Request: Late Dacians for the new DLC

[Searry]

Whatever is the focus of the new DLC, what I hope is a new list for the Late Dacians when they fought succesfully against the Romans for years.

[rbodleyscott]

The current list is the late Dacians, but extended backwards in time because there is no evidence of any change in fighting style. However, the list will be split into two so that the earlier ones don't get the artillery.

Much of their success against the Romans was due to successful use of difficult terrain. Given the right terrain they can be equally successful against Romans in the game.

(And I put my money where my mouth is because I am using Dacians myself in the Digital League.)

[Najanaja]

I'm using Dacians in the Digital League.

I think that allowing a few veteran units would bring them up to "tournament level".

Even with a terrain advantage they do struggle against the Successor armies (and similar types).

[rbodleyscott]

My view is that Dacians are almost, but not quite, up to peak tournament level. I am certainly not doing as well with them as I am with Carthaginians in the other section (so far I have won 2 battles with the Dacians and lost 3), but the defeats have by no means been walkovers.

However, not all armies have to be up to peak tournament level - especially armies who historically never actually conquered anyone, however stubborn a resistance they may have put up against the Romans.

If we start going down the route of making all armies equally good in tournaments we will rapidly move away from history.

(Carthaginians, by the way, are probably under-rated by most players - owing to their lack of pikes, legions, lancers etc. - but I am finding them extremely effective).

[Najanaja]

[quote]My view is that Dacians are almost, but not quite, up to peak tournament level. I am certainly not doing as well with them as I am with Carthaginians in the other section (so far I have won 2 battles with the Dacians and lost 3), but the defeats have by no means been walkovers.

However, not all armies have to be up to peak tournament level - especially armies who historically never actually conquered anyone, however stubborn a resistance they may have put up against the Romans.

If we start going down the route of making all armies equally good in tournaments we will rapidly move away from history.

(Carthaginians, by the way, are probably under-rated by most players - owing to their lack of pikes, legions, lancers etc. - but I am finding them extremely effective).[/quote]

Yes, that's fair enough.

Back in the days when I used to push lead around the table, Carthaginians were my favourite army.

So I agree with that point also.