Barbarian fighting mechanics

[VanGoth]

Fellow generals,

i have a feeling that so called barbarian fighting mechanics need a major overhaul. They are forced to fight in a kind of organization that, at least for me, doesn't really fit to their strenghts and possibilities on the field. According to that their possible impact on well organized battle lines is kind of toned down me thinks^^

I want them to have much larger unit sizes, a more open, wide and asymmetrical positioning inside one unit, making little surroundings and a broader impact possible. I want them to have battle cry and taunt skills to provoke enemy movements catering to your plans. At the end of the day i just want them to be a more unique factor on the landscape.

It's kinda hard to explain but the so called barbarian tribes deserve a style of fighting on their own, unique skillsets to gain initiative. This would make them more appealing again, and surely more striking on the field as well^^


Any thoughts or further suggestions?

[Daily]

I agree actually. They should feel different from other factions and behave differently. I remember CA saying they will for example have a much better way of ambushing. Now I am trying to drag out something from my memory, I think I heard somewhere that the barbarian units will contain more units but that is very vague and can be completely wrong. Anyone who can provide some real evidence so we can know what is fact and what is fiction?

[theDaedricPrince]

I agree. The barbarians weren't fighting as I thought they would fight. I expected fierce warriors that fought like wild beasts. Instead, we got basic animations. It's unfortunate.

[Daily]

I agree. The barbarians weren't fighting as I thought they would fight. I expected fierce warriors that fought like wild beasts. Instead, we got basic animations. It's unfortunate.

But some glorious animations they are eey?

I am hoping the barbarian general tree will have options to build a proper "barbarian" traits. Like a rush capability that will make your unit ignore all morale loss when they charge into a unit, make them take the brunt of a pillum rain.

[theDaedricPrince]

But some glorious animations they are eey?

I am hoping the barbarian general tree will have options to build a proper "barbarian" traits. Like a rush capability that will make your unit ignore all morale loss when they charge into a unit, make them take the brunt of a pillum rain.

Glorious animations, but not fit for the barbarians. I wanna see a barbarian slash a Roman soldier's face with his axe over a hundred times! That would be beautiful :')

[smoke]

Well in the Kotaku interview it says barbarians will have their own fighting style. "They will hurl themselfs at you."

[geala]

I disagree. I can understand that some or many wish to keep their "300" style of view to the world. But we have no reliable information that "the barbarians" were regularly in superior numbers or fought differently on an individual basis from Romans or Greeks. It is also probable that there was more tactics with the Gauls, Britons, Celtiberians and Germans than Roman authors (who were heavily biased) told us. Otherwise some historical events are difficult to explain. We can imagine small professional units, followers of the chiefs and great nobles, who were better trained and motivated and better or at least as good armed as for example Roman triarii. And a majority of more poorly equipped part-time warriors who were less disciplined than their Roman or Greek counterparts.

[Sandraker]

I disagree. I can understand that some or many wish to keep their "300" style of view to the world. But we have no reliable information that "the barbarians" were regularly in superior numbers or fought differently on an individual basis from Romans or Greeks. It is also probable that there was more tactics with the Gauls, Britons, Celtiberians and Germans than Roman authors (who were heavily biased) told us. Otherwise some historical events are difficult to explain. We can imagine small professional units, followers of the chiefs and great nobles, who were better trained and motivated and better or at least as good armed as for example Roman triarii. And a majority of more poorly equipped part-time warriors who were less disciplined than their Roman or Greek counterparts.

THIIIIISSSSSS.

It's absolutely wrong to think that the Hollywood stereotype of barbarian fighters has any truth in it whatsoever.
I'll start off by saying that the superior numbers thing is an absolute joke. The Romans and Greeks liked to measure success in dead enemies. Many of the numbers the Romans give us regarding "barbarians" certainly cross the line of what could be logistically, if not demographically possible. Basically, they overdid the numbers so they could look badass.
In fact, if anything, superior numbers was a Roman thing, as there are so many examples of wars where they could replace their losses very quickly, even after devastating defeats.

Now about the cultures individually.

In the case of the Germanics, we know that they liked using shield walls as well as extensive use of terrain. Do you honestly think that a slaughter like Teutoberg against a large number of well trained heavy infantry could've been pulled off if it was done by a bunch of disorganised men with no practical training, just foolhardiness and brawn? They pulled off a gigantic ambush and they did it in difficult terrain and without any modern communications. If that isn't impressive, I don't know what is.

