"Barbarian" combat and tactics

[Sandraker]

We all know Rome 1's European "barbarian" factions were depicted awfully. Absurd units, stupid combat behaviour, no historical accuracy, etc.

Now, it so far is clear that they're going in a very different direction for Rome 2. For one, the Gauls aren't referred to as inferior beings.
The best and clearest mistake Rome 1 makes on the battlefield is the absolutely silly "War Cry" ability. For some reason, barbarians apparently need to be told when to shout. Not only that, but by some magic this gives them an offensive and morale boost without which they're totally screwed.
From a realism perspective this is silly of course. While battle cries were (and still are!) common, and they do often help morale-wise, having to order them to do it manually is silly, and the weird magical strength it grants them is just as bizarre. Gameplay wise this makes barbarian units deeply inferior to those that don't require battle cries. You always have to start your attack with a battle cry, which shows your enemy your clear intentions and reveals your hidden units. If you don't do this, your men will break in no time once they get in the fray. It also reinforces the hollywood depiction of big half naked men screaming, charging through the open and then impaling themselves on the nearest shortsword.
So instead of this wacky, somewhat arbitrary morale-related stuff, I hope that barbarians should get their strength from other areas.

For example, this is what I imagine for the Averni:

1. Powerful cavalry. Primarily of the light javelin-armed sort, though heavy cav should also exist. According to the Wiki, Averni cavalry will be very strong. Also pseudo-cataphracts for any possible Iberian factions.
2. Mobility, stealth and surprise. Most barbarian factions will probably be able to field a good amount of light infantry. They should be fast, have lots of stamina and be able to get into position for surprise attacks with ease, but lack staying power. Hit and runs and massed surprise charges would be their schtick.
3. A strong, solid core of elites and professionals. Either acting as a tough shield wall or as powerful shock troops, these guys should be extremely tough and hard to break when properly supported. The "Oathsworn" (Soldurii?) in the screenshot would be a good example of this.

Overall, this would mean that the Averni would need to rely on timing and manoeuvring instead of massed suicide charging and praying that the enemy breaks first. It would also make them remain offensively oriented.

Oh, and
gibe aedui plix
also, inb4 a special someone comes along and accuses me of being a nazi for wanting barbarians to be depicted as something other than blonde and ginger baboons with pointy sticks.

[Sowilo]

Honestly Most of the "barbarians" Morphed though out the timeline. At the start they were basicly Choas attacking. Later the reason why they started to win against the romans was because they adopted so many of the roman ways of fighting and understood how to counter them.

The Averni themselves at least in Battle of Alesia Really just tried to charge. The reason that Ceaser could hold so many men is that they were charging walls and gaps he controlled making killing zones and causing the whole group to retreat in disarray only to have that happen again a bit later.

techinally you could say the barbarians lacked the more advanced Tactics of the romans. So anything CA makes is really just for fun. Which is why creating 100% accurate history isnt nessessary or fun. But they can use some of the ideas of what they could have been.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Honestly Most of the "barbarians" Morphed though out the timeline. At the start they were basicly Choas attacking. Later the reason why they started to win against the romans was because they adopted so many of the roman ways of fighting and understood how to counter them.

The Averni themselves at least in Battle of Alesia Really just tried to charge. The reason that Ceaser could hold so many men is that they were charging walls and gaps he controlled making killing zones and causing the whole group to retreat in disarray only to have that happen again a bit later.

techinally you could say the barbarians lacked the more advanced Tactics of the romans. So anything CA makes is really just for fun. Which is why creating 100% accurate history isnt nessessary or fun. But they can use some of the ideas of what they could have been.

Alesia was a desperate situation. They had to storm because the people inside were starving. What should they have done instead?

If you look in to the spanish wars and specially the siege of Numantia you can see how between 5000-8000 Iberian Warriors could sucessfully stop several armies between 30000 and 60000 man for several years. In the end they couldn't hold against the around 60000 man offcourse, but that should show their abilities.

Germanic Tribes did the same with lesser man in and after Teutoburg, but i believe i don't need to tell about this anymore.

You can be off diffrent opinion, but after what i read in the past, i don't believe the thesis that the "Barbarians" were allways just superior in numbers and nothing more. That is wrong in my opinion. The Gauls had no big reason to use something else than shieldwall and charge tactics, because they had a skilled warrior elite which was heavily armed, better than many romans and it worked in the past. The battle of Alesia took place when they used levies to replace this elite, something that was never needed before.

I am also a supporter of the thesis that the Roman Legions gone their way to a modern Legionary in Hispania with the adaption/counter tactics of/against carthagian and celto-iberian fighting tactics. Indicators for that are equipment, formations (cohort) ect. which appear there the first time.

