Celtic Balancing Issues?

[Revan The Great]

I think that the two Celtic factions may need a little bit of fine-tuning in what they recruit. Playing as Post-Marian Romans in 586 I notice more and more that the Arverni and what little of the Belgae I've seen are pumping out more and more elite stacks, such as this one.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Note that there are four units of Arverni champions. My Legions are beginning to become outperformed, since I'm playing on hard battle difficulty I guess the AI gets some bonuses, but with so many elite, hardcore heavy infantry units its hard to ever get a big rout going until I take massive casualties, which is always a pain as Rome since you have to send a mauled legion back to its home city before it can fight again.

Historically the Romans often defeated their Celtic adversaries because the very best of the Celts (a chieftain and his immediate household and lesser nobles) would be equal to a Roman Legionary, since they'd be armed in mail, with a helm and shield/longsword. Everyone else would generally go to battle with little or no armor and poorer quality weapons. Right now I'm seeing alot of Celtic stacks with many units of heavy infantry, so they don't get thinned out much by ranged attacks and consequently it's a meatgrinder of Legionaries-on-Champions until one side finally routs, leaving the other guys with 50% or more casualties.

I recommend a fair increase in price and upkeep for 'Heavy Swordsmen' and 'Champion' type units for the Arverni and Belgae, so as to make them more under-represented in a Gallic army, and take whatever measures necessary to promote a wider usage of the lesser-to-medium quality units among the Gauls. In particular you might also think about lowering their morale a bit, but I'm not entirely sure yet.

Tonight I'm going to play some more as the Romans and take screenshots of battles and army compositions and hopefully have more facts later. Can anyone corroborate the observations in this post? I'm particularly interested to see what people who have fought Germans or Getai think about their balance.

Conclusions

• Arverni Champions are probably a little bit better than legionaries, with better attack stats and 40 more soldiers. I may test in a custom battle later.
• Gauls make too many of their stronger troops, and should make more 'cannon fodder'. Not necessarily a problem in terms of difficulty. I want the Gauls to make two stacks of okay-soldiers with a few heavies instead of one stack with a whole lot of heavies.
• Marian Legionaries are in general kind of underwhelming. Does anyone else think so? Their morale is certainly good, but they die sort-of quickly and I think their attack value is probably much too low. Granted, they use a shortsword but a Gladius was noted as an especially lethal weapon - it would be thrust up into your gut and basically disembowel you for a one-hit-kill.
• Legionary AOR's are admittedly pretty good so far. I can recruit something like three or four legions in the provinces directly adjacent to the alps with another four-ish legions just a little further south, so logistics of maintaining an Alpine war aren't too much of a pain at least. Maybe add a few more Legions to South-and-Central Italy so that an invasion of Macedon or Carthage is more natural-feeling?

Once again I'd like to hear other people's observations on Roman Legions and Celtic-Army balance. I'll find out more myself through play-testing later.

[chaplain118]

Historically the Romans often defeated their Celtic adversaries because the very best of the Celts (a chieftain and his immediate household and lesser nobles) would be equal to a Roman Legionary, since they'd be armed in mail, with a helm and shield/longsword. Everyone else would generally go to battle with little or no armor and poorer quality weapons. Right now I'm seeing alot of Celtic stacks with many units of heavy infantry, so they don't get thinned out much by ranged attacks and consequently it's a meatgrinder of Legionaries-on-Champions until one side finally routs, leaving the other guys with 50% or more casualties.

boy mulattothrasher's gonna be pissed when he reads this

EDIT:
There's a reason why Caesar's conquest of Gaul was considered an accomplishment. There's a reason why Romans spend more than a century pacifying Spain. There's a reason why Gallic mercenaries were hired by the Romans well into the Principate.

You're also using half a legion

Also, looking just at this picture, the heavy champions are 4 out of 14 units, that's 2/7, which really isn't that bad. If it were 10 out of 14 being the heavy champions, then it's time for reconsideration, but at the current moment, the army looks pretty diverse and should be fine.

