Casse campaign report (long)

[PelicanMan]

Yeah, I know chariots suck. I didn't know they sucked THAT much. To some dude above that referred to them as "skirmisher cavalry," I WISH they were skirmisher cavalry, because they are in every way possible worse than skirmisher cavalry. Heck, they are in every way possible worse than skirmisher infantry. The other day I charged an outmatched light phalanx from the FRONT with slingers, and didn't lose any. Chariots can't even hit anything from behind without the general crashing to the ground upon impact.

This just makes me upset. Honestly, I have stopped using more than one general in a stack BECAUSE of their superiority; they can rout almost anything if used correctly. That is the whole point with Casse. You have to instill fear into your enemy. A long drawn out battle doesn't gain you anything; all it is is a Pyrrhic victory. With the Chariots, you can end the battle quickly - IF YOU USE THEM CORRECTLY. They are not meant to kill enemy units with their charge; they are not meant for hand to hand combat. Use their javelins; use their fear against enemy units. Disrupt their formations with charging through the enemy units, not into the center of the unit and continue to hack at them in standstill. After going through the unit, let another unit charge their front. By that time, the unit is engaged, the General has reformed into their line, and charge right back. A big hunk of wood with two horses pulling it charging to my back in open field would scare the crap out of me too.
Also, if you have to deal with Cavalry, the chariots will eat them up quickly with minimal losses.

Frankly, I do not know how to further explain how good the unit is. Obviously it is no cataphract cavalry that can take anything; but the best explanation is that they ARE like a glass cannon. Stop them in their tracks, they die. Let them ride along your back with their javelins and them causing the utmost fear in enemy units, that's their cannon; and it is a strong one at that.

Could someone else (brennus maybe) explain how they are supposed to be used? I thought my explaination is quite clear but I may be wrong.

The P-MAN

[athanaric]

So another chariot story. So I'm rolling through puke gr... I mean Averni (heh) like a hot knife through butter, with 3 separate stacks taking cities at once. At any rate, my swordsmen stack, together with my faction leader, attacks one of his cities. I get inside and kick his butt all the way back to his little city square area. He has almost nothing left by this point - literally a unit of naked gallic swordsmen (forget their actual name, but you know what I'm talking about). .

Some points:

1 - I don't know if you prefer to play in a more historically accurate or in a fun fashion, but making stacks of only one type of unit (plus FMs) isn't really accurate. Especially if it's swordsmen (quality longswords were - and still are - expensive). IMO you should have mixed stacks based on an infantry line made up of spearmen (preferrably Gaelaiche if you fight in Gaul - they are the most reliable regular spearmen for Celtic factions, and retrainable in all of Gaul). Shortswordsmen are also pretty historically accurate core units, but weaker than spearmen. Also, at least one unit of Teceitos and either slingers or archers each. Belgae units are also useful, as you've already discovered.

2 - Cavalry is only useful against Gaisatoi when on an open battlefield. Even my customized, toned down version of them (I reduced their HP to one, like for every other infantry unit) can take care of most melee units. Moreso if they are "unroutable" due to standing on the town square. I'm afraid you have to use missiles, and swords after that (axes are less efficient in this case because there is, obviously, no armour to crack).

3 - When assaulting an Eleutheroi Belgian (or British?) town, I once killed an entire unit of chariots with one unit of Milnaht - without losing one man. This might help to reinforce my point that chariots are useless in static melee - and unfortunately, the engine bugs city fights in such a way that charges count as melee (due to being executed as such).

[Nightmare]

I can read, you can't write. The bunch of stuff at his rear is supposedly not part of everything? Ah, makes perfect sense. Or does it?

I accept full responsibility for misunderstanding you. "Everything else" was everything minus the bunch of stuff at the rear, including your general. It would have helped if your "report" was written better.

Not sure what the problem is. What part of "the enemy unit was completely surrounded, my general was at his rear along with other stuff, everything charged at the same time including the general and stuff at the rear" don't you understand?

Or did you make the bunch of stuff at the rear attack as well, but not to the middle of the Gaestatae? I am still not sure if you kept the "bunch of stuff at the rear" in reserve or not.

Why would I keep anything in reserve?

"Rear," by the way, means "rear of the enemy unit." In other words, behind the enemy unit so as to hit him from behind. The enemy was surrounded, with stuff at the front, the sides, and THE REAR. My general charged from THE REAR.

