Some constructive suggestions on units and other ;)

First of all im being contsantly amazed by the quality and the quantity of the work that your team is pulling off ~:eek: ~:eek:

I have some suggestions on the units implementation and structure:

First of all i have some suggestions on the greek side of the map:
1. The name "Greek Cities" while there were two leagues and have been melted in one by CA the main objection that i have is the separation of the Makedonians from the greek mainstay there is no need for me to exxaragate into analysis and evidence as every sane person knows that MAkedonia was the homelad of the migrating to the south greeks... So i would suggest the alteration of the name to the "Greek League".

2. The whole Phalanx implementation is completely OUT of this world: Apart from the miserable fact that every backwaters nation in the game uses the disciplened formation its also not correctly implemented for both the classical and the Sarissa formations:
As the classical formation should have used the spear attribute with 2 meters spears OVERHAND!!!
The intermediate Phillips Sarissa phalanx should use the short_pike attribute and underhand with large shields (ASPIS NOT hoplon=weapon!!)
The Successors PIKE sarissa phalanx should use the 6 meters pikes with BOTH hands underhand with small shields hanging from their arm.
The phlanax SHOULD have the option of CHARGE!!! It was used offencevly the pikemen were running (on straight direction) and CHARGING to batter the opposition so their formation will have a purpose and be actually DANGEROUS!!

3. The great cavalary armour issue I dont know if its going to be corrected in the patch but anyway i have this suggestion:
The horses now are bound to the riders and the riders armour is MAGICALLY transferred to the horse making it a magical cataphract :furious3:
Just make some tests with the pike phalanx against Light lancers if you increase the RIDERS armour the horses WONT die on the pikes, now as i know the pike hits the horse and RARELY the rider so how the horses will survive the frontal charge? THEY WONT and they shouldnt. Also Vercigentorix at the twcenter has made an animation for the horses NOT jumping over the pikes wich is correct!! So i would suggest to correct the separation of horses armour or if thats not possible the COMPLETE separation from the riders As the elephants.

Thats my 3 cents i hope that this mod comes out soon and surpasses the original...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

1. The name "Greek Cities" while there were two leagues and have been melted in one by CA the main objection that i have is the separation of the Makedonians from the greek mainstay there is no need for me to exxaragate into analysis and evidence as every sane person knows that MAkedonia was the homelad of the migrating to the south greeks... So i would suggest the alteration of the name to the "Greek League".

---

No, I disagree. Do you know how the greek lost to the Romans? It was this separation from Macedonia and Epirus(which should be separate). The Greek Leagues had many wars with Macedonia so they got allied with the Romans. Did you really think those crappy Romans could muscle us down militarily? Well After Macedonia was almost destroyed and the greeks weakened the Romans smuthered the greeks slowly. Then they finished off Macedonia.

Quote:

---

2. The whole Phalanx implementation is completely OUT of this world: Apart from the miserable fact that every backwaters nation in the game uses the disciplened formation its also not correctly implemented for both the classical and the Sarissa formations:

---

Not every nation uses it. I agree with you Germans shouldn't have it. Get R:TR 5.0 to have that fixed. The rest do deserve, in fact i think egypt should have the long pikes. Again R:TR.

Quote:

---

As the classical formation should have used the spear attribute with 2 meters spears OVERHAND!!!
The intermediate Phillips Sarissa phalanx should use the short_pike attribute and underhand with large shields (ASPIS NOT hoplon=weapon!!)

---

The hypaspists have that short_pike you want. Most of them though had the long kind, let's face it.

Quote:

---

The Successors PIKE sarissa phalanx should use the 6 meters pikes with BOTH hands underhand with small shields hanging from their arm.
The phlanax SHOULD have the option of CHARGE!!! It was used offencevly the pikemen were running (on straight direction) and CHARGING to batter the opposition so their formation will have a purpose and be actually DANGEROUS!!

---

Why not Alexander's as well? He had it. As for the two hand thing and the shield I agree with you, the game really failed in that respect. Hopefully they can fix it in the expansion.

