Maskimus that was an excellent post (content and grammar/style flows well)! I apologize for any attitude, we DO welcome your opinion and comments, especially such as those
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Maskimus that was an excellent post (content and grammar/style flows well)! I apologize for any attitude, we DO welcome your opinion and comments, especially such as those
HWÆT !
“Vesall ertu þinnar skjaldborgar!” “Your shieldwall is pathetic!” -Bǫðvar Bjarki [Hrólfs Saga Kraka]
“Wyrd oft nereð unfǽgne eorl þonne his ellen déah.” “The course of events often saves the un-fey warrior if his valour is good.” -Bēowulf
“Gørið eigi hárit í blóði.” “Do not get blood on [my] hair.” -Sigurð Búason to his executioner [Óláfs Saga Tryggvasonar: Heimskringla]
Wes þū hāl ! Be whole (with luck)!
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Maksimus, I can't offer you a balloon or anything, because that's someone else's line, but I apologise for my aggressiveness. I just get a little cooked up whenever someone attacks an EB member. They suffer too much abuse already. Just to let you know, to my knowledge, there are no nazis in the team, and the "STFU Donny" thing is absolutely hilarious if you've seen the movie. I say it sometimes to my brother, but Zak, you shouldn't say it to a stranger. Shame on you. Anyway Maksimus, get your hands on "The Big Lebowski". Most video rentals should have it. It's guaranteed to make you burst. After you've seen it, you'll know it wasn't a personal attack, just something to lighten up the mood.
Anyways...
I'm glad. I wasn't sure at all...Originally Posted by Maksimus
It's somewhat possible, and I think it has been implemented. Roman FM's get doctors and those kinds of ancillaries that increase the casualty survival rate. I'm not sure if they get them more frequently than others though..
Even Roman medicine can't put dismembered bodyparts back together, although those herbs and olive oil would make them delicious. The Celts, on the other hand, can use soap to clean them up and make a trophy, so it's a 50/50 situation. Looks vs. taste. It's a matter of opinion.
Sorry, I had to do it. What I was going to say is that I don't know how effective herbs and olive oil are at killing bacteria, and that I think they were mostly used for the scent and keeping skin moist. You know, cosmetics, not actual disease preventers.
My bad.
Which faction do you play with? Seleucid, Macedonian and Ptolemaic hetairoi bodyguards hack through them like butter, but I reckon something like Pontic bodyguards are a different story.
Well, to defend myself, you weren't actually referring to the relationship of food and military. I was just saying that Celts didn't go to McDonald's, so they ate pretty normal food. I doubt the diet of a "midclass" Roman was that much different from a "midclass" Celt's. Except for the booze.
Never say that.
I try not to be sarcastic all of the time, but disgrace is my second name.
Re: Celtic overpowered!
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.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.
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.
Re: Celtic overpowered!
also, apparently you've not noticed that medics and 'soldiers healing' are already in the game through ancilliaries that increase soldiers healed after a battle.
"urbani, seruate uxores: moechum caluom adducimus. / aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum." --Suetonius, Life of Caesar
Re: Celtic overpowered!
I think EBs Celtic depiction is justified. From archaeology we know the Celts were an expansive and technologicaly advanced group of peoples, and they remained so until a far more organised and concerted foe, Rome, overcame them. The Germans on the other hand did not have much impact on Europe until later in history, when Rome was in decline.
People are VERY touchy about this, and I think its for the wrong reasons (ie not a passion for historical accuracy, but patriotic bias). Noone is claiming Celts were innately more valiant or more intelligent, any generalisation on that scale is stupid.
If anything EB speaks very highly of the Germans, I remember for example in one place it states Celts were more likely to rout, while Germans would use the retreat creatively to launch a new attack.
And the little differences in stats should not be such a big deal to people.
Its like New Zealand loosing the rugby world cup. Man for man they are easily the best team, but on the day they were outplayed by France. Likewise on a battlefield tactics are far more important than the fighting attributes of the men deployed. Hannibal repeatedly hammered the Romans despite have an inferior infantry line. Anyway Im rambling now, but you see where Im going with this. As the saying goes "An army of sheep led by a lion would beat an army of lions led by a sheep".
