units Frequently Asked Questions

Urnamma · Jan 16, 2006

The title of this thread is very general for a reason. It is to address anything to do with units (mainly) that I can answer better than other team members (because I have the info). I've noticed a lot of 'well, why can't faction x recruit units in province y' threads. Instead of having to track down all these threads, you guys can post here, I'll note it, and then we'll either fix it or I'll answer you directly on why it isn't there yet. Sound fair?

Because we haven't made it. Anyone who wants to write descriptions for buildings and what not that do not have them (and are willing to do the research), go ahead and take a crack at it. If we like it, we'll include it.

Recruitment areas that need to be addressed by more units:

Southern Italy:

Southern Italy will eventually have Italian units. Bruttians, Lucanians, Samnites et al. We know that the Romans can't recruit natives there yet, and we're working hard to address it.

Epirus:

The provinces north of epirus (Illyria and Noricum) will eventually have their own native units as well, Illyrians, Paionians, and Noricenes, for Epirus to recruit. Have patience. I need to find folks to skin said units. Until that happens, we can't add them

If you want to ask a specific question regarding the recruitment or other incompleteness regarding the beta, I'll add it to this post, and then delete your reply (so that the thread doesn't become clogged).

Yes, we will be restricting recruitment to historical places (IE, no Iberian peasants in the sahara).

Blizzard · Jan 17, 2006

would eventualy a rage of recruitment as in RTR be implemented in a future release?
I think it would solve many problems - to quote some of them: iberian velites available to recruit all over Sahara
thanks

QwertyMIDX · Jan 17, 2006

We having something a lot more complex going in, it's just only partially implemented as of now.

Fondor_Yards · Jan 18, 2006

As Bactria, even will a fully barrack in their starting city, you can't recruit bactrian agema, pheraspidai, or hetairoi. Is this because I havn't spilt with the Seleucid Empire yet/havn't fought their pheraspidai/hetairoi/hypaspistai or because I simply can't?

Teleklos Archelaou · Jan 18, 2006

Fondor_Yards said:
As Bactria, even will a fully barrack in their starting city, you can't recruit bactrian agema, pheraspidai, or hetairoi. Is this because I havn't spilt with the Seleucid Empire yet/havn't fought their pheraspidai/hetairoi/hypaspistai or because I simply can't?

Definitely post it in the unit recruitment problem thread. This is exactly what they are working on and need to know.

If the unit is clearly a baktrian unit and is available in custom battles by them, but is not recruitable in the game despite having a type1 gov and MIC5, then there is a unit recruitment problem that they need to know about. BigJohn is working hard to solve problems like this, just let him know about it.

Big_John · Jan 18, 2006

indeed, please post unit recruitment oddities/problems in this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40870

that said, the issue with baktrian agema and with all successor pheraspidai, hypaspistai, and hetairoi has been fixed for the coming patch. :thumbsup:

Dantheman102100 · Apr 13, 2006

QwertyMIDX said:
...but have not and do not plan to change the Gesaetae, other than making the unit smaller (which I have already done).

Tell me you are kidding. Those guys are way to strong in my opinion. I was in a battle once where I managed to defeat all of the AI's army. All that was left was a Gesaetae. I thought, oh yeah, I've won this battle. So I send one princeps and a hastati, both having 2 gold cheverons. I got the princeps to attack the front, and at the same time hastati from the back, supported by many units of cavalry (like 3 or 4) I let them attack, and ALL OF THESE UNITS WERE ROUTED, WITH VAST CASUALTIES! They had only lost 15 or so people. I withdrew all forces. I sent 3 triarii in phalanx formation and tricked the Gesaetae into attacking their front. I finally defeated them with the triarii phalanx, but geez! One full stack of Gesaetae would be able to single handedly conquer at least 3 full stacks of the best Rome has to offer. I think they are overpowered.

You say that you beef them up so that the barbs have a chance against the civilized factions, but I don't understand what makes the civilized factions such a large threat to these barbs, where you need to give the barbs a helping hand.

