Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[the_handsome_viking]

Thanks for replying, I agree with you exactly for the reasons you state. Yes they constantly fought but they shared the same language and culture.

I answered allot of what you said on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83475
The reason it's being posted there is most of your statements are answered in this thread. I also want to keep this mostly with the Germans. I'm trying not to blend the two threads. Go to the last page.

Done.

I agree that the Germans were "bloody good fighters" I just feel that in comparison to the Celts that is not shown. In general the Romans should be stronger then the Germans and in general the Germans should be stronger then the Celts. Its not that way in EB.

I'm not too sure, I definitely think there should be a few more Germanic units, and the arguments for a heavier German cavalry seem quite convincing, I mean it would essentialy only require these Germans to basically fight in the normal Germanic cavalry tradition but with heavy armor and a sword for close combat, but when it comes to the subject of the toughness of the Germans, I've had full stacked battles against the Germans full stacked armies, and actually, though inflicitng major casualities on both sides, had to retreat back to my settlement because the numbers were deteriorating too much.

I was very surprised that I couldn't have just out done the Germans with my Belgic spearmen and geasate, but well, they ended up losing the battle, though we inflicted heavy losses upon the enemy.

In general, the Germans are easily my favorite enemies, they are also apparently the toughest with perhaps the Romans riveling them closely.(I've always forgotten to actually impliment the script for the game... so I've never fought Rome at her full strength).

The Germans do seem a bit tougher as a general rule, and their cavalry and infantry seem to be a bit more expensive also when you hire them as mercinaries, infact, I typically consider the Germans to be my first choice when it comes to mercinaries, and that their Celtic equivilents, though good, are not as good as the Germans.

That's just my personal preference though. It also seemed to be Caesars personal preference also, that said he did also have mercinaries from all over, including Celtic ones.

What I'm trying to get at is the Germans consistently beat the Gauls during this period, but with the units the Celts get this wouldn't happen. The Celtic units are much more powerful then the Germanic units because of this exaggeration that the Germans were fighting "weaker" Celts. Not only are the Celtic units more powerful then the Germans they are more powerful then the Roman units. You have several Celtic elite units as powerful or more powerful then the Praetorian guard.
I'll restate that the Germans are being diminished because of this exaggeration.

Like I said, I can't say that I've observed this very much, the Germans do seem to be considerably tougher, not technologically superior though they seem to make good use of what little they have and fight boldly against the Celts, infact I often have had to reform my tactics when it comes to fighting the Germans because they often will push back just as hard as I push them, and unlike a lot of the southern peoples, they don't seem to bottle out very quickly.

I'm not sure is that's very historically accurate, I guess it would depend on the level of training of the fighters involved, a professional will have been conditioned to not have a psychological barrier when it comes to fighting and will not flee as quickly as someone who has just grown up being your average urbanite.

Another interesting issue would be the level of toughness of the average Celt over the average southern urbanite. Urban enviroments can toughen people up, but then again a more rural lifestyle can also make you very hardy and self relient, especially in a culture that most logically would have had a heavy focus on martial training. Perhaps this is going off a bit.

In short, it seems like the Germanic people all seemed to rally to the call of battle, that fighting was a very importent factor top down in German culture as opposed to Celtic societies where you had a distinct and well equipped warrior class, so it might make sense that you have very adept Celtic warriors with very good equipment perhaps having an edge over lots of Germans, but as a general rule have the Germans as tougher than the Celts.

If I've said anything incorrect then fair enough, learning is totally beneficial and all jokes asside, this modification does have a very large capacity to be used as an educational tool.

[Frostwulf]

You know, I kinda took a look at the EDU and I'll have to say all this talk about the Sweboz being "too weak" compared to the Celts (or conversely the Celts being "too strong") is almost entirely Simply Not True. The damn Swainoz, wet-behind-the-ears pups that they are, are pretty much the equals of the Belgae Batacorii, and the various tribe-specific spear guys and the Frameharjoz are at least the equals if not betters of the Gaeroas and Gaelaiche. The Sahsnotoz have the edge on the Botroas and are the lessers of the Bataroas and Milnaht solely on basis of lack of armour. Heck, the Frankamannoz (the "levy" unit of the Sweboz) can go head on with the lighter representatives of the Celtic warrior class and not do half badly, although I wouldn't expect them to win. Didn't bother comparing the elites, but they ought to be more or less matched as well.

