What civilization has the worst unit roster in your opinion.

[The Celtic Viking]

Another question is, the moral advantage of sweboz. The moral of sweboz units is high, but i can't find sweboz has a huge advantage on it. Most time I'm using medium tier(3 level MIC) unit as the backbone.The backbone units of my sweboz campaign in factional roster is germany spearmen, with 11 moral. It's good, but don't have a big advantage over other factional 3-level units. For saba, even the arabian light infantry has a 11 moral.

Robin might be speaking from his MP experience where the Sweboz have been given higher morale than what they have in SP. (For example, the Dugundiz - the Germanic spearmen - have 16 morale there.)

As for which is better, on its own, I think it might depend on whether we allow for elephants in the Sabaean army, but I don't know if those are factional or not. Without them I'd say Saba is the worst, but with them it's more debateable.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Robin might be speaking from his MP experience where the Sweboz have been given higher morale than what they have in SP. (For example, the Dugundiz - the Germanic spearmen - have 16 morale there.)

As for which is better, on its own, I think it might depends on whether we allow for elephants in the Sabaean army, but I don't know if those are factional or not. Without them I'd say Saba is the worst, but with them it's more debateable.

Ah I should have specified. Morale is not necessarily higher for the vanilla stats but Sweboz units are often disciplined which makes a huge difference in terms of how easy it is to rout a unit.

[The Celtic Viking]

Often disciplined? I disagree. From a quick look they all seem to be impetuous except for the elite (i.e. bodyguard, brunjadoi & the heavy cav; speudogordoz and Chatti spearmen being the exceptions). That's only 1 more than Saba's 4.

[kidpacific]

Robin might be speaking from his MP experience where the Sweboz have been given higher morale than what they have in SP. (For example, the Dugundiz - the Germanic spearmen - have 16 morale there.)

As for which is better, on its own, I think it might depend on whether we allow for elephants in the Sabaean army, but I don't know if those are factional or not. Without them I'd say Saba is the worst, but with them it's more debateable.

Thanks for ur reply, i understand it.

[FinnishedBarbarian]

Often disciplined? I disagree. From a quick look they all seem to be impetuous except for the elite (i.e. bodyguard, brunjadoi & the heavy cav; speudogordoz and Chatti spearmen being the exceptions). That's only 1 more than Saba's 4.

Actually the Chatti spearmen are only highly trained, they don't have disciplined trait but HT and tight spacing makes up for it so they are great lineholders.

Objective way to compare factional rosters would be by considering how they would fare in campaigns which would have human controlled factions, in such scenario I'd imagine the steppe factions would fare worst due to their lack of decent melee infantry (even Sabae have units that can succesfully assault cities). AI of course is stupid enough to face us in open battle where army composed of 5 HA's + bodyguard can annihilate almost any fullstack.

Sabaens greatest strength should be the ability to endure harsh desert climate, but RTW engine doesn't have a "bonus when fighting in desert" trait so they are somewhat handicapped when compared to other factions that all have some special strengths.

In MTW 1 & 2 units that weren't suited to desert climate received penalties to stamina which was great way to portray the fact that unit of heavy infantry/cavalry can't fight for long under blazing sun, something that's sure to be featured in EB2.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

There are penalties for fighting in deserts. There is a line in the edu for each unit showing how they do in desert like conditions.

I'd love to see a campaign where every faction was controlled by human players. Unfortunately I cannot see a scenario where Carthage would fail to be victorious.

[FinnishedBarbarian]

Shame on me for not recognizing that, I tested it and results were clear: on non-desert map it took 5 min for Sabaen levy spearmen to beat indian spearmen unit whereas in desert map it only took 3 min, so I guess they shouldn't be viewed as ultimate underdogs.

On the part of Carthage being victorious on every game: quite probable considering that they have resources to fund strong armies and powerful navy, SPQR players would have quite the challenge.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Also, Carthage really has no faction to challenge their holdings early game. Rome would have to worry about Epeiros and to a lesser extent the Gallic factions and Carthage. Carthage really only has to worry about the Lusotann and the Lusos can't challenge their African holdings, only the Iberian ones.

[Blxz]

Also, Carthage really has no faction to challenge their holdings early game. Rome would have to worry about Epeiros and to a lesser extent the Gallic factions and Carthage. Carthage really only has to worry about the Lusotann and the Lusos can't challenge their African holdings, only the Iberian ones.

True, but if it were a total human player game then the biggest factor is diplomacy. If people could stop the rome hating then an alliance of rome, lusotan and Ptolemy could give Carthage a real run for their money. Of course then you end up with Carthage being able to seek alliances with Gaul, Epirus and Seleucids. Schemes within Schemes. Man I'd love to play a multiplayer EB game...