As for the horse thing i don't know what could fix that. I certainly agree with you.

hellenes, most of the stuff you said are the type of things that, from what I gather, can't be changed because their hardcoded or whatnot, even if the EB team wanted to implement them. But I personally think their a bit much (#3 anyways). If you get into really specific details such as these, you're going to have to get into even more detail about every other aspect of the game that isn't completely lifelike. For example, I'm sure every soldier didn't go into battle and come back out looking the exact same, or with all his gear still on, or his tunic still unripped. That' uh, probably a stupid example, but hopefully the point gets across that there's undoubtedly an endless number of things to change to make the game like real life. But in the end, it is a game, and some things have to be accepted as is.

Well for the Hypaspists you are right i dont know for the rest of the greeks some still retained the classic style of phalanx which CAN be done its just needs a new animation and model...
As for the greek cities its the fact that as "greek" the other cities were the makedonians were the SAME but thats just a small (but important remember the whole "Spanish" issue) alteration...
I dont want to get RTR as this mod doesnt appeal to me and as for the list of the factions that get phalanx:
Armenians: Hmm this is kind of a joke right CA?
Germans: If Ceasar said that they had AK-47s should the CA put them in?
Nubians: Well what can i say?
As for the horses in the current state all the heavy cavalary is cataphract when facing phalanx HEAD ON!!!

Hellenes

Well, I don't see any real problem with Phalanx.

Quote:

---

Armenians: Hmm this is kind of a joke right CA?

---

Well, Armenia was a part (or a kind of protectorate) of the Seleucid Kingdom for about 30 years, so well, why wouldn't they use a kind of Phalanx formation ? Since they probably fought in the Seleucid army, they might aswell have learnt how to use such a formation.

Quote:

---

Germans: If Ceasar said that they had AK-47s should the CA put them in?

---

Errrr.. Apart from the fact that Ceasar's opinion is probably no more biased than your, he didn't say "German are fighting as a greek phalanx", he said they fought in packed formation with long spears while using their shield as an overall protection, kinda as what will be known later as a shieldwall. Since there's no shieldwall formation, I guess phalanx will be alright, depending of EB team's decision.

Quote:

---

Nubians: Well what can i say?

---

Well, I can say that Nubians were for a long time the best warriors in Egyptia army (though probably not anymore in 270BC ~;) ), and that they were more disciplined than many other people.
I'm not saying that they used a phalanx formation, but well, you seem to be thinking that since they lived in a desert, they were savages, which is not true. They might aswell have used a kind of shieldwall formation, or something like that (anyway, I don't think Nubians can use the phalanx ability with RTR 5.0).
You don't really have any argument. Those factions/units probably never used phalanx, but saying "Armenians: Hmm this is kind of a joke right CA?" doesn't sound like a good way to prove it.

About the Hoplite 'overhand spear' thing, I'm pretty sure that EB team is already thinking about it, since we all know it can be done. It's probably the same thing for the phalangites holding their pikes with 2 hands rather than one (though I'm not sure it will be as easy as the overhand spear).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Well, I don't see any real problem with Phalanx.



Well, Armenia was a part (or a kind of protectorate) of the Seleucid Kingdom for about 30 years, so well, why wouldn't they use a kind of Phalanx formation ? Since they probably fought in the Seleucid army, they might aswell have learnt how to use such a formation.



Errrr.. Apart from the fact that Ceasar's opinion is probably no more biased than your, he didn't say "German are fighting as a greek phalanx", he said they fought in packed formation with long spears while using their shield as an overall protection, kinda as what will be known later as a shieldwall. Since there's no shieldwall formation, I guess phalanx will be alright, depending of EB team's decision.



Well, I can say that Nubians were for a long time the best warriors in Egyptia army (though probably not anymore in 270BC ~;) ), and that they were more disciplined than many other people.
I'm not saying that they used a phalanx formation, but well, you seem to be thinking that since they lived in a desert, they were savages, which is not true. They might aswell have used a kind of shieldwall formation, or something like that (anyway, I don't think Nubians can use the phalanx ability with RTR 5.0).
You don't really have any argument. Those factions/units probably never used phalanx, but saying "Armenians: Hmm this is kind of a joke right CA?" doesn't sound like a good way to prove it.

About the Hoplite 'overhand spear' thing, I'm pretty sure that EB team is already thinking about it, since we all know it can be done. It's probably the same thing for the phalangites holding their pikes with 2 hands rather than one (though I'm not sure it will be as easy as the overhand spear).

