Resilient Gauls?

[JaM2013]

Actually, melee combat was nothing of that sort - units met in close combat just for few short minutes until both sides god exhausted, pulled off to safe distance, recuperated/replaced tired men with men from rear ranks, and engaged again.. during that "lul" both sides thrown their javelins, or whatever ranged weapon they still might have at that point. Anyway, during that time, it was also perfectly possible to just withdraw the unit out of contact with enemy, while units on both sides would cover the withdrawal - so actually continuous melee is actually something unrealistic. Of course, such thing would require good organization structure on the lowest level, which is exactly what Roman Legions actually had...

here is article by Alexander Zhmodikov (in russian so use google translate)

http://xlegio.ru/ancient-armies/militar ... bc4-2.html


translated:

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

[nikgaukroger]

actually, both Hoplites, phalangites, thureophoroi and all kinds of gallic warbands have armor value 50. yet while Hoplites used large 90cm aspis, metal helmet and some sort of linen armor, gallic warbands typically had just shields, with some of also having helmets. Romans describe their shields to be smaller than Roman, they specifically mention that Parma shield used by Velites gave better protection than gallic shields used by Gaesatae.. so over protection level of Hoplites should be higher than that of ordinary gallic warband. armor wise, they should be on the same level as Roman legionaries (who also didnt always wear mail, but plethora of various metalic and linen armors)...

Remember that armour values do not have an absolute relation to the kit worn. The value has to give the correct outcome for units fighting units (top down remember) so the ratings are somewhat flexible.

[JaM2013]

yet results are not that good actually, and Gallic warbands are easily wiping out Hellenic units with ease.. otherwise this thread would be not even started..

and im perfectly fine with Top Down model, anyway even that has to follow some rules otherwise its just mess... If one unit carries full panoply and other doesnt, they just cannot be represented by the same protection value... and if game doesnt give proper results without it, then it means other things are not working properly, not armor protection...

[nikgaukroger]

yet results are not that good actually, and Gallic warbands are easily wiping out Hellenic units with ease.. otherwise this thread would be not even started..

WRT Hellenistic units I've found pikemen to work well against the warbands, winning most of the time (overall). Thyreoforoi don't do so well but I'm not sure that is unreasonable. Not tried traditional hoplites (couldn't even tell you which armies might get them) - and couldn't off hand say what the historical record has to say about that match-up other than the Gauls who invaded Italy did rather well against what were, essentially, hoplite armies at the time.

[JorgenCAB]

Well... most account of battles suggest that once large bodies of troops engaged they stayed engaged. That does not mean they fought all the time. There was breaks where troops retreated to safe distance (still within the two squares represented in the game during melee). being able to withdraw entire cohorts and replace them with a new one seem like a rather rare occurrence. It is more accurate that reinforcements would be sent forward as men retire from combat exhausted (more or less routed) in smaller chunks.

You can't just create huge holes in a battle line without an enemy taking advantage of it.

And as said the rotation of troops in a tactical level is part of the units.

When you read actual battle accounts you will see that the second line reinforces the first when it gets depleted from men retiring from the battlefield or just plain casualties. In many ways units in the game would represent both first and second line while the reserves represent the third line.

The Roman legion would present four cohorts in the first line and three in the second and third line. Many believe that the first two lines basically fought as a single line rotating troops in and out. In game terms that is just seven units in the first row with three units behind in reserve. If you had four in the front and then six behind you would quickly become surrounded by an enemy with roughly equal numbers.

You need to see this as a form of abstraction. It is impossible to accurately recreate things in detail and be able to control how units engage and disengage is just too much control. Units will sometimes get pushed of the line and you might be able to sneak in some reserves while a disrupted of fragmented unit can rest.

The Roman impact ability would also become way too powerful if you could just disengage and engage at a will.

So, basically... Impact is that first clash between units. Melee is that dragged out ENGAGEMENT... which does not mean constant melee.

If it was permitted it should automatically lower a units cohesion level. So a fragmented unit would auto break and a disrupted unit become fragmented. You are retiring from a very close and dangerous range of the enemy. There is a difference of being engaged and not engaged but standing in the square next to an enemy.

