Gaesatae way too overpowered

[Kull]

Capping human generals might make sense (though it's likely impossible to discriminate), but the AI has a bad tendency to toss it's general units into battle early on, and that makes them quite susceptible to early loss of the general, with subsequent morale hits and easier routing of the entire enemy army.

Personally I prefer a tougher opponent, and it's infrequent to encounter the "general-who-will-not-die", although certainly a fair number escape to fight again. And on one level it IS frustrating to defeat an enemy and then see him return to battle a turn or so later leading a massive force of newly recruited mercenaries. But there's a certain extra *something* about those battles, isn't there? I mean usually the AI army is led by just one more semi-faceless enemy family member. But fighting the same guy 2 or 3 times is a whole other story. It's almost personal. This guy escaped against all odds and he DARES to return and fight again? You can almost feel the adrenaline flowing. How can that be bad?

[zonks32]

I dont care how high on drugs they are, their is only so much the body can take, blood loss for starters, you lose a limb, you are going to bleed to death very soon if there is no treatment, or any vital organ hit, muscles destroyed from any weapon will not work no matter how much the brain wants it to, even being stunned by a projectile.
I dont mind a challenge, but when a group of naked men run across a bridge and my men launch 400-600 javelins into them, plus the volleys of arrows, there will be substantial losses.
There may have been accounts of men pulling javelins from their chest and fighting on, but they would have been rare.
I think 2hp is fair, very high morale and attack, but armour on a naked man ?, I think the 2hp is enough to simulate their tolerance to pain.

[Watchman]

There's actually only about two things people actually die of - enough direct damage to a sufficiently vital organ (the brain and the heart, and the latter may be conditional), and going into system shock. The latter is the most common, at least as battle damage goes, and is brought about by the body's regulatory system going haywire due to trauma and/or blood loss. How much of the former varies wildly by individual; even perfectly normal folks can sometimes keep going for quite a while with quite grievous wounds while others are down for the count from comparatively minor damage. The latter is fairly constant as the circulatory system tends to go bonkers if too large a portion of blood is lost.

The whole point in pain-killing combat drugs - an effect also achievable, if unreliably, through the natural hormonal secretions of the brain (endorphine makes morphine look wimpy) and/or suitable psychological conditions - is to circumvent most of the above by flatly cutting off the sensory feed that tells the system it even has suffered such damage in the first place. If the body simply doesn't know it has suffered such injuries it will try to keep going as if nothing had happened, until the point where enough blood loss and damage is accumulated that this becomes impossible and the system just shuts down. But without the normal feedback that brings about the shock state, this can take quite a while.

Now, of course, broken bones and such are still broken bones and will limit the functionality of the body if they're in the right place (say, limbs), regardless of whether the body deigns to notice the matter; but people with their sense of pain shut off can nonetheless do some very abnormal things simply by the virtue of flatly ignoring the "damage report" feedback that makes normal folks stop doing stupid and harmful things and curl into a screaming fetal ball instead.

It's not likely to be very healthy ignoring the warning signals like that of course, but that's a cold comfort to the guy whose sword in your gut you're not even noticing and instead cut off his head. And, really, many if not most such injuries would be lethal down the road anyway, so there's a certain amount of sense behind figuring out a way to keep going and (hopefully) killing regardless - if the spear wound in your chest will kill you sooner or later anyway, isn't it better you remain funtional long enough to kill the guy who delivered it and maybe some of his mates to boot rather than drop on the spot ? Certainly seems to fit the rather uncompromising views the Celts seem to have held about combat, death and the afterlife too.

Armour 5 for the Gaesatae is incidentally more or less in line with the rest of the Celtic swordsmen. Those "Northern" types have helmets similar to the Gaesataes' plus shirts and trousers, and get a 5 out of it. The "Southern" and Briton types have just trousers and get something like 3 from that, and I don't quite think lime-spiked hair counts for too much. I figure it partly represents their ability to duck behind their large shields for cover, and in the case of the guys with good helmets the fact the part that's mainly visible and reachable behind the shield is well protected by solid iron.