If you provide for your own traffic congestion, then of course chariots will not be very effective. Chariots need space. Do you think a turning radius of 2 meters is realistic? What do you think would happen if a horse gets afraid? What if a horse gets slaughtered or loses a leg? Have you ever been on a chariot, and dealt with such eventualities?

Not sure what you're smoking. Perhaps you are just trolling. Traffic congestion was irrelevant, I said THE CHARGE WAS SUCCESSFUL AND PERFECT. I didn't say "I tried to charge but the chariot got congested and didn't get a charge off, then my general died." I also said the general died at the very moment of impact. I also said no other soldiers in my chariot unit died. Ever. So obviously congestion was not a problem, comprehende'?

There's nothing wrong with my writing, there's something wrong with your reading-comprehension.

Just because you don't know how to use chariots effectively does not mean that they are useless. It just means you don't know how to use them.

Nah, it just means lots of people in life reflexively and automatically defend the status-quo about anything, whether it's government, or in this case a game. I could say my elite cataphracts died to archers and you'd sit there and defend it. I could say anything and you'd sit there and defend it.

Furthermore, "don't know how to use them" is a misleading phrase. Obviously, assuming a unit is balanced incorrectly or has overly-weak stats, perhaps the "best way to use it" is to keep it out of all combat, and anyone who tries to put it at risk in hopes of finding some use for it "doesn't know how to use it." So the point has little to do with whether or not someone knows how to use chariots. The point is whether or not they are balanced correctly, whether they need to be redesigned, whether their stats need to be adjusted, etc.

[Nightmare]

A long drawn out battle doesn't gain you anything; all it is is a Pyrrhic victory. With the Chariots, you can end the battle quickly - IF YOU USE THEM CORRECTLY. They are not meant to kill enemy units with their charge; they are not meant for hand to hand combat. Use their javelins; use their fear against enemy units. Disrupt their formations with charging through the enemy units, not into the center of the unit and continue to hack at them in standstill.

Not sure why people are failing to read, or failing to comprehend, what was written. I'll say it for a 4th or 5th time: The general charged (SUCCESSFULLY) the back of the enemy unit and was killed the very instant his chariot touched the back of the enemy unit. No, he wasn't killed 30 seconds or a minute after. HE WAS KILLED THE SECOND HIS CHARIOT TOUCHED THE BACK OF THE ENEMY UNIT. So obviously there was no "hand to hand combat" or "hacking at them in standstill." Also, I said that NO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE UNIT WERE KILLED, PERIOD, PARAGRAPH, END OF STORY. So again, this obviously means I didn't stand there and hack and slash (but even if I did that obviously didn't hurt me whatsoever, as nothing died but the general at the moment of contact with the bare back of the enemy).

[Nightmare]

I don't know if you prefer to play in a more historically accurate or in a fun fashion, but making stacks of only one type of unit (plus FMs) isn't really accurate.

Thanks for the tip, it is much appreciated. But in fact I don't like to play in a historically accurate fashion; otherwise the game might as well just be a video where I don't even participate, and where it just shows me what happened. I already know what happened - Rome eventually won and killed everyone and everything else.

I like to change history. I like to be better, in generalship, in strategy, etc. than whoever or whatever it was that came before me. And I play to win, meaning use whatever units, tactics, and strategies are available to get me the victory. Which is leading me to something that seems somewhat disturbing. It seems all I need to win the game easily and cost-effectively is stacks of slingers :-( which I'm starting to build and just utterly dominate with. But I guess that's another thread for another day.

EDIT: Re-reading that, it came off sounding... not like I wanted it to sound. I respect the way you play. It sounds fun. Perhaps I'll give it a try sometime.

In truth, I've actually played this particular campaign a good bit as you described, not because I wanted to or intended to, but simply because I couldn't build much else except low tier units. The enemy would send swordsmen stacks at me, I'd throw skirmishers and spears back at him out of necessity. Most recently I've been able to build swordsmen stacks of decent quality, but again that's a recent development.

[Ludens]

There's nothing wrong with my writing, there's something wrong with your reading-comprehension.

I misunderstood it as well. Keep it civil, please.

[Nightmare]

I misunderstood it as well. Keep it civil, please.

What? I don't care if you are a moderator or not. He started with the incivility, not me, and while that may be an uncomfortable fact (I'm a newcomer who everyone disagrees with), it is a fact and is recorded right here for everyone to see. I didn't start the incivility, and I'm not gonna be singled out. So if you want to complain about civility, that's perfectly fine, but complain at the person who started the incivility, not me.