Arghh these names are killing me!
Starting with the German Swainoz skirmishers are superior to the Balroae skirmishers except defense is the same. The German Bugimannoz archers are inferior to the Sotaroas archers except bow attack is the same and the Laosatae is superior except for sling and morale which is the same.Frankamannoz the German levy units are superior to the Lugoae Celtic levy units. Here I run into problems on who to compare units to which units. Laecha Celtic light infantry are superior to Franamannoz levy but on par with the swaiut units. For the German swaiut units(they are roughly the same except for Bastarnoz and they only have 80 men),Frameharjoz and Aljaz-Gae are about the same and compared with the Celtic units they tend to be about the same (cemmeinarn,Batacorii,Daernaghta,Bagaudas,Gaelaiche,Gaeroas etc.). then you have merjoz axe is inferior to ordmahornaghta only in moral. Wodanawulfoz is inferior to pictone neitos except moral is the same. The German Sahsnotoz you have discussed but they are also inferior to moral and also inferior to the Cwmyr. Now you have the next level of units which the Germans have only the Gaizarjoz which could be compared with the Mori Gaesum. The Celts also have the Neitos,kluddargos,calawre, and Deaisbard. For the top elite the German Gastiz and Hundaskapiz are totally outclassed by the Arjos, Carnute Cingetos, Gaesatae, Rycalawre,Solduros and Uachtarac DuboGaiscaocha.

[blitzkrieg80]

No errors to speak of, you seem very knowledgeable to me (especially concerning Indo-Europeans) Handsome Viking, as almost everybody commenting here seems well-read. Great job to all of you who actually quote and cite, while I am relatively lazy in that respect atm (I don't happen to own Caesar's Gallic Wars either- which reminds me to find a good translation because I haven't learned Latin yet ).

I haven't looked at the EDU specifically but the Factions should be well balanced by now so I'm glad to hear that they are by Watchman's account and your own, Handsome Viking<--funny name, btw- reminds me of a great line and scene of the Jomsvikings(see my quote of Sigurd in my sig. he has one of his executioner's hold his hair to keep it fair while he's being beheaded then pulls and get's the guys hands chopped off! it's so hilarious... then the leader comes over and asks him his name and offers him quarter because he has luck!).

[edit] sorry, didn't see your recent post Frostwulf... how are they inferior/superior? are you speaking of results from testing? Those are good things to mention/look at, so thank you for taking the time to write it.

So it's well agreed upon that the Ridaharjoz needs a boost, but what specifically might help the unit while keeping it balanced?

I so very much want to add an Eastern Germanic tribal unit but unfortunately there's so little information on them during EB's timeline except assumptions made concerning the Przeworsk culture and Vandals.... Does anybody happen to have any ideas or knowledge on this?

[Lowenklee]

You know, I kinda took a look at the EDU and I'll have to say all this talk about the Sweboz being "too weak" compared to the Celts (or conversely the Celts being "too strong") is almost entirely Simply Not True. The damn Swainoz, wet-behind-the-ears pups that they are, are pretty much the equals of the Belgae Batacorii, and the various tribe-specific spear guys and the Frameharjoz are at least the equals if not betters of the Gaeroas and Gaelaiche. The Sahsnotoz have the edge on the Botroas and are the lessers of the Bataroas and Milnaht solely on basis of lack of armour. Heck, the Frankamannoz (the "levy" unit of the Sweboz) can go head on with the lighter representatives of the Celtic warrior class and not do half badly, although I wouldn't expect them to win. Didn't bother comparing the elites, but they ought to be more or less matched as well.

The Celts do have way better access to armour (at least after the reforms start kicking in) though, but then again isn't that what the Sweboz have their clubmen and Wodanawulfaz and Merjoz and whatnots for ?

I'll have to agree that the Ridonharjoz are really statted a bit on the low side IMHO, although that's my opinion on the overhand spear cavalry units in general. No wonder they don't do too spectacularly against the Epos.

For whats it worth, I find the Sweboz to be eminently playable as is. It has been some months since my last Sweboz campaign but, as I recall, I faced little in the way of insurmountable obstacles where battles were concerned. Naturally the later developments in Roman military reform made things difficult. But then again things were supposed to be difficult against the Roman military juggernaut. Against the Celts I feared only the Gesatae and later warrior elites such as the Solduros and Carnutes Cingetos (sp?)...also quite a plausible state of affairs.
Other than the historical accuracy or viability of unit depictions and the small issue of the Ridoharjoz (of whom, even with present stats, I make good use) I think the current balance between the Celts and Germans is well done.

I think the problem lies in the alternative history nature of EB. The represented factions simply do not act in a historically accurate manner...at least it's quite rare when they do. As Watchman stated earlier, many of the inroads made by the Germans were at a much later date that the start of EB and a result of complicated circumstances. It's the circumstances that the AI fails to replicate.