[Kull]

I dont care how high on drugs they are, their is only so much the body can take, blood loss for starters, you lose a limb, you are going to bleed to death very soon if there is no treatment, or any vital organ hit, muscles destroyed from any weapon will not work no matter how much the brain wants it to, even being stunned by a projectile.
I dont mind a challenge, but when a group of naked men run across a bridge and my men launch 400-600 javelins into them, plus the volleys of arrows, there will be substantial losses.
There may have been accounts of men pulling javelins from their chest and fighting on, but they would have been rare.
I think 2hp is fair, very high morale and attack, but armour on a naked man ?, I think the 2hp is enough to simulate their tolerance to pain.

Reality check. They aren't "naked men running across a bridge". These guys have good sized shields and helmets, which mean that proper defensive techniques will leave about as much flesh exposed to a javelin as would almost any other unit out there. EB didn't make these guys up. They existed and were renowned for ferocity on the battlefield. If nakedness was that much of an achilles heel, they'd have disappeared with nary a mention in the historical record.

[bovi]

I dont mind a challenge, but when a group of naked men run across a bridge and my men launch 400-600 javelins into them, plus the volleys of arrows, there will be substantial losses.

They die when you put 400-600 javelins into them. You exaggerate. Also, try sending those javelins in from their righthand side or rear. Massive carnage.

Originally Posted by bovi
I believe their armour is not merely from their helmet, but an abstraction for being able to shrug off missiles due to the drugs.

Isn't that what the 2hp is for?

Yes. That too. With no armour, they would go splat from a single volley from their unshielded sides, whether they had 2 or 5 hitpoints.

[Rilder]

I dont care how high on drugs they are, their is only so much the body can take, blood loss for starters, you lose a limb, you are going to bleed to death very soon if there is no treatment, or any vital organ hit, muscles destroyed from any weapon will not work no matter how much the brain wants it to, even being stunned by a projectile.
.

Sure he'll bleed to death but it probably wouldn't kill him in time to kill several enemies.

I think the armor is for small injuries like a slash across the gut, a finger sliced off and such and 2HP is for how well they can sustain a normally fatal hit, like an arm cut off or a javelin in the chest. The moral simulated that they are in this drugged bloodlust who wouldn't run away if they were alone.

Besides if they'd lose there sword-arm they could of just used there other arm.

[The Errant]

Capping human generals might make sense (though it's likely impossible to discriminate), but the AI has a bad tendency to toss it's general units into battle early on, and that makes them quite susceptible to early loss of the general, with subsequent morale hits and easier routing of the entire enemy army.

Personally I prefer a tougher opponent, and it's infrequent to encounter the "general-who-will-not-die", although certainly a fair number escape to fight again. And on one level it IS frustrating to defeat an enemy and then see him return to battle a turn or so later leading a massive force of newly recruited mercenaries. But there's a certain extra *something* about those battles, isn't there? I mean usually the AI army is led by just one more semi-faceless enemy family member. But fighting the same guy 2 or 3 times is a whole other story. It's almost personal. This guy escaped against all odds and he DARES to return and fight again? You can almost feel the adrenaline flowing. How can that be bad?

It's frustrating cause the AI dosen't feel the loss. If an army of the human player gets wiped out, you feel the loss. Worst case you loose two or three cities depending on the protection of that single army and general.
For the AI it's like: OK. I lost. No big deal. I still got a ton of money and since the first assault didn't work I'll just try another one. Only this time I'll do with two stacks of elites and regulars and one merc. stack.
Historically when the AS lost it's field army against the Romans their whole empire started falling apart. Here it's like. No big deal we will just make a new one.
I know the AI generals are often couragous to the point of foolishness. But I've also seen the AI adapt it's armies to better face up to human players. One of my stacks was almost all skirmisher cavalry. After beating a couple stacks with them the AI brought a stack of phalangites, slingers and those bolt throwing warmachines. My poor cavalty got it's ass handed to it in that battle. Same if you use lots of skirmishers the AI will eventually throw a more cavalry heavy army against you.
While far from being competent it's apparent that the AI has atleast faint glimmer of intelligence.
I'm not asking you to make the AI generals into wimps. I'm asking you to make them human instead of supermen. Who knows the AI might actually start to use it's generals in a more sensible way than as early shock units.