[The Celtic Viking]

Yeah, a MP campaign would be so sweet. We actually managed to get a hotseat going some time back but it died before any action could start. :/

Actually the Chatti spearmen are only highly trained, they don't have disciplined trait but HT and tight spacing makes up for it so they are great lineholders.

You sure you're not confusing them with Chauci spearmen? I checked again in the eb units list site and it lists Chatti spears as being disciplined. One of you must be wrong. :p

[FinnishedBarbarian]

Yeah I forgot that EB documentation unit list is full of inaccuracies/outdated information.

Concerning hypotethical MP campaign alliances, I can't come up with any good reason for ptolemies allying with romans.

- There's great distance between karthies and ptolies so holding those provinces would be pain in the ptolemaic arse
- karthies aren't real threat to ptolies from early to midgame
- rome can't really provide troops against seleucids (something that would make this alliance sensible to ptolemies)
- rome's coffers can't finance ptolemaic armies so there's no monetary gain

[Catmand0]

IN a hypothetical EB MP campaign, I think that Rome's best bet would be an alliance with the Sweboz. They would be able to open up a two front war with the Gauls. I also think that due to territorial constraints the gallic tribes would be at each others throats making a rome sweboz team effort most advantageous. In terms of the Eporites, unless they could win the war of supremacy over the hellenic region, it is unlikely they could prove any threat. Carthage would only prove a threat if they could win the battle for sicily or if not that then to win the war for iberia.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Carthage starts off with a strong navy. They can land a sizable army at Rome's doorstep within 10 turns.

[Catmand0]

I guess it would be up to the romans to quickly secure the southern italian peninsula and be prepared to defeat the landing force. Carthage really does has a strong starting position. Perhaps one of the strongest in the game.

[seleucid empire]

Shame on me for not recognizing that, I tested it and results were clear: on non-desert map it took 5 min for Sabaen levy spearmen to beat indian spearmen unit whereas in desert map it only took 3 min, so I guess they shouldn't be viewed as ultimate underdogs.

On the part of Carthage being victorious on every game: quite probable considering that they have resources to fund strong armies and powerful navy, SPQR players would have quite the challenge.

Sabean levy spearmen are some of the best units they have in my experience. they are very hard to crack

SPQR has cheaper units tho, carthage armies cost a lot more to train and maintain. Rome could have 2 low quality stacks in place of the one carthage one. But a low quality roman stack still means very good infantry

[Principe Alessandro]

Well Saba units may not be the best if we are speaking about holding the line against the Medium and Elite Phalanx but their units are really fast and have a lot of stamina and regarding the ranged units they have the upper hand against the Ptolemaioi. Against the Ptolemaic armies I usually tend to lure their heavy cavalry in a place where I can surround them with Red Sea Infantry, they have AP weapons and their units have a lot soldiers, it is easy to kill the heavy cavalry after I have tired it with my Arabian Light Cavalry.

Then I quickly move my skirmishers and the Red Sea infantry behind the enemy Phalanx. First I hit the back of the phalanx with Javelins and then I charge with the Red Sea Infantry.
My line in the center can hold with the Sabean Levies and the Acher/Spearmen for a long time even if they take a lot of casualties until I have my flanks secure.

The Ptolemaic armies aren't really a problem for me. They are slow, their cavalry tires quickly and they get penalties fighting in the desert. Usually I have more casualties fighting against the Seleucids: their eastern regional ranged troops like the Persian Archers are the real nightmare for the Sabean Light infantry.

[Cambyses]

I agree Saba are the weakest on paper, but in truth they can hold their own in a campaign. What is difficult is expanding out of the deserts. Every faction has its own strengths, you need to play to them to win, i.e. forest fighting for Sweboz and Lusos, grab the hills with the steppe factions, etc. Saba are fast, have good stamina and can usually outclass their immediate rivals at range. In general they can also get a good economy for an out of the way faction, plus they dont have to fight on a massive front.

[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?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

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

I was wondering the same thing. I assumed it might have something to do with the damp environment.

[seleucid empire]

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.

i dont think this should count non-factional troops, because most factions have similar choices when they reach an area minus one or two units (such as elephants or those strong elites)

Speaking of Which, which faction do you think has the BEST roster??

I would say Carthage and Arche Seleukeia, but I am yet undecided about which one is better. If we say only factional troops then I would say Carthage is better (It means Arche cannot get those horse archers, hoplites, persian archers) because Carthage is the Jack of all trades. However, their factional units are not the very top of the range either. Their sacred band cavalry is 1 atk and def lower than companion cav, their pikemen have reduced stats compared to silver shields and their lib phonecian cavalry are weaker versions of hellenic heavy cav.

In fact, each of their units seems to have an equivalent in another faction that has 1 atk and 1 def more.