The artist formerly known as Johnny5.
Re: Celtic overpowered!
I agree. I mentioned in an earlier post the Germans, on the whole, had to fight against failing, soon to fall empires and lands (Western Romans Empire & Gaul) and invaded lands that were robbed of their defenses and Legions on the edges of Empires (Britannia).
What accounts for the absence of Gauls elite warriors?
I think the Celtic Civil War had robbed Gaul of its best troops in the war between the two main tribes, Aedui and Arverni. I feel theres no way Caesar would have been able to take down Gaul otherwise.
Each tribe had its elite, well trained warrior classes. If Gaul was united behind resisting Caesar, where were these elite warriors? I do not believe Caesar fought against a professional Celtic force, even once, in Gaul. The only logical reason I can imagine is that Gaul's professional armies, and their most experienced troops were already gone and dead through Civil War.
Imagine the siege of Alesia with the relief army composing of professional, seasoned warriors from Gaul from each tribe? Caesar would have been hard pressed to hold out against them.
No doubt this will be taken as downplaying Germanic wonder conquests. It would be admirable if they fought against vigorous, powerful empires in their prime, but that never really happened...\
Feel free to disagree though. Just my 2 cents...
Last edited by Power2the1; 10-21-2007 at 17:56.
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Just accidentally checked this. Galatian Shortswordsmen have total defence of 14 (armour 1, shield 2, skill 11) while Hoplitai Haploi have defence 15 (armour 5, shield 4, skill 7). Are you absolutely sure their defence is too strong? I can't find a single Hellenistic unit with lower defence than that, apart from Akontistai, Toxotai and Sphendonetai. You should read the description of the unit and you'll find a completely new perspective on them.
Re: Celtic overpowered!
I'm kind of wondering if the elementary but surprisingly often made mistake of not switching to the cavalry's secondary weapons in melee wasn't involved...
"Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."
-Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Re: Celtic overpowered!
I've had this Gallic Civil War discussion before. It seems clear that here the Swabians were simply acting out the role the Franks would later play. That is fighting for the caracas of a big dead cow. Except in their case there was a bigger more bader wolf on site? Caesar.
quae res et cibi genere et cotidiana exercitatione et libertate vitae
Herein events and rations daily birth the labors of freedom.
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Aye.
Re: Celtic overpowered!
For some of these questions go here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Power I have just one question and this question is not meant to be rude by any sort. Where did you get your information on this supposed "Devastating Civil War" and can you please cite any author?
Also this link is to a list of battle:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144
I didn't miss the quotes you provided, I put down this response. Cunliffe is an excellent source, Powell on the other hand; his information is dated.
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"After the middle of the third centuries BC the Gauls came under increasing pressure, in the south from the Romans, in the east from the Hellenistic kingdoms and in the north from the Dacians and the Germans." pg.37
Also there is these:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
The information was correct, but if you want to say the use of it was erroneous that is fair. I'm not afraid of admitting when I'm wrong and have done so when it has been pointed out. You on the other hand......
I ignore them because they have no relevance here. The Romans were superior to the Celts(I'm a Roman apologist for saying that). The Germans of the time of Caesar were superior to the Celtic forces, backed up by many authors. This could also be said of the TCA. I simply disagreed with your claim that the Celts had been defeating the Germans for centuries. Should I then go and start quoting from 17th and 18th century about Celtomania?
Everything I have said on the subject is backed up with evidence from experts in the field, but it would seem because they disagree with you they are nazis. If your thinking that I said the Germans were genetically superior or something to that effect your completely wrong. I did say that the German would have an edge over the Celt(all things being equal) as would a Celt over a Roman, it had to do with the general physical size. The rest of the factors would be environmental and cultural.
Your misunderstanding me again.
"The arms and armour of the Germans didn't change much during these times. The tactics used? The shield wall was used from before Caesars time for at least a 1,000 years later where the Anglo-Saxon's fought the Normans at the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps your referring to battle formations? If you look at the way the troops of Ariovistus were lined up, they are very similar to those used by the Franks,Lombards and etc. several hundred years later."
Its all about combat, after all thats what this thread is supposed to be about, even though we had to deviate to prove/disprove things.