Compared to AI generals Gaesatae are a walk in the park. Drugged up and religious zealots they may be, but they still have only 2 HP compared to the AI Superman general 6+ HP their weak. Best part is the bastards on foot. Archers, slingers, JavCav and HA can get on their exposed side easily and hurt them before the Gaesatae hit you. The generals take an insane amount of pounding, and when they finally rout, it's a one turn reprieve unless you manage to kill him. Even then the AI will get a new candidate for adoption and the whole circus starts all over again.

[Sheep]

I dunno how relevant it is to the situation, but I have personally seen a (really stupid) warthog headbutt a rhino, get impaled and flipped into the air by the rhino's horn, land twenty feet away, get up, run a couple hundred yards with its intestines dragging behind it, and then chase a baby gazelle around a bit until it finally died. And this was without any drugs at all, just pure adrenaline, stubbornness, and a bad attitude!

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Personally I prefer a tougher opponent, and it's infrequent to encounter the "general-who-will-not-die", although certainly a fair number escape to fight again. And on one level it IS frustrating to defeat an enemy and then see him return to battle a turn or so later leading a massive force of newly recruited mercenaries. But there's a certain extra *something* about those battles, isn't there? I mean usually the AI army is led by just one more semi-faceless enemy family member. But fighting the same guy 2 or 3 times is a whole other story. It's almost personal. This guy escaped against all odds and he DARES to return and fight again? You can almost feel the adrenaline flowing. How can that be bad?

I agree. Those AI generals who won't die are both annoying and a cool chance of a kind of role play. I remember one Parthian guy named "Zoroaster of Somewhere" (ironic since he was blessed by the gods - 7-8 command, tons of HP, his armies would never break). This guy would attack me with an army every year, often twice a year. A situation where I amagined my "Parthicus" general had a personal conflict with him and a mutual respect. I eventually chased him down with a horse archer army when he was away from his army. It was more of an assassination than a death in battle.

I just wish returning guys wouldn't fully replenish their bodyguards withing a turn.

[Watchman]

I dunno how relevant it is to the situation, but I have personally seen a (really stupid) warthog headbutt a rhino, get impaled and flipped into the air by the rhino's horn, land twenty feet away, get up, run a couple hundred yards with its intestines dragging behind it, and then chase a baby gazelle around a bit until it finally died. And this was without any drugs at all, just pure adrenaline, stubbornness, and a bad attitude!

That's swine for you. They had those crossbars in the boar-spears and -swords for a reason - the ornery beasts would literally just push up the shaft to get at you otherwise.

[Sheep]

Yeah, and this was a captive-raised warthog! Not even a wild one!

[Moros]

Don't get children, sheep. Don't.

[zonks32]

"They die when you put 400-600 javelins into them. You exaggerate. Also, try sending those javelins in from their righthand side or rear. Massive carnage."

I do not exaggerate, read my post again a you may notice that I said "substantial" losses, not no losses.
Because I dont post often does not mean I dont know how to play, Iv'e been playing as long as anyone, though history is my hobby I dont pretend to know everything.
This is your mod and you design it as you see fit, I would not be here if I did not enjoy playing EB, its an awsome achievement.

The naked fanatics may be able to carry on with mortal wounds as portrayed in EB, but in EB these wounds are not mortal, they live to fight in other battles.
So simulating their drug crazed state in game by jacking up their stats is all well and good, but how do simulate when the drugs wear off and they drop dead.

[LorDBulA]

but how do simulate when the drugs wear off and they drop dead.

Not possible. If we could do it we would do it.

[Watchman]

They'd have to do something similar with the Soldurii as well you know - those guys do have suicide pacts with each other after all.

Hardcore warrior societies spawn some weird stuff.

[Ludens]

I just wish returning guys wouldn't fully replenish their bodyguards withing a turn.

I agree. I haven't had a problem with jedi-generals, but perhaps that is because I tend to soften them up with a few missile volleys beforehand. Also, it seem realistic to me that generals should be very hard to kill. In reality, their bodyguards would be actively protecting them, and helping them get away. The only really unrealistic thing is how fast their bodyguard regenerates.

