New units

[Quinn Inuit]

Anyone have any new unit requests?

Here's what I'm currently thinking of doing, and I'd appreciate your input.

Remove all three chosen swordsmen (British, Celtic, and Dacian).
Replace British and Celtic ones with a more realistic Celtic unit
Not sure if Dacian one will be replaced

Add an axe infantry unit from the Caucasus

Switch Armenian horse archers for axe/javelin light cav. ???

Add in some new Getic units

Ask about borrowing an aspidophoroi unit

Make hetairoi unshielded

Oh, yeah, and I think I'll remove xystophoroi. They appear to duplicate the hetairoi in every way except their historical accuracy.


Ok, that's all I've got. What about you?

[Ramiro]

I have read about the thureoforoi using thureos and sarissa and forming a falanx. Maybe a realy cheap but crappy phalanx with thureos, no armour and sarissa?

AND PLEASE make hoplitai slower (at least 50%), they outrun my naked barbarians with leather shielsd and cavalry have trouble evading or catching them sometimes, their speed is insane!!! It goes the same for phalanx when they break formation.

[Iskandar]

The armenian horse archer should definitely be replaced with javelin horsemen, something along the lines of the pontic thorakismenoi hippakontistai. IIRC the armenians had lots of average-performing infantry but were famed for their horsemen, these javelinmen and the cataphracts.

I'm playing right now an Epirote campaign (which is really fun and I am one who hates those inflexible,slow and boring phalanx warfare!). I have a few questions about that faction
1) I had the impression that all factions are supposed to be able to recruit generals. With Epirus I can't. Is it a bug, or have I understood incorrect?
2)Is there a national heavy cavalry unit, opposite the epirote phalangite, or are they just the local AOR types, like the Molossian Hippeis and the thessalians?
3)The stables and practice range descriptions say that I should be able to recruit podromoi cavalry and peltastai, respectively. However, they do not appear in any province of mine and I already have Italy, Sicily and the Balkans(with the relevant buildings!) in my current campaign. Is this a bug, or is the description of the buildings not up to date?

Also, the unit card in the description of the epirote swordsman is some generic type.

And one last question, did the pontics deploy their own horse archers, or use mercenaries for that?

[Quinn Inuit]

I have read about the thureoforoi using thureos and sarissa and forming a falanx. Maybe a realy cheap but crappy phalanx with thureos, no armour and sarissa?

AND PLEASE make hoplitai slower (at least 50%), they outrun my naked barbarians with leather shielsd and cavalry have trouble evading or catching them sometimes, their speed is insane!!! It goes the same for phalanx when they break formation.

Hmmm, can you point me to some online articles about that? Assuming they're not referencing hypaspistai, I'll see what I can do.

They do? That's odd. You're absolutely right that hoplitai shouldn't be that fast.

One question before I go and review all of the speeds in the DMB: are you talking about the Picene Hoplites? Their speed is a known bug, and will be fixed (is fixed, actually) in 3.3.4.

The armenian horse archer should definitely be replaced with javelin horsemen, something along the lines of the pontic thorakismenoi hippakontistai. IIRC the armenians had lots of average-performing infantry but were famed for their horsemen, these javelinmen and the cataphracts.

Interesting. I didn't know that. Can you point me to any online resources about that? I strongly suspect you're right, but would really like to read something on it before I make any changes.

btw, do you happen to know if they deployed axe infantry, too?

I'm playing right now an Epirote campaign (which is really fun and I am one who hates those inflexible,slow and boring phalanx warfare!). I have a few questions about that faction
1) I had the impression that all factions are supposed to be able to recruit generals. With Epirus I can't. Is it a bug, or have I understood incorrect?
2)Is there a national heavy cavalry unit, opposite the epirote phalangite, or are they just the local AOR types, like the Molossian Hippeis and the thessalians?
3)The stables and practice range descriptions say that I should be able to recruit podromoi cavalry and peltastai, respectively. However, they do not appear in any province of mine and I already have Italy, Sicily and the Balkans(with the relevant buildings!) in my current campaign. Is this a bug, or is the description of the buildings not up to date?

Also, the unit card in the description of the epirote swordsman is some generic type.

And one last question, did the pontics deploy their own horse archers, or use mercenaries for that?

I'm glad you're enjoying it! Epiros still has a few bugs, but we did a lot of fixes in 3.3.3 and there'll be even more in 3.3.4.

1) Oops. Yeah, I've been meaning to fix that since 3.0. Sorry. Does anyone know if there's a trick to making recruitable generals? Candel set that up--I don't exactly know how to do it.

