Unit proposals

[Unknown Soldier]

Team - no
DBH and Community - yes

[Maraxus]

DBH is essentially a one man wrecking crew.

[atraps]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wow very nice looking units Dime, I especially like the new Foot Companions. Great work, cant wait till the next version.

[Spartan198]

1) Ekdromoi Hoplites
2) Faction
3) Sometime during or immediately after the Peloponnesian Wars, I think
4) Regular
5) Helmet, Doru, & Aspis; Unarmored
6) Originally appeared in Attica
7) EB had them
8) There are a lot of replies on this thread, but if this has already been suggested and accepted/declined, I apologize.

[xAaronx]

Or maybe change cataphracts in bactria and seleucids to hellenistic?

[pirates_say_arrgg]

New model and skin for Illyrian Peltasts:



Regarding the Elite African Infantry idea. It might make a good post-Marius replacement for Libyan Spearmen, as the Civic Infantry become just as good after the reforms. However I don't think the idea is very historical. We know that Hannibal equiped his Libyans with Roman gear, but is is unlikely that he retrained them to fight in the Roman style. The event was more like an armour and weapon upgrade, than a revolution in tactics and organisation.

I know this was said a long time ago, but I have to completely disagree with this statement.
It is true that Hannibal equipped his Libyans with Roman gear. So that means, that these Libyans would have mail armor, Pila, the scutum shield and maybe they would also pick up the Gladius. Why I say maybe the Gladius, is because who knows their spears might break.
So lets see, Hannibal now has his Libyan Infantry, with Pila, mail armor, the Scutum and maybe the Gladius.
Then lets agree on, that Hannibal was a exceptional commander. Agreed?
Roman troops could beat any Carthaginian, so knowing and agreeing that Hannibal was an exceptional commander. Why wouldn't he retrain these men to fight like the Romans. He did have alot of his troops in the same armor.
Here is another point. After Cannae, some Italian cities went over to the Carthaginian side. Giving Hannibal Rome's ex-allies to draft. Knowing all to well that Rome got alot of her military ideas from the people she conquered and most of those "people" were from the Italian peninsula. So, when Hannibal got a hold of these troops that fought similar to the Romans. He probably didn't make them fight in his own troops style, because he didn't have a homogeneous army. He had an army of Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Ligurians, Celtiberians, men from the Balearic islands and Numidians. Just to name a few. So towards the end of 216 BC Hannibal's army probably looked alot similar to a Roman army and fought very similar. Throwing Pila before the charge, holding alot of men in reserve and coming to close quarters combat with the sword instead of the spear or their traditional weapons.

I think I've said all I need to say.

[Archbaker]

He might have done that. But there is no rule that says the sword is inherently superior to the spear, and he would have had a great deal of auxiliary troops with swords and/or javelins, so he might not have felt a need to equip his core troops in that way as well.

As far as I can tell, it all comes down to what we think will work in the game, and I'd rather see different factions have different kinds of elite units.

[pirates_say_arrgg]

Did you read why I posted that? He said that the thought of Hannibal's Libyans fighting in a similar way to the Romans was historically incorrect.
And another thing, I never said swords were superior to spears. Where did you get that!?
Why I said they probably used Romans swords is, these soldiers have been on campaign for many years and have fought many battles. What makes you think that they would have their same exact equipment, flawless looking?
I'm not here to criticize anyone. I wanted to point out, that there are good supporting statements and arguments of why Hannibal copied Romans style of warfare.
One more thing about what you said.
"he would have had a great deal of auxiliary troops with swords and/or javelins, so he might not have felt a need to equip his core troops in that way as well"
Why wouldn't Hannibal equip his best most reliable men, with better armor and pila to throw back at the Romans. Pretty much what you just said was that Hannibal left his best troops in worn armor and a less effective fighting style.

[DimeBagHo]

pirates_say_arrgg: The current representation of Libyans as hoplites assumes that they were armed with spears and swords (they don't get a secondary weapon because of limitations in the RTW engine, but their stats make them reasonably effective against both infantry and cavalry). So it's quite likely that they would have scavenged and used Roman swords, but I doubt if they would have switched from primarily using spears, to primarily using swords.