[dofod]

The only other way (besides assassinating the general) to make soldier die is from a plague...I am just wondering if somehow all this massive deaths in the battle (or battles) can generate that in a randomized event...it would tip some balances, no?

Actually if the 'plague' (kill a bunch of people command for no other apparent reason, simply put) can be implemented in some other use then perhaps they can simulate the post-drug trauma experienced by the Gaesatae...yet I guess the function is hardcoded and not exactly possible to modify...?

[antisocialmunky]

In BI, you can have recruitable generals. If the general dies, the whole unit dies. Of course they would respawn if the general didn't die but I'm sure you could give the Gaestae general 2 HP like the rest of them.

[Centurion Varricus]

Just a comment on the overpowerd Generals.

I also found generals escaping when seemingly trapped. I found that my problem was that I was engaging in combat in defensive mode. I assume that this means that as the units hold their formation there are gaps through which the general can escape between the units. I resolved this by taking off the defensive mode and the units soon surrounded the enemy (general or other) and the fighting to the death symbol would appear.

I would like to offer a suggestion for debate.
if the generals bodyguard had increased defensive capabilities but reduced attack capabilities so as to act more like a bodyguard and not an elite attacking unit. Elite units, by contrast to have higher attack ratings but lower defensive attributes. I would imagine then that elite units would be more highly valued and only used to swing battles and comitted at the last.
I know its out of the time frame but think of Xerxes and his Immortals at thermopolye (spelling) Elite units were usually sent in at the end. If the risk of losing your elite unit means you keep them until you have to use them, then I think this is quite realistic. I know there are exceptions to the Xerxes situation, Alexander the Great lead from the front but it was a great personal risk to himself and his plans of empire.

Your thoughts please

[Frostwulf]

"The Roman commanders advanced their javelin throwers (velites), who moved ahead of the infantry and discharged their missiles, the Gaesatae were soon in difficulties. The shield used by the Celts does not cover the whole body, and so the tall stature of these naked warriors made the missiles all the more likely to find their mark. Yet if the Gaesatae were carrying the usual Celtic oval shield, they were surely well protected?
The Gaesatae found themselves subject to a murderous barrage of javelins while being unable to close with their adversaries. Some of them broke ranks, and rushed forward to engage the enemy, throwing away their lives as they ran forward and thus made themselves a more vulnerable target. The others wre pushed back on the Insubres, who were behind their ranks. They were thrown into disorder. Unable to get near the Roman ranks for hand to hand combat, cut to pieces by the rain of missiles, the Gaesatae were finally broken". -Peter B. Ellis /Battle of Telamon 224 BC.

This is what I was getting at about the lack of armor, and being in melee combat wouldnt be much different. This is the only thing I could find of actual combat involving the Gaesatae. Where can I find more information on these guys including the battles,formation, the drugs they used and etc?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Gaesatae are beserkers, they don't do defence. In reality if you were in melee combat with one you'd be dead sooner than you could blink. You have to gravitate between attack and defence, the big naked guy will just attack until you die.

It's very difficult to counter that unless you're very good or have great armour.

[Watchman]

If the track record of the various Viking berserker-type troops and comparable phenomenoms from other instances and cultures are anything to judge by, skilled warriors who went for the crazed "slay or die" approach to melee combat were rather nasty customers to deal with and way harder to take down than their overall lack of concern with defense and typically noticeable lack of armour as well would make one think.

A projectile, on the other hand, is a dumb object that does not worry about keeping itself alive a few seconds longer, wet its pants in fear, have to concern itself with managing to put in an effective attack while simultaneously trying to stay alive, and generally suffer from the problem human troops have in hand-to-hand combat. Especially against uncomfortably skilled nutcases unconcerned with pain or fear or their own mortality.

