Campaign

[the roman]

is it just me or is gual way to strong i ma playing as rome and every time my men attack gulish units most of the time the get destroyed

[the roman]

i think i might reinstall eb because i have had the worst luke in it

[Entropy Judge]

1) It's just you.
2) Gaesatae are some of the beastiest melee guys in the game.
3) General combat tip: Never, ever get into an even fight.

[the roman]

ya i bet them now but i had 2 use money cheat to get more units

[Samariten]

Early on form alliance ( i know alliances dont mean ) and every turn bribe the aedui with about 500 mnai. That works for me but i always forget it some turns and eventually they attack me :p
But they are not to hard i beat them with camillan roster.

[The Kybrothilian]

You have to beat them like the Romans did historically: With superior numbers, tactics and economy.

[Samariten]

You have to beat them like the Romans did historically: With superior numbers, tactics and economy.

Historically Caesar did not have superior numbers in his campigns and he had huge debts.

[JaM]

Not sure Romans ever had superior numbers against Gauls.. but maybe they just overrated enemy numbers which is always popular with victors..

[The Kybrothilian]

Not sure Romans ever had superior numbers against Gauls.. but maybe they just overrated enemy numbers which is always popular with victors..

Historically Caesar did not have superior numbers in his campigns and he had huge debts.

Didn't Caesar often have local superiority in numbers when he moved to attack individual tribes?

[Xerrop]

is it just me or is gual way to strong i ma playing as rome and every time my men attack gulish units most of the time the get destroyed

What units are you using? Usually Roman troops are superior to Gaulish ones when having equal numbers. But you need some time developing your economy to recruit enough armies matching the Gaulish ones. And even better have larger armies than your enemies to guarantee a victory.

Not sure Romans ever had superior numbers against Gauls.. but maybe they just overrated enemy numbers which is always popular with victors..

Well economy and logistics of the Romans saved their days. Roman legions were full time warriors who could stay for months in enemy territories thanks to their supply logistics.
While the Gauls could muster large armies but had no large colons of logistic personal or vehicles. Most of their armies relied on their own supply they brought from their homes. So after a week or two they had to disband large parts of their levy armies and only some core warriors were ready to fight.
That is the reason why the Romans under Caesar avoided a head on fight when discovering the enemy. They only had to wait till the Gauls run out of supply and then attacked after many of the enemy levies had to leave their camp due to provisions problems. So initially the Gauls may had superior numbers when starting a campaign but in the actual battles the Romans outnumbered their enemies in most battles probably.

[JaM]

but the situation wasn't as dire as he described either... Caesar had tendency overstating things in his favor..

[Frtigern]

My question is difficulty. Is he playing on M/M or something else. Once I moved up my battles to hard, I definitely saw a difference.

[CTD_or_Bust]

In Gallic Wars he claims to be outnumbered in well over half of the battles. Some of his claims exceed a hundred thousand Gauls against legions that were rarely listed as greater than 10,000 in number. So yeah.. it's kinda assumed he exaggerated the numbers for political gain

[JaM]

not just during Gallic wars... for example Caesar reported 300 dead on his side after battle of Pharsalus. Others reported about 1200 killed..

[Samariten]

That Caesar exaggerated the enemy numbers one can assume, but it does not mention that Caesars legions were superior in numbers. I mean when you read about his campign in Gaul you dont come to the conclusion that Rome won by being superior in numbers and that was the key to victory. When reading about Caesar it is more like the factor for conquering Gaul was discipline, equipment, engineering and adaption.

[Jive]

That Caesar exaggerated the enemy numbers one can assume, but it does not mention that Caesars legions were superior in numbers. I mean when you read about his campign in Gaul you dont come to the conclusion that Rome won by being superior in numbers and that was the key to victory. When reading about Caesar it is more like the factor for conquering Gaul was discipline, equipment, engineering and adaption.

Probably true. At Aquae Sextiae they were outnumbered something like three to one but still decisively triumphed. At Alesia Julius Caesar may have been outnumbered five or six to one. Suetonius fought off Boedicea with a "documented" fantastic kill ratio, but even allowing for exaggeration it was quality vs quantity.

The History Channel quoted Josephus regarding the constant, strenuous training the legionaries endured: "Their drills are bloodless battles and their battles are bloody drills." They weren't as socially regimented as the Spartans, but in its prime the Roman legion was almost certainly the best infantry on the planet.

[JaM]

"Their drills are bloodless battles and their battles are bloody drills." i like that

[JaM]

Roman legions were full time warriors who could stay for months in enemy territories thanks to their supply logistics.

This was not the case before Marius.. Roman Legionaries were simple Levies that were called to arms from their farms and assigned to units based on their previous experience and wealth. So long term assignments were practically very problematic, as those men were needed on their fields.. Marius changed that as he needed more men. In his times Rome was full of people that lost their land because they couldnt compete with latifundias where thousands of slaves (from Cartage or Greece) worked... He just allowed them to join the army while Republic provided equipment for them..

[the roman]

thxs i was using small but good units