What this comes down to is the question of whether Hannibal just gave his men some better quality gear that was taken from the Romans, or whether he retrained and re-organised them to fight in the Roman style. We know that the Greeks started adopting Roman tactics and organisation, but that was because the Romans kept beating them. Hannibal, on the other hand, was beating the Romans quite handily, so it strikes me as unlikely that their style of fighting would have impressed him in the same way.

Spartan198: Ekdromoi were an early response to the increased use of light infantry around the Peloponnesian war period (mostly javelin armed skirmishers). By the game period all of the Greeks were using significant numbers of light infantry, and cavalry, so Ekdromoi would have been obsolete.

[pirates_say_arrgg]

Yes Hannibal beat the Romans, but he also knew that he couldn't beat the romans in a head-to-head fight. Also, after the 3 major battles of the war, Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae. Hannibal wasn't really winning the War like he thought he would and towards the years 210 BC through the time he withdrew from Italy. He wasn't really winning battles anymore just surviving them and outmaneuvering his Roman opponent.
Since Hannibal realized and knew that his men couldn't go head-to-head with their Roman counter parts. Why wouldn't he teach them the Roman way of fighting. Throwing the Pila before melee and then closing to close quarters combat with the sword. He would've been not as successful if he didn't realize that he needed to re-organize his army to fight the Romans.

[Unknown Soldier]

Oh dear - Roman tactics? Throwing Javelins and then Charging? No No No!

These are Iberian/Barbarian Tactics.

The Romans just used them and were more disciplined and had better equipment.

[Zarax]

What we know is that after lake Trasimene Hannibal re-equipped his troops with roman armour for sure but there are a few goods reason to why he didn't switch to roman tactics:

1) He was one of the few generals competent enough to use combined arms tactics properly and so the Libyan "phalanx" was an integral part of his tactics

2) He already had troops fighting in similar style, his iberians, so no need to do some re-training in the field with uncertain effects

3) A complete switch would mean ending up with battles decided by heavier usage of infantry, big strategical mistake when you're outnumbered 7:1 and with few chances of any reinforcements.
Instead he used the gallic mercenaries as fodder with excellent results

4) After Cannae Hannibal kept winning but there were no major battles due to the Fabian tactics which involved avoiding direct engagements and using attrition instead.

5) Carthaginian heavy infantry could in fact go toe to toe against romans, but the rest could not.
This was not a problem as long as there was cavalry superiority against the average roman commander with hastati - principes -triarii, but in Spain Carthage met Scipio, which was possibly Hannibals' match and innovated the use of roman heavy infantry tactics, forebearing the marian reforms.
Even then, most battles showed that Carthaginians always managed to retreat with their own heavy libyans and iberians relatively intact, with most losses being light infantry.

6) Zama also showed that by the end of the war Hannibal was confident that his infantry could go toe to toe with Scipio's veteran legions (the best roman army) as long as roman cavalry superiority didn't factor in.

[pirates_say_arrgg]

To Unknown Soldier:
If the Romans used a style of warfare that means it is their "Roman tactics."
Even if they are copied.

Now to Zarax and his 6 points of disagreement.

1. Where did you come up with this statement?

2. This goes back to what I said earlier. Why do people think just because Hannibal had his Iberians that threw javelins before charging, he didn't need to equip his Libyans with javelins/pila. So he let his Veteran Libyans stand there and let the Romans throw their Pila at them. Thats just an asinine statement and I've already answered that. He could see the devastating effects of the Pila and why wouldn't he use this weapon if he had it at his disposal.

3 He equipped his Libyan Veterans with Roman armor, who ever said he reformed his hole army into heavy infantry. Read what I write.

4. There was alot of direct conflicts after the three famous battles.
Marcellus and Nero went head-to-head, with the great Carthaginian many times. Nero actually pulled a successful ambush against Hannibal at the Battle of Grumentum. There was also battles outside of Capua. The city of Nola saw some fierce fighting also.

5. The quality of the Libyans were very good, but there wasn't enough of them to go toe-to-toe with the Romans. So therefore they couldn't.
You can not say Scipio is Hannibal's equal. All Scipio had was better troops, superior cavalry and everything else in his favor. Marcellus and Nero, were better commanders than Scipio.