[JorgenCAB]

yet results are not that good actually, and Gallic warbands are easily wiping out Hellenic units with ease.. otherwise this thread would be not even started..

WRT Hellenistic units I've found pikemen to work well against the warbands, winning most of the time (overall). Thyreoforoi don't do so well but I'm not sure that is unreasonable. Not tried traditional hoplites (couldn't even tell you which armies might get them) - and couldn't off hand say what the historical record has to say about that match-up other than the Gauls who invaded Italy did rather well against what were, essentially, hoplite armies at the time.

I had a battle with Carthage and Gauls a few days ago and Hoplites do just fine against warbands. Supperior warbands is a tough nut to crack but with support of elephants you can deal with them.

In this battle I was anchored against a wood with some rough ground, here I stationed most of my light and medium troops and a few Spanish Scutiarii in reserve.

In a few places the Hoplites was pushed back. I basically waited to have them pushed so I could flank them with the Spanish troops and that would usually do it. The Elephants pushed the Gauls so I could sneak in the spanish impact troops and hit the gauls flanks where I had the Gauls pinned by Hoplites.

Some routing troops can't be avoided but overall I had enough reserves behind my lines to contain any breakthrough. My only problem in this fight was the Gallic center where they had three superior warbands against my three average warbands. They broke through my line and I managed to contain it eventually through charging them with my left flank who broke the entire resistance there and I managed to turn two elephants and charge their breakthrough troops from behind.

This was a Hotseat game mind you, so nu AI to mess up the Gauls strategies either... but they can certainly be beaten with hoplites one on one as long as you can hold your army together.

[JaM2013]

yeah, im using that 7+3 tactics in my Roman campaigns quite often, anyway i see an option for 5+5 as well, especially if you can utilize terrain to your advantage, or if you can place strong flanks weak center - AI never deploys strong in the middle, so you can always just keep fewer units there and focus on flanks.

Personally, i feel because of the top-down design, Gauls are way too powerful, as they have superior numbers and all the good abilities (impact sword) for initial attacks, while their defense is same or just marginally weaker. Standard Roman units are usually stronger, but take some casualties, anyway every time i try Hellenic units, everything except pikes stands no chance.

[JorgenCAB]

Yes... overall the feeling I get is that Hoplites are a bit weak against Gauls warbands. Perhaps not point wise but as a unit in comparison.

When I played as Carthage my Spanish Scutarii felt more durable overall and super important in the reserve since they could counter charge fairly safely if any Hoplite had been pushed back.

A slight bonus on Hoplite armour would go a long way for them to maybe win the melee after they survive the impact. They will usually loose the melee eventually due to lower strength otherwise even if they survive the impact. The elephants also do a decent job of holding of the Warbands and with some luck you manage to smash through on a flank.

[lapdog666]

Yes... overall the feeling I get is that Hoplites are a bit weak against Gauls warbands. Perhaps not point wise but as a unit in comparison.

When I played as Carthage my Spanish Scutarii felt more durable overall and super important in the reserve since they could counter charge fairly safely if any Hoplite had been pushed back.

A slight bonus on Hoplite armour would go a long way for them to maybe win the melee after they survive the impact. They will usually loose the melee eventually due to lower strength otherwise even if they survive the impact. The elephants also do a decent job of holding of the Warbands and with some luck you manage to smash through on a flank.

i also feel hoplites are weak

[olin0111]

I played some battles with and against warbands and I think they are generally ok against heavy infantry. If anything I would maybe buff medium infantry tiny bit (and maybe also increase the cost). Right now in the open terrain they are torn down by everything and when fighting on a rough ground they are usually advantaged but not so much.

[GiveWarAchance]

I played some battles with and against warbands and I think they are generally ok against heavy infantry. If anything I would maybe buff medium infantry tiny bit (and maybe also increase the cost). Right now in the open terrain they are torn down by everything and when fighting on a rough ground they are usually advantaged but not so much.

