Faction Colours on the tactical battlefield - customisable please

[Destraex]

We are told that each Roman Unit had its own colours on its Shields.
I want to be able to customise my legionary colours according to historical shield and colours of real legions. Less of the stereo-typical red for Rome and white for CArthage.

I also want to see individual colours for barbarian shields and other factions that would be less uniform than Rome.

Give us the loose individual formations and the speed of the barbarians this time around.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Barbarians should be good fighters, but more expensive. The real reson the Gauls were crushed was that the Romans could always field more men/had field fortifications.

[Destraex]

Barbarians would be good fighters 1 vs 1 but not vs an entire legion fighting as one.

However their are examples of Roman Armies being whipped by the gauls\germans. And these are just the accounts we know about. The romans rarely wrote about battles they lost.

Examples:
390bc Allia R - Gallic invasion. Rome was sacked by the gauls shortly after this battle and it is considered one of the blackest days in roman history
113bc Noreia - Teutones and cimbri route three roman armies within a few years
105BC Arausio - Invasion of the teutones and cimbri - 80,000 romans soldiers die in a battle that routes the romans.
9bc - Teutoburg Forest - three roman Legions are destroyed by germanic tribes
Julius Caesar is driven from Britain. Cannot remember the date.
60 AD - Queen Boudica - think she beat a small detachment? Not a Legion?
Various Slave Rebellions - Most famous being Sparticus where a large portion of the rebels would have been Gaulish.
Vercingetorix - Rebelled and held out well but I do not think he destroyed any legions?

Tigurini as a tribe are mentioned as humiliating Rome in the past but no record of any battles are in Roman histories at least that I can fine???!!!! Prime example of slanted Roman bias.

For the most part though the Romans had better armour and tactics\training. Most engagements were Roman wins hands down. But then we don't have much written history for the gauls or germans

[Asgaroth]

We are told that each Roman Unit had its own colours on its Shields.
I want to be able to customise my legionary colours according to historical shield and colours of real legions. Less of the stereo-typical red for Rome and white for CArthage.

I also want to see individual colours for barbarian shields and other factions that would be less uniform than Rome.

Give us the loose individual formations and the speed of the barbarians this time around.

I like the idea and I don't see a big problem of realising it, especially that after ETW you had 3-4 different soldiers in a unit. So I will hold my fingers crossed in order that this idea lives.

Barbarians should be good fighters, but more expensive. The real reson the Gauls were crushed was that the Romans could always field more men/had field fortifications.

The reason why Gauls lost is becasue of Roman army discipline and formations. Barbarians only relyed on crude force and didn't have any formations or discipline. Also, Romans was just one of the states in that time that had a professional army, so they were trained and payed to fight, while on the otherside I didn't heard that barbarians had that. They maybe had higher warriors, like nobles, but not a proffesional army.

I read about tuetoberg forest and also a lot earlier the romans lost three legions to the teutons. And these are just the accounts we know about. The romans rarely wrote about battles they lost.
Barbarians would be good fighters 1 vs 1 but not vs an entire legion fighting as one.

The only two place Rome could never conquere were the dark forests of Germania and North of Hadrian's walls. That is because Roman army wasn't used to guerilla fighting and ambushes. Germans and the Britons used that and often ambushed Roman legions in huge numbers, so the Romans eventually lost.

[Granmaa]

I'd love to see a bit of individualism with regards to units. From what I've read they are going for the whole legion thing, with each having it's own history and traits, which would be awesome! I'd love to haves few kick ass legions who are thought of as elite because they've kicked trillions of Gaul ass and then have a newly formed legion of rookies out to gain honour. I think it's this kind of narrative CA mean when they say they want to bring the emotional stuff out in this game, it's about story. Hell, maybe Generals who have won too many battles will turn on Rome...Julius anyone???

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I like the idea and I don't see a big problem of realising it, especially that after ETW you had 3-4 different soldiers in a unit. So I will hold my fingers crossed in order that this idea lives.

The reason why Gauls lost is becasue of Roman army discipline and formations. Barbarians only relyed on crude force and didn't have any formations or discipline. Also, Romans was just one of the states in that time that had a professional army, so they were trained and payed to fight, while on the otherside I didn't heard that barbarians had that. They maybe had higher warriors, like nobles, but not a proffesional army.