According to John Warry "Warfare in the Classical World" on pg.161 he list's number of soldiers as:
Caesar: 21000 Legionaries plus Gallic horse (4000) and other auxiliaries
Ariovistus: Germans tribal levy en masse (from community of 120,000); includes 6000 horse-men with 6000 footmen and 16000 light infantry.
He doesn't go into detail of the troop make up other then making the distinction of light infantry. It seems of the 22000 troops, 6000 of them had decent armor. That of course is pure speculation on my part. But it is also worth noting of the arms and armor of the TCA, roughly 50 years earlier.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=115
I have said this multiple times. Ariovistus outnumbered the Romans.
Goldsworthy “Caesar”-The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Although not more than eight hundred German horsemen were present, as soon as they caught sight of Caesar's cavalry they charged and 'soon threw them into disorder'-all five thousand of them. The Celts did not break immediately, 'but in their turn, made a stand' and a sharp fight ensued in which the Germans, 'overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight'. pg.230-231
The Usipetes and Tenctheri may or may not have had the footmen with them, Caesar only said that Ariovistus had them. I'm not saying that the Usipetes and Tenctheri footmen were not there, we just don't know for sure.
Funny how you keep harping on this, trying to make it sound like I discredit him. "If" he did say this I would disagree with him, that doesn't mean he loses all credibility. If you read what the other authors have written(Sidnell,Speidel,Goldsworthy,etc.) it shows quite obviously who was better. All these authors are prone to error including the ones I use, but here is the question, where is your proof to disprove what these authors are saying?
So we go from:
to:
I have said before that the Belgae are different from the Aedui, who were different then the Celts on the Island etc. So what is your point here?
This is the reason I put my statement in question form. I have never claimed to be an expert, that is why I put quotes down from those who are. To say I have a lack of understanding because I wasn't sure if the Allobroges were still part of an alliance is a bit of an overstatement.
So now we go from the supposed "Devastating Civil War" to they fought two wars.
*Atlas of the Celts-"During the first half of the 1st century BC, the rest of Gaul attained an uneasy accommodation with the Roman occupation of the south. Celtic Gaul was generally a prosperous and peaceful region where farms flourished and oppida (towns), stimulated by Roman trade grew ever larger. In central Gaul, societies became sufficiently complex and well organized to be on the brink of independent statehood, and left to their own devices they might well have achieved this within a generation or two. pg.82
According to you the supposed "Devastating Civil War" started around 124 B.C. or so. According to the above statement the generally prosperous and peaceful region was from 100B.C. till Caesars arrival around 58 B.C. So that leaves roughly 25 years of supposed "Devastation", also you have to take into account the TCA from around 109-101 BC.
*Atlas of the Celts-"During the 2nd century BC, a period of prosperity and relative stability in Celtic Europe, the first oppida(towns) emerged north of the Alps. Like the cities of the Mediterranean region, the oppida served as commercial, administrative, manufacturing and distribution centers."pg.88
Simon James "The World of the Celts"-"It is clear from Classical sources, and from the number of Iron Age settlements found, that Gaul and Britain were settled. Modern surveys, using aerial photography and field-walking (searching fields for pottery and other traces of buried settlements churned up by ploughing), have located farms, hamlets and larger agglomerations in their thousands. Not all of these were occupied at once, of course, but even so, recent estimates put the population of late Iron Age Britain as high as 2-3 million, and that of Gaul at 6-8 million. There had evidently been rapid growth in the last two centuries BC, because during the early Iron age in Britain at any rate the population was much smaller." pg.63
So you have prosperity and relative stability during the 2nd century BC and you have population growth as well. The only disturbance during this time to my knowledge was the TCA.
What would be nice is if you could put down the source of your information. Who said that there were two wars, who talked about the "Devastation" and the malnutrition? Where are the authors and what book/article has this?
The following two quotes come from chapter 5-Gaul: continuity and change 125-59BC:
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"A socio-economic system such a this ensured a sound subsistence economy. It also allowed the aristocracy a degree of mobility, but since it was a society in which was, to a large extent, gained by prowess in the raid, it meant that warfare, at least on a raiding level remained endemic."pg.89
Barry Cunliffe-"Greeks,Romans & Barbarians"-"Sufficient will have been said to show that in classic Celtic society, power lay in personal prowess and the size of the individual's following, but the maintenance of that power required the lavish distribution of gifts in displays of conspicuous consumption. Such extravagance could only be kept up by raiding and looting. Hence warfare on this scale was endemic.