Bonheddwr · Apr 13, 2006

In my Epirios campaign I can recruit Samnite heavy infantry as mercenaries in southern Italy, yet despite what what my barracks say, I can't recruit them as regulars. Is this on purpose? Also the Samnite heavy infantry seems a little odd because they are inferior in attack yet more expensive than the Samnite spearmen.

Watchman · Apr 13, 2006

Those funny choppers the Samnite heavies have are, like apparently about all other kopis/falcata/machaira -type swords in the game, ap. 'Nuff said really.

I think they had higher lethality rate too, but that's really a bit peripheral.

QwertyMIDX · Apr 13, 2006

Dantheman102100 said:
Tell me you are kidding. Those guys are way to strong in my opinion. I was in a battle once where I managed to defeat all of the AI's army. All that was left was a Gesaetae. I thought, oh yeah, I've won this battle. So I send one princeps and a hastati, both having 2 gold cheverons. I got the princeps to attack the front, and at the same time hastati from the back, supported by many units of cavalry (like 3 or 4) I let them attack, and ALL OF THESE UNITS WERE ROUTED, WITH VAST CASUALTIES! They had only lost 15 or so people. I withdrew all forces. I sent 3 triarii in phalanx formation and tricked the Gesaetae into attacking their front. I finally defeated them with the triarii phalanx, but geez! One full stack of Gesaetae would be able to single handedly conquer at least 3 full stacks of the best Rome has to offer. I think they are overpowered.

Unfortunatly I am not kidding (ducks to avoid the torrent of abuse), this is how the historians at EB told me they should behave in battle. Not only that but I've had about 100 reports saying they're too tough or they're just fine and it's obvious that I can't make everyone happy. If you want to nerf them a bit go for it, I think Pritzl has his own version of them if you perfer that but until the historians at EB tell me to nerf them I won't, and they apparently feel that any nerfing of this unit is inaccurate.

What difficulty are you playing on btw?

QwertyMIDX · Apr 13, 2006

Bonheddwr said:
In my Epirios campaign I can recruit Samnite heavy infantry as mercenaries in southern Italy, yet despite what what my barracks say, I can't recruit them as regulars. Is this on purpose? Also the Samnite heavy infantry seems a little odd because they are inferior in attack yet more expensive than the Samnite spearmen.

Yeah they have AP and a better leathality (more defense too). Eperios should be able to train them, what gov't do you have in place and what version of EB is this?

Dantheman102100 · Apr 13, 2006

QwertyMIDX said:
Unfortunatly I am not kidding (ducks to avoid the torrent of abuse), this is how the historians at EB told me they should behave in battle. Not only that but I've had about 100 reports saying they're too tough or they're just fine and it's obvious that I can't make everyone happy. If you want to nerf them a bit go for it, I think Pritzl has his own version of them if you perfer that but until the historians at EB tell me to nerf them I won't, and they apparently feel that any nerfing of this unit is inaccurate.

To be honest, I doubt that some barbarians who were generally conscripted as quickly as possible and disbanded as soon as they were no longer needed could either get enough experience or be trained enough to be this strong. I understand your possition, you will never get absolutly everyone to be happy with EB, you're simply doing what the EB historians tell you or whatever. I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, you are just doing your job. But, I can't honestly say that can accept what the EB historians are telling you, so I thought I'd do a search on this unit to see if I could find something different than what they are telling you. However, I couldn't find anything outside TWC. Would you know if Gesaetae their historical name? If it isn't, what is, if you should know?

QwertyMIDX said:
What difficulty are you playing on btw?

I didn't really pay attention, I just wanted to start a campaign, so I would guess it would be medium or hard. Don't really know, guess I should have looked. :pinch:

John I Tzimisces · Apr 13, 2006

Dantheman102100 said:
To be honest, I doubt that some barbarians who were generally conscripted as quickly as possible and disbanded as soon as they were no longer needed could either get enough experience or be trained enough to be this strong. I understand your possition, you will never get absolutly everyone to be happy with EB, you're simply doing what the EB historians tell you or whatever. I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, you are just doing your job. But, I can't honestly say that can accept what the EB historians are telling you, so I thought I'd do a search on this unit to see if I could find something different than what they are telling you. However, I couldn't find anything outside TWC. Would you know if Gesaetae their historical name? If it isn't, what is, if you should know?

