What civilization has the worst unit roster in your opinion.

[mikepettyrtw]

The Sweboz roster is not "weaker". I think its just more limited. Sweboz armies are very strong and In forests its like impossible to completely rout them

I respectfully disagree, I just attempted Khalid Ibn al-Walid's tactics in a custom battle against Pontus that included their Chalkaspides, Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Thureophoroi, Pontic Thorakitai, Persian Hoplites and their BG Cav. I was outnumbered badly as well; I think it was something like 1700 (me) vs 2500 (Pontus). I used only Arabian Light Cav(3 units), Arabian light Inf(4 units IIRC), Sabean Medium Cav (1 unit), I BG and 2 Sabean noble inf plus 2 slingers. No units started the battle with chevrons. I only took roughly 600 casualties. The map was the same for both sides. I used no Elephants even though that's Saba's coup de main.
As Sweboz, such a thing would be impossible without plenty of FM BG or gold chevrons and possibly limited recruitment zone fright Inf and loads of clubbmen. I know so because I have tried it before in custom battles. If one brings lots of clubbmen amd chevron'd FM BG, then all but those on the steppe need to take notice. But that's it for Sweboz. No ele's, no monster cav, no superior skirmisher troops; almost everything Sweboz has can be matched or exceeded by their Gallic Neighbors. Gaesatae and Botaroas/Botraos along with the plethora of other Heavy Infantry the Gauls have, in combo with Brihentin FM BG will destroy a Sweboz army, even with clubbman and FM.
However, Sweboz army's with lots of FM, or post Reform (reform is VERY late game IMO), with lots of EXP could do the defeat an identical Pontic army with similar post battle stats. Indeed those clubbmen are monster anti-roman battering rams. But that's at enormous cost: if you loose a major battle with all those FM in it, one risks their entire campaign, no matter how many chevrons you get. But that amongst other things, makes the Sweboz campaign exilerating fun.
In conclusion, I did not say their army's fighting ability was weak, but rather their roster was weakest considering context (Saba, Arverni, Aedui)

[seleucid empire]

I respectfully disagree, I just attempted Khalid Ibn al-Walid's tactics in a custom battle against Pontus that included their Chalkaspides, Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Thureophoroi, Pontic Thorakitai, Persian Hoplites and their BG Cav. I was outnumbered badly as well; I think it was something like 1700 (me) vs 2500 (Pontus). I used only Arabian Light Cav(3 units), Arabian light Inf(4 units IIRC), Sabean Medium Cav (1 unit), I BG and 2 Sabean noble inf plus 2 slingers. No units started the battle with chevrons. I only took roughly 600 casualties. The map was the same for both sides. I used no Elephants even though that's Saba's coup de main.
As Sweboz, such a thing would be impossible without plenty of FM BG or gold chevrons and possibly limited recruitment zone fright Inf and loads of clubbmen. I know so because I have tried it before in custom battles. If one brings lots of clubbmen amd chevron'd FM BG, then all but those on the steppe need to take notice. But that's it for Sweboz. No ele's, no monster cav, no superior skirmisher troops; almost everything Sweboz has can be matched or exceeded by their Gallic Neighbors. Gaesatae and Botaroas/Botraos along with the plethora of other Heavy Infantry the Gauls have, in combo with Brihentin FM BG will destroy a Sweboz army, even with clubbman and FM.
However, Sweboz army's with lots of FM, or post Reform (reform is VERY late game IMO), with lots of EXP could do the defeat an identical Pontic army with similar post battle stats. Indeed those clubbmen are monster anti-roman battering rams. But that's at enormous cost: if you loose a major battle with all those FM in it, one risks their entire campaign, no matter how many chevrons you get. But that amongst other things, makes the Sweboz campaign exilerating fun.
In conclusion, I did not say their army's fighting ability was weak, but rather their roster was weakest considering context (Saba, Arverni, Aedui)

I disagree, the sweboz army have huge morale advantage compared to saba. I notice in your battle that you gave yourself 4 units of cavalry while the enemy only had a bg unit. If you look at it that way, of course it will not be too hard since your infantry units are faster and have more stamina.

I will attempt to do the same thing as you except with Sweboz and this time i will give the pontics more cavalry. You gave yourself 2 units of Sabaen nobles so I will give myself a unit of germanic heavy infantry since in campaigns they are available before the reforms as mercenaries.

