You're playing on Medium battle/VH campaign right?
You're playing on Medium battle/VH campaign right?
Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.
"Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009
i usually play in my campaigns h/h i really like the challenge but sometimes the ai abuses the bonuses it receives from the difficulty level, well im using the best unit the lusotanan can offer the vasci shock infantry and they where wasted by the gaesetae also the loricati caetrati which are heavy troops too and they do have a very good armor and attack rating too, anyways i feel the celtic units are overpowered, also in one battle a unit of lugoae the levy spearmen, caused a lot of casualties to a full unit of loricati scutari with the armor and attack upgrade and one chevron of experience, hahahaha anyways thanks for the mod guys i really enjoy it!im really waiting for the mod for mtw2 !greetings from mexico!
"Sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, and brains saves both." Erwin Rommel
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning."Erwin Rommel
"So long as one isn't carrying ones head under one's arm, things aren't too bad." Erwin Rommel
The stats for EB are not designed for any difficulty level other than medium for battle. The reason that the celtic units appear overpowered to you is because of those bonuses. If you don't play on medium battle difficulty, we can't really help with any complaints.Originally Posted by SwebozGaztiz
Foot
EBII Mod Leader
Hayasdan Faction Co-ordinator
It seems to me that the units are overpowered as well. I did a cursory check of the units from Celtic type peoples (Aedui, Galations, etc.) and for the infantry units anyway they seem to be more powerful then even the Romans. It seems to me that the the Celts infantry units from the light,med,hvy and special units are in general more powerful then units of other factions.
I have a problem with this because the Romans and Germans consistently beat up on the Celts. It seems strange that some of the Celt units are even stronger then the elite Roman Praetorian guard. I readily admit Im not a historical scholar but as an amature historian of several readings on this period these stats dont fit.
As far as the Gaesatae are concerned I still have a problem with their stats. I know people keep saying these guy were hopped up on drugs etc. There was a study done in 2004 on drug induced volunteer and how effective they were with melee weapons. These volunteers where trained to use these weapons and when they used the drugs there effectiveness severely decreased. Granted this study used different drugs then the Gaesatae used, but if your body is numb to that much to pain I doubt the effectiveness of your abilities to use weapons. It might be a different situation if ignoring pain was due to adrenaline.
I do think the EB team did an exceptional job on this mod, I just happen to disagree with the Celt stats. If anyone has any information I could find on the Gaesatae and Celtic fighting in general, I would greatly appreciate the information.
As I recall, most decent Celtic units are more expensive than the Roman counterparts, which accounts for a bit of that; there aren't enough of the good soldiers to fight their equivalents, due to their cost. Mind Romans did have trouble with actual soldiers in Celtic territories, as opposed to levies-augmented-by-soldiers that Julius Caesar had to fight (as the Gallic armies were so worn down by fighting between the Sequani {who's royal house taken control of the kingdom the Arverni had built} and the Aedui Confederacy). Most Gallic soldiers in those days would've probably been spearmen, incapable of raising 'regulars', who the Neitos represent. Mail-equipped companies of Gauls were trouble for the Romans, but most were spent retarding the Germanic expansion or fighting eachother; had they been spent against the Romans, it may have been at least a bit different, at least slowing the conquest of Gaul.
Last edited by Anthony; 04-16-2007 at 07:32.
"The friendship that can cease has never been real." - St. Jerome
"You will find something more in woods than in books. Trees and stones will teach you that which you can never learn from masters." - St. Bernard
Funny how people say the Romans and Germans constantly beat up on the Celts by ONLY looking at the period of Ceasar's Gaellic Wars.
![]()
Punctuation...![]()
"The facts of history cannot be purely objective, since they become facts of history only in virtue of the significance attached to them by the historian." E.H. Carr
Thats definately too simple but it is also much too simple to say that the gauls just lost vs. the germanic tribes because of inner-tribal struggles.Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
They were pushed west- and southwards from the germanic tribes a few decades before Ariovist beat the Aedui or Ceasar conquered Gaul.
I hate to be pedantic or demeaning but, "Gaelic" refers to people in Ireland (& Scotland) of a little later period, and "Gallic" refers to the Celts who were in what is modern France. Probably just a typo...Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Damn straight. Caeser's invasion was really just the last chapter for the continental Celts. Before that Celtic tribes conquered much of Europe, from Iberia all the way to Anatolia, they sacked Rome, and according to new evidence they may have sacked Delphi too. (The Greeks claim they stopped the barbarians in the nick of time, but just recently rich Greek objects like those that would have been deposited at Delphi have turned up in French rivers and lakes.) As for the Germans, they were blocked from expanding south for centuries by Celtic tribes such as the Volcae.Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Im guessing the perception of Germans wiping the floor with Celts comes from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, which happened much later (and was by no means a walk over for the Saxons - read the Mabinogion).
The artist formerly known as Johnny5.
this really does answer alot of questionsOriginally Posted by Foot
![]()
Bookmarks