I didn't really pay attention, I just wanted to start a campaign, so I would guess it would be medium or hard. Don't really know, guess I should have looked.

You have to bear in mind many of these sources are not from the internet...by many, I mean ALL.

Dantheman102100 · Apr 13, 2006

eXc|Imperator said:
You have to bear in mind many of these sources are not from the internet...by many, I mean ALL.

I'm sure that's true, but many literary works are hosted on the net. Like Plutarch's Parallel Lives is hosted on the net, Julius' Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, etc. Besides, many actual historians actually write stuff on the net. The net is a very large place, you never know what you may find. :wink:

paulus · Apr 13, 2006

You have the spelling wrong. Its Gaesatae, and I don't recall exactly how it was spelled in Greek (gaison was the Gallic javelin for which the Gaesatae were named). Yes they existed, yes they were very effective in hand to hand combat. Being naked, they did not do as well against missile troops. There are a few sections in Polybios talking about them (at the Telamon battle, most famously). They are also recorded (by description or artistic depiction, not by name) in the armies that invaded Greece and settled in Anatolia.

If you're looking for sources, try perseus.tufts.edu/hopper, or there's a nifty site called attalus.org, which includes a nice database of events, arranged either by subject or date, and even has links to some source translations that neither Perseus nor even the Loeb collection (at libraries) have. Hope that helps.

Pritzl · Apr 14, 2006

Actually Qwerty, with the revised lower number per unit they're working out fine. I also find the revised elephant stats a bit better. Still too overly susceptible to peltasts and other 'bonus versus elephants' missile units but their behaviour in melee is a bit easier to swallow. What did you change there btw?

QwertyMIDX · Apr 14, 2006

IIRC I upped the armor level and decreased the defense skill. The bonuses missile troops get against them will probably go down in the next build btw, so they might might you even happier

Dantheman102100 · Apr 14, 2006

paulus said:
You have the spelling wrong. Its Gaesatae...

Ah, that fixes the problem. And thank you for the sources, but I already knew of this site that has just about every ancient work I could imagine. Thank you anyways, though. :thumbsup:

Now, back to my question about the gaesatae... I looked in Polybius' Histories in the site I reference above, and could only find two references to this group, both being in the second book. They took part in two battles, both of which were major disastors for the Gauls. As paulus says, Telamon, and another one, which I forget the name of. In Telamon, the Gaul's outnumbered the Romans by at least 10,000 infantry, plus cavalry. Still, the Roman Consuls managed to surround the Gauls and, from there, it was a massacre. 40,000 Gauls dead, and 10,000 taken prisoner. Polybius doesn't record Roman losses, but considering that the army was still able to ingage in another major battle at Mediolanum, the losses must not have been to bad.

So, since the only two references to the gaesatae record them in major defeats for the people they are fighting for, why are they so darn strong in EB?

Khelvan · Apr 14, 2006

Dantheman102100 said:
To be honest, I doubt that some barbarians who were generally conscripted as quickly as possible and disbanded as soon as they were no longer needed could either get enough experience or be trained enough to be this strong.

The argument might be a valid one, but the premise is invalid. These were not "some barbarians who were generally conscripted as quickly as possible and disbanded as soon as they were no longer needed." That is an incorrect stereotype. The Celts had standing armies, though the Gaesatae are a different case.

Much of the information regarding the various Celts has been culled from a variety of sources, including the Celts' own histories. I'll see if we can get one of our Celt historians here to address some of this.

Frost colonel · Apr 15, 2006

Wasn't sure where to post this hope it's ok here.

In version 7.3(hoping this comment is still valid as I have not downloaded v7.4 yet) the Seleukid elites Thoratikai Agyraspidai(spelling? bloody good guess if i'm right) are only recruitable in Antioch and Seleukia(spelling?- their capital) Where as the other elites are available in many cities(with top baracks and grade 1 govement building). Is this an oversight? as it is a real pain logistically regarding retraining depleted units.

Having said that though I presume I shouldn't be able to capture any grade 1 govement buildings in the first place?