[seleucid empire]

anndd...heres the proof. This battle was almost too easy. I didnt even micro that much. Swebox units just dont break unlike Saba. If i Had bothered to micro more, my casualties would be around 3-400 I would guess








see no chevrons on my units and only ONE bodyguard unit with NO chevs. If I had 6-7 with lots of exp like you suggested, that would be enough to wipe out an army twice the size of the one i played against. Even If i didnt add in that unit of heavy german infantry and replaced it with something else, that victory would still have been an absolute breeze.

One more thing, this was on open ground where the pontic cavalry could have done some real damage to me. In the forests, it would have been a joke of a battle

[athanaric]

However, Sweboz army's with lots of FM, or post Reform (reform is VERY late game IMO), with lots of EXP could do the defeat an identical Pontic army with similar post battle stats. Indeed those clubbmen are monster anti-roman battering rams. But that's at enormous cost: if you loose a major battle with all those FM in it, one risks their entire campaign, no matter how many chevrons you get. But that amongst other things, makes the Sweboz campaign exilerating fun.
In conclusion, I did not say their army's fighting ability was weak, but rather their roster was weakest considering context (Saba, Arverni, Aedui)

Eh, Sweboz have "fear" infantry and better heavy cavalry than Saba. Indeed, the two factions are a bit similar in that they both rely a lot on mobile infantry, usually lightly armoured, and put a lot of emphasis on hit and run tactics. In short, asymmetrical warfare. If you approach them like a Hellenistic faction, you'll likely lose against Romans, Parthians, Seleukids etc. (at least against a reasonably skilled human player in MP).
The difference of course is that one of the two factions is strong in deserts and in ranged combat, while the other is better in forests and close combat. Both factions are "pro" factions IMO, both in terms of strategy and tactics (meaning they're difficult to play, especially when facing the more advanced Mediterranean factions or the steppe armies).
And spamming FMs is very lame IMO, regardless of the faction. For Suebi, there are cheaper alternatives that are almost as good.

[seleucid empire]

Eh, Sweboz have "fear" infantry and better heavy cavalry than Saba. Indeed, the two factions are a bit similar in that they both rely a lot on mobile infantry, usually lightly armoured, and put a lot of emphasis on hit and run tactics. In short, asymmetrical warfare. If you approach them like a Hellenistic faction, you'll likely lose against Romans, Parthians, Seleukids etc. (at least against a reasonably skilled human player in MP).
The difference of course is that one of the two factions is strong in deserts and in ranged combat, while the other is better in forests and close combat. Both factions are "pro" factions IMO, both in terms of strategy and tactics (meaning they're difficult to play, especially when facing the more advanced Mediterranean factions or the steppe armies).
And spamming FMs is very lame IMO, regardless of the faction. For Suebi, there are cheaper alternatives that are almost as good.

Sweboz isn't as difficult to play as Saba though.

It's impossible to define what exactly the worst is so this thread is pretty much redundant imo.

I mean if you mean worst as in the most limited roster, then Saba for sure. Look at their choice of units in mp. It is the smallest in the game.

If you mean, the faction with the heavier units then I would say saba is the worst again. Although the sweboz have little or no armour, their defence and attack values compared to Saba are much higher.

If you mean how long it takes to win a battle, that's saba again for me. I know you can win battles with Saba but you need to isolate their units and rout them separately. With sweboz, you actually have units that can hold a line. With Saba you have to avoid line battles.

If you mean which faction is better in multi player then, as mentioned before by someone, Saba will have a hard time against a moderately competent player using a heavier faction.

The only scenario I can think of where Saba would win Is if the Saba and sweboz came face to face, then the Saba could use their missile troops to good effect on the sweboz units. However, this is unlikely to happen in a campaign. Most of the time, in Saba campaigns, you will be facing the heavy Greek eastern factions with phalanxes which absorb missiles. Even if you get past them, you will face cataphract nations like hayasdan or Parthia. With sweboz, you will be fighting infantry and melee based factions and the sweboz units win most of the time even in Europe where most factions have good infantry.

[Brennus]

Casse.... it is inaccurate. :p

[Vlixes]

Casse.... it is inaccurate. :p

Why is it?

[I_damian]

Well the question is which is the worst unit roster in the game. Based on the question I can disregard real life and real history because it's a game, so pointing to battles where armies of unarmoured skirmishers dominated vastly superior armies of heavy infantry and cataphracts is pointless as it doesn't translate to the game. Nor do real life tactics.

