Flaming Pigs, Wardogs and Gladiators

I knew there was much commotion against these units in the beginning of the RTW release. 2 months down the line, has ppl been using them?

I knew wardogs has generally been accepted in an extent as route chasers or unit pinners, but how about pigs and gladiators?

I personally never use these two units, and doubt if the AI ever builds them. Full sized legionaries and Auxillia are way better in holding against Elephants (the unit that the pigs and gladiators were supposed to be used against).

Ive had some MP games in which my opponent fielded a full pig army with hillarious results (both in game and in my frame rate). But do they really serve any purpose other than marketing scheme? I mean I can see some RTS fan be totally excited to buy Rome just for pigs and gladiators and completely forgot about them totally after a single run of the game.

Pigs are not for holding elephants, but rather, scaring them into running amok. This they do pretty well, if they manage to run into the elephants, but they are simply not worth it against other units. Too specialist, if you will.

Gladiators are useful as shock troops, excellent at flanking. But I prefer Arcani myself, since they have additional ability to cloak anywhere. Perhaps they could add an 'enrage' ability, like berserk, which would last for a couple of minutes. Increased attack and attack rate, but lowered defence.

The AI has used flaming pigs against my war elephants before to great effect. I was attacking in a siege, and used war elephants to lead the charge. Only downside was that the enemy had both flaming pigs and onagers throwing firepots at my elephants. An onager hit straight into the unit, and three elephants instantly burst into flames much to my amusement. Then the flaming pigs ran past them and they had had enough, and proceeded to run amok through my cavalry.

And people say the AI never uses onagers and incendary pigs? They do at least use them sometimes ;)

The gladiators should definately be used as rebel units though. In the Spartocus revolt, the gladiators couldn't find any better equipment than the gladium and the equipment they wore in the colosseum. They should not be available to the Romans though, definately.

Pigs... pigs... I don't know about them. They are a hilarious addition to the game but are probably not historically accurate. Oh wait, now that I think about it, they ARE accurate. The Romans did use pigs when dealing with carthaginians and other elephant using people. But that's about it. Pigs are however very useless in battle. They are costy, you can only use them once, and they often miss which means that the pigs are often completely useless. Actually wait: Are the people in a pig unit the trainers or the pigs themselves? If they are the trainers, do the units replenish after every battle? I don't use them so I don't know.

I never even knew the Romans used wardogs. I think the barbarians may have (in very rare cases) but I don't think the Romans did.

The one thing this thread should really be talking about is Amazons. Come on, they're a myth, and obviously just there to improve sales. However... they add an interesting twist to the campaign.

It takes like 10 turns or somethin to get to the amazons from the outskirt of their province. And after that u get a useless province, that would never ever serve anything other than a gold mine... Maybe if that province can make u Amazonians, then I would bother getting it.

I thought pigs had trainers. I have horrible frame rates when I used flaming anything, so I didnt bother using them. Tried them once in Custom battle, but was annoyed with them running around all over the place. Also its very hard to retain gladiators in order to become any viable use.

Hmm.. only Julii have arcani right? Maybe if they had bows like the Hashishin in MTW I would try them. In that case, I never used Hashishin in MTW anyways, so lol.

All the roman factions can get Arcani. And the pigs are realistic, since they were used against elephants. A waste of time against any other unit obviously. Wardogs on the other hand aren't realistic, and neither are gladiators fighting in the battlefield! I don't really mind the gladiators though, and I don't really use them. I'd much rather the archers get toned down, and cavalry made far more expensive. The unhistorical units don't really bother me. On the other hand the skewed balance of cavalry/archers vs infantry does bother me a bit.

And yes the Amazons are obviously a mythic unit. But they are just rebels, and they are tucked away in the north. I personally am glad they're ingame. They add something interesting to an otherwise boring and usually ignored area of the map. And it's not as if they have a major effect on the game.

I agree with much of this. But what about those head hurlers? They are more common than fleas when you face the Bretons.

What do they actually do? I just auto-resolve whenever I met them. I noticed that their damage rating is pretty good somehow. I'm guessing they didnt have a shortage of heads, being Britons and all :P

I have to say I have found pigs to be very useful against elephants. Anytime I attack an elephant country (carthage, selucid etc.) I bring along 2 pigs. If there's no elephants, it's no big deal and they are fun, but if there are elephants they are awesome. Those invincible elephants are toast instead of killing your whole army. Great unit when needed.

