Why are Sotaroas cheaper than Toxotai?

[QuintusSertorius]

I'm looking at the two archer variants, Celtic (sotaroas) and Hellenic (toxotai). Their missile attack is the same. Their defense is the same. Most of their features are the same, bar the Celts have a bonus in woods, where the Hellens have a bonus against elephants and chariots.

Then the real differences, Celts are pretty good in melee, and have spears. Hellenes are fast moving. Not sure why the Celts aren't, given other unarmoured Celts (Lugoae, Gaeroas, etc) are.

Upshot of it is, though, the Celts are a cheaper unit. Is it simply because of the lack of fast moving?

[vartan]

Upshot of it is, though, the Celts are a cheaper unit. Is it simply because of the lack of fast moving?

I don't even know why that unit isn't fast-moving, while another heavier unit may be fast-moving. And as we know, there were no inherent strengths of one peoples over another peoples. That is to say that Celts were not any stronger, better in melee than any other peoples, Hellenes included.

[moonburn]

probably because forest hunters where easyer to find in the celtic kingdoms then in the hellenic one´s

vartan the fact that the keltic society had less disparities and thus those of lower ranks where better fed and their inherited lifestyle made them better suited for warfare makes keltois better warriors then the hellenes so they ate more meat had more muscle but they weren´t stronger ? those who ate meat in the hellenic world weren´t strong they where fat ...

also keltois where better at melee 1 vs 1 if not for much then their better quality swords and shorter more easily usable shields made precisely for hand to hand combat while the hellenic warrior ethos was mainly based on cooperation

[Andy1984]

IIRC, the prices in EB were based on unit skills and stats. Fast moving is probably an expensive trait. The same can be seen in the east, where persian archers (fast moving I believe) are actually more expensive than the persian archer spearmen (not fast moving). Just like in your example, the persian archer spearmen performs better in melee than the persian archer. The range of the former is worse than that of the latter though.

[Lysimachos]

The Sotaroas have only a very limited amount of ammunition (or are those the germanic archers?), which reduces their uses as ranged troops in comparison to the Toxotai. Their better performance in melee can't outweigh that, since that is only a secondary capability.

At least that is my take on it.

[vartan]

vartan the fact that the keltic society had less disparities and thus those of lower ranks where better fed and their inherited lifestyle made them better suited for warfare makes keltois better warriors then the hellenes so they ate more meat had more muscle but they weren´t stronger ? those who ate meat in the hellenic world weren´t strong they where fat ...

also keltois where better at melee 1 vs 1 if not for much then their better quality swords and shorter more easily usable shields made precisely for hand to hand combat while the hellenic warrior ethos was mainly based on cooperation

Only in Hollywood (5 minute drive from here) or in the cartoon that is RTW, sure. But I've yet to read anything conclusive to that extent. As far as the world is concerned, people were more or less on par. No matter where you go, people are composed of the same organs. Averages might vary slightly regionally, but people are in general the same. And unlike architecture or crafts that have remains, you won't find any organic remains that indicate what antiquity's Celts consumed, thus making it even more difficult to come to any generalisations regarding their diet. Someone enlighten me, I'm looking to go on a Celtic diet.

[Burebista]

Only in Hollywood (5 minute drive from here) or in the cartoon that is RTW, sure. But I've yet to read anything conclusive to that extent. As far as the world is concerned, people were more or less on par. No matter where you go, people are composed of the same organs. Averages might vary slightly regionally, but people are in general the same. And unlike architecture or crafts that have remains, you won't find any organic remains that indicate what antiquity's Celts consumed, thus making it even more difficult to come to any generalisations regarding their diet. Someone enlighten me, I'm looking to go on a Celtic diet.

Not true. In Europe you can actually see differences in size of people as Germans/Brits/Nordics are in average about 5 centimeters higher than central european and 7 cm over southerners such as greeks/spanish. i can feel the difference each time i go into those countries.

[Lysimachos]

An interesting thing in context with size is that, opposed to popular belief, the size of people has not always increased. Findings of sceletons in central and northern europe show that the average size has actually decreased from antiquity to the middle ages and later increased again. The most logical explanation is the diet. The more populated and the more agrarian a society becomes, the more has it to rely on the output of its agriculture instead. So while an agricultural society can support more eaters, the quality of its diet according to modern nutritional science is worse than the mixed diet on which a less agricultural society sustains. Result of a strong hunting culture is a more protein rich diet, which in turn enables more growth and thus physical strength.
On this grounds, I think it is highly plausible that in ancient times the average member of a mixed hunter-farmer-community possessed indeed a greater physical strength than the average member of a mostly agricultural community.
This only swings around once more advanced methods of breeding and organisation of agriculture make meat more readily available to the public outside the upper classes.