2) A non-native (but not quite as good) Epirote HC will become available in 3.3.4. I'd forgotten that problem until yesterday. There will also be an elite phalanx unit available in non-Epiros areas, since the Chaonians are only available in Epiros. Again, an oversight on my part (the Epiros add-on wasn't as easy to integrate as I thought it would be, and I've learned a lot since then).

3) That's odd. So you've got the barracks built, too? I'm pretty sure that part of the building description is automatically generated (if we're thinking of the same thing), so if it says they're buildable then they should be.

4) Darn. FWIW, I may be ditching that unit in favor of the local levies (Marsi, Samnite, etc.). It was initially in there to represent the local swordsmen Pyrrhus used, but I think the AoR units have that covered now.

5) Pretty sure they used mercs. AFAIK, nobody in that part of Asia Minor was producing horse archers.

That's one of the reasons I want to pursue this social system idea. You need big flat plains for horse archers. Even if the Sarmatians had conquered, say, Greece, I doubt they would have been raising horse archers there. The just doesn't lend itself to that.

[florin80]

Remove all three chosen swordsmen (British, Celtic, and Dacian).

Why? The celts need an armored swordsmen. You can make it be the ambacti or soldurii though I have to confess I know little about them. Unless you were referring to their current aspect more than the title and type.

Not sure if Dacian one will be replaced

The dacians should have a swordsmen unit with some armor(helmet, greaves and some sort or body armor) imo.

Add an axe infantry unit from the Caucasus

That has always interested me. Any idea on what it should be and how it should look?

Switch Armenian horse archers for axe/javelin light cav. ???

Afaik they should have both. In fact, you can make the armenian light cav share with the pontic one in terms of model and DMB entry.

Add in some new Getic units

Maybe try the ones by Arbaces. And come to think of it, RTR had some getic units that they`ve previewed(partially at least), but they were replaced with the ones done by Caius so they won`t be used anymore. Weather they`ll let you use them is another matter...

Ask about borrowing an aspidophoroi unit

Which one is this?

Make hetairoi unshielded

They have shields now?

Oh, yeah, and I think I'll remove xystophoroi. They appear to duplicate the hetairoi in every way except their historical accuracy.

The ones of the seleucids? Imo you should keep them as a less effective cavalry than the hetairoi. The regular line cavalry sort of speak that will be replaced by the cataphracts.

[Quinn Inuit]

Why? The celts need an armored swordsmen. You can make it be the ambacti or soldurii though I have to confess I know little about them. Unless you were referring to their current aspect more than the title and type.

Yeah, that was my idea, sorry. I just like the ambacti concept better than what we have currently, since I'm pretty sure those soldiers used javelins. Plus I think they have more character.

The dacians should have a swordsmen unit with some armor(helmet, greaves and some sort or body armor) imo.

They should? Why? The EB people seem to think their heavy infantry should be limited to some hoplite imations, and nothing else I've found mentions any heavy infantry for them at all. That said, I've only been researching this for a couple of days, so there's a lot I don't know.

Here's my current Dacian plan:
Skirmishers
Archers
Spear warband
Falxmen
Light cav
Horse archers
Noble cav

Any comments?

That has always interested me. Any idea on what it should be and how it should look?

Vaguely. I found an eastern-looking axeman from Attila Reloaded's BI mod that I'm thinking about using. Might be even better if they looked like the Cyrtians, although I'm not sure I want to make them Cyrtian yet. I need to learn more about the region.

Afaik they should have both. In fact, you can make the armenian light cav share with the pontic one in terms of model and DMB entry.

Makes sense--I've found references to Armenians fielding non-merc horse archers.

Which Pontic one, their prodromoi or the armoured javelineers? I've actually found a decent axe-armed one that I'm thinking about using.

Maybe try the ones by Arbaces. And come to think of it, RTR had some getic units that they`ve previewed(partially at least), but they were replaced with the ones done by Caius so they won`t be used anymore. Weather they`ll let you use them is another matter...

That's interesting. I'll ask and see what they say. I'm already using their ambacti units.

Which one is this?

I was talking with Wien1938 about them awhile ago. He was arguing that those were more realistic than the sarissaphoroi.

They have shields now?

Nah, I was just looking them incorrectly. Scratch that.

The ones of the seleucids? Imo you should keep them as a less effective cavalry than the hetairoi. The regular line cavalry sort of speak that will be replaced by the cataphracts.

Hmmm, I see what you mean, but right now they're actually almost identical to the hetairoi (I was just checking their stats). They're basically duplicate units, and isn't it the hetairoi that get replaced by the cataphracts.

The reason I'm concerned is that "xystophoroi" seems to be used almost exclusively to refer to hetairoi units anyway in the few sources I've seen use the term. Did the Seleucids have medium xyston-bearing cavalry that usually went by another name?