The only two place Rome could never conquere were the dark forests of Germania and North of Hadrian's walls. That is because Roman army wasn't used to guerilla fighting and ambushes. Germans and the Britons used that and often ambushed Roman legions in huge numbers, so the Romans eventually lost.

Stereotyped , recent findings showed that Teutoburg Battle was actually fought in an open field, the Romans were simply outfought by the Germans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtxSeGkeyKk

For your information, the Germans used advanced tactics such as shield walls, phalanxes, combined arms tactics with light infantry accompaying the cavalry and wedge charges of infantry locally called "Boars Head". In fact the Germanic cavalry was some of the finest in all of Europe at this time.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Oh please, spare me the stupid misconceptions. Discipline doesn't really matter, neither do formations. Wars are won by the side which can field more men and supply them better. And organize them, so that their army doesn't collapse.


Finally, luck plays an important part, as does terrain.

[a tw player]

Oh please, spare me the stupid misconceptions. Discipline doesn't really matter, neither do formations. Wars are won by the side which can field more men and supply them better. And organize them, so that their army doesn't collapse.

[eighthgear]

Oh please, spare me the stupid misconceptions. Discipline doesn't really matter, neither do formations. Wars are won by the side which can field more men and supply them better. And organize them, so that their army doesn't collapse.


Finally, luck plays an important part, as does terrain.

You are spot on. For example, look at how the Briton army lead by Boudica beat the Romans at Watling Street. The Romans had discipline, and fought in a strong formation (repeating wedges to form what would look like a saw blade from above), but Boudica had the home-field advantage, massive numerical superiority, and chariots that allowed her to command her army effectively.

Oh wait.

Whoops.

The Romans won.

Watling Street proves that discipline and formations can be highly important. Numbers and the ability to command are also highly important (the lack of command cost Harold Longshanks the Battle of Hastings despite the discipline and strong shield-wall formation of his Anglo-Saxon infantry, for example). They are all factors, and they all matter. Saying that some don't is stupid.

[Drtad]

Numbers and the ability to command are also highly important (the lack of command cost Harold Longshanks the Battle of Hastings despite the discipline and strong shield-wall formation of his Anglo-Saxon infantry, for example).

Well he was a decent commander, except his army was a little beat up. If by lack of command you mean an arrow went through his skull preventing him from commanding then yes.

[eighthgear]

Well he was a decent commander, except his army was a little beat up. If by lack of command you mean an arrow went through his skull preventing him from commanding then yes.

Harold was a skilled leader, if not brilliant. What I was referring to was that unlike William, he fought on foot. This made it harder for him to relay orders - like to stop breaking the shield wall to charge after retreating Normans - and also exposed him to danger. William and his subordinates could ride around to tell their men what to do. Harold really couldn't do that.

[Asgaroth]

And organize them, so that their army doesn't collapse.

And formations and discipline are part of the organisation of the army.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

And formations and discipline are part of the organisation of the army.

Nope. It's all about the administrative layout, which the Romans had while most other armies were individuals bringing their followings with them. A measure of discipline helps somewhat, but it's got nothing to do with battlefield formations and how orderly they look.


You are making the mistake of looking at armies as something that only exists for pitched battles, when many (most?) wars have been fought and decided without a single proper battle. And victory on the battlefield doesn't mean victory in the war, as our friend Pyrrhus proved with his nice, tidy formations, and elephants.

[athanaric]

Back on topic, an army painter like in Dawn of War would be great, for working in one's own colour schemes and heraldic symbols. Both for historical accuracy (good for modders) and fun (get Communist Romans, for example).

[Destraex]

I'd like to see each legion with a historical colour scheme according to number if at all possible.

[Asgaroth]

Stereotyped , recent findings showed that Teutoburg Battle was actually fought in an open field, the Romans were simply outfought by the Germans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtxSeGkeyKk

Second I made my post sound bad because I was talking about the Gauls in general, but then I said :

Barbarians only relyed on crude force and didn't have any formations or discipline.

where I made a mistake because I was refering to the Gauls but I forgot to wright that.

Nice to hear that it was fought on an opened field, something new I have learned.

I just wanted to say that the Barbarians were more prone of using the elemet of surprise, ambush, due to their homelands which were covered in forests.

For your information, the Germans used advanced tactics such as shield walls, phalanxes, combined arms tactics with light infantry

Again, you are attacking without a reason....

