Aedui vs Arverni

[0101001]

I am not sure if this has been posted anywhere on the forum hitherto but I am going to ask anyway. Which Gallic faction is better and why? I want to know because I want to play a Gallic faction and unite all of Gaul (just like Vercingetorix). Which is why I was going to play as Arverni but I want to hear the public's opinions first.

[blank]

Aedui - Arverni are just rebel scum

[The Celtic Viking]

The Arverni - their name does mean "superior ones", after all.

... but naah, it doesn't really matter as far as strength goes, IMO. I don't really have any favourite. The "God-King" description the Arverni has and the memory of Vercingetorix always makes me want to play as them, but on the oher hand, the whole thought of the Aedui Confederacy and their description makes me want to play them just as much... and they're both a great deal of fun. I would tell you to pick the colour you like best - yellow or green - and go with that.

[PershsNhpios]

Vercingetorix was just about the most tactful and inspiring Gaul I have every read about.
He even managed to convince Commius the Atrebatian to rebel!
Nonetheless he did some very foolish things, and didn't really unite all of Gaul, as from my own perspective of the Gallic tribes, they were always divided in every way possible.
For that reason it would be very hard to portray them in a game like this!

However, in EB, though I have not played either yet and always financially support the Aedui, I would play as the Arverni.
This is because their military is greatly stronger from the start, they have very large garrisons, and have their territory arrayed in such a manner that they could easily surround those of the Aedui.
Plus, in my campaigns Rome usually picks to side with the Arverni.

If you play as the Aedui you will have to fight on divided fronts.

[Karielle]

I really enjoyed playing the Aedui, personally, so I now harbour some mild irrational dislike of Arverni.. Play as you like, nevertheless. ;D

Edit: I liked the challenge of divided fronts, to be honest.. It was nervewracking but exciting at the same time to try to juggle rapidly declining finances and a two-front war, but I conquered all of the Arverni and the Romani in the end, and ended with a frustrating stalemate against the Sweboz but a great financial situation considering the start. Very satisfying.

[0101001]

Well in my Roman campaign that i decided to play until I got some answers, the aedui just broke our alliance and attacked and took back gergovia, viennos and mediolanum with a blitz tactic Hitler himself would have admired.
VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA GAUL! VIVE LA ARVERNI!

[Dram]

from a pragmatic point of view-

aedui have carnute cingetos (druid chant, inspire nearby units)

arvenerni have arjos (armoured spear unit)

these are both after the reforms. cingetos can only be recruited in 1 place while arjos has several recruitment places. cingetos are better imo because there are already plenty of other units that are similar to the arjos.

however, unless youre roleplaying some sort of snail-like progress game youll probably never reach the required reforms to make these units, or your borders will be so far from home that it would take too long to send them to the front.

[burn_again]

Being a fan of the barbarian factions in EB I always end up playing as the Aedui, but I don't really know why, might be the colour actually ;).

Unit-wise they're both the same, but I also like Cingetos better, as Arjos are very similar to Solduros.
@Dram: I thought Arjos could only be recruited in Gergovia...

From their starting positions I'd say the Aedui are a bit more challenging, as they get into war with Rome earlier. Both gaulic factions will have a very difficult economy in the first years, and sucess depends a lot on luck with AI-behaviour and decisive battles.

[Dram]

You're right, I misread the recruitment map.

[Andronikos]

I managed to blitzkrieg the Arverni in my Aedui campaign so I had enough finances and armies to deal with Romans when they attacked me.
And I like both factions + Casse - Celts are my second favourite after Helenes and I have also read something about their history and can say that they were very interesting people.

[Fondor_Yards]

Averni, their skins are more colourful,

[NeoSpartan]

Everytime I've played any of the Celts, I've played the AEDUI!

It is mainy the color and the simbol of the Arverni that put me off a little. The Wild Board and the green color of the Aedui are more appealing to me.

HOWEVER, due to the fact that Vercingetorix was an Arverni next time I start a celtic campain OR next time I play MP against a Roman I WILL play the Arverni!

[Beefy187]

I prefer Aedui
Because As Aedui you get option to bail to Britain and take out the Casse. Become really rich. You wont get bothered by annoying Sweboz, Arverni or the Romans.