The overall effects of this kind of socio-economic system were to keep society fragmented in a multitude of loosely linked chiefdoms. Alliances could suddenly appear, great war leaders could emerge, but equally quickly they could disintegrate and vanish overnight. In short, the socio-economic system of Celtic Gaul in its classical period, before the first century BC, actively worked against the emergence of large stable confederations. The only force which seems to have had a degree of coercive power transcending local hierarchies was the religious class- the Druids." pg.91
Cunliffe echoes both Goldsworthy and James, which supports my view.
I think your response here is very reasonable, but I haven't dismissed your evidence either. I disagreed with it and felt that Tchernia(the guy with the best guess) equated the end of the slave trade to Gauls manufacturing their own wine. This goes against the supposed "Devastating Civil War".
I have and I agree with you up to a point. They may not have been expecting an attack but after the Usipetes and Tencteri charged, Caesar's Gallic cavalry was reinforced which should have given the momentum to the Gauls.
Goldsworthy “Caesar”-Caesar made one modest concession, saying that he would advance 4 miles during the day, moving to a position where his camp would have a convenient water supply. In the meantime fighting had already broken out between the cavalry of the two sides.The Germans had some 800 horsemen still guarding their encampment. Caesar had 5,000 cavalry, although if these were performing their duties as a patrolling and screening force properly, then they would not all have been concentrated in one place. Even so, the Gallic auxiliaries probably had a significant numerical advantage, and were mounted on larger horses than their opponents, which makes it all the more notable that the Germans quickly gained an advantage. In Caesar's account the Germans charged first, chasing away part of the Gallic cavalry, but were in turn met by their supports. Many of the Germans then dismounted to fight on foot-perhaps with the support of the picked infantrymen who regularly supported the horsemen of some Germanic tribes. The Gauls were routed and fled, spreading panic amongst a large part of the auxiliary and allied cavalry who galloped in terror back to the main force, which was probably several miles away.” pg.274
Phillip Sidnell-"Warhorse"-"Although not more than eight hundred German horsemen were present, as soon as they caught sight of Caesar's cavalry they charged and 'soon threw them into disorder'-all five thousand of them. The Celts did not break immediately, 'but in their turn, made a stand' and a sharp fight ensued in which the Germans, 'overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight'. pg.230-231
Again if your going with the genetic type thing I never claimed, nor would I ever claim such a thing.
What I do claim is that the Germans were superior warriors during Caesars time, as backed up by many authors. I also believe the case is the same with the TCA though most of it through proxy. Prior to this time it is unknown, the conventional view is that the Germans began to reverse the Celtic expansion around 300 BC.
I'm sorry to hear that but it is totally understandable. I do have the same problems, thats why it takes me a few days to respond. I hope things go well for you as well.
I believe you have missed out on a few things. For the Romans go here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144
For the Germans go here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=243
Ariovistus for one. Most of the elites by the time of Caesar were the cavalry, and if you look at the cavalry of the Celts there were many.
Power2the1,Johnny5 and cmacq if any of you or any one else out there have any information pertaining to the supposed "Devastating Civil War" could you please post were you received this information from. I don't care if its a web site, article,book, whatever source it is please post it here.
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Very cheap, if you don't like to be educated just don't read it.
Although i'm not agreeing with Frostwulf on every aspect he quotes respected authors and you give us a lame picture as input...
Re: Celtic overpowered!
See how SaFe quoted? That's how it's done!!
We don't need quoted picture spam, thank you!
Want to talk about Overpowered Celts? The Alpine Phalanx is awesome, 1400 cost and you get a pretty damn good unit with 9 armor! This is actually already discussed to be corrected (less armor) in 1.1 but I must say, I had a hard time wanting to build any other phalanx with that unit being sooo nice.
The Alpine swordsmen are nicely priced also!! I won't say they're overpowered, because you can figure it out, with 1100 cost and high statsbut I don't want them to be changed! You know, it seems like the whole Alpine area just has nice units
Last edited by blitzkrieg80; 10-25-2007 at 00:18.