In my opinion we should have for the "Barbarian" Factions smaller Warbands which represent the smaller man against man combat situations and ambush tactics, instead poor equiped 200 man mass militia units as we have allready seen in the Teutoburg Trailer.

Before anyone attacks. This are opinions of mine based on serious thesis, so not open the gates to hell.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Alesia was a desperate situation. They had to storm because the people inside were starving. What should they have done instead?

If you look in to the spanish wars and specially the siege of Numantia you can see how between 5000-8000 Iberian Warriors could sucessfully stop several armies between 30000 and 60000 man for several years. In the end they couldn't hold against the around 60000 man offcourse, but that should show their abilities.

Germanic Tribes did the same with lesser man in and after Teutoburg, but i believe i don't need to tell about this anymore.

You can be off diffrent opinion, but after what i read in the past, i don't believe the thesis that the "Barbarians" were allways just superior in numbers and nothing more. That is wrong in my opinion. The Gauls had no big reason to use something else than shieldwall and charge tactics, because they had a skilled warrior elite which was heavily armed, better than many romans and it worked in the past. The battle of Alesia took place when they used levies to replace this elite, something that was never needed before.

I am also a supporter of the thesis that the Roman Legions gone their way to a modern Legionary in Hispania with the adaption/counter tactics of/against carthagian and celto-iberian fighting tactics. Indicators for that are equipment, formations (cohort) ect. which appear there the first time.

In my opinion we should have for the "Barbarian" Factions smaller Warbands which represent the smaller man against man combat situations and ambush tactics, instead poor equiped 200 man mass militia units as we have allready seen in the Teutoburg Trailer.

Before anyone attacks. This are opinions of mine based on serious thesis, so not open the gates to hell.

Ur own serious thesis.
So since the germans were according to ur thesis always outnumbered and poorly equipped and that most of their defeats by the romans is just propaganda we are just have to think and understand the superior prowress and intelligence of the germans versus the others , in particular the romans.
Those last always used tricks or swarm of human flesh to overwhelm the few poor german tribes warriors.

Yeh very serious argument actually.
Teutoburg the german version of 300 ...

[Kraut]

...the germans ...the superior prowress and intelligence of the germans ...the few poor german ...Teutoburg the german version of 300 ...

So this is about Germans, obviously? Funny enough, that answer was given to this post:

Alesia...the spanish wars ...siege of Numantia ... Iberian Warriors ...Germanic Tribes did the same ...the "Barbarians" ...The Gauls ...battle of Alesia ...in Hispania ...carthagian and celto-iberian fighting tactics. ...the "Barbarian" Factions ...

So MAL mentioned Gauls 3x, Iberians 5x, generic "barbarians" 2x... and Germanic tribes a single time (as often as Carthaginians, just for the records).
Prom mentions Germans, and only Germans.

One might ask if this kind of Germano-fetish has some deeper cause?

[PROMETHEUS ts]

how shoudl barbarians fight in game or how did they fight in real?

I think to describe how they fought in real is a bit out of topic but anyway as all primitive societies they reliead around a tribe chief , with a distinction based usually on the age , those warbands woudl follow the leader on field and be also subject to the wave of the events around lacking a proper discipline and military training .

Some used to form formation tactics ( not battle army tactis ) like a spearphalanx like or an edge formation when charging , placing the larger and stronger on first line for maximal impact ( wich also gived the myth of the larger germans bodies ) those woudl charge and impact at extreme speed so that sometimes romans did not even had the time to throw their pila .
Most of the armies were of small little warband groups but all grouped together to form a large mass of men charging .

Now in game terms the distinction in smallr warband is not possible and anyway woudl be useless due to the few tactic sophistication used by germans that woudl anyway just charge most of the time the smalleer groups together rather than spread around and make some elaborate field tactic.

so a single unit representing several warriors in a large warband is perfectly fine .

In game terms some ( not all ) units coul dhave a form phalanx like formation or awedge when attacking ...

The problem is that also romans for example used a wedge sometimes , when they diecided to among the other many other field formations of a unit , but none is implemented from CA apart the Testudo ( wich from the pics showed is completely wrong and useless ) .

So the way to represent the barbarians of germanic tribes is to make them larger numbered and a massive force with cheaper units .

No superheroes half naked , no bearded bloody berserkers , no strange animal monsters,no frost giants .
Just normal men , most bearded with spears and swords and a peculiar barbaric fashion .
but you all know that CA needs the "WOW" factor ...

So there you go with berserkers and some special units ...
sure there were some tribes that fought in particular fashion like the Harii but to create a berserker unit out of nothing its simply off .
then come all the historical fans freaking out at whoever criticizes anythng about germans trying to find the most obscure finds and scratches on a rock to claim to have the proves of germanic superiority powers .

please lets just drop all that crap of racism stuff shall we?
beeing half german I feel ashamed and feel shivers everytime I read such a crap from some germans especially when it gets down nationalisms and with a heavy unjustified bias towrd romans.
and thats the reason why it might seem I bang on germans , its purely couse I want some people here to stop think in racial and nationalistic terms and drop their damn bias from their wounded prides versus romans .