I had a really fun custom battle last night. I was Carthage and had 1 unit of Armoured elephants against 1 unit of pigs. I charged and they instantly routed, I chose to continue battle. The next second/moment after I clicked continue battle my elephants ran amok, so I killed them. After that the pig trainers stopped routed and came to atttack the carcasses of my elephants then just stood there looking at the carcasses. It was funny and weird. I had to exit battle manually though.

Also I don't know where else to say this but I don't think they should tone down archers. They are a little too good, sure, but if they were nerfed what would happen to Parthia, or Scythia or Armenia? If archers were nerfed those factions would suck ass and nobody would want to use them. Honestly I NEVER used archers in MTW cuz they were too weak and now I try to always have a couple archers in my army. I'm glad they are as powerful as they are.

leave the archers be on HA's heavy nations, nerve the rest. Simple. Effective. Elegant.

Originally Posted by Silver Rusher

Actually wait: Are the people in a pig unit the trainers or the pigs themselves? If they are the trainers, do the units replenish after every battle? I don't use them so I don't know.

The thing about flaming pigs, is that when they are ignited they run amok. And for some strange unknown reason the keepers also run amok together with the pigs. So when the enemy cavalry charges in and massacre the pigs , they massacre the keepers as well.

Actually the pigs do replenish themselves, but if you use them in a battle you will only have around 3 left of the keepers which means that ca. 9 pigs will replenish.

Originally Posted by LordKhaine

And yes the Amazons are obviously a mythic unit. But they are just rebels, and they are tucked away in the north. I personally am glad they're ingame. They add something interesting to an otherwise boring and usually ignored area of the map. And it's not as if they have a major effect on the game.

WOOT!!!! amazones!!??? in Rome total war!!!???
Why havent I heard of this!??? Where can I find them?????????

I agree with 678. I didn´t think archers were worth any money in MTW and I don´t use them that often in RTW, if they would be worse, I would never use them and the factions like Parthia would be completely useless with their horse archers. Personally I don´t have any big problems with archers, heavily armored armies can survive their fire long enough and other armies have to engage them with cav, I often use my generals to chase them so they can relatively easy gain experience.

Hyperboria province. Check ur map. Its the northen most city in russian steppes. only one access to the province. Will take u like 8 turns to get in and another 8 to get out. Completely utterly useless but fun nevertheless. :D

The Amazons weren't entirely mythological. That is, the myth probably was based on actual Scythian warrior-women, who are known to have existed.

-Simetrical

They were prolly as real as the kingdom of Prester John lol.

you guys kept saying amazons, i have fought red-head javliner girls and red-head horse archer nobel women but are they actually [I]called amazons? if they are i make it my duty in life to hunt them down and to figure out why these MYTHOLOGICAL GREEK peoples are up in scythian lands.

also the bit about archers it is fitting that archers in MTW are weaker than RTW historically mideval archers played little more than to force the enemies to raise there shields and be preoccupied when the heavy cavalry rush in and crush them, until the long bow became popular then the archers would commonly be on the front lines firing level at the enemy almost like nepoleonic shooting.

pigs are historically accurate as are wardogs gkladiators are not they were for ammusement of the plebians only. special units were trained almost like gladiators, roman spec ops next to the arcani. pigs aren't completely useless against anything but elephants i have (once or twice)hit an enemy phalanx which is already engaged on the flank with flaming pigs, anything but those mighty spartans break and run. war dogs were used in the roman times not readily but as anti-cavalry and intimidation troops.

Originally Posted by The_678

Also I don't know where else to say this but I don't think they should tone down archers. They are a little too good, sure, but if they were nerfed what would happen to Parthia, or Scythia or Armenia? If archers were nerfed those factions would suck ass and nobody would want to use them. Honestly I NEVER used archers in MTW cuz they were too weak and now I try to always have a couple archers in my army. I'm glad they are as powerful as they are.

