Britannia

[wooly_mammoth]

So, if you play rtw long enough the impossible does happen. Proof:



The world map is not entirely up to date. I've vanquished Spain, Carthage (with ample help from the romans), Gaul and the Julii, while Egypt had the usual drill with the Seleucids. However, as can be seen, Macedonia became quite a kingdom. Not only that, but see that tiny little, lonely boat in the Adriatic Sea? It's filled with taffing phalanx pikemen, archers and light lancers hurrying to deliver the well-wishes of the Antigonids of whoever happens to be in charge >.<. Fortunately, I'm not caught completely off guard, coming down the Alps is a particularly nasty brit who spent his teenage years murdering savages through the northern forests. He has an army of woad-painted fanatics, hopefully that will put the fright in the macedonians.

During the siege of Arretium I've had one of my hardest battles so far. My force of ill-equipped swords and light chariots was sandwiched between a small roman relief force and the garrison of the city, well armed and armored principes with plenty of cavalry and skirmisher support. Clashing that force head on with my swords, with arrow support from the back routed me in seconds, the way I finally managed to do it was to rush the small force and send them running away before the main army was fully deployed, and then crash my chariots in the big army from the flank, run them all the way through and send the swords in only after the roman lines were in disarray. With that properly executed, they routed almost immediately and all I had to do was run them under my wheels. Those little wagons are quite effective in the open field.

[Vincent Butler]

Had an E/E campaign where I had the northern half of the map, and was just going into Turkey and North Africa, and the Scipii had the southern half. Pretty much the entire map was blue. I was starting to have riot problems, though.
Macedon can get good if one of their foes is held in check. Usually that does not happen, and they are one of the first five factions to get wiped out. Seleucia is usually the first.
If you don't use dogs, you can delete the stables, the fact that they are Roman or some other civilization's architecture affects public order. Even if you use dogs, and the stables are advanced, deleting them and building your own (only one level anyway) will help. And you can get some money back.

[wooly_mammoth]

And managed to wrap things up with Britannia as well. I didn't make it as far East as you did since I invaded North Africa down to Sahara, so the kingdom stretched from the Atlantic to modern day Hungary. As far as shock value goes I don't think there's a substitute for chosen swords + light chariots. Most battles would turn into an instant rout once the sword line charged in and the chariots got around and behind. Sometimes it is enough to simply crash the chariots in to achieve that. Funny that they would be so effective, given that historically they were pretty much obsolete by that point. Head Hurlers are pretty nifty as well but their short range, lack of mobility and temple requirements make them the second option in most circumstances. Still, they are excellent for staging ambushes in woodlands and just funny as hell when they simply murder everything by lobbing heads around (they have a ridiculous melee charge bonus as well so they destroy pretty much anything that they flank).

It was refreshing to have some serious battles with factions such as Dacia and Macedonia. I even got to square it off against macedonian cavalry and royal pikemen. I never got rich though, I think I tend to make my garrisons too big and barbarian infrastructure just cannot be developed to the point that you make stupid amounts of money unless you are a master at stabilizing population growth. As I conquered the last provinces I needed a regular infusion of money from plunder to remain in positive balance.

[Vincent Butler]

Sometimes it is enough to simply crash the chariots in to achieve that. Funny that they would be so effective, given that historically they were pretty much obsolete by that point.

Considering that they don't even use them historically, at least not from Caesar's writings. Of course, the game starts way before Caesar, so it is possible that the chariots were used for shock value and eventually lost that use through becoming ineffective for whatever reason. I don't know enough about that to say for certain. Similar to how the "feared" scythed chariots were mocked by the Romans, the main experience Rome had against them they were ridiculously ineffective. According to Caesar, Briton chariots were used as armoured personnel carriers to get troops in and out of combat quickly.
I do think Britannia should get archers or javelinmen of some kind, primitives almost always knew the use of the bow and/or javelin in addition to the sling. The head-hurlers are darned unrealistic, heads were a gruesome kind of trophy so they would not be used as missiles. Unless somebody has knowledge that I don't, if somebody does, enlighten me, please. The lack of true cav is somewhat realistic, though. They had very little, from my limited knowledge, and certainly not enough to make a worthwhile unit out of.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I don't think there's a substitute for chosen swords + light chariots. Most battles would turn into an instant rout once the sword line charged in and the chariots got around and behind. Sometimes it is enough to simply crash the chariots in to achieve that. Funny that they would be so effective

