Battle of Heraclea (280 BC)
Battle of Telamon (225 BC)
Battle of Pydna (168 BC)
Battle of Arausio (105 BC)
Battle of Tigranocerta (69 BC)
Battle of Vosges (58 BC)
Cicero speaks in the Senate and reveals Lucullus's falsified propaganda. Please refrain from voting for a battle (Tigranocerta) which never took place (the only skirmish was nearby, as the legions had not even crossed the Euphrates).
EB Online Founder | Website
Former Projects:
- Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack
- Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
- EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
- Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)
EB Online Founder | Website
Former Projects:
- Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack
- Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
- EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
- Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)
Haha, no votes yet!
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."
EB Online Founder | Website
Former Projects:
- Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack
- Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
- EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
- Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)
Pydna or Arausio or Heraclea. Damn too manyof them. I voted Pydna but Arausio would be great as well. Ofc IM IN!:D
My girlfriend plays EB (plus she is hottie). I won the universe.
Arasuio would be very interesting if we could add a gameplay twist to reflect the 2 heads of army refusing to work together. They should be in different teams :D
Meaning, if they get too close together, they will start killing each other. Ofc the 2 teams can still talk to each other though. I don't think there is any other way to prevent the second roman army sprinting to assist the first, which, had it been done in the actual battle, might have meant a Roman victory.
I would vote for Arausio if that were the case.
And as much as I would like to play Telamon- it was a slaughter. It's not like Cannae/Magnesia where a smaller army won a stunning victory, or like Raphia/Zama where things were pretty even. IIRC, it was a record of Rome slaughtering some gauls whilst enjoying superior numbers in infantry, though being outnumbered in cavalry. If we decide to play this, maybe give some bumps to gauls to even things out?
Last edited by TheShakAttack; 11-07-2011 at 02:26.
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."
Oh yes about that, what we know is that the optimas made camp much closer to the enemy and the Romani couldn't swim/cross the river from their side...
My idea, if that battle gets chosen, was to place the 2 roman armies quite afar from eachother, and on the side with no river crossing; while the Swebozez would have a crossing nearby...
That should leave two options for the Romani: stop the Swebozez, but with only half their forces, or regroup giving time to the tribes to gain a formidable position...
The other solution would be to have a very weird division of troops between the Romani players...
Thats a good idea as well. But I still like my idea! :D
It would make communication between the 2 Roman sides incredibly important. It also has the potential to case REAL problems for the Romani (killing each other, etc). I like the thought of that. I also think its the best way to reflect the leadship issues Rome was suffering at that time.
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."
Bookmarks