I've played as the Gauls which I like a lot and also as other warband-type armies and I find their superior/picked warbands are the backbone of those armies and ought to be strong. As the Gauls I have a smaller army than my opponent and I'm getting flanked & surrounded quite often because of the many enemy units moving around plus there are enemy elephants that are brutal & dangerous. The odds of me winning are looking bleak.
I hope nothing gets changed about the Gauls or they will get whooped in battles.

[76mm]

As the Gauls I have a smaller army than my opponent and I'm getting flanked & surrounded quite often because of the many enemy units moving around plus there are enemy elephants that are brutal & dangerous.

What AI level are you playing? At Governor level playing against the Gauls I am always flanked by the Gauls rather than vice-versa.

[JaM2013]

Gauls played by AI will usually have more points, therefore will get larger armies than what player playing with Gauls would usually have...

[JorgenCAB]

I mostly play hotseat with myself now since the Ai is too easy to beat, once you learned its behavior it is too easy to exploit the weaknesses.

The Gauls are not unbeatable by a Hellenistic army, I have had Carthago armies beat them a few times so that is a good indication it can be done. Pike phalanxes against warbands are down right nasty. Hoplites will usually hold for a good while but will loose eventually most of the time. But they are less points so you should have other options and if you have access to elephants they will beat warbands as well.

I'm about to do a 5000p Carthago versus Gaul battle soon in Hotseat mode, should be fun. I think there are like 12 elephants or something and is on the biggest or at least widest possible map 64*48 I think this map was. There is a crap ton of Warbands though.

[76mm]

I mostly play hotseat with myself now since the Ai is too easy to beat, once you learned its behavior it is too easy to exploit the weaknesses.

AI is too easy...um yeah...

Actually at legate level I won almost every battle, but at Governor I lose most battles. The reason I've been losing against Gauls is that my reserves are usually quickly dispatched to deal with a threat on the flanks, and then the Gauls just chew through my enter, even my veteran legions. What AI behavior can I exploit?

[JorgenCAB]

I mostly play hotseat with myself now since the Ai is too easy to beat, once you learned its behavior it is too easy to exploit the weaknesses.

AI is too easy...um yeah...

Actually at legate level I won almost every battle, but at Governor I lose most battles. The reason I've been losing against Gauls is that my reserves are usually quickly dispatched to deal with a threat on the flanks, and then the Gauls just chew through my enter, even my veteran legions. What AI behavior can I exploit?

You are only fighting against higher number of units and no... I don't find it very hard to do. I can generally use terrain to get AI to bunch up and defeat it in detail with flanking it. The AI sometimes become very passive and that mean you can hold up a considerable large part of their forces with minimal forces on your side.
That is why I don't play against the AI anymore, all AI in all games have these limitations, this game are no exception. I don't say that it can't be challenging on the hardest levels to fight of the additional number of troops the AI get, especially if there are little to no terrain to exploit.

[76mm]

Woohoo, finally won as Romans vs Gauls at Governor AI, but I kind of cheated, because I had a coastal map where I did not have to worry about being outflanked on my left, which meant that I could actually use my reserves. Even so, not an especially easy battle.

[GiveWarAchance]

As the Gauls I have a smaller army than my opponent and I'm getting flanked & surrounded quite often because of the many enemy units moving around plus there are enemy elephants that are brutal & dangerous.

What AI level are you playing? At Governor level playing against the Gauls I am always flanked by the Gauls rather than vice-versa.

I'm playing against a human Gauls vs Carthage in a small battle (I love small battles) so no bias in points. The enemy army has so many units that I got swamped. I'm the indomitable Gauls with their expensive infantry, so I only have.... had (some routed).... 6 regular infantry bands plus the usual skirmishers and cavalry but I'm outnumbered in all those classes by quite a bit plus there are elephants attacking me too. I knew I had to accept being surrounded & dogpiled when I was moving my army into battle cause I only had 2 seperate battlegroups of 3 infantry units each advancing against a full enemy line waiting to pounce. One of the enemy elephants quickly routed one of my infantry with flank support, and my general was killed almost immediately when battle started. My superior warbands are holding out against a ring of badguys hammering away at them, but I don't know how long they can hold up for.