sweboz team effort most advantageous. In terms of the Eporites, unless they could win the war of supremacy over the hellenic region, it is unlikely they could prove any threat. Carthage would only prove a threat if they could win the battle for sicily or if not that then to win the war for iberia.

Carthage starts off with a strong navy. They can land a sizable army at Rome's doorstep within 10 turns.

I guess it would be up to the romans to quickly secure the southern italian peninsula and be prepared to defeat the landing force. Carthage really does has a strong starting position. Perhaps one of the strongest in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FinnishedBarbarian

Shame on me for not recognizing that, I tested it and results were clear: on non-desert map it took 5 min for Sabaen levy spearmen to beat indian spearmen unit whereas in desert map it only took 3 min, so I guess they shouldn't be viewed as ultimate underdogs.

On the part of Carthage being victorious on every game: quite probable considering that they have resources to fund strong armies and powerful navy, SPQR players would have quite the challenge.

---

Sabean levy spearmen are some of the best units they have in my experience. they are very hard to crack

SPQR has cheaper units tho, carthage armies cost a lot more to train and maintain. Rome could have 2 low quality stacks in place of the one carthage one. But a low quality roman stack still means very good infantry

Well Saba units may not be the best if we are speaking about holding the line against the Medium and Elite Phalanx but their units are really fast and have a lot of stamina and regarding the ranged units they have the upper hand against the Ptolemaioi. Against the Ptolemaic armies I usually tend to lure their heavy cavalry in a place where I can surround them with Red Sea Infantry, they have AP weapons and their units have a lot soldiers, it is easy to kill the heavy cavalry after I have tired it with my Arabian Light Cavalry.

Then I quickly move my skirmishers and the Red Sea infantry behind the enemy Phalanx. First I hit the back of the phalanx with Javelins and then I charge with the Red Sea Infantry.
My line in the center can hold with the Sabean Levies and the Acher/Spearmen for a long time even if they take a lot of casualties until I have my flanks secure.

The Ptolemaic armies aren't really a problem for me. They are slow, their cavalry tires quickly and they get penalties fighting in the desert. Usually I have more casualties fighting against the Seleucids: their eastern regional ranged troops like the Persian Archers are the real nightmare for the Sabean Light infantry.

I agree Saba are the weakest on paper, but in truth they can hold their own in a campaign. What is difficult is expanding out of the deserts. Every faction has its own strengths, you need to play to them to win, i.e. forest fighting for Sweboz and Lusos, grab the hills with the steppe factions, etc. Saba are fast, have good stamina and can usually outclass their immediate rivals at range. In general they can also get a good economy for an out of the way faction, plus they dont have to fight on a massive front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikepettyrtw

However, Sweboz army's with lots of FM, or post Reform (reform is VERY late game IMO), with lots of EXP could do the defeat an identical Pontic army with similar post battle stats. Indeed those clubbmen are monster anti-roman battering rams. But that's at enormous cost: if you loose a major battle with all those FM in it, one risks their entire campaign, no matter how many chevrons you get. But that amongst other things, makes the Sweboz campaign exilerating fun.
In conclusion, I did not say their army's fighting ability was weak, but rather their roster was weakest considering context (Saba, Arverni, Aedui)

---

Eh, Sweboz have "fear" infantry and better heavy cavalry than Saba. Indeed, the two factions are a bit similar in that they both rely a lot on mobile infantry, usually lightly armoured, and put a lot of emphasis on hit and run tactics. In short, asymmetrical warfare. If you approach them like a Hellenistic faction, you'll likely lose against Romans, Parthians, Seleukids etc. (at least against a reasonably skilled human player in MP).
The difference of course is that one of the two factions is strong in deserts and in ranged combat, while the other is better in forests and close combat. Both factions are "pro" factions IMO, both in terms of strategy and tactics (meaning they're difficult to play, especially when facing the more advanced Mediterranean factions or the steppe armies).
And spamming FMs is very lame IMO, regardless of the faction. For Suebi, there are cheaper alternatives that are almost as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Eh, Sweboz have "fear" infantry and better heavy cavalry than Saba. Indeed, the two factions are a bit similar in that they both rely a lot on mobile infantry, usually lightly armoured, and put a lot of emphasis on hit and run tactics. In short, asymmetrical warfare. If you approach them like a Hellenistic faction, you'll likely lose against Romans, Parthians, Seleukids etc. (at least against a reasonably skilled human player in MP).
The difference of course is that one of the two factions is strong in deserts and in ranged combat, while the other is better in forests and close combat. Both factions are "pro" factions IMO, both in terms of strategy and tactics (meaning they're difficult to play, especially when facing the more advanced Mediterranean factions or the steppe armies).
And spamming FMs is very lame IMO, regardless of the faction. For Suebi, there are cheaper alternatives that are almost as good.