EDIT: Without even going over what I initially wrote, if you and he say you misunderstood, I'll accept the blame for not making what I wrote clear - that's not a problem. I won't accept the blame for starting incivility. I didn't do that. Someone else wrote

I can read, you can't write

(I never said he couldn't read) and

Just because you don't know how to use chariots effectively does not mean that they are useless. It just means you don't know how to use them.

[Nightmare]

So if the moderator doesn't ban me, here's a question. Most recently I've been able to build Casse Champions and Druids, which after a while of building them up can now deploy a stack. But in comparing the stats of the Casse Champs and Belgae Swords, it seems that the Belgae Swords actually have a point of defense in their favor (granted they are more defensive skill with less armor), in addition to having more men in the unit. This is also at less cost than the Casse Champs. I understand that the Casse Champs have an ability to inspire men; however I really haven't needed such an abilty - my men rarely break and run, except for the occasional unit who's down to 3 men (in which case I don't care if they rout).

I guess my point is, what's in favor of the Casse Champs over the Belgae Swords, if anything? Only thing I can think of is if the enemy is deploying a lot of ranged (he isn't in my campaign) the emphasis on more armor would help? I did spam out a half stack of them or so to see what they're gonna do but haven't gotten them in a battle yet.

Next question - Druids. They seem to have the best stats over the Belgae and Casse Champs with a cheaper cost and upkeep, with the caveat that there are 10 less men in the unit than Belgaes. Thus I figured these are the guys I should probably be massing if I have the dough (which I now do) over the Belgae or Champs. Any reason not to, besides reasons of cost which aren't a problem? Is there something I'm missing? Do the 10 more men in the Belgae against moderately better stats for the Druids make the Belgae better? Again, I've built a bunch of Druids at this point, just haven't been able to get them to where the action is just yet so I haven't been able to test. But the gut instinct seems to tell me Druids might be better, even though these games tend to emphasize lower-tier unit cost-effectiveness.

Thanks.

[athanaric]

[...]

Casse champions have a bigger AoR. Also, they are less useful in defence (smaller shield, smaller numbers, and IIRC looser formation). Champions can be useful for guarding the flanks of your battle line. Milnaht can actually fight in the battle line, which is rare for (non-Roman) swordsmen. In the end, it's more a question of personal taste though.

Druids have a small unit size and no javelins. From the point of historically accurate gameplay, you shouldn't have more than one or two unit(s) of infantry elites/very unusual units in your army (which is what Druids and Casse Champions are). It is more justifiable to have more than two units of Belgae swordsmen in one army - IIRC they are not an "elite unit" in the sense that champions (or Hypaspistai, Solduroi, etc.) are, but rather a high tier professional unit like legionnaires and thus more likely to be found in large numbers.


Perhaps the ultimate "boring, but practical" army for any Celtic faction would be a core of Belgae spearmen and swordsmen, backed up by Celtic slingers, axemen, light and heavy cavalry. This kind of setup will enable you to defeat pretty much anything you are likely to encounter (especially Carthaginians once you take Iberia and/or raid Carthage for the lulz, like I did). Also, most of these units have a big AoR.

[Nightmare]

Bwaahahaahahahahaaha!! Folks, it just doesn't get any better than this! Seriously, I'm not making this up (I'm just not that creative), but you are welcome to disbelieve it... I would!

So if I haven't been banned yet, here's two stories, both occurred back-to-back. First story, I had a small contingent of soldiers backed by a general parked at a bridge to stop harassing attacks from Aedui. So here comes an Aedui stack to attack me. I'm outnumbered, and his troops are somewhat better quality, but I hold the bridge so I'm not too worried because I know how to hold a bridge. So bottom line, he tries to break through but I clog up the bridge and there's a big battle. Eventually he breaks and runs, including his general who had tried to charge through. All of his units are literally down to just a few men each (3 soldiers routing here, 4 soldiers routing there). My priority was to kill his general, WHO WAS DOWN TO A SINGLE MAN, because I'm about to win the game and I didn't want this general just buying up an entire stack of mercenaries and coming right back again. The only thing I had with any hopes of catching him was my chariot general, who I purposefully kept out of all action just so his sorry ass wouldn't die. So I sent him charging across the bridge after the routing, single enemy general. I even said to myself "as impossible as it looks, he's absolutely gonna die, guaranteed, but I don't care." Well, let me tell you guys, I was not to be disappointed! So my chariot general closes with his general and hits him from behind as he's fleeing. The instant my chariots touched the lone fleeing horse from behind, the mini-cinematic cut to my general flying through the air and hitting the ground, wheels coming off his chariot, etc. I laughed out loud and shook my head, putting my head in the palm of my hand as I got the message that my general had been killed. So I kept the rest of his men going after the enemy general, who turned around and started fighting. My chariots went from about 30 down to 4 before the lone enemy horse fell down and died. Honestly, I thought the entire unit of chariots would die, but 4 were left standing.

