Armour question

[Lord Marsh]

I'ver recently switched back to RTW from M2TW and am playing RS 1.5 for the first time. I would like to congratulate everyone involved with the mod on a fantastic and throughly enjoyable piece of work

I have a bit of a question about the Celtic and Germanic units; I'm in c. 230 BC and am facing a suprising amount of armoured and sword-armed Free Peoples. My understanding was that this was more the case after 100BC in to the Principate when contact with Rome increased the use of both from the traditional 'naked' shield and spear / Framae. Is this more of a balancing issue with the game? I was also a litle suprised at the comparatively low defensive scores of [pre-Imperial] Roman troops as I would have thought that this was one of their strengths.

Not complaining, just interested to see what people think

[GreatOne]

About armor stats, I saw that in Lycan rising they renamed their stats, so shield is no more shield, but rather frontal defense & shield, armor is now armor & body strenghth(sp?), so you can consider changing these.....

[Lord Marsh]

I didn't know that, GreatOne, I'll have a look this evening. I was thinking more of general lack of armour and swords among north-western European infantry at this period (particularly metal).

The balancing does seem pretty good in this mod, though.

[dvk901]

I'ver recently switched back to RTW from M2TW and am playing RS 1.5 for the first time. I would like to congratulate everyone involved with the mod on a fantastic and throughly enjoyable piece of work

I have a bit of a question about the Celtic and Germanic units; I'm in c. 230 BC and am facing a suprising amount of armoured and sword-armed Free Peoples. My understanding was that this was more the case after 100BC in to the Principate when contact with Rome increased the use of both from the traditional 'naked' shield and spear / Framae. Is this more of a balancing issue with the game? I was also a litle suprised at the comparatively low defensive scores of [pre-Imperial] Roman troops as I would have thought that this was one of their strengths.

Not complaining, just interested to see what people think

Two things.....the date convention was changed from the old BC\AD style to prevent a CTD around 66BC, AND to remove the type of thing you are noting.
WHEN things happen in RTW could be tightly controlled with big scripts to make everything nice and historical....but we choose to let things happen as they happen, at the player's desired pace.

So yeah, the armored Barbs appear earlier than they would've historically. But also, they greatly increase the challenge of the game...which is intentional.

[Lord Marsh]

Thank DVK, I'm aware without scripts that events will tend to occur at slightly ahistorical times but that adds to the fun. I appreciate what use mean about AUC, makes more sense than BC.

In cae you're interested, my question was prompted by reading about the Kalkriese finds in Rome's Greatest Defeat

Thanks for the response and congrats again on the mod

[rory o'kane]

I've read that! Makes me sick to my stomach knowing that the barbarians got away with it - if i was Germanicus, i would have driven all the way to the Elbe and cut down every bloody tree in Germania!

[torzsoktamas]

I have an argument with the barbarians in RS1.5.I think its irealistic and ahistorical that barbarians had strong troops like in RS1.5.In RS1.5 the barbarians don't have good deffence(I think this is historical and realistic)but the problem is their offence....,barbarians had poor quality weapons and because of their heavy weight and big weapons,barbarians didn;t fight well,when romans aproched the barbarians,barbarians berely could hit the roman soldiers because of their heavy and very long swords(I read that in wikipedia and at other webs).The strengh in the barbarian armys was the amount of the soldiers(in Caesars conquering,there was little battles where the gauls were less then romans).I think it would be more historical to make barbarian units more weak but make them very cheap so a barbarian faction can make a very big army,besides that the army contains weaker units.So when a player attacks gaul with the romans,he faces weaker armys but dozens.This would make the game more historical and I think that the balance would stay because I think that fighting with one full stack roman army against 3-4 stack gaul army is hard,besides that the gauls have weaker units.Its just my opinion,I enjoy RS1.5 and I will enjoy RS2.0 besides if in RS2.0 the barbarians will be more powerfull even than legionaries.Its not I offence,its just my opinion.