[Jamey]

Here's my current Dacian plan:
Skirmishers
Archers
Spear warband
Falxmen
Light cav
Horse archers
Noble cav

Any comments?

We should keep some form of Bastarnae around, either Dacian specific or as an AOR unit. Merc only makes them a lot less useful.

[Wien1938]

Quick clarifications:
The chosen swordsmen can be replaced with a single "noble warriors" foot unit, armoured nobles using longsword and shield. There's evidence for them, though they were the elite alongside the "naked fantatics" or better renamed as "Gaesatae".
Asidophoroi are the Macedonian Successor cavalry that come into being when Antigonid Macedonia becomes able to raise cavalry on a large scale once more. On average Antigonid armies contained no more than 5-10% cavalry. It is a shielded, heavy cavalry unit shooting with javelins and then charging to contact - it should be capable of skirmishing too. This would probably replace the Hetairoi unit for Macedonia.
The shielded Hetairoi are the Xystophoroi DMB entry and unit model, which are a mistake left over from (RTRPE?) some other mod. The xystophoroi were the line Seleucid cavalry but were equally effective as other Hetairoi type cavalry. Nothing will be lost by their being abolished.
The Seleucids had General's bodyguard cavalry and regular heavy cavalry. Later (200 BC approx) the line cavalry converted to cataphracts, while the bodyguards took on heavier armour but remained lighter than the cataphracts.

Quinn beat me too it!

[Wien1938]

"Did the Seleucids have medium xyston-bearing cavalry that usually went by another name?"
No and I believe that they stopped recruiting the Babylonian/Persian heavy cavalry styles, instead converting them to Hetairoi.

[Iskandar]

florin80 is right about the armenians. Here are the easiest reads about armenian cavalry:
http://www.armenian-history.com/Nyut...vy_cavalry.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ory_of_Armenia

There are others, but all I've encountered seem to refer to the book by Chapot.
In the second link the parts of interest are the early history - Armenia in antiquity and the description of the traditional arms and armour. True, the last one is dated from early medieval age, but given that the cavalry remained the main part of the armenian army I believe we can assume the antiquity counterparts were similar. So Armenia gets light cavalry (HA), semi-heavy cavalry(should be identical to the pontic thorakismenoi hippakontistai; not the hippakontistai which are very light) and heavy cavalry(cataphracts). And of course some crappy infantry for times of great danger or imperial delusions:wink:.

There will also be an elite phalanx unit available in non-Epiros areas, since the Chaonians are only available in Epiros.

I just tested it - they do have an elite phalanx unit. Its the epirote agema, which one gets after building royal barracks. It takes 3 turns to build and is 160 men strong on huge as opposed to 2 turns and 80-strong for the chaonian agema. The chaonians have bigger defence though, like 10 more...

(OT) Its funny how tough these guys are. In my first Epirote campaign, after I assessed the sorry state of my economy, I deicided that the chaonians will be the first to perish gloriously in battle (damn high maintanence cost!). So letting them take the full brunt of the battles, I took Corfinum. And then I beat the first roman army. And then I beat the second roman army. And then I took Capua(autoresolve). And then I took Ancona(autoresolve). And I still had like 12 of them.... The bloody bastards just won't die!

3)The stables and practice range descriptions say that I should be able to recruit podromoi cavalry and peltastai, respectively. However, they do not appear in any province of mine and I already have Italy, Sicily and the Balkans(with the relevant buildings!) in my current campaign. Is this a bug, or is the description of the buildings not up to date?

3) That's odd. So you've got the barracks built, too? I'm pretty sure that part of the building description is automatically generated (if we're thinking of the same thing), so if it says they're buildable then they should be.

I have built barracks(even royal barracks in Tarrentum). I have stables and practice range. When I right click on them, it says on the description that I should be able to recruit podromoi and peltastai. In the unit roster however is nothing - it's not that their icons are greyed out(like when you don't have money for example), they are just not present.

Also, the unit card in the description of the epirote swordsman is some generic type.

4) Darn. FWIW, I may be ditching that unit in favor of the local levies (Marsi, Samnite, etc.). It was initially in there to represent the local swordsmen Pyrrhus used, but I think the AoR units have that covered now.

Thats too bad. I really get a kick out of how the eastern part of my kingdom has macedonian style armies and my western part relies on new, distinctly italian type of infantry. All my western armies simulate the roman legions, with epirote swordsmen instead of legionaries. Not to go into "what-if"s but I think Pyrrhus would have recognized their value, had things gone well for him.
(OT) I have not gone power hungry yet, so I don't know - are there epirote swordsman in Iberia and tarentine leukaspides in Asia Minor?