[Shigawire]

Honestly Most of the "barbarians" Morphed though out the timeline. At the start they were basicly Choas attacking. Later the reason why they started to win against the romans was because they adopted so many of the roman ways of fighting and understood how to counter them.

Chaos attacking? You are misinformed. It was the other way around. After Brennus sacked Rome (a very organized procedure), it was the Romans who started adapting their tactics based on the Celts' tactics, weapons and armor. At the time of Brennus, Rome's army was composed of a sort of hoplite. After Brennus, they started adopting their own version of the Celtic shield, the first Republican era Roman helmets are based off the Celtic helmet design:


They also changed their tactics by imitating the Celts. It took a while until Romans were able to reproduce celtic chainmail, but the Romans eventually got that as well. In the beginning, chainmail was only worn by high ranking Celtic warlords of course.

The practice of throwing javelins prior to an assault came from the Celts, thus the Romans invented their own - the Pilum.

The Averni themselves at least in Battle of Alesia Really just tried to charge. The reason that Ceaser could hold so many men is that they were charging walls and gaps he controlled making killing zones and causing the whole group to retreat in disarray only to have that happen again a bit later.

This is very late, 50s BCE. Also, they were at a desparate situation. And by this time, Roman siege engineering had finally come to fruition thanks to Vitruvius and his apprentices. As is evident in the efficacy of the "circumunnitus" (circumvallation) at Alesia.

techinally you could say the barbarians lacked the more advanced Tactics of the romans. So anything CA makes is really just for fun. Which is why creating 100% accurate history isnt nessessary or fun. But they can use some of the ideas of what they could have been.

Again, as I explained above this is simply not true at the time when Rome II starts (272 BCE). It certainly is true later in 50s BCE, but comparing Roman technology and tactics 220 years later isn't a fair comparison. They had already adapted and invented a lot of new technology, military reforms. And by this time Rome's geostrategic and geopolitical power was already immense.

[Sandraker]

This is very late, 50s BCE. Also, they were at a desparate situation. And by this time, Roman siege engineering had finally come to fruition thanks to Vitruvius and his apprentices. As is evident in the efficacy of the "circumunnitus" (circumvallation) at Alesia.

The Arverni army at Alesia were mostly just levies, they weren't at all proper warriors by Gallic standards. They were primarily just the common men of the city.
You can think of it like the armies you face in a TW game shortly before you've finished off an enemy faction. Masses of low-tier units desperately levied.

[rohirrimelf]

I agree with the little love the barbarian tribes got with rome total war. Most of what you said i can agree with, and would like to play with the averni if they have a unit roaster which is diverse. With good light units, oathsworns to act kind of the samurai`s on shogun 2 (long lasting in a prolonged battle) and decent cavelry. I dont mind them having a small roaster of light troops to start out with and upgrades later which change the way they are played from early to late game. I liked to play against the arverni as Rome in RTW1 with large numbers of spear warbands. I havent played much with this faction because i disliked them late game.

The warcry ability is not that bad if CA finds a good way to make use of it. Its entertaining and if it can be added without making the barb factions less playable or more predictable im ok with it. With some timing it could work but probably not when u want to surprice the enemy and hit them out of the forest as a surprice attack. Well not if they have to stand still to do it.

[HusKatten]

I've always like the manual battle cry function, it adds some tactical depth to the barbarians. But, you have a very good point - it makes them inferior and reveals the attack momentum depending on how long the war cry lasts. Automatic war cries is probably the better solution. Out of a gameplay perspective it still feels right that barbarian units (at least fanatic-type units) should be able to get a boost out of their cries which could mean increased attack power but increased stamina decrease rate. This stat-exchange doesn't sound completely ahistorical and would add a rushing-feeling-tactic for some barbarian units, a "tactic" that was present at the time. You could also counter these fanatics by simply tiring them out or focus your fire on them since they'll probably lack good armor in-game.

[Lockpick]

Since there is the split between the faction as tribe and the tribes united, I hope there will be also some form of roster-change.
I take the Suebi as example:
As Suebi you start as a tribe and therefore you have the typical units like berserkes and such. After the uniting of all germanic tribes your faction will turn into Germania. (This is an allready confirmed game-mechanic.)
With the change from tribe to nation I hope the units also change from the wild barbarians that rely on ambush and guerilla tactics to a more modern army that is capable to fight on par with other "civilized" factions.

