Bataroas vs. Gaeilache (And Botroas vs. Gaeroas)

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Gaeilache don't have a helmet, yet they have one point of armour . That's what I was talking about.

[A Very Super Market]

Gaeilache don't have a helmet, yet they have one point of armour . That's what I was talking about.

Read that again.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Read what ?

[Kevin]

Hm the Gaesatae have 5 armor too while the Uirodusios have 1. I guess helmets are worth 4 points, though I can't picture the Gaesatae blocking swords with their heads. (In fact I kind of imagine them doing the exact opposite)

As for the thread, I'd say the Northern Swordsmen rule

[Ibrahim]

I prefer swordsmen to spearmen-I'm more offense oriented, and don't care for the enemy cavalry, as long as I have some of my own.

@ everyone: please, no spamming. and stop with the FYROM and sexual references in the titles. the backroom and babe thread exist for a reason.

[antisocialmunky]

Stop modding my posts and get over here Ludens :-p.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, let us continue the discussion then.

Why does the EB team give armour to the naked or half-naked barbarian soldiers? Surely 5 armour is not a single helmet, because by that logic the TABs should have 40 armour.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, let us continue the discussion then.

Why does the EB team give armour to the naked or half-naked barbarian soldiers? Surely 5 armour is not a single helmet, because by that logic the TABs should have 40 armour.

Shirts and pants are like 1 each I think. Maybe shoes count?

The real guy to ask is Watchman, he audited all the stats.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Shirts and pants are like 1 each I think. Maybe shoes count?

Are you actually serious? Why would they give armour points for that? Or is this merely to prolong battles, in opposition to insta-slaughter of the vanilla?

[antisocialmunky]

Considering the high-end for armor is well into the 20's and the attack/defense matchup does not scale linearly: 0 or 2 armor against 10-14 attack for most weapons is not a very big deal.

I was conjecturing though I'm fairly sure some clothes is counted above no clothes or no shirt.

[the man with no name]

I usally have 2 to 1 sword to sper ratio. Those Belgae spearmen PWN! I also love the Bataroas. They are hands down better then the batroas.

[The Celtic Viking]

I distinctly remember Watchman or some EB team member saying that the Celts get 1 armour bonus for free because they were bigger and tougher than most others. There are actually a few units that have 0 as their armour value, though I think the only infantry unit that has that are the Nubian Spearmen.

As for swords vs. spears, I prefer swords because the .225 lethality is awesome. This is not to say that the spearmen don't have their use as well; I use plenty of non-Lugoae spearmen whenever I can, and Lugoae when there is no other choice for spearmen.

[Ludens]

Stop modding my posts and get over here Ludens :-p.

Yeah, yeah. Yesterday I didn't have enough time to view all new posts. If it happens again, there is a report button next to every post. That will send a message to the moderators in charge.

Voted for spearmen; to me, it feels unrealistic to have more swordsmen than spearmen (perhaps I'm wrong, but then I don't know too much about Celtic warfare).

No, you are right. Elmactios even argued that swords had gone out of fashion by EB's time-frame, although he couldn't explain why.

Can anybody tell me why Bataroas have 5 armor and Botroas have only 1? Surely a shirt can't account for all of that difference?

I think it is +4 for a high-quality, face-covering helmet, and the +1 barbarian bonus. The helmet gives such a big bonus because it covers the bit of the body that is most vulnerable when carrying a medium-to-large shield, like most Celtic close-combat fighters do. All barbarian units get a +1 armour bonuses for balancing purposes, or possibly to indicate that a considerable number of them would have supplemented their basic armour.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

No, you are right. Elmactios even argued that swords had gone out of fashion by EB's time-frame, although he couldn't explain why.

I think he stated that "sharp-edged" swords gave way to late La Tene blunt edged ones such as those carried by the Bataroas. Anyway, I agree that having way too many swordsmen seems unrealistic.

[Scutarii]

When I play ANY faction I never load up on certain troops types.

I go with a generally cost based mix, the cheaper they are to recruit and maintain the more I have.

Means that my armies tend to be very mixed with the 'core' factional or local units dominating and just a smattering of the more elite stuff.

Feels right to me to only have maybe two or three 'elite' units in a 15-20 unit army.

When you're facing 3 units of elite africans and the rest sacred band of either foot or mounted variety in a 15 unit enemy army something just seems wrong...

(funny when the Komatai lead them into the desert though...)

[Olaf The Great]

I think it is +4 for a high-quality, face-covering helmet, and the +1 barbarian bonus. The helmet gives such a big bonus because it covers the bit of the body that is most vulnerable when carrying a medium-to-large shield, like most Celtic close-combat fighters do. All barbarian units get a +1 armour bonuses for balancing purposes, or possibly to indicate that a considerable number of them would have supplemented their basic armour.

I think this is it, +4 for complete helmet(perhaps raised depending on shield size), +1 for barbarianess.

[satalexton]

and another +1 for having a blacksmith in town.

[Mykingdomforanos]

Bataroas are great, very high stamina, 200 men with 0.225 longswords, 5 armour which is better than 1 or 2 like usual. Milnaht or Neitos are also good depending wether you go for stamina or better armoured. For spearmen I like Batacorii as anticav/general purpose and Balroae as skirmishers, latter two have narrow AOR though.