Arche has stronger units point for point but Is just slightly less flexible than the Carthage Roster. they do have hypaspistai which carthage has an answer to in the form of elite liby-phoenician infantry (the green shields) and Pelt maks which the Carthage also has an answer to in the form of Iberian Assault Infantry

If we do count regionals than I would actually say Arche is better. I know carthage has the best regionals (spanish, numidian, gallic) however they are very expensive and I would usually use Persian archer spearmen and Horse archers in very large numbers when I play an Arche campaign, but I would not use huge numbers of Spanish or Gallic regionals (I would use a few in each army) as carthage. I have around 50 units of Persian archers/Archer spearmen and 20 units of HAs scattered around my empire in my current Arche campaign. In my last Carthage campaign I remember having 3 units of Loricati Scutari and 3 of Iberi Scutari. Gallic units I never ever got to use.

Also there is the question of Reformed units. The Arche get Catas and TABs. The Carthage equivalent is the Iberian version of the Cats but they are not great. As for TABs, carthage has the sacred band which has no javelins, and lower attk and def (Although I think the sacred band has a denser formation?). Carthage cannot get their thorakitai equivalent until their reforms which is slightly annoying.

[Ludens]

I was wondering the same thing. I assumed it might have something to do with the damp environment.

I doubt it can be known for sure. We don't have written sources from the period, so we can only guess at their reasoning.

We also can't be sure that archery was abandoned, only that it disappears from the archaeological record. Maybe metal became so scarce that the Britons obsessively hoarded their arrow-heads. Actually, that's pretty unlikely given how much precious stuff does turn up. But I'd say it is something like that: the skill was lost (or became marginal) because other options were cheaper/more effective.

I doubt it was the climate, though. Dampness did not prevent the earlier Britons from using bows, and the very wet country of Wales would later produce some of England's finest archers.

[Brennus]

I was wondering the same thing. I assumed it might have something to do with the damp environment.

This would only have affected composite bows and these were unknown in temperate Europe until the Roman expansion.

Dampness did not prevent the earlier Britons from using bows, and the very wet country of Wales would later produce some of England's finest archers.

Exactly!

We also can't be sure that archery was abandoned, only that it disappears from the archaeological record. Maybe metal became so scarce that the Britons obsessively hoarded their arrow-heads. Actually, that's pretty unlikely given how much precious stuff does turn up.

At the risk of being rude I think we can be pretty sure it was abandoned until the Late Iron Age when arrowheads re-appear. Although it is possible that non-metalled projectiles were produced, as attested to in the Early Medieval Irish literary sources and from contemporary finds like the Hjortspring boat in Denmark with its antler spears, arrows from bows at this time were quite weak projectiles anyway so a non-metalled version would have even less effective. Archery can also be taught at later stages of life, indeed it is easier to learn how to use a bow than it is a sling.

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

The short answer is we are not quite sure. Gordon Childe, the one of the greatest archaeologists of the 20th century (see Diffusionist Theory and excavations at Skara Brae for examples) argued that the bow and the sling were mutually exclusive. The evidence from Middle Iron Age Britain, where sling stones have been found in abundance and the multivallation of hillforts is agreed to be a response to sling warfare, would seem to confirm this theory. However as anyone who has played as one of the Greek factions in EB knows, the sling and bow were not mutually exclusive. The same is true of the Assyrian Empire, Jewish kingdoms and several other states. The bow and sling are effective in different ways; the sling is more powerful but the bow can be used in massed formations, the sling cannot.

Finney (2006) has argued that the bow was abandoned in Britain due to social reasons. Around the same time the number of swords in use appears to have declined greatly. In other cultures (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, Media, Jewish kingdoms) the sword, bow and javellin are symbols of royal power. Finney and another author, Hill (1995), argue that Middle Iron Age Britain was a more egalitarian society. Thus symbols of power like the bow and the sword were abandoned in favour of more communal weapons like the spear and sling, both of which are common in this time period.

It may also be that British Iron Age bows did not have the necessary power to puncture British shields of this period. The Britons do not appear to have been wearing much armour (ring mail is only found in Yorkshire where it was introduced by a tribe closely related to the, if not the actual, Gallic Parisi, whilst the spear points of British warriors are the wrong shape to puncture armour) but long ovoid and "cattle hide" shaped shields did come into use. Sling stones are very hard to spot in flight, in fact the Romans used to go one step further and paint them, whilst arrows are. Sling stones are also more powerful and can even puncture a man's skull. Thus British warriors would have stood a greater chance of seeing an incoming arrow and blocking it than they would a sling stone.

[Ludens]

At the risk of being rude I think we can be pretty sure it was abandoned until the Late Iron Age when arrowheads re-appear.

Oh, I didn't mean to say you were wrong. My explanation is very implausible: I made it up to illustrate the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.