Progress on Patch One:

[Revan The Great]

The Celts did have notoriously poor discipline and organization, due to the high factionalized nature of their culture as well as the fact that, to them, warfare was a couple-day-long affair of raiding and then going home rather than a protracted eight-month campaign. However they did have good weapons and armor, and some tribes were very good at weapon and armor making. The average Gallic chieftain and many of his retinue would be armed very similar to a Roman Legionaire, with chainmail, a helm, a big shield, possibly greaves, and of course a big sword. However, that was just the chieftains. The vast majority of any Celtic army may not have been shirtless and dirty, but they did have basic weaponry and little or no armor, whilst being expected to go up against trained, professional soldiers with full body armor, helm, shield, the works. The average Celt vs. the average Legionnaire, the Celt was at a huge disadvantage.

[Beetlecat]

Guns, Germs, and Steel.

[Thomius]

The average Celt vs. the average Legionnaire, the Celt was at a huge disadvantage.

I'd disagree in a 1v1 personally. As individuals Celts were fantastic fighters, Romans were merely okay. Rome conquered due to its organization of its army, and how they had been drilled into fighting as a single fighting force where individuals kept a cool head and listened to orders, could form shield walls, testudo and the like, and most of all kept together, fighting as a whole as oposed to as individuals. Endurance was a factor to, the Romans woud often tire out their foes whilst keeping their own troops fresh simply by alternating lines. You'd step up, fight till you tired, then step to the back and the line behind stepped in, etc etc. Cohesion was the strength of Rome and why it conquered. This opposed to a mass charging in with every man looking out for himself, with no rotation so those in the front would tire and end up being butchered when barely capable of holding up their weapons.

Celts were invariably broader, taller, and overall stronger than the average Roman legionary. Celtish warrior classes trained their whole lives to fight aswell, they weren't just people who had picked up at random. They had chainmail, invariably kept a shield and axe (or sword) on them and sometimes even a spear as well...they weren't underequipped. For me the individual prowess of a Roman legionary is overstated nowadays. They were good fighters, but not invincible on their own, their strength lay being together in their centuria. So for me if I weigh up ferocity, power, reach, equipment and training i'd say the Celtish warrior would have the edge over a legionary on a 1 versus 1 scenario, with no backup for either.

[terzer]

I'd disagree in a 1v1 personally. As individuals Celts were fantastic fighters, Romans were merely okay. Rome conquered due to its organization of its army, and how they had been drilled into fighting as a single fighting force where individuals kept a cool head and listened to orders, could form shield walls, testudo and the like, and most of all kept together, fighting as a whole as oposed to as individuals. Endurance was a factor to, the Romans woud often tire out their foes whilst keeping their own troops fresh simply by alternating lines. You'd step up, fight till you tired, then step to the back and the line behind stepped in, etc etc. Cohesion was the strength of Rome and why it conquered. This opposed to a mass charging in with every man looking out for himself, with no rotation so those in the front would tire and end up being butchered when barely capable of holding up their weapons.

Celts were invariably broader, taller, and overall stronger than the average Roman legionary. Celtish warrior classes trained their whole lives to fight aswell, they weren't just people who had picked up at random. They had chainmail, invariably kept a shield and axe (or sword) on them and sometimes even a spear as well...they weren't underequipped. For me the individual prowess of a Roman legionary is overstated nowadays. They were good fighters, but not invincible on their own, their strength lay being together in their centuria. So for me if I weigh up ferocity, power, reach, equipment and training i'd say the Celtish warrior would have the edge over a legionary on a 1 versus 1 scenario, with no backup for either.

Is it certain, that the Roman used this rank rotation? I also know about it, i searched info about it, but with limited success. As far as i know there is no historical proof, that they used it. Also there are many practical problems with this rotation (gaps in the files, exposing). Also many historians believe that there were lulls, in which the ranks were replaced, rotated and so on... In the end, its clear that there are many problems with the actual battle (throwing pilla, curving the lines) and its very hard to accurately interpret the maneuvers and the actual fighting in the battle without historical proof.
Do you know something more?
Excuse me for the off topic.

[Revan The Great]

Well allegedly in Ancient melees there would be lulls in the combat, where the survivors in the front ranks were tired and naturally began to back away, at which point they might get pushed back to a further position in the ranks. If this happened like it does in HBO's Rome where a Centurion blows a whistle and the entire front ranks run back down the line, or if it even was a formal combat maneuver rather than an informal, natural occurrence is up for debate I believe.