---

Sweboz isn't as difficult to play as Saba though.

It's impossible to define what exactly the worst is so this thread is pretty much redundant imo.

I mean if you mean worst as in the most limited roster, then Saba for sure. Look at their choice of units in mp. It is the smallest in the game.

If you mean, the faction with the heavier units then I would say saba is the worst again. Although the sweboz have little or no armour, their defence and attack values compared to Saba are much higher.

If you mean how long it takes to win a battle, that's saba again for me. I know you can win battles with Saba but you need to isolate their units and rout them separately. With sweboz, you actually have units that can hold a line. With Saba you have to avoid line battles.

If you mean which faction is better in multi player then, as mentioned before by someone, Saba will have a hard time against a moderately competent player using a heavier faction.

The only scenario I can think of where Saba would win Is if the Saba and sweboz came face to face, then the Saba could use their missile troops to good effect on the sweboz units. However, this is unlikely to happen in a campaign. Most of the time, in Saba campaigns, you will be facing the heavy Greek eastern factions with phalanxes which absorb missiles. Even if you get past them, you will face cataphract nations like hayasdan or Parthia. With sweboz, you will be fighting infantry and melee based factions and the sweboz units win most of the time even in Europe where most factions have good infantry.

Casse.... it is inaccurate. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Casse.... it is inaccurate. :p

---

Why is it?

Well the question is which is the worst unit roster in the game. Based on the question I can disregard real life and real history because it's a game, so pointing to battles where armies of unarmoured skirmishers dominated vastly superior armies of heavy infantry and cataphracts is pointless as it doesn't translate to the game. Nor do real life tactics.

So, the worst unit roster would be the one that doesn't evolve as others do, or the one worst suited to surviving against their neighbours. This is clearly the Saba. No matter which way you expand (unless you do something silly like migrate to Britain) you are going to come up against the Ptolemies and/or Seleukids. Saba light skirmishers and medium (at best) infantry and cavalry are simply, unarguably no match for what the yellow and silver death have, which is armoured supermen with pikes as long as telephone poles. The only way to defeat these armies is to exploit the dumb AI, therefore the Saba has the worst roster.

Almost every other faction has a way of defeating the enemy without exploiting the AI, no matter how late the game gets. Even the Sweboz at least have some decent "line infantry" which can pin the enemy down while you focus your attention elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I_damian

Well the question is which is the worst unit roster in the game. Based on the question I can disregard real life and real history because it's a game, so pointing to battles where armies of unarmoured skirmishers dominated vastly superior armies of heavy infantry and cataphracts is pointless as it doesn't translate to the game. Nor do real life tactics.

So, the worst unit roster would be the one that doesn't evolve as others do, or the one worst suited to surviving against their neighbours. This is clearly the Saba. No matter which way you expand (unless you do something silly like migrate to Britain) you are going to come up against the Ptolemies and/or Seleukids. Saba light skirmishers and medium (at best) infantry and cavalry are simply, unarguably no match for what the yellow and silver death have, which is armoured supermen with pikes as long as telephone poles. The only way to defeat these armies is to exploit the dumb AI, therefore the Saba has the worst roster.

Almost every other faction has a way of defeating the enemy without exploiting the AI, no matter how late the game gets. Even the Sweboz at least have some decent "line infantry" which can pin the enemy down while you focus your attention elsewhere.

---

could not have said that better myself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulises

Why is it?