---

Are there ANY quotes pictures or depictions of armenian INFANTRY fighting in HOPLITIC fashion?
A solution is possible: The creation of a special formation or animation that would depict spearmen apart from the greek phalanx...

Hellenes

Hellenes: you are mistaken on the hoplon thing. Being a historian, I find it interesting that so many people are bitterly divided on this.

To the wargamers, it's a shield. They don't know Greek though, so we can really sort of brush over their opinion.

To a modern Greek and to some non-professional classicists it means 'weapon or weapons'.

In ancient Greek, a Hoplon is a shield. A Hoplite is a hoplon bearer. If he were simply a weapon bearer, why would we have Strateotes, Peltastes, Thureophoros, etc. However, the plural of Hoplon does indeed mean, not only more than one hoplon, but a set of hoplite gear.

The phalanx underwent a radical change in the mid 4th century. The spear was lengthened and used underhand, and the shield was changed to the lighter thureos. The Macedonians used their Sarissae with two hands.

A lot of people, by 270 B.C. had copied the Phalanx formation. It was a damn good formation. Armenia was a hellenized kingdom (not populated by Greeks, but taking a lot of Greek developments and using them).

Nubians might feature in the EB, but were not important at all past the Saite dynasty, far before the start of the game.

Oplopoios= Weaponsmith
Oplizo= Arm (Verb)
Oplizmos= Arms
Oplitis= Man At Arms-Hoplites

The word means actually that a weapon and NO greek modern or ancient historian has ever reffered to the shield as "Hoplon"...
ASPIS= Shield
Like Argyraspides= Sliver Shields
Hypaspistes= Shielp Bearers

The Armenians as far as i know were very defensive on retaining their culture and were far from bein hellenized and had a cultural pride but if they used that formation they must have been equipped in a greek sarissa phalanx style...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

As for the greek cities its the fact that as "greek" the other cities were the makedonians were the SAME

---

The Greek_Cities considered the macedonians non-greek(even though they were). The greek_cities also had several wars with Macedon. The greeks got allied with the Romans and the destroyed most of the Macedonian army in the south. Then Rome was free to finally destroy Macedon and smuther the greek cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

The Greek_Cities considered the macedonians non-greek(even though they were). The greek_cities also had several wars with Macedon. The greeks got allied with the Romans and the destroyed most of the Macedonian army in the south. Then Rome was free to finally destroy Macedon and smuther the greek cities.

---

Some politically challenged half greeks like Demosthenes (whos mother was Scythian) not all the people were in the same bag.
The Makedonians participated in the Olympic Games thats enough for me to be considered greek...
Well the Spartans allied with Persia to defeat Athens in the Peloponnesean War but thats doesnt mean that the Atheneans didnt consider Spartans as non greeks...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

The word means actually that a weapon and NO greek modern or ancient historian has ever reffered to the shield as "Hoplon"...

---

Except the Liddell-Scott dictionary... which is the best and most acreditted source on ancient Greek...

Words come to mean other things over time.

Aspis is a general term meaning shield. A shield is an aspis.

Think about it, why do we call Peltasts, Thureophoroi, etc by the name of their shields. That was Greek naming convention. Strateot(eta)s was the term for a soldier, or 'man at arms'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

Except the Liddell-Scott dictionary... which is the best and most acreditted source on ancient Greek...

Words come to mean other things over time.

Aspis is a general term meaning shield. A shield is an aspis.

Think about it, why do we call Peltasts, Thureophoroi, etc by the name of their shields. That was Greek naming convention. Strateot(eta)s was the term for a soldier, or 'man at arms'.

---

Peltast means the one who is throwing things hence: KATAPELTIS=catapult KATA=on Peltis=throwing THROWING ON
Thyreo PHOROS= PHERO verb meaning to bear something hence: thyreos bearers...
Oplo means weapon oplitis means man at arms
I know that it was accustomed in modern historic references to mean shiled but the greek meaning was GENERALYY to all weapons thats why even the modern basic greek soldiers are called Oplites...

Hellenes

1996, JF Lazenby and David Whitehead Classical Quarterly vol 46, no. 1 27-33.

Note this article. The author argues for your view, but notes that mine is the 'Orthodox' (and more widely accepted) view among scholars of the ancient Greek language.