6. Zama showed nothing of the sort, that Hannibal was confident that his Infantry could go toe-to-toe with the Romans. He had the in three distinct lines. He used the first two line as you would say fodder. He had no choice but to use his infantry. Most of his infantry was just Bruttians that never did anything great in battle. They probably only fought so hard because they are in a foreign land. Where would they run?
The same thing happened with the Celtiberians at the battle of the Great Plains. There were 4000 of these troops, but they died fighting to the single man. Why? Because they didn't know which way to run, they had to fight for their survival.

[Zarax]

To Unknown Soldier:
If the Romans used a style of warfare that means it is their "Roman tactics."
Even if they are copied.

Now to Zarax and his 6 points of disagreement.

1. Where did you come up with this statement?

2. This goes back to what I said earlier. Why do people think just because Hannibal had his Iberians that threw javelins before charging, he didn't need to equip his Libyans with javelins/pila. So he let his Veteran Libyans stand there and let the Romans throw their Pila at them. Thats just an asinine statement and I've already answered that. He could see the devastating effects of the Pila and why wouldn't he use this weapon if he had it at his disposal.

3 He equipped his Libyan Veterans with Roman armor, who ever said he reformed his hole army into heavy infantry. Read what I write.

4. There was alot of direct conflicts after the three famous battles.
Marcellus and Nero went head-to-head, with the great Carthaginian many times. Nero actually pulled a successful ambush against Hannibal at the Battle of Grumentum. There was also battles outside of Capua. The city of Nola saw some fierce fighting also.

5. The quality of the Libyans were very good, but there wasn't enough of them to go toe-to-toe with the Romans. So therefore they couldn't.
You can not say Scipio is Hannibal's equal. All Scipio had was better troops, superior cavalry and everything else in his favor. Marcellus and Nero, were better commanders than Scipio.

6. Zama showed nothing of the sort, that Hannibal was confident that his Infantry could go toe-to-toe with the Romans. He had the in three distinct lines. He used the first two line as you would say fodder. He had no choice but to use his infantry. Most of his infantry was just Bruttians that never did anything great in battle. They probably only fought so hard because they are in a foreign land. Where would they run?
The same thing happened with the Celtiberians at the battle of the Great Plains. There were 4000 of these troops, but they died fighting to the single man. Why? Because they didn't know which way to run, they had to fight for their survival.

First of all, my points are not direct answers but rather reasons to why the lybians were not remade as copy legionaries.

1, 2 and 3) Libyans and liby-phoenicians were the core of most carthaginian armies, Hannibal's was no exception.
Hannibals's army had already enough scavenged roman equipment for his army after Trebbia and Trasimene (as many romans drowned in both battles as opposed to being killed, leaving quite some equipment in good shape), yet at Cannae they are still mentioned by Polybius as "phalanx" and not "in the roman style". As they were the core troops one would expect them to get priority in using the "improved" weapons.
And his libyans didn't just stand there, they assaulted the roman flanks at Cannae. Standing there was the job of the celtic fodder.

4) Lots of conflicts yes, but after Cannae Hannibal's army was never all in the same piece again until Zama. Those battles were considered "minor" as they were mostly inconsequential and with no more than 10000 soldiers per each side. That was the result of the fabian tactics, which were aimed at preventing Hannibal from using his full strength in one place.

5) That's of course true and like any elite they were committed carefully. In Spain they had plenty of chances of going toe to toe under both hasdrubals and all accounts speaks of their performance pretty well, even though the battles were lost.
Marcellus and Nero better than Scipio? On what basis can you say such a thing?

6) I need to read again about great plains, but at Zama the Carthaginians were surrounded, pretty much like the romans at Cannae. Yet, until the cavalry arrived most accounts suggests that the battle was pretty balanced, of course with the levies in front slaughtered and running away.
Zama could have gone different had the Senate chosen to commit the sacred bands to balance roman cavalry superiority.