[Ballacraine]

I am in a simlar situation in that respect in my campaign.

I don't question the balancing of the army, so much as the sheer quantities of stacks they are able to throw at Taurasia, turn after turn, whilst still expanding into Iberia.

Balla.

[Revan The Great]

boy mulattothrasher's gonna be pissed when he reads this

I don't see why that statement I made is so out of bounds. When the Gauls went to war they called up people from all over the country - farmers, hunters, etc who wouldn't be able to afford a full suit of chainmail, a helm, a shield, and a good quality sword. Afterall, remember that the State paid for the Roman Legionaries' equipment. If it's so easy for rural people to afford the panopoly of war, then why did the Roman Treasury bother shilling out money for coats of mail and all of that stuff? And believe me, the average Gaul was probably poorer in terms of wealth than the average Italian. There are repeated references in literature that a Celtic Chieftain would deck himself out in equipment equivalent to a Roman Legionaire, and generally whoever else he could afford to outfit would also have good gear. Everyone else brought what they could find in the back of the woodshed.

reason why Gallic mercenaries were hired by the Romans well into the Principate.

You're also using half a legion

Also, looking just at this picture, the heavy champions are 4 out of 14 units, that's 2/7, which really isn't that bad. If it were 10 out of 14 being the heavy champions, then it's time for reconsideration, but at the current moment, the army looks pretty diverse and should be fine.

4 out of 16 units is 25% super elite heroic warrior-champions, when in all reality there should be one of those per stack. I consider their role, both historical and gameplay-wise to be similar to that of Spartan Promachoi, very small numbers but pretty elite.

And I fail to see how I'm using half a legion.

am in a simlar situation in that respect in my campaign.

I don't question the balancing of the army, so much as the sheer quantities of stacks they are able to throw at Taurasia, turn after turn, whilst still expanding into Iberia.

Maybe your experience is different, but I get 2-3 stacks every several turns (without the Arverni expanding into Iberia). Maybe for some reason the AI in my campaign emphasizes quality over quantity? What sorts of units compose your Arverni adversaries' armies?

[Ballacraine]

I am using Alex.exe base

Mine seem to be fairly well balanced, roughly 20% elite / veteran
40% solid heavy infantry & the remainder cavalry & skirmishers.

My issue is with the quantity of stacks they throw at me.

Taurasia is beseiged every turn, usually with a full stack.
This has been going on for about 15 game years.

They have also taken about a third of Iberia.

Balla.

[Revan The Great]

So what you're saying is

A. The Gauls are only using 'Elite' and 'Solid Heavy' infantry. Not much low-quality stuff?

B. Do you think that the (presumably) Arverni should be toned down if they're sending a stack to besides you every single turn while also actively expanding into Iberia? I take it that by 'My issue' you mean you think it's a problem that should be addressed?

[Ballacraine]

No, not much in the way of low quality units.

Yes, I do think so & have posted to that effect on the 'Rome' thread.

Balla.

[Mulattothrasher]

There probably shouldn't be that many champions in a Celtic army. Chainmailed units should not exceed 20-30% of an army. Not sure what to suggest to correct this...

[Revan The Great]

boy mulattothrasher's gonna be pissed when he reads this

I note that Mr. Mulattothrasher seems to agree with my views on Celtic armies almost completely.

[tone]

I think if we can reduce Arverni's income a little, things should improve. Unit cost is a fine balance, though, which is why I'm not suggesting any changes at the moment - if you make expensive units too expensive, you end up virtually never seeing them in the early game.

I wonder though, whether leaving things nearly at where they are at the moment, and trying testing on medium campaign difficulty would be the answer. There are those who really do want the ultimate challenge and are prepared to grind things out for years against hard opponents.

[Ballacraine]

Yes, and I count myself among them.

In twenty game years hampering any expansion North
The Arverni are relentless in every turn....
Seige Taurasia.

Like I said it gets beyond irritation into boredom.

Too much, too long.

Balla.