So very next battle another general ambushes an Averni stack trying to get through to one of my cities. I had supremely good stuff in this stack - pretty much all heavy swordsmen and druids and what not, while his stack was a good bit of riff-raff, so I wasn't worried. But when the map loaded, it was entirely thick forest, like the worst I've ever seen. I could literally see nothing, so I hit the button to retreat, even though I totally outmatched him. So my guys are retreating, and I hit fast mode to go ahead and get it over with. So all my guys are gone and I'm wondering why it hasn't returned to the campaign screen, and I realize OH MY GOD! MY STUPID GENERAL IS STUCK IN THE FOREST! I quickly put the game on slow speed and did anything I could in an effort to unstick him while the enemy closed in. But he was hopelessly stuck (he spawned that way) and couldn't get out. Some cheap enemy levy spears closed in, and the second they touched my general's unit, the general flew through the air, wheels came off the chariot, yadda yadda while I laughed out loud again.

That's it, thanks to whoever it was who gave me the link, because I'm modding these guys out of the game as soon as humanly possible. I swear, these are the worst units I've ever seen in any game in my entire life, but at this point I'm laughing! It's truly funny! And there's an armada of people insisting that the emperor has clothes on when I know damn well he doesn't. I swear I entered the Bizzaro World or the Twilight Zone or some other such place!

[Ludens]

We don't ban people for disagreeing with the moderators. I apologize for not checking this thread as closely as I normally do. I have guests over today, so I am a bit rushed. In any case, if you feel someone is being rude to you, please use the report button.

Chariots word OK for me as long as I use them as support rather than killers, and take care to keep their exposure to enemy weapons to a minimum. They are the most fragile and annoying unit in EB1, though, so I am glad that EB2 will have infantry generals for the Britons. Chariots are also, for some reason, particularly prone to the remaining bugs in the battle-engine, and you seem to have had a run of bad luck in this.

Chariots have their uses: but they make lousy general's units.

[Ludens]

Put it another way: I believe that what you say is true. Your chariots just won't do anything but get themselves killed in the most embarrassing way possible. However, I think the communication problem here goes both ways. Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that you rate units purely on killing power. Chariots just won't kill anything. They might occasionally hit someone with their javelins, but due to the way the engine works they'll rarely use their sword. So in melee they cannot fight back effectively, and due to their size they'll quickly get surrounded and chopped to firewood.

However, chariots are pretty good as a support unit that doesn't kill. The morale penalty won't turn a battle that's going badly, but it will allow you turn the enemy flank much more quickly. You don't even need to engage the chariots: all you need to do is stand near the enemy, preferably behind them to increase the penalty (chariots + javelins + rear threat). The chariots can get away with this due to their mobility and high morale.

Chariots also have multiple hitpoints, so you can use them as a battering ram for enemy formations. Get the chariots to counter-charge the enemy cavalry, then follow up with your own cavalry while the chariots escape on the other side of the enemy formation. You will only kill a few horsemen this way: the main benefit is that the enemy charge is disrupted before your own cavalry slam into them. With enemy infantry this works even better, because the chariots cause so much disruption that the footsloggers won't be able to fight back effectively. Off course, if the chariots get bogged down, they'll get attacked from all directions, and the multiple hitpoints won't last long there.

The R:TW battle engine doesn't allow much scope for support units, so you don't need to use them and it's never worth bringing more than one. Killing power is more important in most instances. But chariots can be useful with a bit of care. And if you absolutely have to kill something with your chariots, use their missiles rather than engage them in melee, 'cause the sword is just for show.

[Nightmare]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that you rate units purely on killing power.