Although it may seem like an odd idea of sorts but I'd actually be in favor of denying the Sweboz early elite troops other than the Herthoz, keep the hundaskapiz as an early inferior shock infantry similar in use to the Merjoz but otherwise limit the Sweboz to light cavalry, tribal militias, and tribal warbands? Force the Germans to take a more defensive position along the rhine while focusing more on economic development and expansion into the east. The first goal for the Germans, from a gameplay perspective, might be the consolidation of the various Gau and control over the Baltic and it's amber trade?

Even if Gallic aggression forces the German faction east this would be ok as long as the baltic region offers enough economic gains for growth. While I still believe the Ridoharjoz shouldn't be inferior to the lightest Gallic cavalry (on which point a partial concensus seems to have been reached) I am against an attempt to make the German faction the equals of Gaul prior to any evidence we have attesting to that. Keep the early Germans fairly simple.
Save the upgrades, nobles, and proper elite troops for the 140'ish b.c.e. reform date before giving the Sweboz a viable means of facing Gaul and Rome head to head?

What do you think?

ps.

Blitzkrieg80,

A fascinating read regarding the Herunauta, i'm sadly not yet in possession of a proper book on the subject but am in great anticipation of its arrival soon. Also I'm in agreement regarding the Batavians...mostly. I agree that their mentioning in the classical sources dates too late for EB. I'd hoped that there's be information about the cavalry tradition of the Batavians going back far enought to be of use. There is a particular mask

[Caratacos]

When I say the Germans should be stronger I'm referring to the units.

Well when a game is called "Total War" and is primarily concerned with armies stronger units equals stronger faction. To be honest I've never seen the Sweboz struggle in any of my campaigns -- and they are being led by the AI!

One reason they may have taken along time to make major inroads is because they havent migrated there yet.

I wonder what was preventing their migration there? Resistance maybe?

You also have to remember that the Belgae ended up in Gaul and the TCA (Teutons,Cimbri,Ambrones) stomped around in Gaul for awhile.

Did not they have celts in their number? And didn't their leaders speak celtic, bear celtic names and use celtic weaponry?

As far as the Celtic warrior one on one against a Roman I would put my money on the Celt almost every time for two reasons. First is the Celt trained for individual combat where the Roman trained in units. Secondly the Celt in general is a larger and stronger man which is a big asset in melee combat. The Celt vs the German I would put my money on the German for the simple reason that the German tended to be a larger man and would have the same individual fighting style as the Celt. I'm not selling the Celt warrior short, I think in EB he is overpowered.

Yes you are correct about the differring fighting styles but that didn't count for everything. There were instances where Romans fought one-on-one duels with celtic champions and won (though participation in these was eventually outlawed by the Republic)
Also your use of "Celt", "German" and "Roman" seems to be ethnic. Celtic is not an ethnic term by any means. The lands that housed celtic speakers had many different ethnicities that used celtic language and customs. So how can one speak of Celts being shorter than Germans or taller than Romans? There were big men in their ranks sure, but what culture doesn't have their brutes?

Goldsworthy “Caesar”-"Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation". Pg.274

It is no surprise that anyone can steamroll after winning a victory. This is common throughout history (and also in RTW). The winners have won loot and land/food-- and the experience of winning. On the flipside the losers not only have to deal with the problem of less warriors on which to depend but also the same internal problems that added to their disunity and defeat in the first place (which probably got a whole lot worse after the defeat). It doesn't come down to the fact that they faced bigger men with bigger swords and could no longer win-- this is oversimplified madness.

At the end of the day the game has to be balanced. It is to my judgement. Why change it?

[russia almighty]

Yes you are correct about the differring fighting styles but that didn't count for everything. There were instances where Romans fought one-on-one duels with celtic champions and won (though participation in these was eventually outlawed by the Republic)
Also your use of "Celt", "German" and "Roman" seems to be ethnic. Celtic is not an ethnic term by any means. The lands that housed celtic speakers had many different ethnicities that used celtic language and customs. So how can one speak of Celts being shorter than Germans or taller than Romans? There were big men in their ranks sure, but what culture doesn't have their brutes?


Do tell about this . That tells people had huge cajones back then if they left the comforts of line combat to go one on one with a brute.

[Watchman]

Not really. Size and brawn by themselves aren't really worth a thing in battle, not compared to skill, training, specialized physical conditioning, psychological factors and war gear. Renaissance masters-at-arms scorned "oxen" who fought with mere strenght and aggression.

It's not what you have, but knowing how to use what you have as it were. The greater the degree of skill involved the less differences in size and such matter.

then you have merjoz axe is inferior to ordmahornaghta only in moral.

Nah, the Ordmhornaghta have a slight advantage in both armour and defense skill. But then they cost almost double, and their availability is very limited too...

Wodanawulfoz is inferior to pictone neitos except moral is the same.