So, the worst unit roster would be the one that doesn't evolve as others do, or the one worst suited to surviving against their neighbours. This is clearly the Saba. No matter which way you expand (unless you do something silly like migrate to Britain) you are going to come up against the Ptolemies and/or Seleukids. Saba light skirmishers and medium (at best) infantry and cavalry are simply, unarguably no match for what the yellow and silver death have, which is armoured supermen with pikes as long as telephone poles. The only way to defeat these armies is to exploit the dumb AI, therefore the Saba has the worst roster.

Almost every other faction has a way of defeating the enemy without exploiting the AI, no matter how late the game gets. Even the Sweboz at least have some decent "line infantry" which can pin the enemy down while you focus your attention elsewhere.

[seleucid empire]

Well the question is which is the worst unit roster in the game. Based on the question I can disregard real life and real history because it's a game, so pointing to battles where armies of unarmoured skirmishers dominated vastly superior armies of heavy infantry and cataphracts is pointless as it doesn't translate to the game. Nor do real life tactics.

So, the worst unit roster would be the one that doesn't evolve as others do, or the one worst suited to surviving against their neighbours. This is clearly the Saba. No matter which way you expand (unless you do something silly like migrate to Britain) you are going to come up against the Ptolemies and/or Seleukids. Saba light skirmishers and medium (at best) infantry and cavalry are simply, unarguably no match for what the yellow and silver death have, which is armoured supermen with pikes as long as telephone poles. The only way to defeat these armies is to exploit the dumb AI, therefore the Saba has the worst roster.

Almost every other faction has a way of defeating the enemy without exploiting the AI, no matter how late the game gets. Even the Sweboz at least have some decent "line infantry" which can pin the enemy down while you focus your attention elsewhere.

could not have said that better myself

[Brennus]

Why is it?

1. Belgae Minhalt: The Belgae did not arrive in Britain until c.150BC at the earliest and even then probably not in great numbers. Being able to recruit them in 272BC is inacurrate.

2. As far as I am aware there is no evidence for tow handed swords being produced or used by the Britons.

3. The helmet worn by the Casse Caladwr was only used on the continent it, and many of the other helmets the Casse warriors are depicted as wearing were not present in Britain. The only two which were are the helmet worn by the Casse strat map general and possibly the helmets worn by the Casse charioteers.

4. Archery had been abandoned in Britain by this period.

5. It is unlikely that the tribes depicted as inhabiting Britain in EB had fully formed. Ceramic evidence from the Middle Iron age (c.400-150BC) shows that certain regions were producing distinctive pottery types the distribution of which is closely mirrored by later tribal boundaries, but we have no idea for aceramic groups like the Brigantes and Caledonii.

6. Evidence for the Irish Iron Age is so slight that one Irish archaeologist, Barry Raftery, described the Iron Age Irish as the invisible people, there is not enough evidence to construct the Goidelic unit roster.

7. The names used in EB for Casse units are a mix of modern Welsh and Irish, they would likely mean nothing in Iron Age British.

[athanaric]

So, the worst unit roster would be the one that doesn't evolve as others do, or the one worst suited to surviving against their neighbours. This is clearly the Saba. No matter which way you expand (unless you do something silly like migrate to Britain) you are going to come up against the Ptolemies and/or Seleukids. Saba light skirmishers and medium (at best) infantry and cavalry are simply, unarguably no match for what the yellow and silver death have, which is armoured supermen with pikes as long as telephone poles. The only way to defeat these armies is to exploit the dumb AI, therefore the Saba has the worst roster.

Saba has really powerful auxiliaries though, Like African and Indian elephants, Guild Warriors, Galatikoi Kleruchoi, Panda Phalanx, and so on. I think those among the regional troops that are recruitable inside the starting territory or the expansion regions should be considered as well (because other factions draw a lot of strength and diversity from auxiliaries like these as well. Many factions only have auxiliary HAs, while the Sauromatae rely on settled tribes for infantry, and the Saka get almost all of their infantry from their regional barracks, even several units that are faction specific.

4. Archery had been abandoned in Britain by this period.

This may be a little beside the topic, but why did they abandon archery?

[kdrakak]

Brennus, I remember reading about inaccurate depictions of viking invaders in horned helmets and how the misunderstanding was based on Frankish invaders. The Casse captain's helmet is horned and very extravagant. I wonder if it is accurate. I was also wondering about the General's helmet with the two horns shaped as birds' heads, which I think is the same as the one on the strat map and you say was found in Britain. Is it the say design? Is it accurate?