Realistic numbers in units, mixed weapons + male and female warriors for celts/barbs please!

[Amorphos]

Realistic numbers in units, mixed weapons + male and female warriors for celts/barbs please!

Celtic units should have some armoured , some semi armoured and naked warriors all in one unit. They would use any weapons they had and would contain men and women [naturally we dont expect naked female warriors [though we will be making them ].

Ps. Can we have one text file at least please! Just one for units, something like EDU from rome 1.

[Fabricus]

If what I saw of the Republican Romans are real screenshots I have a feeling the Gauls are going to look great, but yeah extra diversity for their soldiers would be nice.

Please no superhuman berserkers though, those guys were really dumb in the first game and in mods, hopefully they will make the Germanic factions like EB did.

[hochmeister devin]

Theres a 99.9% chance there wont be any text files since binary are faster for loading. Anyways just download the pfm, it gives the same effect.

[IGdood]

Mixed weapons have been confirmed within a unit in the UK PC gamer.

www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=548684

[Hresvelgr]

Women warriors among the Celts and other "barbarians" weren't as common as you'd think. There were a few famous ones and maybe some others here and there, but they didn't show up in enough numbers to justify making game units diverse in gender to any degree. Even if they were more equal than other societies, fighting women were still the exception rather than the norm.

[MasterBigAb]

I like your idea of some nations/cultures having those totally mixed armies. However it might be hard to implement that easily, for the will all have equal stats which would be somehow unrealistic either, don't you think ?!

[Amorphos]

Please no superhuman berserkers though,

didn’t the celts and Germanic tribes have berserkers though? …but rather than super strength they probably just caused chaos.
Hmm come to think of it I expect pretty much all of them were like that lol.

Anyways just download the pfm, it gives the same effect.

Ah ok thanks. Text files can be converted to binary, I cant imagine anyone can actually read/write in binary ~ can they? CA probably just convert text to binary themselves.

Mixed weapons have been confirmed within a unit in the UK PC gamer.

Cool, but they also need mixed warrior types and sexes ~ a kind of blend of many units would do the trick.

Women warriors among the Celts and other "barbarians" weren't as common as you'd think. There were a few famous ones and maybe some others here and there, but they didn't show up in enough numbers to justify making game units diverse in gender to any degree. Even if they were more equal than other societies, fighting women were still the exception rather than the norm.

I thought often entire tribes apart from old people and children fought?

I like your idea of some nations/cultures having those totally mixed armies. However it might be hard to implement that easily, for the will all have equal stats which would be somehow unrealistic either, don't you think ?!

Hmm the stats could be difficult, but I cannot imagine them being that sophisticated anyway. So they will just get a unit stat the same as any other.
Would be great if each soldier had an effect, each weapon and all variations of armour, but that’s a lot of stats ~ maybe Twrome_20 will have that.

.

[Hresvelgr]

I thought often entire tribes apart from old people and children fought?

Uh, what made you think that? Some ancient writer using a second hand source? Popular stereotypes? Because it's both wrong and not even feasible.

[bob_2000]

Uh, what made you think that? Some ancient writer using a second hand source? Popular stereotypes? Because it's both wrong and not even feasible.

Probably has its origins in the Bouddican revolt. The rebels apparently brought their entire family/tribe/whatever along for the pillaging and answered for it once the XVth and XIVth took a stand.

edit: Tacitus may mention it, actually.

[Hresvelgr]

Probably has its origins in the Bouddican revolt. The rebels apparently brought their entire family/tribe/whatever along for the pillaging and answered for it once the XVth and XIVth took a stand.

edit: Tacitus may mention it, actually.

Yeah, this could be one of the origins of the myth. Most people gloss over the fact that the rebels' families didn't actually fight though. At Watling Street they just watched their loved ones charge the Roman lines and inadvertently trapped them when they tried to run.

And taking Romans at their word regarding numbers is usually a mistake.

[athanaric]

Women warriors were a rare commodity in any age, no matter what some crazy non-historians say. It would be completely realistic for Barbarian factions (including steppe nomads) in the game to have no women units or mixed gender units at all, because statistically they weren't relevant. Anyone who disagrees should provide us with solid proof for the abundance of female warriors. And before it happens, "solid proof" doesn't mean quoting the embellished accounts of some ancient authors.

I thought often entire tribes apart from old people and children fought?

That's more likely a measure of desparation, by communities standing with their backs to the wall.

edit: seems I'm not the first one to say that....

Not to rain on your parade, but archaeology would like to disagree. While I am not qualified to speak about any tradition (or lack thereof) of women fighting among the Celts, there is strong circumstantial evidence for women warriors among the Indo-Iranian peoples of the Steppe. I quote from Professor Jonathan P. Roth's Teaching Company video lecture series, War and World History: "In some cases, up to 30% of female burials (among Iranian steppe peoples) contain weapons."

Weapons don't necessarily indicate a warrior, though. First you'll have to distinguish between ceremonial weapons and actual weapons. I'd like to know how many of those 30% fit into the latter category. Same for other war gear. Then, there's the question of whether these weapons were for defensive or offensive purposes. In a nomadic horsemen culture, it makes sense to teach the women archery and a few other tricks, in case the camp (or the tribe, while it is on the move) is attacked (nomads love to raid each other). Hell, when I have daughters, I'll probably teach them how to use handguns and knives for self defense, and that's in a civilized sedentary society.
Bottom line, while it's usually advantageous to have women capable of some fighting, there's still someone who has to do all the household chores. And seeing as women are the weaker sex (physically speaking...) and most of them dislike physical combat anyway, there's your answer.