Dantheman102100 · Apr 15, 2006

Khelvan said:
The argument might be a valid one, but the premise is invalid. These were not "some barbarians who were generally conscripted as quickly as possible and disbanded as soon as they were no longer needed." That is an incorrect stereotype. The Celts had standing armies, though the Gaesatae are a different case.

Much of the information regarding the various Celts has been culled from a variety of sources, including the Celts' own histories. I'll see if we can get one of our Celt historians here to address some of this.

Ok, that's fine, but I just wanted to point something out to you: the celtic people didn't record their own history on paper, but through oral tradition. Because of this, most of their "histories" were infused with mythological elements. That's why just about everything that we actually know about celtic people is through the writings of the more civilized people such as the Greeks and Romans, and through actual archeological findings. Just thought I'd point that out. :thumbsup:

Aside from that, I await an answer.

Blizzard · Apr 15, 2006

40 000 kills could be only 4000
propaganda isn't a modern invention
do not beleive what is written only just because you have no other prove
remember a good leader doesn't seek battle but victory
by any means including psychological warfare
humanity evolved thanks to a few inventive individuals
the rest of humans are still the same as two milleniums ago
if it weren't those few
we would still poke each others with sticks and stones (instead guns)

:|

Dantheman102100 · Apr 15, 2006

Blizzard said:
40 000 kills could be only 4000
propaganda isn't a modern invention
do not beleive what is written only just because you have no other prove
remember a good leader doesn't seek battle but victory
by any means including psychological warfare
humanity evolved thanks to a few inventive individuals
the rest of humans are still the same as two milleniums ago
if it weren't those few
we would still poke each others with sticks and stones (instead guns)

:|

Polybius didn't have any reason to lie, assuming he even wanted to. It isn't like he was recording one of his peoples victories, he was a Greek recording a Roman victory. And even if Polybius is lying, what, then, happened to that army of at least 50,000? Did they simply get tired of fighting and chose to go home? Or did Zeus rain lightning down upon these Gauls? No, I know what happened: the aliens took the entire army up into their mothership for experimentation. :shocked:

Seriously, you can't simply dismiss a historical source that has a perfect record as far as exagerating or lying about history goes simply because you don't like what he says. With history, only archeology and historical sources can be used to prove what happened in the past. Don't like what Polybius says? Prove him wrong.

Khelvan · Apr 15, 2006

Dantheman102100 said:
Ok, that's fine, but I just wanted to point something out to you: the celtic people didn't record their own history on paper, but through oral tradition. Because of this, most of their "histories" were infused with mythological elements. That's why just about everything that we actually know about celtic people is through the writings of the more civilized people such as the Greeks and Romans, and through actual archeological findings. Just thought I'd point that out.

Celtic oral history is not any more "infused with mythological elements" than any given written record. There were historical works, religious works, and mythological works. History drawn from the historical works has proven to be just as accurate through corroboration as any given written record, and certain things can be taken from the more mythological works, just as things may be drawn from the written mythologies of other cultures.

Dismissing oral histories as being "infused with mythological elements" is invalid, and is not done by any serious historian. Histories are evaluated on an individual basis for their validity.

Blizzard · Apr 16, 2006

Dantheman102100 said:
Polybius didn't have any reason to lie, assuming he even wanted to. It isn't like he was recording one of his peoples victories, he was a Greek recording a Roman victory. And even if Polybius is lying, what, then, happened to that army of at least 50,000? Did they simply get tired of fighting and chose to go home? Or did Zeus rain lightning down upon these Gauls? No, I know what happened: the aliens took the entire army up into their mothership for experimentation.

Seriously, you can't simply dismiss a historical source that has a perfect record as far as exagerating or lying about history goes simply because you don't like what he says. With history, only archeology and historical sources can be used to prove what happened in the past. Don't like what Polybius says? Prove him wrong.

no other reason to lie than sell shocking news to his people or maybe make some extra mnai

an army of 50000 (if thats the real number) can be defeated
the survivers hired as mercenaries but that's nothing spectacular in that

p.s. not the aliens but the Bartix :getlost:

Dantheman102100 · Apr 16, 2006

Khelvan said:
Celtic oral history is not any more "infused with mythological elements" than any given written record. There were historical works, religious works, and mythological works. History drawn from the historical works has proven to be just as accurate through corroboration as any given written record, and certain things can be taken from the more mythological works, just as things may be drawn from the written mythologies of other cultures.