As for Celt vs. Roman...eh. No.

It sells a Roman legionnaire short to say they were merely 'okay'. No they were great soldiers, and while a Celt was generally taller, bigger, more muscular the Roman legionnaire was also a tough and powerful man in his own right. His equipment also served as a good counter to a Celt, whose sword was clumsier and easy to block with the big scutum a Roman legionnaire possessed. Oftentimes a Celt would hold his sword above his head for a powerful sweep downward, get his sword intercepted by a shield, and then his exposed belly would be gutted by a Gladius.

Maybe the average Gallic Chieftain vs. the average Legionnaire would be a roughly even fight - I personally think not but whatever. My main point was average Legionnaire vs. average Celt. Even MulattoThrasher, the big Celtic advocate that everyone cites as 'Lol he'll come get mad at you if you badmouth Celts!' agrees with me that in the average Celtic army a relatively small number of men would be armored in chainmail, the rest would have little or no armor on. Say, 20% would be equivalent in gear to a legionary.

[Kritic]

Is it certain, that the Roman used this rank rotation? I also know about it, i searched info about it, but with limited success. As far as i know there is no historical proof, that they used it. Also there are many practical problems with this rotation (gaps in the files, exposing). Also many historians believe that there were lulls, in which the ranks were replaced, rotated and so on... In the end, its clear that there are many problems with the actual battle (throwing pilla, curving the lines) and its very hard to accurately interpret the maneuvers and the actual fighting in the battle without historical proof.
Do you know something more?
Excuse me for the off topic.

I Always think of this scene as the epitome of the Romans as an almost mechanical killing machine. I know it is just a series but there was some excellent research on this series.Notice the tethered Legionaires http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbSa9ZvSMaQ

[Bucle_CT]

I Always think of this scene as the epitome of the Romans as an almost mechanical killing machine. I know it is just a series but there was some excellent research on this series.Notice the tethered Legionaires http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbSa9ZvSMaQ

Don't underestimate the fidelity of this series(of which I'm a great fan as you can see in my avatar), not to the historical facts, but to the roman society, their values, their 'way of life' , and of course, as shown in this first scene, their way of fighting.

Roman legionaries were not made to fight, but to kill, in a perfect reflection of the roman practical sense. The glory was in the victory itself, not in the way it was taken. That is why, for example, the gladius was seen as a dishonorable weapon by other nations, because it was made to stab and kill quickly, not to keep a sword fight.

[werawulf]

Okay, I think I need to get something straight. I understand why this game merged Hastati and Princepes. Frankly I just process_cq my way in sicily until I have my legions at the beginning of my game anyway. My whole original post was in response to that guy who was talking as though Rome was the greatest thing ever in the world and that they gave us everything and that this game is the de facto historical replica of the ancient world. My second reply was in response to the fact that if you are going to make a historical assertion you need to provide context and sources and events. That is all I was talking about, I did not mean for my little post to span several pages.

[HerzoG]

This discussion has nothing to do with ur post. It started because we talked about Caesar who was-in the opinion of one guy- feared against a united Gaul which would have-also only in his opinion smashed Rome....
This is what we are talking about even if its a bit more about the soldiers themselves,theyr armour and weapons at the moment.

P.s im sry thta this discussion is placed in this forum.
So back to the original maintheme.
Any news about the progress Dvk?

[Wittman]

Is morale going to be re-balanced in this patch?

[Thomius]

As for Celt vs. Roman...eh. No.

It sells a Roman legionnaire short to say they were merely 'okay'. No they were great soldiers, and while a Celt was generally taller, bigger, more muscular the Roman legionnaire was also a tough and powerful man in his own right. His equipment also served as a good counter to a Celt, whose sword was clumsier and easy to block with the big scutum a Roman legionnaire possessed. Oftentimes a Celt would hold his sword above his head for a powerful sweep downward, get his sword intercepted by a shield, and then his exposed belly would be gutted by a Gladius.