Difficulty setting has a lot to do with that. On more difficult battlemap settings, enemy troops have better morale, therefore battles will last longer...and longer battles mean greater chance your chariots will eventually get eaten up or rout, especially by phalanx. That's how I stop scythed chariots from any faction...massed pike

it is possible that the chariots were used for shock value and eventually lost that use through becoming ineffective for whatever reason

In the time frame of RTW, except for the Celts, chariots had long since fallen out of use for battle.

Interesting little read:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/...a/chariot.html

But the war-chariot of the Britons almost certainly did not have scythes. Arrian, in fact, explicitly distinguishes between the Persian chariots that did and those of the Britons, who "used two-horse chariots, with small, bad horses. Their light, two-wheeled chariots are well adapted to running across all sorts of terrain and the wretched horses to enduring hardships.

Whether true or not about the scythes, it confirms my "donkey-cart" moniker.

The javelin and superior horse breeding for cavalry, was their demise. Gaugamela was probably the last major engagement where they were employed in numbers.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/...dchariots.html

As to Head Hurlers...from the "RTW Heaven site:

Kill a man, cut off his head, dip it in lime, let it dry, then chuck it at an enemy. Sounds awful. But it was indeed a custom among the Britons and Celts! There were no units of Head Hurlers- that part is pure fantasy- but the actual throwing of limed heads is a documented fact. The Celts were head hunters, and believed that the spirit of a man resided in his head. This made the head special, and sought-after. Lime was a preservative, treating the head with it kept the trophy for longer. And hurling it at an enemy was considered a major insult to the enemy. And the lime coating? It did indeed burn the skin where it impacted.

However, there were no units of these men. Individuals might throw their trophies, thinking them imbued with some magical power, but most heads collected would be treated and kept as souvenirs. The more powerful a warrior, the more value his head had.

[wooly_mammoth]

Thanks for the insightful links. So they did run around in donkey-carts after all. As for your comment regarding the use of pikes against chariots, I believe that's the reason why the roman AI is programmed to leave Macedonia alone when you play Britannia. Pikemen and heavy cavalry are a much bigger problem for celtic armies as depicted in the game than the roman army prior to the reforms (in my game they never got to build an imperial palace in Italy). Pikes really need to be outmaneuvered and struck from the flanks and light chariots aren't really that effective in melee against heavy cavalry, but kiting them just opens the back of your line to a charge, which is what the macedonian cavalry roster is designed to do.

I should mention the funny siege of Larissa. It had huge stone walls, little to no garrison but MASSIVE reinforcements (two nearly full stacks of regular & royal pikes, cavalry of all sorts from light lancers to macedonian cav, some siege equipment and golden archers. I had my guys push the siege towers while the chariots skirmished in front of the reinforcements. Usually the AI will run straight for the gates, but my chariots made it indecisive and while it went between advancing towards them or moving for the gate, I managed to conquer the entire length of the wall, rush all other infantry inside so in the end the reinforcements where locked out with nothing to do but run around the walls after chariots while being shot from all directions.

Needless to say, every chariot unit got an extra one or two silver chevrons from that.

[Vincent Butler]

From Caesar's "De Bello Gallico":

Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the meantime withdraw themselves some little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry; and by daily practice and exercise attain to such expertness that they are accustomed, even on a declining and steep place, to check their horses at full speed, and manage and turn them in an instant and run along the pole, and stand on the yoke, and thence betake themselves with the greatest celerity to their chariots again. Book IV, XXXIII

In XXIV of the same book, and then again in XXXVII, Caesar does mention British cavalry, in XXXVII he mentions a force of 6,000 strong, so they did have them. It appears that they were missile cav of a sort, he says they waded into the water and threw their weapons, and the cav would spur on their horses and attack the Romans who were unable to really fight back.