Inferior ? How exactly ? The Wulfaz have a slightly higher total defense score, and while their axes lose out to the Neitos' swords in lethality (0.165 to 0.225) they've almost the same attack (10 to 11) - but get AP.

The German Sahsnotoz you have discussed but they are also inferior to moral and also inferior to the Cwmyr.

The Cwmyr are one of the funky Briton "hero" units, and have nothing directly comparable in most factions' rosters (the Aedui Carnutes represent the same principle in a much more elite version).

Now you have the next level of units which the Germans have only the Gaizarjoz which could be compared with the Mori Gaesum.

Not really - the Mori have phalanx and armour, while the Gaisaz are really just high-end AP spearmen.

The Celts also have the Neitos,kluddargos,calawre, and Deaisbard. For the top elite the German Gastiz and Hundaskapiz are totally outclassed by the Arjos, Carnute Cingetos, Gaesatae, Rycalawre,Solduros and Uachtarac DuboGaiscaocha.

Save for the 2 HP and the frighten_foot thing the Gastiz shuld actually be about equally matched on the Gaesatae. They're nearly even with Solduri and Rycalawre too, and should be able to give the Arjos and Carnutes a close run thing. The Uachtarac, meh. Extremely limited availability and hardly ever going to be a common feature in Briton armies.

You're forgetting something here now. The later high-end Celtic units are good (but also quite expensive) because of their excellent war gear, which is the reason the comparatively lightly armed Gastiz become outmatched. This is one of those "suck it down like a man" issues, as it's a flat historical fact the Celts were richer and better equipped on the average and moreover had a proper warrior class which could invest in such gear. The Gastiz more or less represent the comparable segment of Germanic society in its entirety. On the other hand they're available far sooner and the German roster doesn't have any particular shortage of AP-armed units to swamp the heavier (and not very numerous - 30 is their standard base size) Celtic units with...

Use them tactics. Isn't that what clever people used to even disparities in equipement and such ? I've read some Germans or Belgae or whatnot for example sought to fight the Romans on marshy ground, where the heavily-armed legionaries had constant problems with their footing but the lightly equipped barbarians used to the conditions had little trouble. (The Romans apparently eventually sent in similarly acclimated local auxiliaries to deal with the matter, but that's beside the point.)

[Caratacos]

Uhh you seem to have an extra Frostwulf quote at the bottom of that post, Watchman

almighty Do tell about this . That tells people had huge cajones back then if they left the comforts of line combat to go one on one with a brute.

Well it would be the generals or officers that'd take part in these duels not rank and file spearmen (the "line combat" guys). No doubt anyone willing to take on another in a battle to the death has got something... cojones or otherwise. But it wouldn't be too different from the one-on-one training that these Roman officers would have experienced for years.

But yes, brute force is best only if you can hit your opponent... anyone remember that duel in 13th Warrior? " New shield!"

[Watchman]

Oh, right. I copy-pasted it into the field for reference and forgot to delete it in the end. Thanks for pointing out.

In the martial-arts dojo thingy my brother goes to, "Chuck Norris Barroom Haymaker" is a running joke.

[Frostwulf]

[edit] sorry, didn't see your recent post Frostwulf... how are they inferior/superior? are you speaking of results from testing? Those are good things to mention/look at, so thank you for taking the time to write it.

No problems at all. The inferior and superior for me was based on the cards by Arkatreides. I was using the attack, defense and moral based on the cards.

Other than the historical accuracy or viability of unit depictions and the small issue of the Ridoharjoz (of whom, even with present stats, I make good use) I think the current balance between the Celts and Germans is well done.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you here, but to me historical accuracy is what I'm more interested in. Balance is nice but I would rather have historical accuracy on the units and make up balance elsewhere.

Even if Gallic aggression forces the German faction east this would be ok as long as the baltic region offers enough economic gains for growth. While I still believe the Ridoharjoz shouldn't be inferior to the lightest Gallic cavalry (on which point a partial concensus seems to have been reached) I am against an attempt to make the German faction the equals of Gaul prior to any evidence we have attesting to that. Keep the early Germans fairly simple.

I would still like to know why it would be the light Gallic cavalry and not the heavier cavalry. The quotes I posted show no reason to assume these were "weaker" Celts then before. The arms and armor of the Celtic cavalry of Caesar's time show them to be a heavier cavalry. Did I miss some information that dispute the two quotes I posted?

Well when a game is called "Total War" and is primarily concerned with armies stronger units equals stronger faction. To be honest I've never seen the Sweboz struggle in any of my campaigns -- and they are being led by the AI!

I was just comparing the units based on the cards and I didnt think they were historically accurate.