---

1. Belgae Minhalt: The Belgae did not arrive in Britain until c.150BC at the earliest and even then probably not in great numbers. Being able to recruit them in 272BC is inacurrate.

2. As far as I am aware there is no evidence for tow handed swords being produced or used by the Britons.

3. The helmet worn by the Casse Caladwr was only used on the continent it, and many of the other helmets the Casse warriors are depicted as wearing were not present in Britain. The only two which were are the helmet worn by the Casse strat map general and possibly the helmets worn by the Casse charioteers.

4. Archery had been abandoned in Britain by this period.

5. It is unlikely that the tribes depicted as inhabiting Britain in EB had fully formed. Ceramic evidence from the Middle Iron age (c.400-150BC) shows that certain regions were producing distinctive pottery types the distribution of which is closely mirrored by later tribal boundaries, but we have no idea for aceramic groups like the Brigantes and Caledonii.

6. Evidence for the Irish Iron Age is so slight that one Irish archaeologist, Barry Raftery, described the Iron Age Irish as the invisible people, there is not enough evidence to construct the Goidelic unit roster.

7. The names used in EB for Casse units are a mix of modern Welsh and Irish, they would likely mean nothing in Iron Age British.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I_damian

So, the worst unit roster would be the one that doesn't evolve as others do, or the one worst suited to surviving against their neighbours. This is clearly the Saba. No matter which way you expand (unless you do something silly like migrate to Britain) you are going to come up against the Ptolemies and/or Seleukids. Saba light skirmishers and medium (at best) infantry and cavalry are simply, unarguably no match for what the yellow and silver death have, which is armoured supermen with pikes as long as telephone poles. The only way to defeat these armies is to exploit the dumb AI, therefore the Saba has the worst roster.

---

Saba has really powerful auxiliaries though, Like African and Indian elephants, Guild Warriors, Galatikoi Kleruchoi, Panda Phalanx, and so on. I think those among the regional troops that are recruitable inside the starting territory or the expansion regions should be considered as well (because other factions draw a lot of strength and diversity from auxiliaries like these as well. Many factions only have auxiliary HAs, while the Sauromatae rely on settled tribes for infantry, and the Saka get almost all of their infantry from their regional barracks, even several units that are faction specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

4. Archery had been abandoned in Britain by this period.

---

This may be a little beside the topic, but why did they abandon archery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

This may be a little beside the topic, but why did they abandon archery?

---

I was wondering the same thing. I assumed it might have something to do with the damp environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Saba has really powerful auxiliaries though, Like African and Indian elephants, Guild Warriors, Galatikoi Kleruchoi, Panda Phalanx, and so on. I think those among the regional troops that are recruitable inside the starting territory or the expansion regions should be considered as well (because other factions draw a lot of strength and diversity from auxiliaries like these as well. Many factions only have auxiliary HAs, while the Sauromatae rely on settled tribes for infantry, and the Saka get almost all of their infantry from their regional barracks, even several units that are faction specific.

---

i dont think this should count non-factional troops, because most factions have similar choices when they reach an area minus one or two units (such as elephants or those strong elites)

Speaking of Which, which faction do you think has the BEST roster??

I would say Carthage and Arche Seleukeia, but I am yet undecided about which one is better. If we say only factional troops then I would say Carthage is better (It means Arche cannot get those horse archers, hoplites, persian archers) because Carthage is the Jack of all trades. However, their factional units are not the very top of the range either. Their sacred band cavalry is 1 atk and def lower than companion cav, their pikemen have reduced stats compared to silver shields and their lib phonecian cavalry are weaker versions of hellenic heavy cav.

In fact, each of their units seems to have an equivalent in another faction that has 1 atk and 1 def more.

Arche has stronger units point for point but Is just slightly less flexible than the Carthage Roster. they do have hypaspistai which carthage has an answer to in the form of elite liby-phoenician infantry (the green shields) and Pelt maks which the Carthage also has an answer to in the form of Iberian Assault Infantry

If we do count regionals than I would actually say Arche is better. I know carthage has the best regionals (spanish, numidian, gallic) however they are very expensive and I would usually use Persian archer spearmen and Horse archers in very large numbers when I play an Arche campaign, but I would not use huge numbers of Spanish or Gallic regionals (I would use a few in each army) as carthage. I have around 50 units of Persian archers/Archer spearmen and 20 units of HAs scattered around my empire in my current Arche campaign. In my last Carthage campaign I remember having 3 units of Loricati Scutari and 3 of Iberi Scutari. Gallic units I never ever got to use.