HWÆT !
“Vesall ertu þinnar skjaldborgar!” “Your shieldwall is pathetic!” -Bǫðvar Bjarki [Hrólfs Saga Kraka]
“Wyrd oft nereð unfǽgne eorl þonne his ellen déah.” “The course of events often saves the un-fey warrior if his valour is good.” -Bēowulf
“Gørið eigi hárit í blóði.” “Do not get blood on [my] hair.” -Sigurð Búason to his executioner [Óláfs Saga Tryggvasonar: Heimskringla]
Wes þū hāl ! Be whole (with luck)!
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Sorry if I went out of hand with that picreally....but I like it
but like I said in the Sweboz underpowered... I have yet to play this on Costume battles to test it, as well as on MP, so I can't pass judgement.
Oh yes those alpine guys are awesome... nice infantry, with decently good stats, and at a reasonable price. I am also digging the celts to the East close to the Balkans (sp), oh and the gaesatae-wannabees too.
Its a shame i STILL am on midterms I haven't been able to play in the past week
Last edited by NeoSpartan; 10-25-2007 at 04:34.
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Sorry for making this topic 'up in the front line again' -
But, are there any special motive for using one very powerfull attribute in EB only for 'some' units?
To be more specific
Why is COMMAND attribute used in 'export_descr_unit.txt' refering only to Celts - let me note: Casse - Britania?
Like;
Cidainh (celtic chariot cidainh bodyguards, celtic chariot cidainh), = britons, slave
Calawre (celtic infantry calawre), = britons, slave
Carnute Cingetos (celtic infantry carnute cingetos), = gauls, slave
Cwmyr (celtic infantry cwmyr), = gauls, britons, scythia, slave
Kluddargos (celtic infantry kluddargos) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia
Rycalawre (celtic infantry rycalawre) = britons, slave
Drwdae (celtic infantry drwdae) = gauls, scythia, britons, slave
Lugian Swordsmen (celtic infantry lugian) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia, germans, dacia
Is this a bug or a command issue?? How did EB team reached a point to OK this? Because all EB members are calling and quoting and explaining that everything is 'history-based' - now this?
Realy, I was just trying to add HP 2 for general_unit to see how it would work with EB 1 - and I found that no Legion has this? Am I wrong? If I am - then sorry..
I would not like to belive that someone is actually 'giving' some nice attributes to 'some' units just because they are - Casse or Celtic? No?
Well if not, I would realy like to know why are those units above so speciall..
Thank you!
“Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”
Re: Celtic overpowered!
It's mostly used for the Casse to simulate their style of fighting, which was based around small groups of 'Champions' who inspired nearby more run of the mill soldiers to hold out a bit longer. The command attribute just gives a small morale bonus to troops around that unit. If you look at your list you'll notice that only the Carnute Cingetos (who are druids effectively hence their morale boosting attribute) and the Lugian Swordsmen aren't troops from the British Isles.
History is for the future not the past. The dead don't read.
Operam et vitam do Europae Barbarorum.
History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another. - Max Beerbohm
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Thank you for this response, I understand what you are trying to say ...
Still, it does not calms me... it is very powerfull in important battles - and when you use it in EB in wich you already have 'some' 'balanced' stats in a way that Greek and Italian historians would only be angry .. ,, I mean, you have my point?
Yes, I am not the only one with 'some' education that is somewhat sceptical about some very high stats for some barb units (and will add, yes I agree that no faction is powerfull beyond means).
And who ever 'suggested' NOT to add the same atributes to other factions units (like some that realy had Empires) to other EB team members.. - realy, and I mean realy - has some preferences to 'some' factions
(needless to say that EBs could have implemented Indian faction insead of 'some', and even one from the China or Illyria or Pergam)
Command atribute, if used for Celts - should be used for numerous if not all factions - anyone who was in the army knows that 'moral' in every army draws it's roots from at least one unit no matter who it is..
thank you for your time
be well!
“Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”
Re: Celtic overpowered!
If I understand correctly, Casse units are weaker than equivalent opposing units (morale difference I presume) and need inspriring champions to be effective. I'm not certain I like your implications of strong bias, Maksimus.