Yes, I know Phero is a verb that (can) mean carry. I am well versed and literate in ancient Greek. You don't have to step me through things like a child. It's not appreciated.

A pelta is also a type of shield (a crescent shaped shield). 'Peltast' is originally a Thracian word that gets put into Greek.

Thureophoroi, bearers of the Thureos. I undersand this, but note the shield type in the name.

Argyraspidai carried thureoi or illyrian style shields, not the old Greek hoplite shield. Just a bit more proof for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Some politically challenged half greeks like Demosthenes (whos mother was Scythian) not all the people were in the same bag.
The Makedonians participated in the Olympic Games thats enough for me to be considered greek...
Well the Spartans allied with Persia to defeat Athens in the Peloponnesean War but thats doesnt mean that the Atheneans didnt consider Spartans as non greeks...

Hellenes

---

Taht is not my point dude. My point is they were separate states taht had war with eachother while the greek_cities were in alliance with themselves. They were however in attroscious war with Macedon!!! Why don't you get it?!?!?

so ancient greece gets the blood boiling for you guys huh?

Not at all. However, some of the views that we have on Ancient Greece and the ancient Greek language sometimes challenge modern Greek speakers.

Well they were different states just like Athens Sparta and Korinthos but this has nothing to do with their cultural identity which was strongly tied to the rest of greece...
Unamma
Well i didnt want to insult you at any way i just provided it like evidence.
I dont know how the modern scholars have put the meaning of the word OPLO specifically at the shield or why the dont pronounce the dyphongs (like Koine which is pronounced KINI and not K-O-I-N-E) and ill stop this dissagreement wich is useless anyway...

Hellenes

Nah, this kind of disagreement is good. We're both Greek speakers (at least fluent readers, in my case), and we had a scholarly argument. You just took a slightly arrogant tone, which I'm sort of used to from modern Greeks. I got defensive.

Many modern Greek speakers will not admit that ancient Greek was a very different language in some respects (like Old English and English). I get frustrated when that happens, and the argument's been made to me that 'I'm Greek, I know better.' I really take issue with people that do that (not only because it's a fallacy, but because it's really annoying and a cop out). I've spent a very long time studying ancient Greek culture and civilization. Though I deal a lot with the bronze age in Greece (because I'm primarily a near eastern scholar, specializing in mesopotamia), but I have a love affair with the classical world as well (Carthage foremost, but the Greeks and Successors second).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

Nah, this kind of disagreement is good. We're both Greek speakers (at least fluent readers, in my case), and we had a scholarly argument. You just took a slightly arrogant tone, which I'm sort of used to from modern Greeks. I got defensive.

Many modern Greek speakers will not admit that ancient Greek was a very different language in some respects (like Old English and English). I get frustrated when that happens, and the argument's been made to me that 'I'm Greek, I know better.' I really take issue with people that do that (not only because it's a fallacy, but because it's really annoying and a cop out). I've spent a very long time studying ancient Greek culture and civilization. Though I deal a lot with the bronze age in Greece (because I'm primarily a near eastern scholar, specializing in mesopotamia), but I have a love affair with the classical world as well (Carthage foremost, but the Greeks and Successors second).

---

While i dont want to sound arrogant one cant say that two things are different if he doesnt know one of them. I apologise if you speak modern greek but if you dont you cant say that these were like old english or modern english...
Modern greek IS 80% same as the ancient greek just the phoenetics and endings of the words have changed its like STW and MTW the Core is the same all modern language's words have a core wich is ancient we even have a dance (pyrricheos) wich is 2500 years old and we still dancing it.
Any person who knows modern greek and can read will grasp at least 60% of an ancient script you would be surprised if you see one greek museum visitor reading the ancient plates.
Many things have been taken differently by modern non greek scholars in many aspects of the ancient life its not theirs fault but the modern USA's Greek puppet state that is struggling to erase all the greek past and neglect to protect and preserve the heritage and the spirit that the modern hellenes inherited...

Hellenes

I did not mean old english, I meant middle english, which you can probably read most of as well, because you know modern english. I didn't mean to make it sound like the difference between latin and spanish!

And I agree, the weenie socialists who control Greece's future are way too PC about the wonders their ancestors were able to accomplish. Fuck multi-culturalism. ( a sentiment that gets me in trouble in the academia, you can be sure) Graeco-Roman culture is and should be considered a great achievement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

I did not mean old english, I meant middle english, which you can probably read most of as well, because you know modern english. I didn't mean to make it sound like the difference between latin and spanish!