[pirates_say_arrgg]

So to answer 1,2 and 3.
So, your saying even though these soldiers(If using Roman tactics or not)
Don't deserve a place in XGM even though they played a major role in history and battles.
You rather have the Scared Band Infantry which historians are still not sure if they were ever used. I don't even remember there being Liby-Phoenicians in XGM. I remember Poeni infantry, but never Liby-Phoenicians.

4. What are you talking about! Hannibal always had his army with him! 10,000 troop battles, huh!?
What source IF ANY did you get this from. Number 4 is a complete lack of knowledge on your part.

5. We are talking about Hannibal's Libyans! The troops that been with him for a long time and some even serving under his father. Hasdrubal's troops cannot compare. Another uneducated answer.
Marcellus and Nero were much better commanders than Scipio. You will just have to read Hannibal
By Theodore Ayrault Dodge. He gives a good account of why Nero and Marcellus were better generals than Scipio. Here http://books.google.com/books?id=-_z...um=5&ct=result

Read pages 637 and 638. It will enlight you.
6. See Zama was in a way balanced but Scipio had reserves Hannibal had none. Scipio never had to comment those reserves. Therefore I don't believe that Hannibal had a chance at Zama with a infantry confrontation. The Sacred Band not present at Zama, thats just a what if topic.

[Scutarii]

Libyans (Spearmen/Light inf.) act as the Liby-Phoenicians, just a different name, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Zarax]

So to answer 1,2 and 3.
So, your saying even though these soldiers(If using Roman tactics or not)
Don't deserve a place in XGM even though they played a major role in history and battles.
You rather have the Scared Band Infantry which historians are still not sure if they were ever used. I don't even remember there being Liby-Phoenicians in XGM. I remember Poeni infantry, but never Liby-Phoenicians.

4. What are you talking about! Hannibal always had his army with him! 10,000 troop battles, huh!?
What source IF ANY did you get this from. Number 4 is a complete lack of knowledge on your part.

5. We are talking about Hannibal's Libyans! The troops that been with him for a long time and some even serving under his father. Hasdrubal's troops cannot compare. Another uneducated answer.
Marcellus and Nero were much better commanders than Scipio. You will just have to read Hannibal
By Theodore Ayrault Dodge. He gives a good account of why Nero and Marcellus were better generals than Scipio. Here http://books.google.com/books?id=-_z...um=5&ct=result

Read pages 637 and 638. It will enlight you.
6. See Zama was in a way balanced but Scipio had reserves Hannibal had none. Scipio never had to comment those reserves. Therefore I don't believe that Hannibal had a chance at Zama with a infantry confrontation. The Sacred Band not present at Zama, thats just a what if topic.

1) What do you think Libyan spearmen represents in XGM if not that? In Hannibal's case they would probably be silver-chevroned troops.

2) Sorry to use Wikipedia but I'm working on my submod and doing an AAR at the same time as answering here (limited times forces me to multitask) but here's a few examples of what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ventum_(214_BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ventum_(212_BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Numistro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarentum_(209_BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grumentum

There were some bigger battles of course, like of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ventum_(214_BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Silarus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Herdonia_(212_BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Canusium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Herdonia_(210_BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crotona

But numbers shows that a substantial part of the carthaginan forces was tied in garrisoning southern Italy instead of being with the main army.

3) I couldn't find a preview, could you please point at another source?

4) That's a guess on your side, there is no reference of Hannibal's libyans being inherently different (other than veteran status) than similar troops under his brothers.
Unless of course you can prove that after Hanibal's departure Hasdrubal was left dry of african troops (unlikely as they were used as loyal troops to keep the iberians from rebelling) it's logical that those libyians came from the same recruitment pool.

5)
What-ifs aside, Hannibal had 3 lines of troops at Zama, his veterans being the reserves.
Unless you think that the romans just paraded through the first two lines Scipio either a) committed at least part of his reserves against the third line or b) sent tired troops against fresh veterans.
Considering that b) would be unwise even with the classical roman doctrine and there are no records of heavy infantry envelopment (Scipio's master tactic) I'd say that a) is more likely.
Unless of course the rest of the roman army was busy chasing/being chased by the 80-100 elephants sent against them at the start of the battle.

[pirates_say_arrgg]

Alot of those battles with the links didn't even have articles.