[mAIOR]

Yeah the problem with pre-polybian romans would be that most of them had little armor. And, if you have a dude with little armor, no pain reducing drugs and a wish to come back alive and a dude with no armor, drugged to a frenzin and who doesn't care if you removed a considerable portion of his intestine, I place my money on the second one. Gaesatae are fine in EB as they are I believe. I seldomly have problems with them (ok when they send 2 units in the middle of a battle where you're at numerical disadvantage and your troops are spent, granted they can bother you...) as I'm able to dispatch them easilly (nothing beats a triarii charge from the flanks to teach them rascals a thing or two about warare) thanks to missiles and heavy infantry.
I believe the main problem is most people trying to take them 2 on 1 with weak troops like pre-Polybian Princeps or Hastatii. Those guys have little armor and I imagine in Real life they'd want to get home to their wifes and fields again. So that gives Gaesatae a heads up no?
Also their drug would probably be some kind of Fungus (maybe grain fungus common in France responsible for severe alucinations like werewolves and vampires and lycantropy behavior) as they produce some nasty side effects...

Cheers...

[Watchman]

Back in 0.81 I once wiped out two Eleutheroi bandit Gaesatae with something like one unit of Brihentin bodyguards, one Leuce Epos, and two Sotaroas (and a lot of running around). And that's just because I didn't feel like taking pointless infantry casualties by bringing those in.

Whenever they turn up as parts of larger armies they tend to attract the undivided attention of most of my missile troops for a while. After that, and swallowing whatever precursor javelins they've got coming, they tend to go down or rout obediently enough in melee.

Overpowered, meh. You just need to take the correct approach. Granted I've never had to fight multiple-gold-chevron monster editions, but then again unless I had comparable HC killing machines traipsing around I'd just bury such under a mountain of pointy things and pebbles and forget about even trying to eliminate most of them up close.

[Kralizec]

The only real problem I have with the Gaesatae is that realisticly some of them would die from their wounds after the battle, but RTW can't handle that. Elephants have the same problem but it's rare that someone demands that they be nerfed.

[Watchman]

Strictly speaking the Solduri with their suicide pacts ought to suffer some excess after-battle casualties as well, but, well...

[Frostwulf]

The Gaesatae are beserkers, they don't do defence. In reality if you were in melee combat with one you'd be dead sooner than you could blink. You have to gravitate between attack and defence, the big naked guy will just attack until you die.

If the track record of the various Viking berserker-type troops and comparable phenomenoms from other instances and cultures are anything to judge by, skilled warriors who went for the crazed "slay or die" approach to melee combat were rather nasty customers to deal with and way harder to take down than their overall lack of concern with defense and typically noticeable lack of armour as well would make one think.

A projectile, on the other hand, is a dumb object that does not worry about keeping itself alive a few seconds longer, wet its pants in fear, have to concern itself with managing to put in an effective attack while simultaneously trying to stay alive, and generally suffer from the problem human troops have in hand-to-hand combat. Especially against uncomfortably skilled nutcases unconcerned with pain or fear or their own mortality.

I really would hesitate to call them beserkers in the traditional sense. The beserker-gang in history was typically a teutonic thing(with some exceptions). From what I have read the Gaesatae didnt behave like beserkers at all. The beserker works himself into a frenzy(biting shield,howling etc.) then charges into combat. The Gaesatae are very well ordered and disciplined, the beserkers are neither of those. Also the Gaesatae fought with big numbers, historically you rarely find that many beserkers, let alone fighting together. As far as the projectile situation, as you said its a dumb object. The missile may not have fear but the thrower might even though he may be further away. In hand to hand combat you have humans feinting and other tactics, not just a dumb object falling out of the sky.The human in melee combat has more opportunities to inflict damage and death.

Yeah the problem with pre-polybian romans would be that most of them had little armor. And, if you have a dude with little armor, no pain reducing drugs and a wish to come back alive and a dude with no armor, drugged to a frenzin and who doesn't care if you removed a considerable portion of his intestine, I place my money on the second one.

I still state that if the individual that was drugged would be worse off in combat due to his numbed state.
"A UK television programme in 2004 tested the possible use of fly agaric and alcohol by training a healthy volunteer in the use of Viking weapons, then evaluating his performance under the influence of fly agaric or alcohol compared to no influence. It was shown that use of fly agaric or alcohol severely reduced his fighting ability, and the tentative conclusion drawn was that berserk state was achieved psychologically; otherwise, berserkers would have been too easy to kill. Of course, this does not take into account the mindset that the berserker likely would have attempted to place himself in." -wikipedia. Granted this is most likely not the stuff the Gaesatae used, but other studies have been done with similar results(on reflexes and etc.)