I know that and that after Arminius came back to the Germans he teached them some disciplines and warfare tactics. I know they have used phalanx formations, shield walls, etc..

accompaying the cavalry and wedge charges of infantry locally called "Boars Head".

Never heared of that, source maybe ?

In fact the Germanic cavalry was some of the finest in all of Europe at this time.

I agree.


Thanks for the video anyways.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I know that and that after Arminius came back to the Germans he teached them some disciplines and warfare tactics. I know they have used phalanx formations, shield walls, etc..

Never heared of that, source maybe ?

Out of lazyness I just post a wikilink regarding the Boar's Snout formation:

Germanic wedge formations

Keilerkopf or Keil (wild boar´s head, wedge, Latin: cuneus, meaning throng[2]) is a German phrase to describe the attack formation ("Tactical body") of the prehistoric infantry of the Celts and Germanic tribes. It is generally believed that the Germanic tribes were more successful with this tactic than the Celts. It was used to force the Roman forces to split and was later applied specifically to the weakest units.
Due to the high difficulty of this formation and the relatively high probability to fail it is assumed that the front lines were filled with the best warriors of the Germanic sibbs who had to break the Roman front line.
Here the individual warrior tried to gain fame and glory in the battle. The most distinguished princes and their acolytes stood at the head of the Keil. However, this was also the greatest mortal threat. But an army leader who survived a lost battle had forfeited his life (usually suicide). Warriors who had fled were hanged or slain.
According to the Roman historian Tacitus, the Keil was a tightly packed crowd, strong on all sides, not only in front and back, but also on the flanks.[3] The formation was not like a wedge but more like a rectangle with forty warriors in the first line and 1,600 men strong. In this formation, the wingmen are at most risk. It was therefore well possible that the wing marched with some caution and held back a bit, so that the center stormed further and looked like a wedge. The outer ranks of the rear on the other hand swelled slightly. The goal was to hit hard at the same time and to drive a 40 yard wide hole into the enemy line, according to the German historian Hans Delbrück.[2]
When the Germanic Keil was advancing against the enemy, they sang the baritus or barditus, the battle song (battle cry); it begins with a muffled grumbling and swells with the heat of the battle up to the roar of the waves beating against the rocks. According to Germanic legend and Tacitus, Hercules once visited German soil and they sang of him first of all heroes.[4]

According to Roman sources, when the Germanic Tribes did fight pitched battles, the infantry often adopted wedge formations, each wedge being led by a clan head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wedge

Anyway the Germanic warriors were very dedicated and also flexible in adopting new tactics, their main weakness against the Romans were their inability to unite into a large fighting force except temporary during times of crisis, but when they did the Romans tended to be in big trouble.

[David93]

Second I made my post sound bad because I was talking about the Gauls in general, but then I said :

where I made a mistake because I was refering to the Gauls but I forgot to wright that.

Nice to hear that it was fought on an opened field, something new I have learned.

I just wanted to say that the Barbarians were more prone of using the elemet of surprise, ambush, due to their homelands which were covered in forests.

Which barbarians are we talking about? Carthage, Greece Parthia? Im not sure where your getting your information? The "barbarians" were much less barbaric than rome, however i assume we are talking about the celts as the barbarians? Who the romans described as preforming human sacrifice and never washed? Well rome killed up to 5000 people a day in the arena, while they said that carthage, gaul, britons, dacians practiced human sacrifice, anybody seeing the roman propaganda here? While the barbarians in fact used soap, had elected kings and had a society were women could be equal when they were little more than property in rome...
the celts had a sophisticated road system which the romans then co-opted and for all their talk of human sacrifice and civilisation they conquered gaul for the gold mines...


Again, you are attacking without a reason....

I know that and that after Arminius came back to the Germans he teached them some disciplines and warfare tactics. No, no, no, no, no to just think that people believe that they all just ran pell mell into the roman swords before herman came back from rome and taught them some tactics lol I know they have used phalanx formations, shield walls, etc..
Formations phalanxs and shield walls rather dispute the view of the individual celtic warrior?




Never heared of that, source maybe ?



I agree.


Thanks for the video anyways.

Terry jones barbarians is a good watch, you should watch it.

[TheNewb]

AWESOME IDEA! Fully support this!

[Spetsnaz GRU]

Blatta, spare us the stupid misconceptions, or rather, just your stupidity in general. Discipline plays a huge role in an army, just look at a for example Rome. You even contradict yourself later in your self-righteous speech.