Hannibal's Libyans being better than Hasdrubal's Libyans, is no guess.
Hannibal's Libyans were bettered trained, had seen more battles, and been through alot of tough times with Hannibal. Thus leading to better morale and a higher degree of trust and loyalty, in Hannibal. I believe those are some good reasons, why Hannibal's Libyans were better than Hasdrubal's.
Never mind the fact that Hannibal himself was the better commander.

What do you mean you couldn't find a preview?

Now to the Battle of Zama. After Scipio defeated the first two lines of Hannibal's formation, Scipio reformed his men into a single line Hastati in the middle, Principes on each flank and the Triarii and the Principe's flanks. Having the Extraordinarii and Velites as reserves. The new Roman line was longer than the Carthaginian line. copying Hannibal's tactics at Cannae.

Hannibal marched around Italy with a 30,000 to 40,000 man army. He wouldn't deplete his forces to 10,000 while surrounded and outnumbered.

I like your Carthaginian senate idea though, great job!

[Zarax]

Alot of those battles with the links didn't even have articles.

I apologized already about the use of wikipedia, I'll check for better sources if I can get some extra time.

Hannibal's Libyans being better than Hasdrubal's Libyans, is no guess.
Hannibal's Libyans were bettered trained, had seen more battles, and been through alot of tough times with Hannibal. Thus leading to better morale and a higher degree of trust and loyalty, in Hannibal. I believe those are some good reasons, why Hannibal's Libyans were better than Hasdrubal's.
Never mind the fact that Hannibal himself was the better commander.

Hannibal and Hasdrubal were both fighting in Iberia using a mix of recruited locals and libyans "inherited" from Hanno, so before the 2nd punic war they were pretty much the same troops.
The difference comes in how they were used later, with Hannibal deploying them in the flanks while Hasdrubal as solid center.
Only after lake Trasimene we hear about differences between them and in the meantime it's likely that Hasdrubal acquired some armour for them (that's a guess of course).
So, pre-trasimene Hannibal = Hasdrubal in troop quality. Nobody puts all elite eggs in one basket.

What do you mean you couldn't find a preview?

Usually google books/amazon got some previews of the books, in this case there was non available. As I don't live in the US it's not easy for me to acquire those texts.

Now to the Battle of Zama. After Scipio defeated the first two lines of Hannibal's formation, Scipio reformed his men into a single line Hastati in the middle, Principes on each flank and the Triarii and the Principe's flanks. Having the Extraordinarii and Velites as reserves. The new Roman line was longer than the Carthaginian line. copying Hannibal's tactics at Cannae.

Point taken, I will re-check Zama later.

Hannibal marched around Italy with a 30,000 to 40,000 man army. He wouldn't deplete his forces to 10,000 while surrounded and outnumbered.

Hannibal split his troops in more than one occasion to garrison/forage the army, you cannot keep 30000 men in the field for 17 years all together, unless there were undocumented paradrops from Africa. Usually he would quarter part of the army in Bruttia while the rest garrisoned other important cities in the winter.

[pirates_say_arrgg]

His Libyans were inherited from Hamilcar to Hasdrubal the Handsome to Hannibal. Not Hanno.
You never said in Iberia which Libyan troops was better. Also, who knows if Hannibal took all the Libyans from Hamilcar's campaigns through Iberia into Italy with him.
Since Hasdrubals were so much more numerous than Hannibal's. I have a strong belief that alot of these men were not the "Veterans" of Hamilcar's campaigns, but were levied troops from Africa brought in as reinforcements. I know that would have to make sense to you.

The only time I read about Hannibal "splitting" his troops was in foraging acts to feed his army. See Hannibal didn't just march around Italy for 17 years. Well he did, but not constantly. He didn't march in winter and also why he had to keep moving around his army was because foraging was the only way he could feed of an army of that size. He almost paid for this too, in the second battle of Nola Marcellus, a very capable general, attacked Hannibal while his foragers were away and probably could've beaten Hannibal if the foragers didn't come back. Like you said he would garrison cities with his troops for instance 2,000 Numidians at Capua. I see what your trying to say ,but I've never seen an account where Hannibal split his army in two or split it up so much it wasn't an effective fighting force.