The Gauls were of course a favourite for Roman writers when it came to hating on someone. Outside of the realm of combat, most texts about the Gauls involve them being stupid, brutish, ignorant of all things artistic, completely illiterate, technologically backwards, and so on.
...modern research has proven that that's all completely and utterly wrong. If anything, they weren't far from the Romans in terms of advancement. They were just different, and the Romans couldn't stand that. These lies about the Gauls are proof that dehumanising wartime propaganda has existed for millennia.
Now in terms of combat, we know the following: The Gauls invented a lot of very significant things such as Chainmail, the "Gallic" helmet (both adopted by Rome), and the not-so-long-by-today's-standards-longsword. The mere fact that they created such quality tools for the job should mean they also had the corresponding knowledge when it came to actually using them.
The Ptolemies liked using Galatians (Gauls who migrated into Anatolia shortly before Rome 2's starting year), quite often as elites and even in personal bodyguards and stuff. These guys were said not only to be extremely skilled in personal combat, but also very disciplined.
Strange how when you get a non-Roman perspective things look totally different, eh?

In Iberia we have again some well designed weapons and armour, and extensive use of ambushing tactics. To repeat myself again, such ambushes can't be pulled off without good organisation. Oh, and in terms of combat the Romans surely learned a lot from them. Gladius Hispaniensis, anyone?


I can recommend Terry Jones' Barbarians, which can be found on youtube. That show does a great job at dispelling many myths.

[Marcus Claudius Marcellus]

I can recommend Terry Jones' Barbarians, which can be found on youtube. That show does a great job at dispelling many myths.

Watching it now, needed something to dip in and out of whilst I work, thanks!

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

@OP, your idea of barbarians is wrong and just based on bad TV. The only thing you were right about was that barbarians should have their own tactics, but sophisticated ones, like shieldwalls and infantry wedges, or how Gallic warriors were described as rolling under pikes when attacking a phalanx, smart fighters.

I disagree. I can understand that some or many wish to keep their "300" style of view to the world. But we have no reliable information that "the barbarians" were regularly in superior numbers or fought differently on an individual basis from Romans or Greeks. It is also probable that there was more tactics with the Gauls, Britons, Celtiberians and Germans than Roman authors (who were heavily biased) told us. Otherwise some historical events are difficult to explain. We can imagine small professional units, followers of the chiefs and great nobles, who were better trained and motivated and better or at least as good armed as for example Roman triarii. And a majority of more poorly equipped part-time warriors who were less disciplined than their Roman or Greek counterparts.

Exactly

THIIIIISSSSSS.

It's absolutely wrong to think that the Hollywood stereotype of barbarian fighters has any truth in it whatsoever.
I'll start off by saying that the superior numbers thing is an absolute joke. The Romans and Greeks liked to measure success in dead enemies. Many of the numbers the Romans give us regarding "barbarians" certainly cross the line of what could be logistically, if not demographically possible. Basically, they overdid the numbers so they could look badass.
In fact, if anything, superior numbers was a Roman thing, as there are so many examples of wars where they could replace their losses very quickly, even after devastating defeats.

Now about the cultures individually.

In the case of the Germanics, we know that they liked using shield walls as well as extensive use of terrain. Do you honestly think that a slaughter like Teutoberg against a large number of well trained heavy infantry could've been pulled off if it was done by a bunch of disorganised men with no practical training, just foolhardiness and brawn? They pulled off a gigantic ambush and they did it in difficult terrain and without any modern communications. If that isn't impressive, I don't know what is.

The Gauls were of course a favourite for Roman writers when it came to hating on someone. Outside of the realm of combat, most texts about the Gauls involve them being stupid, brutish, ignorant of all things artistic, completely illiterate, technologically backwards, and so on.
...modern research has proven that that's all completely and utterly wrong. If anything, they weren't far from the Romans in terms of advancement. They were just different, and the Romans couldn't stand that. These lies about the Gauls are proof that dehumanising wartime propaganda has existed for millennia.
Now in terms of combat, we know the following: The Gauls invented a lot of very significant things such as Chainmail, the "Gallic" helmet (both adopted by Rome), and the not-so-long-by-today's-standards-longsword. The mere fact that they created such quality tools for the job should mean they also had the corresponding knowledge when it came to actually using them.
The Ptolemies liked using Galatians (Gauls who migrated into Anatolia shortly before Rome 2's starting year), quite often as elites and even in personal bodyguards and stuff. These guys were said not only to be extremely skilled in personal combat, but also very disciplined.
Strange how when you get a non-Roman perspective things look totally different, eh?

In Iberia we have again some well designed weapons and armour, and extensive use of ambushing tactics. To repeat myself again, such ambushes can't be pulled off without good organisation. Oh, and in terms of combat the Romans surely learned a lot from them. Gladius Hispaniensis, anyone?