[Brusilov]

I have an argument with the barbarians in RS1.5.I think its irealistic and ahistorical that barbarians had strong troops like in RS1.5.In RS1.5 the barbarians don't have good deffence(I think this is historical and realistic)but the problem is their offence....,barbarians had poor quality weapons and because of their heavy weight and big weapons,barbarians didn;t fight well,when romans aproched the barbarians,barbarians berely could hit the roman soldiers because of their heavy and very long swords(I read that in wikipedia and at other webs).The strengh in the barbarian armys was the amount of the soldiers(in Caesars conquering,there was little battles where the gauls were less then romans).I think it would be more historical to make barbarian units more weak but make them very cheap so a barbarian faction can make a very big army,besides that the army contains weaker units.So when a player attacks gaul with the romans,he faces weaker armys but dozens.This would make the game more historical and I think that the balance would stay because I think that fighting with one full stack roman army against 3-4 stack gaul army is hard,besides that the gauls have weaker units.Its just my opinion,I enjoy RS1.5 and I will enjoy RS2.0 besides if in RS2.0 the barbarians will be more powerfull even than legionaries.Its not I offence,its just my opinion.

I think the answer will be that RS 1.5 isn't supposed to be historically accurate while RS 2.0 will be.

You should probably not use wikipedia as a source as anyone can modify that. It may be better than when it was first released.

[torzsoktamas]

I think the answer will be that RS 1.5 isn't supposed to be historically accurate while RS 2.0 will be.

You should probably not use wikipedia as a source as anyone can modify that. It may be better than when it was first released.

I read much here:www.roman-empire.net
or www.numbera.com/rome

[Zymran]

I have an argument with the barbarians in RS1.5.I think its irealistic and ahistorical that barbarians had strong troops like in RS1.5.In RS1.5 the barbarians don't have good deffence(I think this is historical and realistic)but the problem is their offence....,barbarians had poor quality weapons and because of their heavy weight and big weapons,barbarians didn;t fight well,when romans aproched the barbarians,barbarians berely could hit the roman soldiers because of their heavy and very long swords(I read that in wikipedia and at other webs).The strengh in the barbarian armys was the amount of the soldiers(in Caesars conquering,there was little battles where the gauls were less then romans).I think it would be more historical to make barbarian units more weak but make them very cheap so a barbarian faction can make a very big army,besides that the army contains weaker units.So when a player attacks gaul with the romans,he faces weaker armys but dozens.This would make the game more historical and I think that the balance would stay because I think that fighting with one full stack roman army against 3-4 stack gaul army is hard,besides that the gauls have weaker units.Its just my opinion,I enjoy RS1.5 and I will enjoy RS2.0 besides if in RS2.0 the barbarians will be more powerfull even than legionaries.Its not I offence,its just my opinion.

"barbarians had poor quality weapons" is a bit of a sweeping generalisation :hmmm:- the clets and many german tribes were noted for their metalworking abilities by the greeks and the romans, including their weapons, armour and chariots. They were considered 'barbaric' more because of their ferocity and ill-discipline than their equipment. The greeks and romans just weren't used to the 'barbarians' forcus on personal valour rather than group discipline. I think Roma Surrectum's barbarians are very well done , and I can't wait for those juicy belgae units in 2.0

[Squid]

Just as an adendum to the above, the term barbarian at the time did not mean what it now means to us. It was used originally to signify anybody that was not greek, not someone who is barbaric.

[dvk901]

I must admit that when I first released RS and this team began to grow, I had a very 'biased' views of the so-called 'Barbarians'. A lot of (not so reliable) information also leads one to believe they were uncivilized, had poor weapons, and basically were only a few degrees above the Neandrethals.

But the more we studied them.....dug for information...learned from sources other than those that are commonly 'easy' to find...the respect and admiration we began to have for them. My view of 'barbarians' is now nearly 180 degrees from what it was. They were smart, advanced in many ways, their metalworking was very good to excellent, their craftsmanship superb.

One problem with knowledge of them was that they were 'wood builders'...so little survived of what they built over centuries. Another...they tended to BE migratory, or, overrun by other migratory tribes and destroyed. This scatters archeological evidence all over Europe from the Steppes to North Africa, and from Briton to Egypt. Still another...centuries of Roman rule and assimilation. Obviously, it is the 'winners' whose technology survives best.

So I tend to disagree that the Barbarians were inferior fighters to the Romans or anyone else. In fact, in many ways, man to man, superior. They were physically bigger people, stronger from a much harder life, and they fought for their freedom, their lands, and their families. All rolled into one, this made them very mean enemies. It was, by and large, their 'tactics' that couldn't match the Roman military...ever. They adapted in terms of weapons and armor, but in the end it was just sheer 'numbers' than gave them the Western Empire.

This is reflected in the stats they have in RS1.5. Powerful attack, but poorer defense. You have to have 'something' to represent poorer tactics...so less defense, morale and a tendancy to be impetuous portray this. Personally, in playing this mod myself, I rather enjoy the ferocity of the Barbarians and would have it no other way.