"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
Re: Celtic overpowered!
No, not at all, Casse units are no weaker than equivalent opposing units (morale difference is not the casse), and don't get me wrong here -
I very much like UK and people there - this is a was a simple question about 'dynamics' - and the explanation QwertyMIDX gave is no good at all, not for me to be exact.. and apperantly not to all other modders out side of EB
(yes, in RTR command line is given to barbs as to the greeks or romans or carthage)..
And you should know that - offcourse- those are not only Casse units - the druids are in Naisos too or Singidunum I think..
And the command atribute is very powerfull.. it should be used to some successors state units and others..
“Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Casse units are in fact weaker than most others, they're probably the most lightly armed and armored faction in the game (only the Sweboz can compete and they have other advantages).
Why should we give the attribute to random successor units? They didn't fight in the style were representing at all and none of the Hellenistic historians, myself included, has seen any reason to make use of the command attribute for them.
In short, the answer I gave you is a good answer. If we were just tossing the attribute out to make units stronger than you'd have a point, but we're not, we're using it to simulate a particular style of fighting and the celtic historians in EB are pretty happy with it. If you'll notice Casse elites are fairly weak, and come in small units, their primary purpose is to shore up the morale of regular line infantry.
Last edited by QwertyMIDX; 10-29-2007 at 16:36.
History is for the future not the past. The dead don't read.
Operam et vitam do Europae Barbarorum.
History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another. - Max Beerbohm
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Yes, I understand, I have checked the exp_unit txt, and it is very nice that all Celtic historians are very happy, and by typing that - I am not going to draw myself into an argument that is not needed realy..
My point is that the same 'effect' that goes for Casse - is reality for all armies of the world - that means hellenes too.. especially Makedonija and their noble cavalry and not to say SShields...
And second - while EB team is using 'it' (command atribute for celts) to simulate a particular style of fighting that will please celtic historians in EB team... you (EB team) are acctualy giving penalties to all other units that are due to fight 'commandos'.. I have seen that in my Battles already,
anyway thank you for commenting, my goal is to get some info why is 'that' the way it is - now i know -
Thank you
“Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Too late now. The moment you started this particular discussion, you implicitely accepted the right of others to voice their disagreement. Bit cowardly to withdraw yourself from that really.
No. Read what QwertyMIDX said. The Hellenes didn't have that kind of 'hero' culture. Casse warfare is heavily reliant on it.
An advantage to Celts? By having weaker basic units supported by the occasional small group of stronger warriors with a morale boost? To get that advantage, they acquire a numerical disadvantage, and without the morale boost, Casse armies will break more quickly.
I don't think you know at all, judging by the rest of your post. Bit trollish, actually.anyway thank you for commenting, my goal is to get some info why is 'that' the way it is - now i know -
Thank you
"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
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Having elite units and having a hero culture of warfare aren't the same thing at all...
History is for the future not the past. The dead don't read.
Operam et vitam do Europae Barbarorum.
History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another. - Max Beerbohm
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Germans has as well? (attribute)
Re: Celtic overpowered!
What QwertyMIDX said is not good for me - because I did not just 'run-on' this atribute from yesterday and I very well know about ancient warfare and history so I need no lectures on this forum.Too late now. The moment you started this particular discussion, you implicitely accepted the right of others to voice their disagreement. Bit cowardly to withdraw yourself from that really.
No. Read what QwertyMIDX said. The Hellenes didn't have that kind of 'hero' culture. Casse warfare is heavily reliant on it.
An advantage to Celts? By having weaker basic units supported by the occasional small group of stronger warriors with a morale boost? To get that advantage, they acquire a numerical disadvantage, and without the morale boost, Casse armies will break more quickly.
I don't think you know at all, judging by the rest of your post. Bit trollish, actually.
My question was pointed to an EB member that knows something about this .. and QwertyMIDX answerd it - OK .. I said thanks.. but now this
My second post to was there because the basic response is to my question why was :
'We' - that means 'EB team' made an agreement based on opinion of some memmbers - they wanted to deeple express the Casse 'Hero cult' by adding very powerfull atributes (that is their right - it is their mod).