Also there is the question of Reformed units. The Arche get Catas and TABs. The Carthage equivalent is the Iberian version of the Cats but they are not great. As for TABs, carthage has the sacred band which has no javelins, and lower attk and def (Although I think the sacred band has a denser formation?). Carthage cannot get their thorakitai equivalent until their reforms which is slightly annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I was wondering the same thing. I assumed it might have something to do with the damp environment.

---

I doubt it can be known for sure. We don't have written sources from the period, so we can only guess at their reasoning.

We also can't be sure that archery was abandoned, only that it disappears from the archaeological record. Maybe metal became so scarce that the Britons obsessively hoarded their arrow-heads. Actually, that's pretty unlikely given how much precious stuff does turn up. But I'd say it is something like that: the skill was lost (or became marginal) because other options were cheaper/more effective.

I doubt it was the climate, though. Dampness did not prevent the earlier Britons from using bows, and the very wet country of Wales would later produce some of England's finest archers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I was wondering the same thing. I assumed it might have something to do with the damp environment.

---

This would only have affected composite bows and these were unknown in temperate Europe until the Roman expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Dampness did not prevent the earlier Britons from using bows, and the very wet country of Wales would later produce some of England's finest archers.

---

Exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

We also can't be sure that archery was abandoned, only that it disappears from the archaeological record. Maybe metal became so scarce that the Britons obsessively hoarded their arrow-heads. Actually, that's pretty unlikely given how much precious stuff does turn up.

---

At the risk of being rude I think we can be pretty sure it was abandoned until the Late Iron Age when arrowheads re-appear. Although it is possible that non-metalled projectiles were produced, as attested to in the Early Medieval Irish literary sources and from contemporary finds like the Hjortspring boat in Denmark with its antler spears, arrows from bows at this time were quite weak projectiles anyway so a non-metalled version would have even less effective. Archery can also be taught at later stages of life, indeed it is easier to learn how to use a bow than it is a sling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

This may be a little beside the topic, but why did they abandon archery?

---

The short answer is we are not quite sure. Gordon Childe, the one of the greatest archaeologists of the 20th century (see Diffusionist Theory and excavations at Skara Brae for examples) argued that the bow and the sling were mutually exclusive. The evidence from Middle Iron Age Britain, where sling stones have been found in abundance and the multivallation of hillforts is agreed to be a response to sling warfare, would seem to confirm this theory. However as anyone who has played as one of the Greek factions in EB knows, the sling and bow were not mutually exclusive. The same is true of the Assyrian Empire, Jewish kingdoms and several other states. The bow and sling are effective in different ways; the sling is more powerful but the bow can be used in massed formations, the sling cannot.

Finney (2006) has argued that the bow was abandoned in Britain due to social reasons. Around the same time the number of swords in use appears to have declined greatly. In other cultures (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, Media, Jewish kingdoms) the sword, bow and javellin are symbols of royal power. Finney and another author, Hill (1995), argue that Middle Iron Age Britain was a more egalitarian society. Thus symbols of power like the bow and the sword were abandoned in favour of more communal weapons like the spear and sling, both of which are common in this time period.

It may also be that British Iron Age bows did not have the necessary power to puncture British shields of this period. The Britons do not appear to have been wearing much armour (ring mail is only found in Yorkshire where it was introduced by a tribe closely related to the, if not the actual, Gallic Parisi, whilst the spear points of British warriors are the wrong shape to puncture armour) but long ovoid and "cattle hide" shaped shields did come into use. Sling stones are very hard to spot in flight, in fact the Romans used to go one step further and paint them, whilst arrows are. Sling stones are also more powerful and can even puncture a man's skull. Thus British warriors would have stood a greater chance of seeing an incoming arrow and blocking it than they would a sling stone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

At the risk of being rude I think we can be pretty sure it was abandoned until the Late Iron Age when arrowheads re-appear.

