[RS 1.6a] RS: The Horde

[charles the hammer]

@charles the hammer; please do not taunt sith. He has his opinions, I have mine. I just do not like it when he uses disreputable sources and then defames me.

Your right sorry got carried away it also makes me mad the way he came in here doing what he did but the real focus should be whether or not this modification suits your tastes or not.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

@Ferrus, ok I apologize for flooding your thread, perhaps I missunderstood your intentions. Carry on then.

[Ferrus]

@Ferrus, ok I apologize for flooding your thread, perhaps I missunderstood your intentions. Carry on then.

Thank you. And I apologize if i seem abit cranky, I am studying for exams in two different languages. Quite despairingly not including in english. Not very good for my humour.

My only intention was to have a visually appealing game, where the civilised races can have an opponent to test their tactical skills and for their elite regiments to have more importance escpecially for the 1st cohort. Battles of equal numbers rarely happen historically as you know, so I decided for the 'barbarian' factions to fulfill on that role because it was them who finally destroyed the western roman empire(which fell for a variety of reasons and migration was one of them so anyone reading this please don't throw a tantrum for me overly simplifying the cause)

Now I rather hear comments on how to improve it, which races need more tweaking and how people are faring in their battles. At the moment I already suspect that some units have too many warriors in the barbarian units, so might take another look at how this affects campaign play further down the track. Once i replaced my destroyed gaming laptop..

[Caligula Caesar]

By the way, using Britain may not be the best example. I remember watching a documentary on Britain which argued that the Saxon Invasion never happened based on a lack of archaeological evidence for it and the fact that the urban centres actually seem to have flourished. And apparently the Forts of the Saxon Shore were not built for defense, as they seem to be harder to get out of than in.

(btw, I never said I believed the documentary. I don't know enough about the subject)

[Ferrus]

By the way, using Britain may not be the best example. I remember watching a documentary on Britain which argued that the Saxon Invasion never happened based on a lack of archaeological evidence for it and the fact that the urban centres actually seem to have flourished. And apparently the Forts of the Saxon Shore were not built for defense, as they seem to be harder to get out of than in.

(btw, I never said I believed the documentary. I don't know enough about the subject)

Quite possibly the 1st example of a penal colony

Disclaimer; It is a joke. Overly patriotic British, please do not find offense when it isn't my intention. That will be all.

Well just had to put that in, who knows if anyone will be offended by it.

[Drusus]

]What most people forget here is, that we are not talking of the total population. Of course the "civilized" nations had a larger population than the "barbarians". That is the reason why French,Spanish,.... are latin based languages. The Franks, Goths,... were minorities in their new homeland. That explain the quite insignifacant impact on the genome. But we are talking about "armies".
While defending their homeland or mirgrating in a new homeland, every trbesman was a soldier (sometimes even women, if you believe historical documents). The most of them weren´t equipped well, but they had a great fighting spirit.
After the reforms the romans had a standing army with standardized equipment. Because this army was so expensive, it was in relation to their population a small army. So the barbarians could easily outnumber the romans.
Before the reforms the roman army was lager then after the reforms, the population growth was the other way around.

[johnnieangel]

<-----felt like he was watching John Mcenroe play singles with Ian Holm....:-)

[Rafaelp]

Thank for your sub-mod and I think the person you were arguing with had some issues.
The romans were outnumbered because of two main reasons.
1. Strict Rules to becoming a soldier. You had to own property and have enough money for armor and weapons. In other words the rich went to war. (Marian Reforms until 1st century BC)
2. The Barbarians used Total war, that meant when the TRIBE went to war, it meant the "whole tribe" went to war. They would throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink.
So of course this two circumstances would favor the barbarians in numbers.
Even after the (Marian Reforms) the Romans could not compete with the total war of the Barbarians.