British vs Rome

**Oman** · October 01, 2007, 09:48 AM

After the sucessful Prince post re. Eygpt vs Rome, i thought this could spark some interesting debate as well. Along the same lines as what that post was, how do you think the Brits fare against Rome at 10k, 12.5 and 15k.

My vote will always go with by beloved Brits. At 10k, i dont think ive ever been beaten by rome (famous last words), at 12.5k, i cant remember being beaten (actually tell a lie, i remember Total War Fanatic beating me once), however at 15k, things become closer (Dependant on rules) but i will still pick brits every time.

Please dont use campaign theories adn experiences with this one, the difference is too vast and essentially is almost like 2 entirely different games. Only MP please on this one.

**Prince_of_Macedon** · October 01, 2007, 03:49 PM

(I base my post on 10k No Rules)...

This is tough. You're the only person I've seen use the Britons consistently well.

The biggest difference between the Britons and the Egyptians (besides the desert bonus) are the awesome foot-archer units that Egypt can utilize. The Britons, on the other hand, only have access to slingers and headhurlers. The problem here is that slingers and headhurlers are at a disadvantage against archer-units.

Between Rome and the Britons, I'd give an edge to the Britons (based on your success with them). I would, however, like to try the Romans out against your Britons sometime.

**Paul d** · October 01, 2007, 05:43 PM

lol oman, remember when i was seleucids and my whole silver shield phalanx routed from your headthrower,woadwarrior/chariot combo? that was funny.

**Octavium** · October 03, 2007, 04:24 PM

I think it is largely dependant on rules. If you institute max unit numbers rules then surely Britain is 'nerfed'. Broadly I agree though, Britains massive charge is irresistable again Rome. The only way I've ever lost with it was by charging pahalxes I should have arrowed to death (Paul D, I remember it well....)