But as Arverni you can have fun getting Messila once they got stone wall, place some celtic slingers and have fun killing any army who got courage to attack the settlement.
You just have to Blitz the Aedui before they get strong then you should be fine.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I prefer Aedui
Because As Aedui you get option to bail to Britain and take out the Casse. Become really rich. You wont get bothered by annoying Sweboz, Arverni or the Romans.

But as Arverni you can have fun getting Messila once they got stone wall, place some celtic slingers and have fun killing any army who got courage to attack the settlement.
You just have to Blitz the Aedui before they get strong then you should be fine.

I like the Aedui because they have Carnute Cingetos, or something like that, who are really nice and good looking heavy infantry.

On the other hand, I prefer the Arverni herald. Much better than that vanilla wild boar.

[Glewas]

Have to agree with NeoSpartan that the symbol/color of the Aedui usually sways my opinion than anything else. The only thing I have aginst the Aedui was their historical alliance w/Rome and their starting position - Rome is at the doorstep far too quickly, (although I've found a way around that, see below),

So far I'm on my second length Aedui campaign, where as I have only played for a little w/the Arverni. I don't know if recent unit previews hint towards more varied rosters for the two factions - the Aedui Cordinau Orca and the Arverni Kluddacorii... Chances are they'll both have a version of the unit, but I think it would be cool if there were more, (like 2 or 3), units that are specific to each faction. Any EB members care to shed some light on this?


Regarding the Aedui and the Romani... in my current campaign a cunning use of forts kept the Romans at bay until a time of my choosing, which was about 225 BC. Early on I constructed forts in the lands of the Boii and Ligurians after negotiating a cease fire with the Romans. Being neutral, the Romani couldn't get around the forts and therefore couldn't conquer Bononia or Segesta, which are still indepentdant by the way.

This probably isn't a new idea and is a little bit of cheating... but it allowed me to focus on the civil war at my own pace. Also I didn't feel the need to conquer settlement after settlement just so I could get my economy out of the red, and, most importantly, allowed me to get to the first reforms with out having already conquered all of western Europe, as I did in my first campaign.

It worked like a charm as the Romani never once tried to attack the forts, although the plan almost fell to ruin when the Boii attempted to kick me out of their territory... The only thing I wasn't happy with was that, blocked off from Cisalpine Gaul, the Romani never did much in southern Italy even though they were at war with Epeiros...

[pezhetairoi]

A question. Why didn't you feel a need to conquer settlement after settlement? Wouldn't you have been just going deeper and deeper into debt as the game wore on if you weren't turning a profit?

[Glewas]

Pez...
I was slowly starting to turn a profit as the war with the Arverni went on, and I did grab a few independant settlements when I could, basically because I had to, but...

Whereas in my first Aedui campaign I was in the middle of the war with the Arverni and Rome literally had armies in Mediolanum's territory but they weren't laying seige yet, and 30k in debt before I started making any money and even then it was only 1,000 to 2,000 per turn if I was lucky.

All that combined with the Romani war that not too long after led me to conquer settlement after settlement to get out of debt and turn the tide against Rome... who in turn never accepted a ceasefire let alone became a protectorate (which means I had to eradicate them to end the war).

Meanwhile I decided to take the last remaining settlement in Britian which to access land trade with my then allies, who turn on me. Then Eperios breaks it's alliance against Rome with me and eventually the Sweboz attacks me too...

By this time I was easily out of debt, as I had all of Gaul, Italy, Dalmatia, Illyria, parts of Iberia, and Germania under my control but I was fighting on 4 fronts as the Getai decided to join in... all before the first reforms. I quit the campaign soon after Pontos attacked me. (Note: I didn't use the force diplomacy mod as I don't think it was available at the time/didnt' know about it)

[NeoSpartan]

Some people like to take it slow Pezhetairoi, others (like me) conquer their way out of dept (I like the sound of that )

Me in Vh/M I had all of Western Europe by the time the reforms got here, and I was getting mad that I had to "slow down" on purpose. This mounting frustration and a CTD without saving caused me to abandon that campain.

[PershsNhpios]

As for giving a couple of specific units each to the Arverni and the Aedui, I think this not so much a mistake as against the efforts of the EB developers.
Historically, as we all know, there was no great difference between the two tribes militarily, they all fought in much the same way with the exception that some had a greater reputation than others.
The Aedui and Arverni should be kept as similar as possible, in the same way that in the original Rome: Total War, all Roman families were kept the same- to give an impression of civil war.