After seeing just how sucky they were, I set the bar for chariots pretty low a while back - like EXTREMELY low. I don't expect or want them to have killing power, per se. What I want, as a bare minimum quality in a chariot (or anything else) is for it to be able to survive a "minimum" amount of physical contact with the enemy or with a weapon. War is a contact sport, but as it stands right now, the chariot is literally hard-countered by every single weapon or unit in the game. It is hard-countered by anything that can physically touch it (or that it physically touches). That's just crazy. Light archers or skirmishers or peasants are tougher than chariots.

Just to be clear, I do define a "minimum" amount of contact with the enemy as the ability to charge into the back of an utterly defeated, surrounded enemy who is also getting charged by other units from all other sides, and not die INSTANTANEOUSLY the very instant the chariot touches the back of the enemy unit. No, I didn't say "stay in and get tied up in melee with said enemy unit." I said "don't die the very instant the chariot makes contact with the back of the enemy."

Also in the same "minimum contact" category would be running down fleeing enemies from behind without dying the instant the chariot makes contact with the back of the fleeing enemy. This is just simple, basic stuff. So we are clearly far from heavy infantry or cataphract territory here - I don't want or expect that. I think the bar I set could simply be termed "don't utterly and completely suck."

The chariot is too viciously hard-countered by anything and everything that isn't within it's extremely narrowly-defined role of throwing a couple of javelins and affecting enemy morale. As far as javelins go, I'm not impressed with that ability at all. I've never been able to kill more than a couple of guys max any given battle throwing those things. And if folks say this morale ability is so damn powerful that the thing has to be this ridiculously weak, then I say get rid of the stupid morale ability - something I've never seen it utilize anyway. If it's got some overpowered morale ability, and in exchange it has to be made out of popsicle sticks and confetti glued together, then anyone I know (besides some the posters on this forum, apparently) would not consider that good balance for a unit. For this game it's too esoteric of a balance, too avante-guard, too unrealistic and wild. If the game were full of units like that, it would fit. The game isn't. Most units are very realistic and down to earth. A unit of unarmored slingers can tie up a unit of cavalry in hand-to-hand, for instance (a role far outside their main role). Then you have the jokeiot, I mean chariot - something so physically weak that it cannot touch anything else on the battlefield without breaking into pieces and generals flying through the air. I see absolutely no need for these crippling handicaps. And I don't think it's the game engine, because I used chariots in vanilla RTW, and they were absolutely fine.

Just off hand, I haven't played Pontus or the Selucids. What's the status with their chariots? Aren't they some kind of "heavy chariots" or "scythed chariots" instead of javelin-throwing contraptions? If so, they have to be able to survive physical contact with the enemy, right? So are they overpowered monstrosities of doom, as some people here claim Casse chariots would be if they could survive any physical contact at all? Or are they made of balsa wood too? It doesn't seem like they could fulfill their function if they behaved like the Casse chariots, so what's the word there?

Anyway, thanks for the tips, and an interesting take on an interesting situation.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I vastly prefer the Celtic chariots over the scythed variant. For one, the Celtic ones, while more vulnerable, have much higher morale and won't easily break. The Celtic ones also have command eagles if I'm not mistaken and can toss a few javs here and there while supporting with fear. The Scythed ones are more heavily armored and missile resistant, but have very low morale and will run amok which is a whole new problem. Since I mainly use chariots for the fear penalty, I much perfer the Celtic ones.

[Nightmare]

The campaign ended in 234 BC. Don't know if the more experienced EB players around here consider that a fast victory or not, but either way mistakes were made here and there and I could have done better (it was my first time playing Casse). I do believe the overall strat I set out on initially (mainland strat, attack Aedui) was a good one, apparently, as it was never even close.

How it ended: As I was close to finishing off Averni in the alps, he somehow started sending full stacks at me from all directions, and also the Aedui, who only had one city left above Rome (Metrolanium or something like that). I defeated Averni in the alps, plus sent a stack to take Aedui's last city. I didn't need that as an objective, and I didn't want it (it was gonna cost me time). However, I knew he'd keep sending stacks, so I wanted to eliminate him. I had a diplomat there, and he would not accept being a client state no matter the terms, no matter now much I sweetened the deal, etc. So after taking that last city I put everyone to death.

Upon eliminating Aedui, Averni made peace with Sweboz. I knew this meant Sweboz would start attacking (I was near the end). I also knew Rome would start attacking, so I was already producing as many full stacks as I could out of the most advanced production centers I had, and had been doing this for some while. Sure enough, Rome attacked the very next round (Metrolanium). It was okay, that city was simply there to provide him the path of most resistance, which it did because I took more than one full stack of soldiers with me.