This is what I was getting at about the lack of armor, and being in melee combat wouldnt be much different. This is the only thing I could find of actual combat involving the Gaesatae. Where can I find more information on these guys including the battles,formation, the drugs they used and etc?

Still looking for this guys. I had to edit this by saying my view on the Gaesatae is just from this limited information. This is why Im looking for more information on this.

[-Praetor-]

This is what I was getting at about the lack of armor, and being in melee combat wouldnt be much different. This is the only thing I could find of actual combat involving the Gaesatae. Where can I find more information on these guys including the battles,formation, the drugs they used and etc?

Hi.

The following story is not contemporary to the period that occupy us, but I couldn`t help to remember the examples of an entire regiment fighting under the effects of drugs. In Chile during the pacific war in 1879-1883 between a Peru-Bolivian alliance against Chile, there was a gruesome battle called the assault on the Morro of Arica.

It`s an entrentched eminence, a steep cliff or Cape that rises 130m over the sea, and that in such times was fortified with a series of pits, pillbox and extended trenches, as well as the first extensive use of electric minefields in this war (not sure if the first in the world at all).

A regular practice in those days in the chilean army, was to drink chupilca, a mixed and energetic drink that comprised toasted flour and red wine. You can use sugar if you want to (and tastes pretty nice too). In specially merrier or solemn times, ppl drank this mix, not with red wine, but with 50º distilled grape alcohol (aguardiente or flamingwater).

Since this was a special time (the 4ºth line regiment had the mission to lead the main assault and to penetrate the enemy`s defences, so, it was the one that was to take the most horrific casualties of the entire operation), the people prepared their breakfast drink not with wine, but with the distilled alcohol.

But the officers, knowing that the task was a bloddy one, with huge cassualties, mixed their toasted flour with a generous amount of gunpowder.

After taking the beakfast, people started marching to the hill, and not hearing the orders that claimed to respect the time on which the regiment`s assault shoud begin, charged in before the hour planned, with little regard to eventual minefields and/or killing zones created by the conjunction of fields of fire of several companies on a single zone.

In the attack, people of the 4th attacked with a zeal unheard of, not hearing their officers`s commands, and using first the rifle, after they ran out of ammunitions, the bayonet, and after it bended, the very own rifle as a club. It was horrible, and terrible atrocities were made...

After having massacred the detachment defending the lower forts, the gunpowder house blew up because of maybe a fire or because a defeated defender tried to make a last act of defense. Many were blown to pieces. One voice among the multitude shouted "al morro muchachos!" (to the cliff, boys!), and without complying to the shouts of the officers, the entire regiment swept forward wtihout any organization whatsoever, more disorlerly if possible than in the previous assault, and ran straight across a minefield.

People were blown up into the air 2 or 3 meters, then crashed to the ground with barley a scratch but with all their clothes in rags, and continued on climbing. Some had horrific cuts, hands cut in the previous engagement, feets ripped appart with the explosion, legs broken pecause of the falls, ribs broken because of the concussion shrapnel rock from the mine explosions, and even with such hurts and injuries, people fought with an enormous zeal, ignoring "their officer`s orders on discipline, nor god commands on mercy".

That regiment entered that specific battle with 941 able men.

The cassualties of the entire operation were 474, most (if not all) belonging to that regiment. They didn`t had 2HP.

Conclusion: Don`t do drugs, your dick may be severed, and you might not even notice it.

Cheers!

PS: Hope I wasn`t very boring, just wanted to illustrate a modern massive use of drugs in battle.

[NeoSpartan]

good one K Raso








especially the ending...

[Dan_Grr]

Very interesting story Raso. As for me, I don't have a problem with Gaetasae, unless they're a full stack of it. In my opinion, if you don't have an army that stands up to a full Gaesatae stack (slinger/skirmisher army, which I find too easy then), then you are supposed to lose, historically and/or gameplay wise. Do we always have to win? A loss is good way to bring us back to earth and add some realism to a campaign.

And if I have one of those inferior and annoying generals who are essentially worthless (Ah! The generals. They are numerous but not good for much) I just martirize him/them and take away as much enemies as I can in the process.