Not wanting to derail the thread, but I do want to comment on the Parthia/Scythia part. Scythians and Parthians are from different times and don't need to be nerfed as much as the Roman archers and Egyptians, etc. The problem with Scythia is that they can't produce many units because they have no real economy. That seems a bit odd to me because the barbarians should probably have hoards of men available for base level units relatively cheaply. So I think they should have more ability to build forces (from economic means) but weaker archer units overall. I didn't have much trouble taking out large Roman stacks with my Scythian horse archers.

The Parthians are really modeled on a later version of the types of archers the Romans faced I think, not Punic War era. The Punic War era Parthians should be more like the Persian archers that Alexander faced (since their recent ancestors served in Darius' armies.) Archery was not all that effective against Alexander's armies... I could see Parthian archers having weaker stats in the current campaign and higher (closer to what we presently see of the vanilla Parthian units) around the time of the Marian reforms. This gets back to the idea of breaking the era's up a bit and offering different starting points for campaigns. According to "Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World," Parthian composite bows were improved over the Scythian types by addition of stiff straight strips of bone to the tips called "ear laths." These are later era weapons of the first century BC. I've not seen anything to give an idea when improvements came.

Originally Posted by m4rt14n

What do they actually do? I just auto-resolve whenever I met them. I noticed that their damage rating is pretty good somehow. I'm guessing they didnt have a shortage of heads, being Britons and all :P

Head hurlers are just what the name implies. In RTW there are 5 kinds of missiles arrows, javelins, pilum, bullets, and some fools head coated in lime so it won't rot. Yes that's right head hurlers heave severed heads at the enemy. Basically head hurlers are the britons foot archers. Their heads are throw in an arrow like arch but have less distance. I know this because I used then in a battle against the germans once. They do have good ranged damage owning to the fact that you are being hit with a head, a good 20lb missile made of bone, brains, and skin. Plus the head is coverd in lime which burns skin on contact.

As for the amazons I've seen them via spying never a battle. They are located in Hyperbola as had been said, it is directly north of tribus Sarmatae but you can't get to it from there. You can only get in to Hyperbola from the province with dolcu dolmus dolcus in it (locus gepids IIRC). It takes 4 turns if you don't screw up and send your guys backwards because you clicked on the wrong side of the river. Anyway the amazon warrior women themselfs fight as chariot archers but they wear corinthian greek helms, and breast plates (emphasis on the breasts heh heh ). Pic below as evidence.


BTW that screen isn't mine I just used it. On another TW forum someone likened getting to the Amazon city to getting to mount doom in mordor. Also notice their stas. 2 hitpoints an attack of 10 melee and 14 missile (the 3 experience chevrons each add 1 to their attack value) but weak defense. I also hear tell that they are wicked fast in those chariots

I fought those before with my Scythian Hordes. They didnt stand a chance against my 15 HA's and Noble Archer Firing Squad.

Playing as the greeks, i sent in what some people call a 'discovery channel team', which was a band of veteran soldiers whose units were too small, some scythian HA mercs, and a general who had nothing to do. The first encounter with the amazons was very difficult, as they kept zooming everywhere, running away from my HA's and going way too fast for my foot soldiers. But i took there city quite well. Only problem was, they slaughtered my horses, and killed the general.

I apologise to all 56k users but....

For those who have suggested that wardogs are not historically accurate: I read a long time ago that mastiffs were originally bred to be dogs of war. It seems like they originated in the British Isles, but I can't say for sure if I read they came from there or if I just came up with that mental picture somehow. But I can say for sure that mastiffs were bred as dogs of war, and they were, if I remember correctly, sometimes even equipped with some form of armor.

I have no idea how or when or by who they were used, but the way they are portrayed in this game seems plausible enough to me.

One thing that this game does which is very artificial is to create homogenous units. This is accurate, of course, for units like Legionaries and Hoplites, but it seems unrealistic for units like Head Hurlers. I just find it difficult to believe that there were homogenous units of 80 head hurlers in a Briton battle line. I could be wrong, of course, because I have never researched any such thing.

I am sure that the developers realize all of these issues, of course. They are faced with interpreting history within the structure of a working game that is manageable and fun to play, so they have many things to consider in addition to historical accuracy, and compromises must be made. I think that the game is richer for all of the unusual units that they included.