Averni had only three cities left in the south - one a couple cities west of the boot of Italy (on the coast, can't remember the name, but it was a non-objective), and two in north Iberia, both of which were objectives. Beyond those two, I needed only one more city in Iberia to complete all objectives. At any rate, I now positioned defensive stacks around the passes through the alps to protect my eastern flank from the Romans, I positioned a few stacks in the south to protect me from Averni, and I positioned a few stacks in the north to protect me from Sweboz, as I was expecting a backstab.

In the end, Rome did send many stacks through those passes - so many in fact that I had to move stacks positioned to protect from Sweboz in the north down to help defend. Averni also seemed to pull stacks out of thin air as I closed in on his last cities. However, those fell in short order, and so did the Lusitan city which was my last objective. I ended up having to take another Averni city I didn't need (the one west of Italy) to stop attacks from that city. Sweboz never backstabbed me, and a look at the full map upon winning the game revealed that he hadn't done much - there were many rebel cities around him he could have taken. Interestingly, Koinon Hellenon was not only the dominant power in Greece, they had made Epiros a client state and had kicked Macedonia out completely.

Maybe 5 or so seasons before the end, I could produce (gonna try to remember the name) Goidic or Godilic? noble infantry from the north city in Ireland. However, it was too late to start production and try them out, would have taken too long to get them anywhere. But those would have been the heaviest troops I could produce, I believe.

So the most advanced troops I could produce in the end, besides the Goidics which I never got a chance to use, were Druids, midland spears and champions, and Casse champions. I wasn't particularly impressed with any of those. They got the job done and won me the game, but it wasn't a slaughterfest or gorefest with them like it is with troops of some factions. I mean, they won all right, but properly deployed and supported, they'd lose men to celtic spears, and it would take a while to take those spears out. I wish I could have gotten those final reforms and gotten out the two advanced infantry units mentioned somewhere above, but that never happened :-(

I'd say the toughest troops I went against, and the ones that did the most damage to me, were those naked gallic swordsmen. They weren't a factor or an issue if there were just one or two units of them in a battle. But in one battle in particular, the gauls had at least six full units of them, and they were all at least 3 experience. One leveled to 5 experience during the battle. At any rate, it was one of the few lost battles I had - he killed 700-something troops out of a stack of over 1000 I believe, and I killed only like 300 of his or so (normal unit sizes). I had "decent" (cough) swordsmen in that stack also - Casse champs and Belgae swords - and they were upgraded.

Overall, all things considered, including cost, usefulness, ability to get the job done and not disappoint, kill ratio vs. getting killed ratio, etc. I'd say the best performing soldiers I used were celtic axes. What's disappointing about that is, I don't believe it's a unit exclusive to Casse. It seems the gauls can produce them as well, so they are sort of "generic." But if I had to do it again, I'd probably spam more of those guys.

All in all, I'd rate the campaign as easy. As far as fun-factor, I'd say it was one of the lesser fun campaigns I've played thus far, due to the difficulty of getting advanced troop types out and having to slog it out with tons of levy spears and what not. What's worse, the levy stuff and lower-end stuff I had access to seemed worse than the lower end stuff available to my competitiors. My southern gallic swordsmen were worse than northern and alpine, my levy spears were worse than gallic and german. Heck, I even built celtic spears when I could, only to realize that my opponents were deploying their own celtic spears - DIFFERENT, "generic" celtic spears which had a stat point here or there over my own! So it seems the desigers gave me a special celtic spear that was actually worse than generic ones my opponents could build, heh.

However, I'm not knocking the campaign or faction by any means, and I'm sure it could play out differently.

[Nightmare]

Incidentally, I get a lot of CTDs - mainly when going into or coming out of a non-auto resolve battle. It just crashes to desktop with no message, no nothing. Can anyone point me to a resource on this? Thanks.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Plenty of ways to reduce CTD's but with battles, wait until the music is finished playing. For whatever reason that seems to work pretty well.

[PureEvil[PIE]]

I'm just coming here because I want to stick up for the poor Celtic chariots. I think they are fantastic. I thought they were useless the first time I used as I made the mistake I believe most people made with them, then I read this thread and suddenly they were winning all my battles for me after using the proper tactics. And I actually disagree about their killing power, their charge is fantastic and I much prefer them to heavy cav. Due to the simple fact that you can charge THROUGH the enemy unit with little casualties if you use them quickly, once you do this 99/100 times the enemy unit will rout, and since the chariots are already inside the enemy unit and the chariots are huge, the routing enemy unit will be killed almost instantly which helps in the long run of the battle and the campaign (none of them escape/have to chase them down during the battle to make sure they don't come back). I think the celtic chariots are fantastic.