I wonder what was preventing their migration there? Resistance maybe?

Absolutely! Its quite possible the Celts,Scythians or other peoples were keeping them back. There are a multitude of probable reasons, we dont know for sure which one or combination thereof it is.

Did not they have celts in their number? And didn't their leaders speak celtic, bear celtic names and use celtic weaponry?

Yep, there were Celts among their number. Yep I would think that they used Celtic weaponry. Most authors tend to believe the TCA to be German and the majority of the wanderers were the TCA. There is no doubt to me that the Celtic weaponry helped the TCA in their combat. I also believe the TCA were Germanic as well. During the TCA's wanderings I believe most of the combat was done by them. But it is worth mentioning that the Tigurines (Celts) defeated a Roman army at this time.

Yes you are correct about the differring fighting styles but that didn't count for everything. There were instances where Romans fought one-on-one duels with celtic champions and won (though participation in these was eventually outlawed by the Republic)
Also your use of "Celt", "German" and "Roman" seems to be ethnic. Celtic is not an ethnic term by any means. The lands that housed celtic speakers had many different ethnicities that used celtic language and customs. So how can one speak of Celts being shorter than Germans or taller than Romans? There were big men in their ranks sure, but what culture doesn't have their brutes?

My statement about the duel was in general situations.On another thread I discussed Marcus Claudius Marcellus vs. Viridomarus showing the smaller Roman defeating the larger Celt.I disagree with you about ethnicities, by the time Celts became Celts they would have had a different gene pool then other peoples. Just like all groups you have varying genes but they still have much in common. The British Celts would start to vary from their mainland brethren because of different intermingling. For the height thing Ill refer to Safe in the Gaesatae way too overpowered thread.

It is often noted, that germanics were taller than celts and those were taller than romans.
If the average germanic men reached 175cm - 178 cm (archaelogical findings) and the average roman soldier (not citizen, even here we talk about roman soldiers in the pre-imperial time era, before the most roman units were made of mercenaries from foreign lands) reached ca. 160cm - 165cm, we can guess how tall a typical male celt had grown.
Something between the two numbers i guess.
But 6'2 is definately a super-size man and not the average.
Sure exceptions existed, like for example Teutobod, War-chieftain of the Teutones and numerous others, but we should still stick to the average height of warriors during this time.

It is no surprise that anyone can steamroll after winning a victory. This is common throughout history (and also in RTW). The winners have won loot and land/food-- and the experience of winning. On the flipside the losers not only have to deal with the problem of less warriors on which to depend but also the same internal problems that added to their disunity and defeat in the first place (which probably got a whole lot worse after the defeat). It doesn't come down to the fact that they faced bigger men with bigger swords and could no longer win-- this is oversimplified madness.

At the end of the day the game has to be balanced. It is to my judgement. Why change it?

To me what it comes down to is the martial ability of the units. The Germans began as mercenaries and ended subjugating the Gauls in that area. Its not always a steamroller effect in history. In this particular case the reason is the martial ability of the Germans which not only does Caesar comment on but the Gauls themselves were saying so.
As far as the end of the day, I want to play a historically accurate game. I want as realistic units as possible and figure another way to balance the game, otherwise we might as well play vanilla RTW.

Do tell about this . That tells people had huge cajones back then if they left the comforts of line combat to go one on one with a brute.

I agree with you. I think of the scene in "Troy" where Pitt comes out to face that huge guy and stabs him in the neck.

Not really. Size and brawn by themselves aren't really worth a thing in battle, not compared to skill, training, specialized physical conditioning, psychological factors and war gear. Renaissance masters-at-arms scorned "oxen" who fought with mere strenght and aggression.

For the most part I agree with you, but again all things being in general the size and brawn will help you get through that armor and could stun you as well. I know this is different then boxing but there is that saying, "A punchers chance".

You're forgetting something here now. The later high-end Celtic units are good (but also quite expensive) because of their excellent war gear, which is the reason the comparatively lightly armed Gastiz become outmatched. This is one of those "suck it down like a man" issues, as it's a flat historical fact the Celts were richer and better equipped on the average and moreover had a proper warrior class which could invest in such gearInferior ? How exactly ? The Wulfaz have a slightly higher total defense score, and while their axes lose out to the Neitos' swords in lethality (0.165 to 0.225) they've almost the same attack (10 to 11) - but get AP.[/quote]
You are correct. I must be blind or looking at the wrong unit.

As far as the other comparisons I believe you, I just went by the cards not knowing the other things like phalanx, spear and etc. I did do a one on one battle with the Gaesatae, both playing and playing against. The Gaesatae win every time.