---

Oh, I didn't mean to say you were wrong. My explanation is very implausible: I made it up to illustrate the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

I find the Lusotanna to be pretty weak. There are no real units that i come to fear in their roster, plus very little cav i believe. Some quick cav and pretty much any medium infantry are enough to stone em cold in a fight

concerning variety I'd actually say Sauromatae have the worsed roster, still even the AI is able to defeat Sweboz or Saba armies in heroic victories with them(no settlement/forest).
On same account Bactria comes to mind as "best roster"-faction. Their Horse archers may be mediocre and they lack elite phalanxes but they pretty much have the widest selection of troops, similar to the getai, just with more armor. They field the strongest cataphract, have the best access to indian troops(best eles, Good archers, shock troops, silly cavalry), Are one of few factions that have elite hoplites, have Thorakitai, a full Hellenistic roster(they lack the upper crust infantry tho)...

I'd also say certain regional troops can be counted towards this: Guild warriors for bactria, scythian riders not.

Brennus, I remember reading about inaccurate depictions of viking invaders in horned helmets and how the misunderstanding was based on Frankish invaders. The Casse captain's helmet is horned and very extravagant. I wonder if it is accurate. I was also wondering about the General's helmet with the two horns shaped as birds' heads, which I think is the same as the one on the strat map and you say was found in Britain. Is it the say design? Is it accurate?

The misunderstanding with Vikings is based on the fact that in several of the burials excavated in the 19th century, the interred individual had had drinking horns places next to his head (of course only the metal attachments survived). This led to the belief that the Vikings wore helmets with horns.

The Casse captain's helmet is accurate but in reality unfeasible. He wears the famous Battersea Helmet, a bronze helmet with fine insular decoration and two large bronze horns attached to it which was found in the River Thames. This helmet did exist but it was too fragile to have been much use in battle, also it was too small to have fitted most people. The Casse generals wear an exaggerated version of this, I would imagine the horns on the general's helmets are based on those found on the Torrs Pony-cap in Scotland.

Makedonia:
- No access to Cataphracts
- No access to Thorokitai or similarly flexible heavy infantry, reliant on local or mercenary troops to fulfill this role.
- Totally reliant on local troops for effective archery, whether on foot or on horseback, such troops are also not available in particular numbers
- Standard infantry units expensive and inflexible
- Heavy cavalry relatively expensive
- Elite infantry very expensive and lacking numbers

Not exactly the traditional idea of a poor roster I know, I am thinking in terms of expectation versus reality, so allow me to compare with some of the suggested worst rosters.

Saba can be utterly devastating when used in a skirmishing fashion, to the point where only steppe cultures really pose a significant prima facie threat. They also have access to certain flexible local units along Hellenic lines to give them a barrier to hide their archery behind. Admittedly, they are a very hard faction to play, they are probably the second worst roster, but it's fairly obvious that they have a different military culture to begin with.

Sweboz have numbers and fanaticism on their side, with any number of highly flexible infantry units, morale shock units, and some cavalry that can do the job of hammer-anvil decently enough. They have the same archery deficit as Makedonia (as far as I'm aware), but their infantry makes such a concern irrelevent except against horse archery (much like the Romani).

Carthage isn't particularly meant to rely on their native roster, they are a merchant city-state not a military culture, one has to judge them on the mercenary units immediately available to them as well as their own troops. Iberian troops, Greek troops (including Greek medium pikes), Italian troops, and slightly later, Gallic and Celtiberians, their roster has extreme flexibility in that context. Their native roster is limited but not exactly useless either. Their standard spearmen are quite good for their role, and their heavy cavalry is excellent. The difference between them and Makedonia in this respect is that Carthage's mercenaries fit with their native roster very well, not to mention the variety they get immediately is superior to that of Makedonia, which can only really get Thracians, Greeks (which they can recruit anyway), and the Illyrians. These cultures have useful troops, but not in great variety. Apart from Thracian Peltasts and Illyrian cavalry, the rest of it is simply filler, whereas Carthage can call on whole armies of Iberian troops if it needs to with a full combined-arms approach, and can pretty much do the same in Italy as well.