Dismissing oral histories as being "infused with mythological elements" is invalid, and is not done by any serious historian. Histories are evaluated on an individual basis for their validity.

OK, whatever, I can quote historians that say there is no historical validity in oral histories vs written accounts, but I'm not going to argue with you about this, of all things. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

[QUOTE="Blizzard]no other reason to lie than sell shocking news to his people or maybe make some extra mnai
an army of 50000 (if thats the real number) can be defeated
the survivers hired as mercenaries but that's nothing spectacular in that[/QUOTE]

So now you're discounting a historical source because he may have wanted more money? :huh:

Right, whatever you say pal.

QwertyMIDX · Apr 16, 2006

Polybius' accounts of the wars with the Italian Gauls are rather problematic, as he wasn't a witness to any of these events and was relying on analist historians and the Roman generals who fought there (as such Blizzard's point is not as easy to discount as you make it seem). Further, as we all know, numbers are the things most often courrpted through scribal transmission.

Dantheman102100 · Apr 16, 2006

QwertyMIDX said:
Polybius' accounts of the wars with the Italian Gauls are rather problematic, as he wasn't a witness to any of these events and was relying on analist historians and the Roman generals who fought there (as such Blizzard's point is not as easy to discount as you make it seem). Further, as we all know, numbers are the things most often courrpted through scribal transmission.

If we were talking about someone like Herodotus who is well known to have exagerated the strength of the Persians, then yes, Blizzard might have some truth to what he is saying, but against someone like Polybius who is never known to intentionally mislead his readers?

When a source is questionable, people look for archeological evidence to either disprove or prove the source correct or incorrect. All archeological evidence points to a army of at least 50,000 infantry plus cavalry. When this army disappeard at Telamon it was a major blow to Gallic forces in Cisalpine Gaul. If Polybius lied about the number of the army, the Gauls would have been able to resist Roman rule for quite a longer bit of time. If this was a unimportant battle, why did the Romans become the strongest force in the area until the collapse of the Roman Empire?

To say that Polybius lied defies archeology, the only other tool that people have to determine what happened in history outside of ancient writtings.

QwertyMIDX · Apr 16, 2006

You're jumping to conclusion about what I'm trying to say all I said was that you shouldn't be so dismissive of the problems (scribal errors, problems with Polybius' sources, etc). As to the desctruction of Gallic power in Northern Italy, the battle of Telamon was in 225 BC and the Romans were fighting wars against the Gauls in North Italy for decades after that, that battle of Mutina for example was in 194, Roman rule over Gallic Italy was certinly not firmly established by the battle of Telamon, not matter how many gauls did or didn't die there.

Khelvan · Apr 17, 2006

Dantheman102100 said:
To say that Polybius lied defies archeology, the only other tool that people have to determine what happened in history outside of ancient writtings.

No one said Polybius lied. Further to this, it is now understandable to me why you would be so dismissive of an entire body of important historical sources (transcribed oral histories), if you can so badly misinterpret this simple sentence.

units Frequently Asked Questions

units Frequently Asked Questions

Here's looking at you, kid!

I'll be back!

Here's looking at you, kid!

I'll be back!

I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Get born again.

Here's looking at you, kid!

Go ahead, make my day.

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

May the Force be with you.

I'm the king of the world!

Here's looking at you, kid!

I'll be back!

Here's looking at you, kid!

May the Force be with you.

I'll be back!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

May the Force be with you.

Join the Total War Center!

Wiki Links

Rome on TWC Wiki

Total War Center on the Wiki

Total War Series on TWC Wiki

Modding Information on TWC Wiki

Medieval II on TWC Wiki

Thread Statistics

Site Polls

Axis & Allies

Battleship

Checkers

Chess

Clue

Go

Monopoly

Risk

Stratego

Other