Edit: Well, this really becomes offtopic, so: sorry

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Only in Hollywood (5 minute drive from here) or in the cartoon that is RTW, sure. But I've yet to read anything conclusive to that extent. As far as the world is concerned, people were more or less on par. No matter where you go, people are composed of the same organs. Averages might vary slightly regionally, but people are in general the same. And unlike architecture or crafts that have remains, you won't find any organic remains that indicate what antiquity's Celts consumed, thus making it even more difficult to come to any generalisations regarding their diet. Someone enlighten me, I'm looking to go on a Celtic diet.

This is all incorrect.

We can tell from skeletal remains the amount of muscle a person had, in addition to height and (for example) breadth of shoulder. From this we can conclude that the average Celtic warrior was several inches tall as well as being heavier set and having greater muscle mass. We know this had to do with their lifestyle because we have written accounts from Greeks and Romans, as well as being able to recover things like seeds and bones from rubbish tips at Celtic sites.

This not to say Greeks and Romans were weak, both peoples were incredibly tough, but they weren't as big, strong or hairy.

[vartan]

This is all incorrect.

We can tell from skeletal remains the amount of muscle a person had, in addition to height and (for example) breadth of shoulder. From this we can conclude that the average Celtic warrior was several inches tall as well as being heavier set and having greater muscle mass. We know this had to do with their lifestyle because we have written accounts from Greeks and Romans, as well as being able to recover things like seeds and bones from rubbish tips at Celtic sites.

This not to say Greeks and Romans were weak, both peoples were incredibly tough, but they weren't as big, strong or hairy.

Lys makes a good point about the food. That's really great though. I never knew you could infer muscle mass from analysing bones. (EDIT: How does that work by the way? How do you relate bone mass to muscle mass?) @Lys: Safe to say that man today is on average weaker than man ~2000 years ago? (i.e. when you look at nutrition.)

[Ludens]

From this we can conclude that the average Celtic warrior was several inches tall as well as being heavier set and having greater muscle mass. We know this had to do with their lifestyle because we have written accounts from Greeks and Romans, as well as being able to recover things like seeds and bones from rubbish tips at Celtic sites.

Do these findings relate to all Gauls, or just to warriors? Because the way you phrase it, it sounds like you are comparing the average Roman to the Celtic warrior caste. I'd say a fairer comparison would be with Roman centurions (military lifestyle, but also a degree of affluence so they wouldn't be affected by famine as much as ordinary grunts).

[Drunk Clown]

probably because forest hunters where easyer to find in the celtic kingdoms then in the hellenic one´s

vartan the fact that the keltic society had less disparities and thus those of lower ranks where better fed and their inherited lifestyle made them better suited for warfare makes keltois better warriors then the hellenes so they ate more meat had more muscle but they weren´t stronger ? those who ate meat in the hellenic world weren´t strong they where fat ...

If you're fat you are pretty strong too, you have to support the weight you know. Now, you were better off having a bit o' fat back in those days. Fat tissue heals better and quicker than muscle tissue. Gladiators for instance were fatty due to this.

Just to make clear..... they did't look like this:

[QuintusSertorius]

If you're fat you are pretty strong too, you have to support the weight you know. Now, you were better off having a bit o' fat back in those days. Fat tissue heals better and quicker than muscle tissue. Gladiators for instance were fatty due to this.

Not really, if you're fat you may be strong enough to carry it around, but that can easily go too far in the wrong direction. There are obese people who cannot jump, for example, fat can easily run away and outstrip the ability of your body to strengthen to accomodate. It's certainly no guarantee of being "pretty strong" either.

[Drunk Clown]

Not really, if you're fat you may be strong enough to carry it around, but that can easily go too far in the wrong direction. There are obese people who cannot jump, for example, fat can easily run away and outstrip the ability of your body to strengthen to accomodate. It's certainly no guarantee of being "pretty strong" either.

Why does everybody think "super obese" by just saying fat? I have never talked about obese people, cos I do know they are not able to perform heavy physical movements. If you cannot jump you're pretty messed up, and a regular fattie can jump.

It's certainly no guarantee of being "pretty strong" either.

Face him, I dare you.