But the command atribute..-if you even know how much that is important in battle- - is very important because the point goes beyond this Geoffrey S my friend - Those - command attributes affect all units (in this case) in Casse armies - that means some very powerfull that are Regional based - you see now?! NO? Well, than see my list again:
Cidainh (celtic chariot cidainh bodyguards, celtic chariot cidainh), = britons, slave
Calawre (celtic infantry calawre), = britons, slave
Carnute Cingetos (celtic infantry carnute cingetos), = gauls, slave
Cwmyr (celtic infantry cwmyr), = gauls, britons, scythia, slave
Kluddargos (celtic infantry kluddargos) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia
Rycalawre (celtic infantry rycalawre) = britons, slave
Drwdae (celtic infantry drwdae) = gauls, scythia, britons, slave
Lugian Swordsmen (celtic infantry lugian) = britons, slave, gauls, scythia, germans, dacia
You see -- the first are generals -- on chariots - if they were heroes very well but they are surely no 'occasional small group of stronger warriors' that give a morale boost - those are units used by family members!
And to my posts were adressing QwertyMIDX (so thank him for hus answers)posts not your's G --- and about that 'trollish' and 'cowardly' stuf - I have no comment -
English is not my native so that is why I 'pass' these discitions here on the forum - maybe thinking that I wont have to draw my posts for kids like you
“Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”
Re: Celtic overpowered!
No lectures? Sure thing. I found some of your earlier posts rather interesting, coming from someone who knows enough about ancient warfare and history not to be lectured.
And there's the part I find quite rude. It's an unfounded accusation of (nationalist) bias, in a previous post you implied that it has something to do with the UK.
In the case of the chariots, relatively fragile and relatively rare. In the case of the other units, small and expensive groups of good infantry: as I said, at a numerical disadvantage and easily swamped by more numerous enemies. They've got the command bonus, sure, but in their own way all are a liability. Their stats make them tempting for frontline duty, but if they are overwhelmed and break it's potentially devastating for the Casse. The majority of the (basic) units they support are weaker and more expensive than enemy counterparts, something that's present among each of the Celtic factions.
I recognise that it's difficult to argue in a foreign language, but find that it has little to do with all this since you get your point across clearly. I've seen plenty of non-English speakers here and elsewhere who are quite capable of being polite.
"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
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Why do you continue putting "devastating" in front of the Civil War? Wonderful productive lands, gold, riches, fertile fields do not kill off men.
Caesar wanted to show everyone he was "the man" in Gaul. Why did he not mention defeating quality troops, in any large number, in his writings on the invasion? I might be wrong as its been a few years since I last read it, I recall him never mentioning, not once, facing his Legions/Germans off against an equally professional force in Gaul.
The cream of Gaul's troops had to have been already killed (unless someone thinks they used levy/farmer quality troops up until Caesar's invasion?) by the Aedui and Arverni battles. Gauls best troops were long gone and killed off, thats what the war did, and so, Caesar had easier pickings then othewise.
Still does not make German conquests in Gaul or Britain anymore grand and awesome in my book...they follow after the real killing had already been done for years and the best troops long gone...
My two cents...
Re: Celtic overpowered!
If you find my post to be an attack to your or an accusation to someones or yours nationalist pride - has realy nothing to do with my bias, in a previous post I implied that it has something to do with the UK.
Because, you see, I am sure that you would not comment here in such manner if you don't feel that I am attacking 'British' modders and experts and that national pride just because they wan't me to belive that --
Casse is the 'only' worthy faction in EB (that means in ancient world).. that has one 'specific' hero cults that is acctually allowing their generals to have a command atribute (and that 'fragile and relatively rare' comment save for someone that has no clue what I am refering to) ..
And let me add, ..that even if I am pointing to Casse, my intention is not to be rude, or anything it is just the way I think .. and keep your lectures to yourself - your toughts may not be forthy outside the 'anglo world'
that is it, I am stoping this disscusion now
“Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”
Re: Celtic overpowered!
Even assuming I'm from the UK, now I'm supposedly defending the EB portrayal of the Casse, a people completely unrelated to modern England in all aspects except a small part of the geography, on the basis of UK nationalist feelings? Oh dear, I think you got me there...
Have a nice one!
"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
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks