Sweboz (Germans) slightly underpowered

[Frostwulf]

Err... first of all The Game starts much earlier than Caesar. Second of all I think it's hard to say which civilization is the strongest and has the best warriors. What we do know from Archeology is that the gauls had better supplies of Iron and that the average Gaul wore more Armour than the average German, during most if not our complete time period.

This is true, yet even though the Gauls had more armor they still were being defeated by the Germans in Caesar's time. As far as events and battles prior to Caesar we only know the Germans had reversed the Celtic expansion. Later we have the TCA who were deflected by the Boii but the circumstances are unknown. The TCA had defeated Romans who in the 120'sBC had defeated the Celts and we know more of the circumstances of these battles. The Roman soldiers would have been of the same type who fought both the Gauls and the TCA. I still don't think there would be much difference between 270BC and Caesars time for the Germans. As for the Celts they moved more to a cavalry elite starting around 250BC(Kruta).
Thanks for the info Moros, its nice to know a bit of the behind the scenes things.

The main problem is that potentially any faction is playable (not really a problem) so game-balance-wise we don't want to have any faction stand out as ALWAYS the unstoppable juggernaut, it just doesn't make sense. Also, a certain amount of free will in the shaping of history is a wholly desirable element in the RTW engine, which does not allow overbalancing and certain history, besides the fact that the Germans were just not THAT active until Caesar's time,

I agree with the juggernaut thing, but I guess for the Germans not being to active would be a matter of opinion. You do have the Bastarnae/Scirii going to the Black Sea area and causing problems around 200-250 BC, and there is the situation with reversing the Celts.
I know game balance is very important but I personally would rather have more realistic units offset by cost or some other form of balance. Regardless of what I say, I don't have to go through the headache and the time consumed to make this work. I'm sure you will do a great job at this. I would also like to thank you guys that take time out to respond, it is appreciated.

Blitz I told you I would put down some more TCA material. I don't think this will help you but I will put it down anyway.

Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World-"Aquae Sextae 102BC
Marius ordered Claudius Marcellus to hide 3000 men in the hills. Marius then instructed his legionaries to all the Germans to charge uphill; they were to throw pila once the Germans were in range. The Germans charged up the hill, where their formation was disrupted by the slope, the rocky terrain , and the volleys of pila from the Romans above, which inflicted heavier casualties than usual, due to the Germans dense formation and lack of armour. A shoving and stabbing match then ensued, in which the Romans, with the gladius, better training and uphill position, had a decisive advantage. The Germans were pushed back down onto the plain, where they tried to form a shield wall. It was now that Marcellus cohorts charged down from the hills behind the Teutones and hit them in the rear, just as Marius attacked their front. The Germans rear routed, scattering the front ranks, and the entire army fell apart. Plutarch estimates that 100,000 Germans were killed." pg.58
The 100,000 would include woman and children.

I do have information on the battle of Vercellae against the Cimbri but its about the same as above. If you want it the information Ill put it down for you.

[Erebus26]

Never mind the Romans - the 'Germans' were the uber warriors of the age and could beat anyone! You've made some excellent points Frostwulf but besides from Ariovistus' defeat of the weakened Aedui can you give me a list of battles where the 'Germans' defeated the 'Gauls' in battle? And I don't mean Gallic Cavalry against German Cavalry during Caesar's conquest, or the battles of the TCA - as they were most likely a mixture of different tribal groupings.

As I've stated in the 'Celtic Overpowered' thread - I don't think there was much difference between the tribal groupings on either side of Rhine. This was a political statement by Caesar so he could raise his profile with the people of Rome to say that he had conquered Gaul. Again with the supposed German threat to Gaul prior to Caesar's invasion - again this was Caesar playing at politics so he had the excuse of intervening in Gaul. At the time of his invasion, Caesar had enemies like Cato within the senate who were trying to strip of his military power and his governorship of Transalpine Gaul. So what better excuse than to tell of massed Helveti and Suebi tribesman spilling into Gaul, near to the boundaries of a Roman Province.

[Frostwulf]

Never mind the Romans - the 'Germans' were the uber warriors of the age and could beat anyone! You've made some excellent points Frostwulf but besides from Ariovistus' defeat of the weakened Aedui can you give me a list of battles where the 'Germans' defeated the 'Gauls' in battle? And I don't mean Gallic Cavalry against German Cavalry during Caesar's conquest, or the battles of the TCA - as they were most likely a mixture of different tribal groupings.

