consistency ,authenticity and richness

[lapdog666]

note;Mainly talking about FOG2 vanilla

#1 example :

Spain or Iberia, home to many tribes,some of different culture group, some similar

question: why do we have "spanish scutarii" as a distinct unit , while they are just one of the iberian peninsula warriors types , yet we dont have others. There is not a single battalion of men present in the game that is from iberia which has heavy armour. It seems like whole of iberia couldnt squeeze 1000 armoured nobles in a battle of 40 000 men (20kvs20k which is V large)

why do spanish scutarii only have swords for weapons

my suggestion: either expand the roster or delete spanish scutarii and create one universal ''spanish warrior'' unit


#2 example :

Thracia vs Galia

question: why do we have distinct thracian rhompaia units and distinct thracian spearmen units , while we have one universal unit for entire europe from celtiberia to poland , namely the warband. Also why do they have only swords

#3 example:

why do we have macedonian prodromoi in the immortal fire dlc, yet they are not present in ANY diadochi army past 301 bc nor there is any replacement


#4 example:

why are picts and scots represented separately , when entire europe has only 1 heavy infantry (not heavy armoured) unit


#5 example:

why do thracians have north african light cavalry, while they have distinct infantry units - perhaps too distinct in comparison to the european barbarians


#6 example:

why dont dacians have their own warband with spears


#7 example:

why do parthians have ''Thureophoroi'' unit . exact same model and description as thureophoroi in greece and anatolia, even in 250 bc


#8 example:

why dont indian elephants dont have advantage over north african ones

#9 example:

why is there not a single trace of sacred band in carthaginian roster

#10 example:

why do arabs have hystophoroi


#11 example:

why do gauls dont have a single battalion of heavy armoured men/nobles



#12 example:

why would i ever choose melee cav instead of lancers


those are the ones on top of my head, i might have more soon

[MVP7]

'Swordsmen' doesn't necessarily mean that the unit only uses swords, it's an abstraction of the unit's overall melee capabilities. The actual weapons of warband would include a mix of spears, swords and other weapon which are not used in a shieldwall/phalanx-like manner. Warbands (and scutarii for that matter) also have throwing weapons like spears, javelins and even bows that give them the 'Impact foot' capability.

The probable reason why most of ancient Europe's infantry is covered by the couple warband units is that there's just not that much well documented differences so cultural variants would be highly arbitrary. The warbands would typically be organized by family, tribe and other social structures rather than by equipment or specific combat role. This means that every warband has some well armed and armoured nobles at the tip of the formation as well as barely armed and unarmored kids farther in the rear. In terms of gameplay it averages out at 'protected'. I guess there could be some high quality warband units with 'some armour' but don't know if there's any historical basis for adding such units to specific army lists.

The reason why Thracians have such unique and detailed units is that before the Praetorian update, which added most of them, the Thracians were one of the most underdeveloped factions in the game with the entire peltast class of infantry being covered by irregular foot and javelinmen.

[melm]

#7

The relief looks like the foot holds the thureo, so it can be categorized as thureophoroi.

#9
The sacred band can be represented by Veteran African Spearman. To save unit seats, I guess dev won't make another sacred band.

#10

I didn't find Xystophoroi in Arab lists.

[Witan]

On the one hand, I can really understand your point lapdog666. For me it would also be important to have FoG2 as historically accurate as possible. On the other hand, I can understand that certain things are too expensive for the current game budget to represent them in detail (even if I really would like to donate, which unfortunately they do not want). Also I'm trying to find sources for specific FoG2 army lists and units myself, but it's often difficult to find specific details.