Almost forgot, why do the tarentine leukaspides have bonus fightinng in deserts?(It says so on their description, at least).

That's one of the reasons I want to pursue this social system idea. You need big flat plains for horse archers. Even if the Sarmatians had conquered, say, Greece, I doubt they would have been raising horse archers there. The just doesn't lend itself to that.

Not necessarily. As you have already seen, the Armenians kept using and were renowned for their cavalry throughout Antiquity and Medieval times, even though the landscape of their kingdoms was nowhere near big flat plains. The Bulgars of the first Bulgarian kingdom kept their cavalry based core of the army for almost three centuries after establishing Danubian Bulgaria. The only plain on their territories was modern day northern Bulgaria and that's not very big. It was not until the major part of their nobility was physically annahilated after the invasion of Kievan Rus and the subsequent Byzantine expeditions that they switched to more infantry based armies. The hungarians, after establishing their kingdom, reorganized their army in western style only after they suffered several crushing defeats at the hands of the germans. They switched from their light cavalry HA to heavy cavalry + infantry. By this time (10th century IIRC) this part of Europe had still large chunks of thick woodlands.

Your idea is definetly worth pondering, but the social fluctuationts that your system suggests happened either ahead of the time period of RTW, or rather slow. The marian reforms are in some ways analogous to what you propose(the issue of Roman citizenship) and this is represented in-game through script. Of course, the ExRM (or is it even from RTR?) has the roman citizenship building, but the point is, this thing happened after the Republic grew into a giant and faced entirely new political and social challenges.

I personally like the direction that the RTR team is going with RTR VII : FOE and TIC - the branching of the administrative buildings. Each province has AOR roster - you can use it to the fullest, strike some balance with basic AOR units and some economics or go nuts as an economic center. So, if you have national heavy cavalry, you can still choose to train it in the Alps, or recruit the fierce native mountain warriiors that live there, but to get the mountainers to use horses of their own volition(which is how I percieve your idea) needs much more time and effort. If I understand you right, you propose changing the nation-wide roster in each province, depending on its social status/development. I find the nation-wide vs. AOR roster sufficient enough, and together with the TIC and FOE changes robust enough to allow for engulfing gameplay.


EDIT:

Which Pontic one, their prodromoi or the armoured javelineers? I've actually found a decent axe-armed one that I'm thinking about using.

The armoured javelineers - Thorakismenoi Hippakontistai. An axe-wielding horseman would be more like personal quirk and not a widespread practice though, I think.

[Ramiro]

Here is the article about the Thureophoroi

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sar...hikrates2.html

I think that giving Horse archers to dacians would not be accurate. Those may be the nomadic people who began to invade their territory an some units may be recruitable but only as mercenaries

An about the hoplite´s speed. I have the same problem with ALL of them. They just run pass my flanks and go to attack my cavañlry in the rear. I can hardly manage to take them with some fast units but even then only a few soldiers stay to fight and the rest of the units just keeps following my cavalry. I have lost many a good cavalry units that way.

The only efficient tactic to avoid the runnign hoplites i have found is to countercharge with other hoplites or extending my line way beyond them an puting all the cavalry in the middle rear so that the AI does not try those crazy attacks.

[Quinn Inuit]

Quick clarifications:
The chosen swordsmen can be replaced with a single "noble warriors" foot unit, armoured nobles using longsword and shield. There's evidence for them, though they were the elite alongside the "naked fantatics" or better renamed as "Gaesatae".
Asidophoroi are the Macedonian Successor cavalry that come into being when Antigonid Macedonia becomes able to raise cavalry on a large scale once more. On average Antigonid armies contained no more than 5-10% cavalry. It is a shielded, heavy cavalry unit shooting with javelins and then charging to contact - it should be capable of skirmishing too. This would probably replace the Hetairoi unit for Macedonia.
The shielded Hetairoi are the Xystophoroi DMB entry and unit model, which are a mistake left over from (RTRPE?) some other mod. The xystophoroi were the line Seleucid cavalry but were equally effective as other Hetairoi type cavalry. Nothing will be lost by their being abolished.
The Seleucids had General's bodyguard cavalry and regular heavy cavalry. Later (200 BC approx) the line cavalry converted to cataphracts, while the bodyguards took on heavier armour but remained lighter than the cataphracts.

Quinn beat me too it!

Interesting. So no more Mac hetairoi (beyond general's cav), even as a more expensive unit?

Wien1938, we may be thinking about the same unit here. Major chieftains had ambacti units with them, sworn to their service, and equipped with the finest arms and armour the chief could afford. (According to my research, anyway.) So the Celts will still have this heavy sword infantry unit, only it will be the ambacti and look a little different than the chosen swordsmen.

btw, where does this leave the chosen spearmen?