You're forgetting something here now. The later high-end Celtic units are good (but also quite expensive) because of their excellent war gear, which is the reason the comparatively lightly armed Gastiz become outmatched. This is one of those "suck it down like a man" issues, as it's a flat historical fact the Celts were richer and better equipped on the average and moreover had a proper warrior class which could invest in such gear

I completely agree that the Celts had better arms and armor. The Celtic cavalry had better arms and armor then the Germans during Caesar's time. The German cavalry consistently beat up on them even though outnumbered. I believe the same to be true of the foot soldier.

[Watchman]

Heavy armoured cavalry has always been prohibitively expensive to raise and maintain, even among peoples who had no shortage of horses (ie. steppe nomads). It duly stands to reason that even if the overall "weight" of Celtic cavalry had increased by Caesar's time for various reasons, the easy majority would still have been of the lighter Epos type for the simple fact it was way easier for a warrior to afford a horse and that level of war gear, than both Brihentin-level gear and a horse capable of carrying it without problems.

For the most part I agree with you, but again all things being in general the size and brawn will help you get through that armor and could stun you as well. I know this is different then boxing but there is that saying, "A punchers chance".

Size doesn't have that much to do with it. The degree of physical conditioning, ie. how much explosive power you can coax out of your physique to put behind the strike, does.

Put this way, Bruce Lee will hit way harder than a weightlifter a head taller.

It's not like being large wasn't conditionally quite useful (better reach for example, potentially more "horsepower" when suitably conditioned, potentially quite intimidating); but it's only that if you know how to actually use it for effect, and the other guy doesn't know how to deal with it - and well-trained warriors do.

To me what it comes down to is the martial ability of the units. The Germans began as mercenaries and ended subjugating the Gauls in that area. Its not always a steamroller effect in history. In this particular case the reason is the martial ability of the Germans which not only does Caesar comment on but the Gauls themselves were saying so.

Or it could just be the Germans had figured out better tactics... or, as has been argued, the Celts were sufficiently short on real warriors that the average level of fighting ability very much favoured the Germans.

Speaking of the height issue, wasn't the (nominal) entry requirement for the Legions 170+ cm ? And those were citizens...

[Frostwulf]

Heavy armoured cavalry has always been prohibitively expensive to raise and maintain, even among peoples who had no shortage of horses (ie. steppe nomads). It duly stands to reason that even if the overall "weight" of Celtic cavalry had increased by Caesar's time for various reasons, the easy majority would still have been of the lighter Epos type for the simple fact it was way easier for a warrior to afford a horse and that level of war gear, than both Brihentin-level gear and a horse capable of carrying it without problems.

I could be wrong but I would think most of the Gallic horses are the same. I'm fairly sure the larger warhorse came several hundreds of years later. As far as the arms and armour and what Caesar says it fits what heavy cavalry would have. I'm sure it would have been expensive but allot of the cavalry was made up of chieftains and their retinues.

Size doesn't have that much to do with it. The degree of physical conditioning, ie. how much explosive power you can coax out of your physique to put behind the strike, does.

I agree with you. What I'm trying to convey is that in general the large man will have more muscle and mass therefore more kinetic energy. So if you have two people with the same ability's the larger one in general will be able to put out more energy.

Put this way, Bruce Lee will hit way harder than a weightlifter a head taller.

It's not like being large wasn't conditionally quite useful (better reach for example, potentially more "horsepower" when suitably conditioned, potentially quite intimidating); but it's only that if you know how to actually use it for effect, and the other guy doesn't know how to deal with it - and well-trained warriors do.

Again I agree with you. I would say that a weightlifter properly trained would be able to hit harder then Lee.

Or it could just be the Germans had figured out better tactics... or, as has been argued, the Celts were sufficiently short on real warriors that the average level of fighting ability very much favoured the Germans.

Yes either of these are viable, though I tend to disagree with the Celtic warriors being weaker because of the information I read. I'm going to try to do more research on this subject soon. Summers for me are very busy but I will try to find time for this.

Speaking of the height issue, wasn't the (nominal) entry requirement for the Legions 170+ cm ? And those were citizens...

I know Ive seen something like this before. I cant recall if it was for a special or elite legion or if it had something to do with Celtic/Germanic recruits of later times.

[the_handsome_viking]

I know Ive seen something like this before. I cant recall if it was for a special or elite legion or if it had something to do with Celtic/Germanic recruits of later times.

I'm not sure how much you trust Osprey but from what I've read in "Roman Legionary 58BC-AD69" it would seem that the height preference and criteria changed, quite understandably, depending on the region, for example, in Northern Europe the height requirments and definitions of too short would change, whereas in other regions where men were a bit smaller, the height requirement would lower.