[athanaric]

To reinforce your point in the middle ages women went on hunts as they did in the rennaisance and enlightenment it doesn't mean they were in the line infantry at Waterloo.

Good point, I forgot about hunting weapons.

[Wodeson]

It was rare to see women on the battlefield, but siege warfare was a different matter.

[Dargaron]

Anyone who disagrees should provide us with solid proof for the abundance of female warriors. And before it happens, "solid proof" doesn't mean quoting the embellished accounts of some ancient authors.

Just curious, what exactly constitutes "Solid Proof"? Even Europa Barbarorum resorts to speculation at some points:

It can be supposed that, while the original cavalry-oriented element of their ancestors had been maintained, the Indo-Saka also employed native and Greek troops who were mainly infantry-oriented, and thus a general increase in the amount of infantry in their armed forces.

Historically, most of what we know of ancient Indian armies comes from Kautilyaâ's Arthashastra (a manual on statecraft) and sparse depictions in Buddhist art (notably at Barhut and Ajanta).

Considering the paucity of sources, especially for the north-eastern steppe regions (which, admittedly, may not even be included in Rome II), "Solid Proof" might be less substantial than that for the practices of the Roman or Gallic armies, for instance. One may have to turn to archaeology, which by definition requires interpretation.

That and the fact that if burial ground held such material, it would probably be on an individual level and not a colective one, which essentially means that we're speaking of persons who are high on the social ladder of the community, which again, isn't sufficient evidence to make a unit of women soldiers.

Again, I am not arguing for the inclusion of a unit of women soldiers. Mainly, I was reacting against the very strong statements of Blatta Optima Maxima that:

"The only conceivable place for women to fight in a host would be among the chariotry, because that requires none of these things."

"For every female warrior we hear about, there were a hundred thousand males no one bothers to write about, BECAUSE MEN HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE ABSOLUTE 99.999...% MAJORITY AMONG COMBATANTS."

Just because there isn't a strong tradition of women fighting in Western Eurasia, does not mean that one can instantly assume that this applies to all regions. Even if it is not worth it to include a unit of female soldiers, or even to include female models in various units (which I believe is so), it would be going too far to say that no society ever had a positive or neutral view of female warriors.

For what it's worth, I think that Amorphos has gone slightly too far in his reasoning as well (not that I'm particularly qualified to judge), especially in post #16, and that his sources are worth questioning (although his last post is much better). It's just that Blatta Optima Maxima's post warranted a response.

[Sharpe]

I would like to see slight height differences between Celts and Mediterraneans.Forgive the n00b question but am I right in believing there were height differences back then because ethnicities didnt mix as much?

[Amorphos]

Probably has its origins in the Bouddican revolt. The rebels apparently brought their entire family/tribe/whatever along for the pillaging and answered for it once the XVth and XIVth took a stand.

edit: Tacitus may mention it, actually.

Yes that’s it. I think it was in the annals of rome? Or the germanica.
I was also going by the vast numbers the british tribes appeared to have, I think the Caledonians were supposed to have put out 80,000 when the population of Britain was around 4 million with 10-12 tribes which averages around 400/500,000 people per tribe. When you take out the elderly, children the ill and injured, the priests and others who don’t fight, then if you also take half the population out [women] then I don’t know how you get 80,000 warriors.

Naturally the romans could have been lying about the numbers

I would like to see slight height differences between Celts and Mediterraneans.Forgive the n00b question but am I right in believing there were height differences back then because ethnicities didnt mix as much?

Well germans are still bigger than say Spanish even today [Spanish share a genetic line with the Chinese interestingly]. If I remember correctly the romans were in awe of how large germans were. Not sure about celts, especially Iberian celts like Britons.

.

[Shocked]

I would like to see slight height differences between Celts and Mediterraneans.Forgive the n00b question but am I right in believing there were height differences back then because ethnicities didnt mix as much?

Germans are still bigger today.

[sleepyx732]

I'm going to assume peasants will be in Rome II just like they were in Rome I.

Throw a couple females in there.. problem solved.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Not entirely mixed units, though. The warrior class - warbands of nobles - should fight separately, in close groups. I'd suggest skirmishers with bows, slings and javelins in one unit, freemen with melee weapons in another one, unfree conscripts in their own and two warrior units - one infantry, one cavalry.


Furthermore, these units should greatly vary in size depending on the tribe they've been levied from, and a random factor on top of that. Only 1 of each per tribe, unless it's the main one. That way, each army would get levied from whatever tribes inhabit the province, turning up with a number of troops that matches their size and wealth. This would work because the Celtic factions were confederacies of many tribes, rather than one centralized tribe each. Also, no women. Boudicca was an exception because she was a queen.

[Asgaroth]

Realistic numbers in units, mixed weapons + male and female warriors for celts/barbs please!

I would like to add that they could put female generals.... Queen Teuta of the Illyrians for example.