"Did the Seleucids have medium xyston-bearing cavalry that usually went by another name?"
No and I believe that they stopped recruiting the Babylonian/Persian heavy cavalry styles, instead converting them to Hetairoi.

Good to know, thanks.

florin80 is right about the armenians. Here are the easiest reads about armenian cavalry:
http://www.armenian-history.com/Nyut...vy_cavalry.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ory_of_Armenia

There are others, but all I've encountered seem to refer to the book by Chapot.
In the second link the parts of interest are the early history - Armenia in antiquity and the description of the traditional arms and armour. True, the last one is dated from early medieval age, but given that the cavalry remained the main part of the armenian army I believe we can assume the antiquity counterparts were similar. So Armenia gets light cavalry (HA), semi-heavy cavalry(should be identical to the pontic thorakismenoi hippakontistai; not the hippakontistai which are very light) and heavy cavalry(cataphracts). And of course some crappy infantry for times of great danger or imperial delusions:wink:.

Interesting. Ok, I'll go for it.

One thing, though. Your conclusion that they used heavier armour (I prefer the English spelling, darnit) may well be right, but I don't think it follows from your logic here. By the early medieval age, metal armour may have been relatively cheaper. Could they have afforded it in antiquity?

I just tested it - they do have an elite phalanx unit. Its the epirote agema, which one gets after building royal barracks. It takes 3 turns to build and is 160 men strong on huge as opposed to 2 turns and 80-strong for the chaonian agema. The chaonians have bigger defence though, like 10 more...

(OT) Its funny how tough these guys are. In my first Epirote campaign, after I assessed the sorry state of my economy, I deicided that the chaonians will be the first to perish gloriously in battle (damn high maintanence cost!). So letting them take the full brunt of the battles, I took Corfinum. And then I beat the first roman army. And then I beat the second roman army. And then I took Capua(autoresolve). And then I took Ancona(autoresolve). And I still had like 12 of them.... The bloody bastards just won't die!

Yeah, I wanted Chaonians to be some of the best infantry in the game. Do you think they're unbalanced, though? I tried to make them just a little better than your average hypas.

I have built barracks(even royal barracks in Tarrentum). I have stables and practice range. When I right click on them, it says on the description that I should be able to recruit podromoi and peltastai. In the unit roster however is nothing - it's not that their icons are greyed out(like when you don't have money for example), they are just not present.

Hmmm, let me look into this.

Ok, I think I found the problem. Search for "aor greece macedon cavalry" in your EDU and give it the following ownership line (basically, you're just adding Epirus):

ownership        barbarian, carthaginian, eastern, egyptian, seleucid, epirus, macedon, thrace, romans_julii, romans_brutii, romans_scipii, slave

Then search for "aor greece skirmisher" and give it this ownership line (again, just adding Epirus):

ownership        barbarian, carthaginian, eastern, egyptian, seleucid, epirus, macedon, thrace, roman, slave

Thank you for catching that.

Thats too bad. I really get a kick out of how the eastern part of my kingdom has macedonian style armies and my western part relies on new, distinctly italian type of infantry. All my western armies simulate the roman legions, with epirote swordsmen instead of legionaries. Not to go into "what-if"s but I think Pyrrhus would have recognized their value, had things gone well for him.

Hmmm, I think you misunderstood me. The only reason I'm thinking about removing the Epirote swordsmen is that I think they're redundant. You'll still be able to recruit Samnites, Marsi, and Etruscan swordsman.

Speaking of which, are there any good Italian-style axemen out there? The Etruscans favored the axe over the sword, AFAIK.

(OT) I have not gone power hungry yet, so I don't know - are there epirote swordsman in Iberia and tarentine leukaspides in Asia Minor?

Nope, the Epirote swordsmen are strictly Italians. However, Tarentine leukaspides are recruitable anywhere there are Greeks. I think. I know they will be in 3.3.4, but I forget if that change is in 3.3.3.

Almost forgot, why do the tarentine leukaspides have bonus fightinng in deserts?(It says so on their description, at least).

Buggered if I know. I just checked and that's fixed in the dev build, so I don't think you're the first one who noticed that.