Generally speaking, all martial arts conversations asside and hypothetical super blows and what not, a bigger man typically is more intimidating and will win in a scrap, a smaller man can win if he is well trained and armed, a big man is a good target for missle weapons.

I guess when it comes to Roman warfare you should be big enough, strong enough fit enough and couragous enough to be able to hold a line and stab and slash efficiently.

[Frostwulf]

As far as the information given in Osprey I never had any qualms with them. I have read 4 and thought they were good but real basic. And for the rest of your statements viking I agree with you.

[the_handsome_viking]

To attempt to resserect this thread.

From De Bello Gallico.

To this Ariovistus replied, that "the right of war was, that they who had conquered should govern those whom they had conquered, in what manner they pleased; that in that way the Roman people were wont to govern the nations which they had conquered, not according to the dictation of any other, but according to their own discretion. If he for his part did not dictate to the Roman people as to the manner in which they were to exercise their right, he ought not to be obstructed by the Roman people in his right; that the Aedui, inasmuch as they had tried the fortune of war and had engaged in arms and been conquered, had become tributaries to him; that Caesar was doing a great injustice, in that by his arrival he was making his revenues less valuable to him; that he should not restore their hostages to the Aedui, but should not make war wrongfully either upon them or their allies, if they abided by that which had been agreed on, and paid their tribute annually: if they did not continue to do that, the Roman people's name of 'brothers' would avail them naught. As to Caesar's threatening him, that he would not overlook the wrongs of the Aedui, [he said] that no one had ever entered into a contest with him [Ariovistus] without utter ruin to himself. That Caesar might enter the lists when he chose; he would feel what the invincible Germans, well-trained [as they were] beyond all others to arms, who for fourteen years had not been beneath a roof, could achieve by their valor."

Perhaps the Germans do deserve something of a status boost. The question for me though is what would the standard equipment of Ariovistus's army have been?

[Sarcasm]

In 14 years of campaign in rich Gaul? I'd say very well equipped.

[the_handsome_viking]

In 14 years of campaign in rich Gaul? I'd say very well equipped.

They definitely wouldn't have fought in the what I'd describe as the bare minium kit of a Germanic warrior, that being a shield, possibly with a shield boss and a few frame.

I'd imagine lots of superior Celtic equipment being used. Longswords, Longer shields, various types of helmets and undoubtably a few with chainmail.

[Sarcasm]

A lot of the higher chieftains would undoubtedly have Celtic equipment, by importing, stealing or having been gifted it by their employers. We know the Germans already copied things like spearheads and shields, so I figured they'd be armed just like a well equipped Celtic army.

Oh, and let's not forget the horsies.

[the_handsome_viking]

A lot of the higher chieftains would undoubtedly have Celtic equipment, by importing, stealing or having been gifted it by their employers. We know the Germans already copied things like spearheads and shields, so I figured they'd be armed just like a well equipped Celtic army.

Oh, and let's not forget the horsies.

Did you deliberatly call them horsies?

[Sarcasm]

I figured if we have a whole thread devoted to you taking a picture of a cute bunny, I'd get away with saying "horsies".

[Watchman]

On a bit different topic, you know how the current Hundaskaspiz are a placeholder ? I've just been thinking if there were not a better placeholder solution possible, to represent them being the pick of the common warriors of the tribe rather than the nobility and their role as "point man" shock troops. Would it seem like a feasible idea to make them use some suitable "commoner" skin/model (say, Frameharjoz, as those are basically the standard "universal troopers" of the Sweboz), amp the stats, lower the base size to something like 30, muck around with the prices, and slap the "command" trait on the unit - essentially making them a Germanic version of the Casse "hero" units, what now far more humbly armed ?

Just a thought.

[NeoSpartan]

I figured if we have a whole thread devoted to you taking a picture of a cute bunny, I'd get away with saying "horsies".

u guys........ need to get out some more

[the_handsome_viking]

I figured if we have a whole thread devoted to you taking a picture of a cute bunny, I'd get away with saying "horsies".

What thread?

[blitzkrieg80]

CAN WE NOT QUOTE EMPTY SPACE? It is quite annoying to need to scroll down for no good reason, especially for OT nonsense... Just don't quote a huge block of nothing. Seriously, don't do it.

Model space/skin usage determines much of how the future units will look, but as it turns out i have decided on the Hundafulkan using the same model as the Baldrōz ("Bold ones" or "Heroes"). Lightly armored, spear being their primary weapon... although i'm not quite sure if i want to use an axe or sword for secondary, both being problematic for them.

[Frostwulf]

Perhaps the Germans do deserve something of a status boost. The question for me though is what would the standard equipment of Ariovistus's army have been?

In 14 years of campaign in rich Gaul? I'd say very well equipped.