If you read most of this you would see that I have said multiple times the Romans were superior to the Germans. You seem to mistake my intent and your following in the foot steps of others who claim I'm a Roman apologist and now a Germanophile. I think the Celtic units in EB are overpowered especially considering how the elites match up against others. Historically this doesn't match up if you have read the battles. Just because I believe the historical record bears out that the Romans and the Germans were martially superior to the Celts doesn't mean I'm ebullient over them or any of the ancients for that matter.
As for your question of the Germans defeating the Gauls in battle we only have Caesar and a few others to my knowledge. Other then the 10 years of Ariovistus and the TCA there is nothing written that I'm aware of.
With that do you have any battles in which the Gauls defeated the Germans? Is there any information you have in which the Celts pushed back the Germans at any time period?

How were the Aedui weakened? Would you mind putting down your sources and other such information? When I ask for information its not to be obnoxious, its sincere. I see plenty of people talking about this but yet no one has put down a credible source or even where they heard or read about it.

[Erebus26]

I have no problems with your arguments Frostwulf. I know you're not being obnoxious - far from it!!! I agree that Celtic units are overpowered in EB - the Gaesatae were never that good! :D

I would say that Aedui were weakened by their long conflict with the Sequani. Ariovistus took advantage of the situation and attacked both Gallic tribes when they were both exhausted by constant warfare between each other. I believe Caesar mentions as much in his commentaries.

As for Gauls pushing back Germans - you've got me stumped for sources of specific battles. So I yield to you this time! :D

Overall I think your arguments are sound and I enjoy reading your posts, as you have a good grasp of history.

[Watchman]

What I fail to see if how you could actually weaken the Celtic units without rendering them absurdly feeble compared to those of other, uh, origins. I mean, compare the stats of the rank-and-file Celtic infantry with those of, say, Thureophoroi, taking into account that both are more or less regular, professional troops and in the case of the Celts practically per definition with a decent bit of practical combat experience under their belts. Not much difference fas as I know that isn't directly traceable to the equipement kit...

And given that by some campaign descriptions I've read the Sweboz, even under the sorry AI, can give Polybian Roman armies serious trouble, I also fair to comprehend how a legitimate case could be made for making their line units stronger. Doubly so keeping in mind the better part of them are part-time tribal levies.

[blitzkrieg80]

really though, tribal levies were very uncommon, even among the Germanic tribes. the kind of increased military activity seen during Caesar's era is an increase in tribal levies yes and less so professional warriors, although they could easily have increased as a ratio, but otherwise (before the growing trend which lead to the Migration Age): most typical German warriors were professional, as much as any warrior aristocracy, so there is no reason to state they should have "levy" status and training when in fact they enjoyed the benefits of warrior culture, trained solely for it, and took on its subsequent responsibilities. the Germans weren't all craftsmen and farmers, and those who were only rarely composed the army of the EB era except in extreme circumstances such as defense, or a larger calling, such as Caesar.

it is true that common people of the Germanic tribes participated in ritual warfare, but that cannot be used to argue for part-time levy composition or other cultures with similar practices such as the Celts, could then also be classified in such a manner, which would not be true either.

I do agree that there is no point in reducing the strength of the Celts, though, esp. with consideration to balance and other factions / cultures. a professional warrior should have similar characteristics across the board and no particular culture should have a superior essence... the beauty of the EB system is that the equipment DOES matter stat-wise and concerning gameplay and it gives quirks to every unit and it ideally matches to history and reflects the superior technology and/or tactics of the use of that equipment, ect.

[Moros]

Yeah let us make one thing clear, we won't be making the Gauls weaker. We've ,well Blitz and his team, just made the germans much more historical.

[Watchman]

really though, tribal levies were very uncommon, even among the Germanic tribes. the kind of increased military activity seen during Caesar's era is an increase in tribal levies yes and less so professional warriors, although they could easily have increased as a ratio, but otherwise (before the growing trend which lead to the Migration Age): most typical German warriors were professional, as much as any warrior aristocracy, so there is no reason to state they should have "levy" status and training when in fact they enjoyed the benefits of warrior culture, trained solely for it, and took on its subsequent responsibilities. the Germans weren't all craftsmen and farmers, and those who were only rarely composed the army of the EB era except in extreme circumstances such as defense, or a larger calling, such as Caesar.

it is true that common people of the Germanic tribes participated in ritual warfare, but that cannot be used to argue for part-time levy composition or other cultures with similar practices such as the Celts, could then also be classified in such a manner, which would not be true either.

Now waittasec. I thought specifically the single biggest "structural" difference between the Celtic and Germanic armies was that only the Celts were rich enough to be able to delegate warfare virtually entirely to a specialist warrior class, whereas the Germans could only form a small hard core out of such (ie. the nobles and their retainers) and had to turn to the common tribesmen to furnish the numerical backbone ?

Such commoner-soldiers are levy/militia per definition AFAIK; how *good* levy/militia is an entirely separate question, and the Germanic one was apparently pretty good.