Not necessarily. As you have already seen, the Armenians kept using and were renowned for their cavalry throughout Antiquity and Medieval times, even though the landscape of their kingdoms was nowhere near big flat plains. The Bulgars of the first Bulgarian kingdom kept their cavalry based core of the army for almost three centuries after establishing Danubian Bulgaria. The only plain on their territories was modern day northern Bulgaria and that's not very big. It was not until the major part of their nobility was physically annahilated after the invasion of Kievan Rus and the subsequent Byzantine expeditions that they switched to more infantry based armies. The hungarians, after establishing their kingdom, reorganized their army in western style only after they suffered several crushing defeats at the hands of the germans. They switched from their light cavalry HA to heavy cavalry + infantry. By this time (10th century IIRC) this part of Europe had still large chunks of thick woodlands.

Your idea is definetly worth pondering, but the social fluctuationts that your system suggests happened either ahead of the time period of RTW, or rather slow. The marian reforms are in some ways analogous to what you propose(the issue of Roman citizenship) and this is represented in-game through script. Of course, the ExRM (or is it even from RTR?) has the roman citizenship building, but the point is, this thing happened after the Republic grew into a giant and faced entirely new political and social challenges.

That's food for thought on both sides of the argument, actually. You have a good point about how you're getting heavy cavalry in some pretty odd places (are you sure they weren't raising the cavalry in the plains south of the Danube or near the Black Sea?). I think that calls into serious question my plan to make some of the regions inflexibly one structure.

However, you also raise an interesting point about the importance of retooling that these cultures had to go through. I mean, these people aren't raising heavy infantry and horse archers from the same region, or heavy infantry and vast quantities of heavy cavalry. Even Alexander used relatively light troops (phalangitae are much cheaper to equip than hoplites, even if they take longer to drill into shape) along with all of his heavy cavalry.

Basically, I'm arguing that cavalry and infantry, in a closed system, are always a zero-sum game. You can have lots of one or the other, but nobody does lots of both (at least back then).

I personally like the direction that the RTR team is going with RTR VII : FOE and TIC - the branching of the administrative buildings. Each province has AOR roster - you can use it to the fullest, strike some balance with basic AOR units and some economics or go nuts as an economic center. So, if you have national heavy cavalry, you can still choose to train it in the Alps, or recruit the fierce native mountain warriiors that live there, but to get the mountainers to use horses of their own volition(which is how I percieve your idea) needs much more time and effort. If I understand you right, you propose changing the nation-wide roster in each province, depending on its social status/development. I find the nation-wide vs. AOR roster sufficient enough, and together with the TIC and FOE changes robust enough to allow for engulfing gameplay.

I see what you mean, but I just don't like the idea of raising hetairoi and hoplites in the same province. They seem to embody fundamentally different conceptions of society.

Also, could you explain what you mean by the different economic vs. recruitment buildings? I think it's just been too long since I played TIC (or read the FOE preview), and I'm not really following you.

EDIT:
The armoured javelineers - Thorakismenoi Hippakontistai. An axe-wielding horseman would be more like personal quirk and not a widespread practice though, I think.

Interesting. Ok, good to know.

Here is the article about the Thureophoroi

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sar...hikrates2.html

I think that giving Horse archers to dacians would not be accurate. Those may be the nomadic people who began to invade their territory an some units may be recruitable but only as mercenaries

An about the hoplite´s speed. I have the same problem with ALL of them. They just run pass my flanks and go to attack my cavañlry in the rear. I can hardly manage to take them with some fast units but even then only a few soldiers stay to fight and the rest of the units just keeps following my cavalry. I have lost many a good cavalry units that way.

The only efficient tactic to avoid the runnign hoplites i have found is to countercharge with other hoplites or extending my line way beyond them an puting all the cavalry in the middle rear so that the AI does not try those crazy attacks.

Are you sure about the Dacians? All of my research indicates that the Getae had quite good horse archers. (See, e.g., Ovid, although I don't think I should give them poison.)

As for the running hoplites, I checked and none of them should be going that fast. They're using the right skeletons. I'll look into this some more, but I'm not sure how much more I can do. Slowing them down further would require substantial graphical editing, and I have neither the tools nor the skill.

[AqD]

You could borrow the dacian units from Heirs of Atlantis II. I got them in my mod too
________
Group Sex Webcam

[florin80]

They should? Why? The EB people seem to think their heavy infantry should be limited to some hoplite imations

Actually they gave them pikemen with oval shields and mail armor. And an agema swordsman. But I`m not gonna enter in to any kind of comment about the eb units or we`ll never finish.
The swordsmen I was suggesting is based more on equipment find than on any clear representation of them for this period(I don`t think there is any). So you could make a sword unit to represent the followers of the local nobles. But I don`t see them as a hero type troop. More as better disciplined, better equipped than the regular warband unit. Giving them mail armor might be a bit much considering that these kind of finds are usually associated with aristocrat burials. People which you`ll find on horse back or as officers. So some sort of leather armor would be better imo.