Those are huge presumptions on what a Celt would do really, not bound in fact. You seem to be looking at a Celtish warrior as a mindless barbarian who would not have the smarts to do anything other than smack against a Legionaries shield. You overestimate the Legionary. All of a Legionarys training was with a group, where he was trained to fight as a group, and how not to get separated from said group. Celts trained on their own, fought duels against one another. The differences in their training is what makes them strong in different areas. The Legionaries training was superior simply because the individual ceased to exist in battle, and was replaced by the whole. A legionaries equipment was not designed for a 1v1 scenario.

Maybe the average Gallic Chieftain vs. the average Legionnaire would be a roughly even fight - I personally think not but whatever. My main point was average Legionnaire vs. average Celt. Even MulattoThrasher, the big Celtic advocate that everyone cites as 'Lol he'll come get mad at you if you badmouth Celts!' agrees with me that in the average Celtic army a relatively small number of men would be armored in chainmail, the rest would have little or no armor on. Say, 20% would be equivalent in gear to a legionary.

Again, underestimation of the Celts. Even taking chainmail out of the picture the Celts were formidable warriors. There is too much stock placed in what the victor (the Romans) said about them as people, and its evident in your post because you seem to think a Celt would mindlessly charge a legionary and smash his sword of axe against the Legionaries shield, or just deliberately leave himself open. Celts and Barbarians on the whole weren't always mindless savages ruled by their emotions.

[astradeus]

hello, I notice that there is no picture associated with the "Hallstatt and Durrnburg Salt Mines" menu in the building. thank you.

I know this problem well screenchot display link in rome total war. but I thought it was random. with "Hallstatt Salt Mines and Durrnburg" is a permanent problem. I never managed to see his picture. I notice this especially because I work on translating the mod to the French version.

What is the solution to this bug.

the picture of "Hallstatt Salt Mines and Durrnburg" is not the right format. it is
of 361x204. normally it should be 361x163. I did a test by changing the scale of the picture and this change has solved the problem.

sorry for my english

after

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

before

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

my modest contribution to the problem

[dvk901]

Oh for heaven's sake! Never realized that. Thank you. I have fixed it in the patch, along with some others I found.

@HerzoG: Still working on it.....

@Wittman: It was suggested that some of the changes to unit stats and morale or whatnot be put in the patch, and I have included Tone's various alternate EDU's as options in "_Important_Stuff".
But I have not changed the default EDU's that were in RS2 when it was released. I did, however, reduce all income across the board 25% in all campaigns except the one-turn.
I have made 'some' changes to the one-turn campaign...trying to include some of the sub-mod ideas that were posted\suggested, and I'm still working on it.

[Marcus_Vipsanius]

Is this the fix to all the 'white' pictures in RS? Would be awesome!

[Centaurion]

Anyways, I'm experiencing some problems with the trait system.

I've had the second rebellion, and killed my faction leader at the time. My new faction leader got the trait "Caesar" and my faction heir has the trait "Princeps electus". Shouldn't my faction leader have the trait "Augustus" while my heir gets the trait "Caesar"?

Btw, the trait "Caesar" does not give any bonuses, but the "Princeps electus" trait does?

Will this be fixed in the patch?

[Striker]

As far as I know there is no "Augustus" trait, and Princeps electus is there since the first faction heir to the last one you will have

About the Caesar one I don't know because my campaign as Rome is halted for some time

[Dull_Gladius]

I've halted my Roman campaign as well as these random, game-breaking CTD's related to the rebels are really getting on my nerves. As for the trait thing, your faction leader should have the trait "Imperator Caesar" as well as the name. Took me about four turns for the heir to my "Dictator for Life" to become emperor.

[terzer]

One suggestion from me for the script. When you conquer north Africa, the province is ridiculously peaceful. Is it possible to spawn rebel stacks to threaten the cities?

[magraev]

As long as Carthage lives you should get elite spawns all the time.

[dvk901]

I apologize for the delay with the patch, and the fact that anyone is having issues. I am basically done with it, but I need to do one more thing as a courtesy to those who have translated the mod to different languages. If I provide the patch 'as is' it will blow away everyone's work in this area for the sake of a few corrections in spelling or grammar that were probably dealt with in the translations. So I'm going to provide an English version, and also a non-english version that will exclude files that really aren't necessary for those people. There were some changes to the traits and ancillaries that will HAVE to be included, but I want to make sure these are added at the bottom of the files in question so that they can more easily be found and translated.