I can recommend Terry Jones' Barbarians, which can be found on youtube. That show does a great job at dispelling many myths.

You nailed it 100%

[Ariovist]

Absolutely disagree about superior numbers.
Nothing in modern archaeology except ancient exaggerated roman sources claim that barbarians had numerous advantage vs. their enemies.

[babydoc]

I agree that barbarians should have unique style.
Wherent they part time farmers and not pro warriors?

[spartan753]

I agree that barbarians should have unique style.
Wherent they part time farmers and not pro warriors?

You mean, just like the Romans and Greeks of this period?

[babydoc]

I agree that barbarians should have unique style.
Wherent they part time farmers and not pro warriors?

[RoyalNobody]

I agree that barbarians should have unique style.
Wherent they part time farmers and not pro warriors?

I'm pretty sure they had a warrior caste, who did nothing but fight.

[RoyalNobody]

Double

[blackheartz]

That would be a great thing to implement in the game. CA claims that the barbarian factions do feel differently. We'll find out soon enough.

[Astaroth]

This thread shows the dilemma CA is faced with: on the one hand, you have the historical reality of many "barbarians" actually not being so "barbaric" after all and having advanced cultures, cities and weapons (see Roma Surrectum 2). However, on the other hand that simply doesn't fit the general image most people have in mind and it's also a lot more fun and diverse to have a bigger contrast between civilized and barbarian cultures.

So what do you do? If you follow history as good as possible you might please a few amateur historians (although they will still complain about the symbols on the shields and demand archeological evidence) but alienate most others customers who are more interested in barbarian hordes with beserker units that "hurl" (see above in this thread) themselves against the enemy and provide a huge contrast to the organized Roman army.

We have to keep in mind that this is a game at the end of the day.

[Sandraker]

This thread shows the dilemma CA is faced with: on the one hand, you have the historical reality of many "barbarians" actually not being so "barbaric" after all and having advanced cultures, cities and weapons (see Roma Surrectum 2). However, on the other hand that simply doesn't fit the general image most people have in mind and it's also a lot more fun and diverse to have a bigger contrast between civilized and barbarian cultures.

So what do you do? If you follow history as good as possible you might please a few amateur historians (although they will still complain about the symbols on the shields and demand archeological evidence) but alienate most others customers who are more interested in barbarian hordes with beserker units that "hurl" (see above in this thread) themselves against the enemy and provide a huge contrast to the organized Roman army.

We have to keep in mind that this is a game at the end of the day.

Overall, I think the Barbarians are getting a rather fair treatment this time around.
Look at the Arverni for example. The official wiki describes them as sophisticated, and gives us a screenshot of the Oathsworn (most likely based on the Soldurii), a rather authentic unit. So far the Gauls have been depicted as wearing armour, throwing javelins, being great horsemen, the whole lot. It's all very far from the half-naked bunch of suicidal idiots from Rome 1. I'm almost more concerned that they might forget about some of the more fanatical Gallic units and turn them into trouser Romans.
I think that CA knows that depicting the Gauls more accurately is greatly to their advantage, as it makes for a more interesting culture both to play and to fight against.

What CA has done is weigh in the historical accuracy of the different factions based on what they think people want. So yes, a more accurate Gaul is a more interesting one it seems. On the other hand, we have two greatly contrasting factions: Athens and Sparta.
The Athenians are depicted rather soundly, with period-correct Thureos shields, client status, a good navy, and a high difficulty level. The Spartans, while also hard to play as are shown as being more pop-culturish, with their Corinthian helmets and whatnot.

We can't really say what they've done for the other Barbarian factions. We don't have much info on the Iceni - but I guess they're probably gonna appear a bit more "Barbaric" than the Arverni, which probably isn't entirely wrong. I don't know much about the Suebi and information on their implementation is scarce as well.

[Spartacus041]

This thread shows the dilemma CA is faced with: on the one hand, you have the historical reality of many "barbarians" actually not being so "barbaric" after all and having advanced cultures, cities and weapons (see Roma Surrectum 2). However, on the other hand that simply doesn't fit the general image most people have in mind and it's also a lot more fun and diverse to have a bigger contrast between civilized and barbarian cultures.

So what do you do? If you follow history as good as possible you might please a few amateur historians (although they will still complain about the symbols on the shields and demand archeological evidence) but alienate most others customers who are more interested in barbarian hordes with beserker units that "hurl" (see above in this thread) themselves against the enemy and provide a huge contrast to the organized Roman army.

We have to keep in mind that this is a game at the end of the day.

NAILED IT