The Arche Seleukia has access to the full Hellenistic roster in practically the entirety of its western areas, plus access to god knows how many regional troops. Its main disadvantage is the sheer number of factions it borders with, with wildly varying rosters of their own, not its own roster.

As for the "What if all the factions were controlled by human players?" standard, it's an interesting idea. I don't buy that the Romans would be screwed and that Carthage would dominate. The Romans probably wouldn't have to face Epirus as that player would have Makedonia, the Koinon and later the Getai to worry about, whereas fighting in Italy while holding one city to the Romani's five is not a good strategic situation to be in. Rome could probably deal with Taras before the Carthaginians were in a position to attack decisively. Ideally, the Epirus player would trade Taras for an alliance with Rome, tribute, and/or a borders agreement over Illyria.

The Romani probably wouldn't have to deal with the Aedui immediately either, as they have to worry about the Arveni and the Sweboz, particularly the latter as even if the Aedui and Arverni decide to play nice, the race for the Rhine will take up much of their attention. Only way I see the Aedui being a threat is if they are pushed out by the Arverni early on or decide themselves to conquer the rest of the Po Valley and Liguria. Basically, Rome only really needs to worry about Carthage.

Carthage on the other hand might have an economic issue to deal with in terms of using mercenaries to fight Rome. They're not going to be getting those AI bonuses if it's human v human, so the Carthaginian player is going to have to decide whether he wants absolute naval dominance or not. Whether or not Carthage wins will be a race between Rome's upgrading of its barracks to produce some of their better troops and Carthage's organisation of an amphibious assault with troops of enough quality to win in Italy. If Rome manages to get its Extraordinarii troops before Carthage can take Rome, it's game over for Carthage in Italy and Sicily. Ideally, the Carthaginian player should abandon Sicily to the Roman player (or come to some other arrangement), maintain its naval might and conquer the mineral riches of Iberia, where highly competent troops can be recruited and plentiful wealth will be available. This would force Rome to either ignore Carthage, bargain with him/her, or attack the Gallic factions to get to Iberia.

Why are there 2 threads on this topic? One has three pages the other has two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kdrakak

Why are there 2 threads on this topic? One has three pages the other has two?

---

one is for BEST roster and one is for WORST

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shmoof

I find the Lusotanna to be pretty weak. There are no real units that i come to fear in their roster, plus very little cav i believe. Some quick cav and pretty much any medium infantry are enough to stone em cold in a fight

---

Yo Shmoof, check out the scortamareva, medium spear-men who also throw javelins before charging. Sorta like Roman triarii with missile capability.

True, affordable Lusotanni cavalry is just light skirmishers, but they're good enough for running down routers and mounted units are too expensive anyway, at least in the beginning. Just stick with the Family Members (FM's), they don't cost a dime.

And thanks for reminding me: When I get done with my current Pahlava campaign, I'll try another with Lusotanni on VH/H. A previous one on VH/M had a rare bug that turned out to be terminal, so it'll be fun to get in some payback against Rome and Carthage. No mercy this time, guys!

Cheers and welcome to the EB experience Shmoof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jive

Yo Shmoof, check out the scortamareva, medium spear-men who also throw javelins before charging. Sorta like Roman triarii with missile capability.

True, affordable Lusotanni cavalry is just light skirmishers, but they're good enough for running down routers and mounted units are too expensive anyway, at least in the beginning. Just stick with the Family Members (FM's), they don't cost a dime.

And thanks for reminding me: When I get done with my current Pahlava campaign, I'll try another with Lusotanni on VH/H. A previous one on VH/M had a rare bug that turned out to be terminal, so it'll be fun to get in some payback against Rome and Carthage. No mercy this time, guys!

Cheers and welcome to the EB experience Shmoof.

---

Thanks friend :)

And I have only faced the Lusotanni on easy (First campaign, wanted to start off easy), but even considering that i was unimpressed. The medium spearman were tough nuts to crack, but they were just a nuisance in the end. Maybe i'll do some custom battles with their units versus Romans on medium or hard to get a better opinion, but as it stands they really unimpressed me.