They definitely wouldn't have fought in the what I'd describe as the bare minium kit of a Germanic warrior, that being a shield, possibly with a shield boss and a few frame.

I'd imagine lots of superior Celtic equipment being used. Longswords, Longer shields, various types of helmets and undoubtably a few with chainmail.

A lot of the higher chieftains would undoubtedly have Celtic equipment, by importing, stealing or having been gifted it by their employers. We know the Germans already copied things like spearheads and shields, so I figured they'd be armed just like a well equipped Celtic army.

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.

On a bit different topic, you know how the current Hundaskaspiz are a placeholder ? I've just been thinking if there were not a better placeholder solution possible, to represent them being the pick of the common warriors of the tribe rather than the nobility and their role as "point man" shock troops. Would it seem like a feasible idea to make them use some suitable "commoner" skin/model (say, Frameharjoz, as those are basically the standard "universal troopers" of the Sweboz), amp the stats, lower the base size to something like 30, muck around with the prices, and slap the "command" trait on the unit - essentially making them a Germanic version of the Casse "hero" units, what now far more humbly armed ?

Model space/skin usage determines much of how the future units will look, but as it turns out i have decided on the Hundafulkan using the same model as the Baldrōz ("Bold ones" or "Heroes"). Lightly armored, spear being their primary weapon... although i'm not quite sure if i want to use an axe or sword for secondary, both being problematic for them.

I think both of you guys have good idea's on this. There are things I would still like to see for the Germans though.
Cavalry:I would like to see a heavy cavalry unit, not well armored but high attack and a high skilled defense. Perhaps a noble cavalry along the same lines as the heavy cavalry with better armor.

Infantry: An increase to morale to most of the units. Perhaps an increase in attack and defense to some of the units?

I did a few tests with some units and some things that surprised me. The Heruskoz lost to the Batacorii every time. According to the stats on the cards this shouldn't have happened. The Laecha (Gaul) were also prone to losing against Frameharjoz. Is there another way to gauge a units stats other then doing tests unit vs unit or the cards? The cards are not portraying the stats as I would expect them to. I also don't have enough time to test unit vs unit.
I also tests on Cohors Imperatoria vs Solduros and both were of equal soldiers, not units (300men each). The Solduros won. If I went unit on unit the Cohors won.
I don't agree with the idea that its ok to have Celt elite units stronger then their Roman counter parts. The excuse that they have fewer in number, have less soldiers,cost more and are rare still doesn't matter. I still believe the Soduros,Rycalwre and etc. should have slight reductions and bring them at best on par with the Cohors Reformata. Reduce the Cost of these Celt elite units and make them more available.
One other idea, increase the morale for the Batacorii. The Belgae where known for their bravery and according to the cards they are average Celt morale. Also increase the morale of the veteran Cohors Evocata should be increased.
Again Im going by the cards on morale so I very well could be wrong on how this works.

[Watchman]

Personally, I prefer looking up the stats in export_descr_units.txt. Pretty much the only thing you don't see there is the units' movement speeds (which are governed by what skeletons they've been defined to use in descr_model_battle.txt).

[blitzkrieg80]

rather than messing with stats that already seem to work, I think it would be cool to have more regionals, such as a Cimbri, or Rugi variants... The Wōdanezharīz is a Harii regional now of the Lugii, so no worries for anyone missing the berserkr-like guy, but he's been reconceptualized as a cultist of Wodan, no wolf about him, just good ole ecstatic "inspiration" of the god of change (wind/travel) himself.

[Frostwulf]

Thanks for the info. Watchman.

rather than messing with stats that already seem to work, I think it would be cool to have more regionals, such as a Cimbri, or Rugi variants... The Wōdanezharīz is a Harii regional now of the Lugii, so no worries for anyone missing the berserkr-like guy, but he's been reconceptualized as a cultist of Wodan, no wolf about him, just good ole ecstatic "inspiration" of the god of change (wind/travel) himself.

The only reason I would like to see the stat changes is that I think they are off historically. I really like the idea of regionals, there are many things that can be done with that. Also is there still better cavalry in the works?

[Watchman]

Off and off. I would think that stats that have the Germanic tribal levies the virtual equals of the Celtic warrior class (bar the effects of armour later) were downright generous.

[Frostwulf]

Off and off. I would think that stats that have the Germanic tribal levies the virtual equals of the Celtic warrior class (bar the effects of armour later) were downright generous.

The Germans should be superior to them. From the post Viking put down, De Bello Gallico. say's that the Germans defeated their nobility(elites),cavalry etc. not to mention this:

Throughout the Gallic campaigns German warriors consistently defeated their Gallic counterparts, each success adding to their fierce reputation. Pg.274