[Nightmare]

If it's that much of a hidden art to properly using the things (making the charge go from worst in the game to "fantastic" as you put it), I'd say that's a sign the balance team screwed up somewhere.

But hey, I'm not here to piss in your cornflakes. Seriously, I'm glad somebody out there likes these things and actually finds good use for them. Maybe it's one of those "you either love them or hate them" kind of things. Cheers.

By the way, is the Casse campaign treating you well? What do you think?

[Lowenklee]

I've played Casse on several occasions...and don't care for the chariots unless the battle is to be on a flat open plain. But then again, I tend to play a defensive game for which I suspect they are ill-suited. I normally reserve them for open-field diversionary, counter-skirmishing, or harassing missions.

Anyway, to the point. Rather than heated debates perhaps someone with a skill for using Celtic chariots more aggressively might record a video clip of them in action? As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

[PureEvil[PIE]]

Well, the Casse campaign was the first one that I completed, I started the Carthaginian and Roma campaigns but I didn't have the motivation to finish as I had had with the Casse. I really enjoyed them, especially the aspect of having to retake your homeland and then having a great base of operations from which to conduct your assaults on the mainland. Though, taking the mainland was quite difficult considering you start off very small :/. But for me, when I got to the mainland it was surprisingly easy to complete my campaigns objectives, I had a sturdy base to get a steady amount of income and troops and Europe was still in turmoil/conflict, there was no faction that was superior so when I arrived I pretty much steam rolled across them. And yes, I agree that the chariots are most likely a "love or hate" unit, I love them for one and think they are more helpful than cavalry :L.

In battle... the Casse are quite epic I think. As you have said before they rarely break, and if you use druids/champions I don't think they will break at all and this is especially good during sieges when you are trying to take a section of the wall or a breach. They don't have the most powerful units in the game for the most of it, they don't have a lot in the killing department in my opinion, but when you get to the last reforms and get Casse late champions, they become a ridiculously resistant line. Casse late champions are, in my opinion, much better at defence that offence, they have a lot of armour - if I remember correctly, compared to the other Casse units - and are quite good at dishing it out. I created an army of elites at one point (I know you aren't supposed to but I did it anyway!) and it pretty much beat every army that it came across. It consisted of Casse late champions, Briton sword masters, two units of druids on each flank to chant, two units of chariots, 2 units of slingers, 2 units of Archers, 2 units of Celtic naked fanatics (for high defence in combat and against cavalry). It was an extremely successful army.

Overall I loved the Casse campaign, a lot more than the Roma and Carthage campaigns to be honest. Though I was probably quite bias as I am English/Welsh (So I believe I am part Celt from my Welsh side of the family) and I WANTED to love it before I started it xD. And I generally love the barbarian factions anyway.

In regards to recording some action of the chariots I will do my best, but I have a mac so I will need to find a decent recording program.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I've played Casse on several occasions...and don't care for the chariots unless the battle is to be on a flat open plain. But then again, I tend to play a defensive game for which I suspect they are ill-suited. I normally reserve them for open-field diversionary, counter-skirmishing, or harassing missions.

Anyway, to the point. Rather than heated debates perhaps someone with a skill for using Celtic chariots more aggressively might record a video clip of them in action? As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

I have some MP battles uploaded on youtube but unfortunately none of them involve chariots. I do have a bunch of replays which do involve them however, so once I get some free time I'll try to put one up.

https://www.youtube.com/user/jschlat1/videos

[seleucid empire]

I dont know why people always complain about chariots. In my casse campaign i blitzed half of britain using my starting army which only had 2 units of celtic spearmen, 2 swordsmen and 2 chariot generals including Barae. The rebel cities in briton were full of midlander champions and druid elites compared to my levies and it was the chariots that made the difference when they had 2:1 advantage over me. I besieged a city and when they sallied i just lined up my crappy infantry in a line and when they charged my infantry I used a single chariot charge to rout their entire infantry force. If your not having an success with chariots then you must be using them really badly. Keep in mind that you NEVER ever click on their units when using chariots. ALWAYS click behind their line so the chariots run through without stopping. you can win with 2:1 strength against you very easily