Here's my current Dacian plan:
Skirmishers
Archers
Spear warband
Falxmen
Light cav
Horse archers
Noble cav

Any comments?

Seems right to me(besides the need for a swordsmen). And you could make the noble cav to be similar to the scytho-sarmatian lancers. There are a few representations depicting heavily armored horsemen in the scythian style. And then you have the equipment on the base of Trajan`s column that could be dacian after all. Sure, some people choose to see these as sarmatian or scythian and not thracian(i.e. geto-dacian), but you can very well consider them(as others do; osprey`s title on the dacians would be accessible to you I presume) geto-dacians borrowing in style from the steppe people leaving nearby or even among them. And rtr had a lancer(xystophoroi) of this kind so see how they react to giving permissions.
As for the swordsmen. I think they are required for gameplay tbh and, as I`ve said, different types of swords are found in their graves(besides the falx) so you could do a unit with a celtic long sword for example to represent the means by which the nobles were hanging on to power and guard their fortified settlements (all be it at a later date than the mod starts). I.e. permanent soldiers payed and equipped by them. It`s a speculation, but anyone honest would tell you that there are precise information on very very few of the units we use. The rest are all reconstructed without an existing description in one way or another.

Vaguely. I found an eastern-looking axeman from Attila Reloaded's BI mod that I'm thinking about using. Might be even better if they looked like the Cyrtians, although I'm not sure I want to make them Cyrtian yet. I need to learn more about the region.

I meant more in terms of sources and representations. I`ve seen various units mentioned for the region, but no clear depiction so I wonder if they need to be a distinct unit or not.

Which Pontic one, their prodromoi or the armoured javelineers? I've actually found a decent axe-armed one that I'm thinking about using.

The not armored one.

I was talking with Wien1938 about them awhile ago. He was arguing that those were more realistic than the sarissaphoroi.

Like this?
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5347/14oc.jpg
It has spear and javelins. And shield. The problem for you is that the shield has the seleucid anchor emblem.

You could borrow the dacian units from Heirs of Atlantis II. I got them in my mod too

Those are the ones I meant. He did a few more for rtr.

[Nakharar]

Let me say Armenias strength in the antiquity was the Nakharar, apart from the Nakharars there were some high class units like azats and gentronakan goond but not alot cataphracts shoundnt exsist however Nakharar Archers(mounted) should

Popular Armenian weapons were spear and sword Javelins were common amongst cavalry

[Wien1938]

I've thought about the Aspidophoroi replacing the Macedonian Hetairoi and when combined with the devastation of Macedonia and Thessaly (not as severe but bad from the army of Brennos - Delphi) by the time that the Macedonian cavalry are reconstructed, the fashion has moved to shields.
Antigonos III Doson took only his "sacred ile" in 222 BC to southern Greece. My guess is that he left the bulk of the cavalry behind to guard the northern borders against raids from the Illyrians or Thracians (usually happened when the royal army was away, hence short campaigns as king must hurry back to protect the kingdom).

Quinn, I think you're on the right lines about Ambacti. That would fit the bill nicely. Cool.
Chosen Spearmen - might be a mistake in identification. See below.
Changes to Gallic/Galatian troops. These fought in fairly close formations, probably similar to Roman formations and would rush at their enemies with berserk courage. Currently the sword formations are too open.

The Gallic infantry could probably be reworked as follows:
Heavy infantry (main type): sword and shield, with single spear thrown beforehand. Little record of Gauls fighting with spears, mainly known for swords.
Elite heavy infantry (type 1): naked fanatical infantry; armed with sword, shield and single spear thrown before charging. Naked fighting was beginning to die out in this period, so probably the bravest and strongest (professional?) warriors fought this way.
Elite heavy infantry (type 2): armoured ambracti infantry; armed with sword and shield, not sure about these using spear too. These could possibly be the generals bodyguards as judging from the behaviour of Gallic armies, the generals probably fought on foot.

Armenians and metal armour. There is sound evidence for cavalry from that region fighting in scale-metal armour.

Etruscan axemen: no evidence for this. They fought as hoplites, some in this period switching to using pila instead of spears; as light javelin skirmishers; or as armoured cavalry using spear and shield.

The trouble with Tarantine Leukaspides is that they were only around under Pyrrhus and that they were a direct result of his retraining of the citizen militia of Tarentum. And they don't show up in any other armies in our period, so I'm inclined to limit them to Epirote barracks/AOR and to Tarentum only.
Tarantine infantry were notably poor in 281 BC and Pyrrhus set about retraining them. It is probable that these were retrained either by Pyrrhus as phalangites, which would account for their poor reputation, though their being defeated on the first day of Asculum was due to the broken terrain on which the Romans fought.
(Side note: the Wikipedia articles on this subject are unreliable and highly speculative in my opinion.)