And I agree, the weenie socialists who control Greece's future are way too PC about the wonders their ancestors were able to accomplish. Fuck multi-culturalism. ( a sentiment that gets me in trouble in the academia, you can be sure) Graeco-Roman culture is and should be considered a great achievement.

---

Well theres a roman saying "Divide and Rule" so the multiculturalism (which is really a non culturalism by blending all the cultures in a grey mass) serves the total globalisating purpose...Its very difficult to control a united nation which can rebel against you but if you insert ARTIFICIAL minorities and divide the population you can control the population with an ease...
Rome declined after the supply of Roman Citizenship to anyone and the same for the greeks as the globalization and multicurturalism of the hellenistic kingdoms brought their doom...

Hellenes

Hellenes i'm not saying you're completely wrong on the issue of Macedon being greek. I agree that MAcedon is greek. That wasn't my argument. I am an Epirote after all, I know who is greek more then most people.

But in the game it is not convinient to have 4 more factions for greece. Also if you go the other way and give macedon to greek_cities then you can't have war between the two(which would be historically accurate) since they would be one.

I think Epirus should have it's own kingdom but Im biased, lol ~;) . After all we DID invade and conquer Macedon and Aetolia and parts of southern greece. Also we almost destroyed Roma. That, I think deserves some respect. Again me=biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

Hellenes i'm not saying you're completely wrong on the issue of Macedon being greek. I agree that MAcedon is greek. That wasn't my argument. I am an Epirote after all, I know who is greek more then most people.

But in the game it is not convinient to have 4 more factions for greece. Also if you go the other way and give macedon to greek_cities then you can't have war between the two(which would be historically accurate) since they would be one.

I think Epirus should have it's own kingdom but Im biased, lol ~;) . After all we DID invade and conquer Macedon and Aetolia and parts of southern greece. Also we almost destroyed Roma. That, I think deserves some respect. Again me=biased.

---

You have to be a greek immigrant backround from Ipiros? Right? Well there were many greek factions that have been left out but i hope that the patch will decode the faction limit and we will have all the various factions depicted...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Well there were many greek factions that have been left out but i hope that the patch will decode the faction limit and we will have all the various factions depicted...

---

That will take a long ass time to load if that hapens.

BTW, if you want to fix the phalanx issue it's easy. All you have to do is open export_descr_unit.txt and use the Ctrl+F button to find the units you want changed and then find where it says phalanx and delete the word like so:

type warband spear german
dictionary warband_spear_german ; Spear Warband
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Light_1
soldier warband_spearman_german, 60, 0, 1.2
officer barb_standard
officer barb_screeching_woman
mount_effect horse +2, chariot +2, camel +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, very_hardy
formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, square, phalanx
stat_health 2, 0
stat_pri 11, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,1
stat_pri_attr spear
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 3, 3, 9, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 2, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 9, impetuous, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 350, 180, 60, 80, 510
ownership germans

Oh, well since we are on the topic of Hellenistic armies... here's my suggestion:

I strongly recommend the introduction a melee worthy light infantry unit for all factions that depend on the phalanx. Ever since Alexander's time, the need for light infantry to complement the phalanx has been well known.

As yet, the Seleucids are the only ones with a competent non-phalanx melee unit. I think the Macedonians should be allowed to train Thracian light infantrymen (not armed with falxes and with clothes!). For the Greeks I'm not too sure what to add. I mean, they were pretty die hard phalanx people and did not have a tradition for sword-armed infantry.

The simple fact about relations between Greeks and Macedonians is this:

The Greeks thought of the Macedonians as barbarians, even though they were as advanced as the Greeks; the reason may be that the Macedonians had kings but this is debated. The Macedonians were, in truth, simply Greeks that stayed in the north when the original Greeks moved south into Greece.

On another note, the reason the Greeks never conquered anything is because they were hopelessly disunited. Each little city-state fought each other little city-state and nothing that even resembled a unified effort of any kind was ever achieved. Sometimes, an especially powerful city-state (e.g Thebes, Sparta, Athens) would subjugate neighbouring cities and create a league; this happened more and more as time went on. At the time of the game, the largest and most powerful league in Greece was the Achaean League, which was centered on the north Peloponnese and lasted from around 280 BC to 146 BC, upon which it was conquered by the Romans in the Achaean War. In my opinion, the "Greek Cities" *shudders* should be renamed to the Achaean League.