[torzsoktamas]

I must admit that when I first released RS and this team began to grow, I had a very 'biased' views of the so-called 'Barbarians'. A lot of (not so reliable) information also leads one to believe they were uncivilized, had poor weapons, and basically were only a few degrees above the Neandrethals.

But the more we studied them.....dug for information...learned from sources other than those that are commonly 'easy' to find...the respect and admiration we began to have for them. My view of 'barbarians' is now nearly 180 degrees from what it was. They were smart, advanced in many ways, their metalworking was very good to excellent, their craftsmanship superb.

One problem with knowledge of them was that they were 'wood builders'...so little survived of what they built over centuries. Another...they tended to BE migratory, or, overrun by other migratory tribes and destroyed. This scatters archeological evidence all over Europe from the Steppes to North Africa, and from Briton to Egypt. Still another...centuries of Roman rule and assimilation. Obviously, it is the 'winners' whose technology survives best.

So I tend to disagree that the Barbarians were inferior fighters to the Romans or anyone else. In fact, in many ways, man to man, superior. They were physically bigger people, stronger from a much harder life, and they fought for their freedom, their lands, and their families. All rolled into one, this made them very mean enemies. It was, by and large, their 'tactics' that couldn't match the Roman military...ever. They adapted in terms of weapons and armor, but in the end it was just sheer 'numbers' than gave them the Western Empire.

This is reflected in the stats they have in RS1.5. Powerful attack, but poorer defense. You have to have 'something' to represent poorer tactics...so less defense, morale and a tendancy to be impetuous portray this. Personally, in playing this mod myself, I rather enjoy the ferocity of the Barbarians and would have it no other way.

You made good points,but:
Barbarians were not trained well,and didn't fought well.OK they had good quality weapons but with big weapons(swords) was difficult to fight(I explained this in my precious post).And I disagree that barbarians were phisicaly better(stronger)than romans or greeks,...romans and greeks(expecialy spartans)were strong and trained soldiers.Also barbarians had little armor(in quantity) and their armor was lesser in quality compared to romans,even if the romans adopted from them the chain male,the romans made better chain males.I hope I didn't offended you,I just think that the barbarians have irealisticaly big attack in RS1.5.

[Legio XV Apollinaris]

You made good points,but:
Barbarians were not trained well,and didn't fought well.OK they had good quality weapons but with big weapons(swords) was difficult to fight(I explained this in my precious post).And I disagree that barbarians were phisicaly better(stronger)than romans or greeks,...romans and greeks(expecialy spartans)were strong and trained soldiers.Also barbarians had little armor(in quantity) and their armor was lesser in quality compared to romans,even if the romans adopted from them the chain male,the romans made better chain males.I hope I didn't offended you,I just think that the barbarians have irealisticaly big attack in RS1.5.

that's not true!
the celts and germanic tribes fought very often and also small conflicts between 2 men were fought with a sword. in the man to man fights, they dont kill each other, but the winner got the right! the barbarians hadn't the discipline like romans and greek had (professional army), but they were very well trained with her weapons!

and about the phisicaly ...
the germans were much taller and rougher (coz of the climates) as the romans. thats why the romans fear them.

believe me, im german and i read a lot about the ancient germans and celts!

[Brusilov]

It may be a generalization but I think a lot of the Gallic and Germanic warfare was all based on individuals rather than units of men. It was simply down to the better Roman tactics (and simply not giving up when the war was going badly - i.e. the 2nd Punic War).

Even the Romans had special honours for a Consul who killed an opposing King in battle.

[Lord Marsh]

On continued playing I think that perhaps I was wrong; the balance of 'barbarian' armies is unarmoured and seems very realistic based on my reading. I agree that they were more advanced than their detractors allow in both weapons and civilisation though inferior to Rome in terms of professionalism and modernisation. As Rome I tend to play tactical defensive, allow them to charge through a hail of pila and then outmanoeuvre them

Interestingly from the Teutoburg Wald book I mentioned earlier, Tacitus' line about Teutoburgiensi saltu which has always been assumed to mean 'Teutoburg Forrest' can also be translated as 'Teutoberg Pass' and archiology has revealed it was actually cultivated land with crop rotation and livestock rather than the primitve hunter-gather terrain always assumed.

Rory, what did you think of the book?

[rory o'kane]

very good indeed. very well written. still wish it hadn't happened though!