The Getae certainly fielded horse-archers. There is good archeological and literary evidence on this matter. The Getae were an independent and powerful tribe, strong enough to defeat Lysimachos severely enough to allow a peace treaty on their terms.

[Ramiro]

Etruscan axemen: no evidence for this. They fought as hoplites, some in this period switching to using pila instead of spears; as light javelin skirmishers; or as armoured cavalry using spear and shield.


The Getae certainly fielded horse-archers. There is good archeological and literary evidence on this matter. The Getae were an independent and powerful tribe, strong enough to defeat Lysimachos severely enough to allow a peace treaty on their terms.

I agree about the etruscans. The axe wielding warriors belong to a much earlier peroid.

About the getae. Maybe i understood they were form scythian origin and I am wrong, my mistake.

[Jamey]

The Gallic infantry could probably be reworked as follows:

Heavy infantry (main type): sword and shield, with single spear thrown beforehand. Little record of Gauls fighting with spears, mainly known for swords.

I'm having trouble with this from a logical standpoint. The Gauls are generally a poor people (relative to the civilized factions), and swords are expensive. In later time periods, the Norse (to pick a barbarian group I'm familiar with) used primarily axes and spears; swords were the province of the wealthy. I find it hard to believe that most or all of the Gallic warriors of the time used swords.

I also find it interesting that the retrained Gauls (Gallic Auxilia in the game) use spears. Presuming that this is historically accurate, I'd expect that the weapon chosen would be one that the Gauls have familiarity with.

[Iskandar]

As it is now, Tarentine Leukaspides are a touch better than the faction-wide available epirote phalangite. They have slightly better defence (due to armour, I think) and higher maintenance cost. I like Quinn's idea of what-if, so for me the question is whether they should be better than the regular phalangites or not. I like them as they are now, being slightly better and slightly costlier - given the tendency of greeks to fragment before and after Alexander, use of locally trained troops is justified. People who fight for their homes fight better and also put more economical pressure on the region since there is less workpower, so ther you have it.

@Quinn About the chaonians - in the hands of a human player, they are formidable - I have right now a unit with three gold chevrons and it has 50(!) defence... I haven't used the regular epirote agema, so I cannot make a comparison. When I play as Rome I always pull the garrisons and go straight for Pyrrhus with the enhanced two starting armies. Since one arrives one turn earlier I have two separate battles. In the first one I always loose, but bleed him dry(except just one time that I won by a narrow margin). In the second battle I rout them without too much problem. I have already said what happens when I play Epirus. When they are both controlled by the AI, Rome always looses ground at first, but comes back with vengeance after the 260 BC mark. So either slighlty nerf them, or leave em like that. If you nerf them, bear in mind that they are 80-strong on huge, as opposed to the 160-stron epirote agema which has 11 less defence.

As for Pontus - they did empoy Persian style heavy cavalry (this was before the time of the cataphracts though!) and Scythian/Sarmatian mercenary light cavalry. Whether they had armoured javelinmen I can only speculate, since now I don't have time to look for sources. I suggest leave them as they are, they're just really fun to play, right now .

@Nakharar The way I understand it, nakharar and azats represent social status - upper and lower class nobility. The questions is how they fought. It is reasonable to have the nakharars as extremely heavy cavalry - they were the richest of the richest. The azats would be more medium heavies, being the larger and lower nobility class(but still not light cavalry, given the Armenian propensity for heavy armour and sophisticated metalwork in general). I still can't find any definitive source on the use of light horse archers in that timeframe (280-100 BC). I suggest having the azats as armoured javelinmen, with mace/sword as secondary weapon. Like the pontic thorakismenoi hippakontistai, perhaps with slightly better stats. As for the nakharars - they were mentioned as similar to the sassanian savaran in a later time period. So it is either heavy lancers or cataphracts for them. There is also the question if you make them only general's bodyguard or a regular unit. We should open perhaps another thread on the armenian subject alone.
Also, could you please explain what are the gentronakan goond? A google search turned up only with two entries being your posts in other threads on the TWC forums.

[AqD]

As for Pontus - they did empoy Persian style heavy cavalry (this was before the time of the cataphracts though!) and Scythian/Sarmatian mercenary light cavalry. Whether they had armoured javelinmen I can only speculate, since now I don't have time to look for sources. I suggest leave them as they are, they're just really fun to play, right now .

Armoured javelinmen is the common style for old persian cavalry. They're very heavy armoured but still being skirmisher, probably due to the lack of saddle.
________
AmazingLady