[PSYCHO V]

As for giving a couple of specific units each to the Arverni and the Aedui, I think this not so much a mistake as against the efforts of the EB developers..

Well, we did have several additional regionals planned but I didn't get around to them before my erstwhile friends / companions forced my departure.

It gives me great pleaseure to know that you guys are enjoying the fruits of many thousands of hours labour. I'm just sorry I couldn't finish things off for you all. Hopefully EB's new Celtic guys will do a little better than the bavarian woodcutter we witnessed recently.

my2bob

[burn_again]

Psycho, this work of yours and all others who worked on the celtic factions is greatly appreciated. I'm having great fun in my campaigns and basically it were pictures of EB's barbarian units that drew my attention to EB and made me buy RTW in the first place.

[NeoSpartan]

PSYCHO....

U DAN MAN!

[Andronikos]

I consider Cingetos being more useful because of their special ability (chanting), but Arjos are preatier - irresistible colour combination.
Celtic elites are in general very nice and also powerful units.

[NeoSpartan]

I consider Cingetos being more useful because of their special ability (chanting), but Arjos are preatier - irresistible colour combination.
Celtic elites are in general very nice and also powerful units.

the Cingetos have a littl ebetter stats, + the chanting thing. The problem is the COST!

I can get 2 Cingetos VS 3 Arjos.

[pezhetairoi]

As I know it Aedui and Arverni are supposed to be almost equally matched. If anything, the only difference between the two is that their strategic situation, which is often more pear-shaped for the Aedui, while the Arverni get a nice location. That said, in AI battles the Aedui wins almost every time, only once in my 8 EB campaigns did I see the Arverni dominating Gaul. The Arverni often just sit tight in their provinces and churn out fullstacks.

[Glewas]

As for giving a couple of specific units each to the Arverni and the Aedui, I think this not so much a mistake as against the efforts of the EB developers.
Historically, as we all know, there was no great difference between the two tribes militarily, they all fought in much the same way with the exception that some had a greater reputation than others.

I understand this and agree, especially with the limited model/unit space. I would much rather see more unique regional units available to many different factions than units available to one faction only. I aboslutly love that the Gauls are able to recruit Massalian Hoplites.

In a perfect world though, a more varied unit roster would give more reason to choose one faction over the other, and in the long run possibly give reason to someone who isn't an Celtophile like myself to give both factions a try.

[Andronikos]

I am satisfied with celtic unit roosters. Most of celtic armies were made of units like botroas, bataroas, gaeroas, gaelaiche... so I believe that different skins are enough. More units would be only more derivatives of these units or more champions which would lead to high-end armies of nobles and that is not historicaly accurate.

[NeoSpartan]

well u gotta understand, the Aedui and Arverni were NOT 2 different countries. They were a combination of tribes headed by a single major tribe, with a similar culture, language, religion, and history. you have some slight variations with gauls depending on their geographical area. For example in southern gaul/northern italy u can train boatoans (sp), as u get close to the Balkans u can train greek influenced celts (forgot the name), etc. There are few units that can only be trained in certain areas.

Think of the similarity in Gallic units as the Greek city states of the Classical period. They all fought with hoplites. The only difference was the drawing on the shields.

NOW: talking about the gaullic elites.
-They are cool as hell, my favorite is the Aedui Neitos (the arverni has a smaller looking shield).

They are good, and not as expensive like the Soldurus, Cingetos, and Gaestae. Although, Gaestae do the most a** kicking of them all.

One thing I can't wait to see is another type of proffesional gaul infantry, or a unit in between botroans and neitos, stat wise.

[Andronikos]

Yes, I understand, that behind the name Gauls are many different tribes and that is why I like how EB team made gallic recruitment - botroas in south, bataroas in north and province-specific units.
The new profesional unit after between bataroas and neitos is a good idea, because after the bondsmen reform botroas still form the core of my army and it would be nice to have something to replace them.

[NeoSpartan]

Yes, I understand, that behind the name Gauls are many different tribes and that is why I like how EB team made gallic recruitment - botroas in south, bataroas in north and province-specific units.
The new profesional unit after between bataroas and neitos is a good idea, because after the bondsmen reform botroas still form the core of my army and it would be nice to have something to replace them.

true... plus I hate that Bataroas get beat up by Polybian Principes, (although Bataroas leave them SEVERELY short of men).