If the context is that you create a new faction instead of simply uniting the tribes in an alliance of individuals there is no reason why such a faction would rely on units like "equip what you have and join the army" and instead training units for different purposes like "their phalanx seems to work well, we should train some, too".

[Sandraker]

Since there is the split between the faction as tribe and the tribes united, I hope there will be also some form of roster-change.
I take the Suebi as example:
As Suebi you start as a tribe and therefore you have the typical units like berserkes and such. After the uniting of all germanic tribes your faction will turn into Germania. (This is an allready confirmed game-mechanic.)
With the change from tribe to nation I hope the units also change from the wild barbarians that rely on ambush and guerilla tactics to a more modern army that is capable to fight on par with other "civilized" factions.

If the context is that you create a new faction instead of simply uniting the tribes in an alliance of individuals there is no reason why such a faction would rely on units like "equip what you have and join the army" and instead training units for different purposes like "their phalanx seems to work well, we should train some, too".

I agree, there should be speculative units for when a faction grows past its historical size.

[daelin4]

RTW's barbarian units felt very tacked on and rushed, like it was the last thing on the list. Overrall I though it was bland and lacked creativity and depth.
In order to create multiple barbarian factions this just cannot be considered satisfactory. It's bad enough to have like 3 actions with bland overlapping rosters- imagine if there were 30 factions. It'd be worse than Empire.

[Mage de Taverne]

I'm sure they put effort into diversity between "barbarians" culture. Gauls will have good cavalry and armored warriors, Britons chariots and painted warriors, and Germans berserkers and the like.

Don't know if it's necessary for the roster to change when they unite the tribes, as it should evolve gradually with tech advancements. Though you will probably gain at least one elite unit type when you form Gaul/Brittania/Germania.

[Destraex]

Basically they are still being treated like Romans in different clothing.
You know because:

(i) Barbarians come in nice little units of perfectly symetric sizes
(ii) Barbarians come with perfect weapon uniformity in each unit
(iii) Barbarians run together just like romans. there formations do not rubber band.
(iv) Classic barbarian tactics are not depicted or easily possible... or at least they still fight exactly the same as romans.
(v) As far as I know unique tactics like the light infantry hanging off cavalry ability have not been recreated but things like war dogs have.

What would have been better is a lot of smaller units that could be combined or split to allow the depiction of the more flexible barbarian tactics and ambush tactics.
Instead they seem to have the perfect roman unit sizes. Which is neither conducive to their massive "tribe" charges or their smaller raid and confuse\ambush tactics.

Sure the units look better and the history is not as naive this time around. But it is still looking like their will be no real difference between tactics on the field when playing
barbarians as against romans.

[Sandraker]

Bump!

I wonder what the difference will be between the Iceni and the Arverni.
It looks a lot like the Arverni will be depicted as being fairly advanced, while the Iceni look pretty wild. So far, I think every Arvernian unit I've seen so far had a helmet and either chainmail or leather armour. Also, they're described as being fond of javelins. The combination of armour and swords and good javs almost makes them sound like Romans with pants and moustaches, I hope that won't quite be the case.
As for the Iceni, I think we've seen just about nothing about them so far, I wonder if we'll get any info before release?


Oh, and I hope that they'll get some sort of reform. Something along the line of "your faction is now wealthy and powerful as hell and can now afford more organised, better equipped armies". Sure, the units would be pretty speculative, but it's better than playing the whole campaign trying to conquer the world with half naked Britons.

[Kraut]

I wonder what the difference will be between the Iceni and the Arverni.

Chariots?

[Slydessertfox]

Chariots?

I thought there were cases of Gauls using chariots as well?

[Kraut]

I thought there were cases of Gauls using chariots as well?

But not in Rome:TW

[xjlxking]

I have no idea why you dislike the war cry ability. Yes, you can to manual click it and YES, it does give boost to stats of the unit(s). Is it realistic? No, but then 99% of this game is not realistic. Unit can trained in a year, seasons and turns don't make sense, units fight with no discipline, elephants have rage meters, units have an HP system.... I can go on and on but I'm sure you get the point. Regardless, Barbarians were known to be somewhat undisciplined in war. They were great warriors, most were taller than your average Roman. They were known to shout before charging and history has proven that it's effective. It does affect the moral of armies and it can be very traumatic, not just when "barbarians" do it

With that said, I don't think anyone should get butthurt of Hollywood effecting games. It's one form of entertainment and to strictly follow facts and reality will lead to repeat of history. What's the point in playing Icene, Egypt, Athens, or even Sparta when they were small powers on the verge of collapse. I welcome changes as long as they are within reason. I don't care if the Barbaric tribes are portrayed as berserk, or half-naked. It will only enhance my experience when playing them, after all, it gives new way of playing a faction. But as I said, it should be within reason; having dragons or men with 3 arms is obviously over the top, but being half naked? It's no concern to me.