- Panda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turin

Oh, well since we are on the topic of Hellenistic armies... here's my suggestion:

I strongly recommend the introduction a melee worthy light infantry unit for all factions that depend on the phalanx. Ever since Alexander's time, the need for light infantry to complement the phalanx has been well known.

As yet, the Seleucids are the only ones with a competent non-phalanx melee unit. I think the Macedonians should be allowed to train Thracian light infantrymen (not armed with falxes and with clothes!). For the Greeks I'm not too sure what to add. I mean, they were pretty die hard phalanx people and did not have a tradition for sword-armed infantry.

---

Your wish has been granted. All Greek factions have more than one melee unit to complement the phalanx. As it was in history, it shall be so.

Awesome!

Will there be running phalanxes? I realize that this may interfere with something hardcoded but it's a thought.

Sorry for double posting, just thought of something else.

Corinthian helmets. As much as I love SPQR mod, I hate the spamming of the corinthian.

If knowledge serves me correctly, the famous corinthian helm was phased out by this time because of how uncomfortable it was and the fact that it seriously impeded hearing.
I know it's a cool looking helm and it is symbol of those brave ancient Greeks, but I do not believe it to be appropriate for this period.

On the subject of those Greeks... how are all you all thinking about doing the Spartans? And please, please do not give them the whole shinny gold armor that everyone mods their Spartans with. This is pretty inaccurate as the Spartans wore leather armor, sometimes they had the red cloak too. But never the gold, exposed breastplates. The helmet really should not be Corinthian either.

IMHO the Greeks really got the short end of stick in vanilla. At least the barbarians were effective in a battle, the Greeks can't do jack on a battlefield.

No, you are wrong. I actually have a picture of a sculpture of an epirote hellenisitic soldier with a corinthina helmet. Very few had it but still. It was definetly not fased out. I'm sure people will find more examples then that.

As you might already know, weapons were not abandoned suddenly or appeared instantly. I do not challenge the fact that older equipment was used in the RTW period. It is simply not accurate using this as an excuse. I believe we need to apply the most characteristic armour of that period. Hence, the Corinthian helmet is out of date. In addition, the Pylos helmet (used by sparta during te 4th and 5th century) is out of date as well. Currently, I am troubled, although I believe a Thracian version for a helmet might be appropriate.
In terms of sparta, I think that whatever unit is allocated, it should take 4-5 turns to be made illustrating Sparta's struggle in population and available new citizens for recruiting. Sparta during the 2nd century BC was heavily dependent on mercenaries while its troops were more of a "Macedonian" in style phalanx that the traditional hoplite formation. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

No, you are wrong. I actually have a picture of a sculpture of an epirote hellenisitic soldier with a corinthina helmet. Very few had it but still. It was definetly not fased out. I'm sure people will find more examples then that.

---

But if you were a general then, I think you would want your men to have the newer helmet (I don't know the name) since the corinthian helmet didn't allow you to see much and you were basically def.

Did the Spartans fight exclusively as phalangites or were there swordsmen and light infantry as well, perhaps cavalry?

What are the plans for Greek cavalry units anyway?

If the Greeks adopted the Macedonian army style then they must have adopted the cavalry tradition in some degree as well.

Oh and I totally agree about the Spartan training time thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urnamma

Fuck multi-culturalism. ( a sentiment that gets me in trouble in the academia, you can be sure) Graeco-Roman culture is and should be considered a great achievement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Well theres a roman saying "Divide and Rule" so the multiculturalism (which is really a non culturalism by blending all the cultures in a grey mass) serves the total globalisating purpose...Its very difficult to control a united nation which can rebel against you but if you insert ARTIFICIAL minorities and divide the population you can control the population with an ease...

Hellenes

---

I know that this point has nothing to do with this thread, apart from being a response to these statements, but thank you both very very much for having the guts to say this. I entirely agree.

Couple of questions on Briton units

- will the Britons have cavalry as well as chariots?

- will Briton chariot riders fire bows (wrong) or use javelins?