Mentioning some of your points in detail:

#1 example :

Spain or Iberia, home to many tribes,some of different culture group, some similar

question: why do we have "spanish scutarii" as a distinct unit , while they are just one of the iberian peninsula warriors types , yet we dont have others. There is not a single battalion of men present in the game that is from iberia which has heavy armour. It seems like whole of iberia couldnt squeeze 1000 armoured nobles in a battle of 40 000 men (20kvs20k which is V large)

why do spanish scutarii only have swords for weapons

my suggestion: either expand the roster or delete spanish scutarii and create one universal ''spanish warrior'' unit

I suspect that the other iberian warriors are summarized in the few warbands that are available in the spanish list. Like MVP7 already stated, there's just not that much well documented differences so cultural variants would be highly arbitrary.
I also think that through this missing evidence some army lists are lacking diversity, like the Ligurian or later Vandal lists, to just mention a few. But would it really be the solution to add arbitrarily units to such army lists? Clearly not in my opinion. However, if you find credible historical sources, the developers would certainly consider it.

Mentioning the "sword" ability, MVP7 also already said that this is more an abstraction of the unit's overall melee capabilities( maybe the developers should make this fact clearer in the game, like already done for the later roman units with bows, darts etc?). I'm myself not such a big fan of the simplification of weapons and armor in this game. However, I think that's based in the deep tabletop tradition. Nevertheless, I would be happy if the developers could consider a more detailed system for weapons and armor in a possible FoG3, hopefully with a better budget.

#3 example:

why do we have macedonian prodromoi in the immortal fire dlc, yet they are not present in ANY diadochi army past 301 bc nor there is any replacement

In historical sources the prodromoi are last mentioned in 329BC as far as i know. It is unclear, what happened to them, but some assume that they were absorbed into the companion cavalry, as their role as light cavalry was covered by other experienced nomadic horsemen.

#5 example:

why do thracians have north african light cavalry, while they have distinct infantry units - perhaps too distinct in comparison to the european barbarians

Related to the outer appearance there are many generic looking units sadly, probably out of budget reasons...

#12 example:

why would i ever choose melee cav instead of lancers

In some cases melee cavalry with light spear ability are much cheaper than lancers, they are therefore better suited for flanking maneuvers, because you can line up more of them. They are also good at annoying and threatening enemy units, because they mostly evade then beeing attacked by stronger units, unlike lancers that just fall back after a not so successful melee and are better for blocking enemy units or for some charge maneuvers.

This is only roughly summarized by me and as far as I know the costs of some units are currently being revised, because some units are not really worth the current price.

[Witan]

#10

I didn't find Xystophoroi in Arab lists.

@melm: There are Xystophoroi in the current nabataean list. Unfortunately, I am not sure how much sense they make, as also in the Jewish lists.

[jomni]

Probably placeholders for cavalry with similar capabilities.

[rbodleyscott]

Apart from jomni's post, it is as the posters above have written. The lists are based on sound historical research, and avoid making up arbitrary differences between nations that in historical reality fought in much the same style. Likewise we avoid separating out armoured men in armies where the few armoured men almost certainly fought mixed in with the other, unarmoured, men.

The Spanish situation is one where if budgetary constraints had permitted, we really ought to have to had separate Iberian scutarii, Lusitanian caetrati, and Celtiberian scutarii (Warbands). This would not, however, have altered the composition of the army, only the appearance.

Likewise, budgetary constraints did not allow us to have lots of different-appearing javelin light horse for different nations.

It would be nice if we had been able to have more variation in unit appearance, but had we attempted to do so, the harsh economic reality is that the game could never have been made.

A few other points:

#7 The Parthians had access to infantry from the Greek colonies in their territory. This is why their thureophoroi are Raw Militia Thureophoroi. The Parthian army at Carrhae was not a typical Parthian army - it was only a holding force, the main army was elsewhere. Parthian armies could contain substantial numbers of infantry - if anything, they may be underrepresented in the army list.

#10 The research for the Nabataean army lists done for the (very well researched) Wargames Research Group DBM army lists indicated that the Nabataean kingdom probably had some Hellenistic-style cavalry - which at this date would be Xystophoroi. I don't have access to the original reference. What exactly they would have looked like, nobody knows.

The Xystophoroi in the Hasmonean Jewish army are based on the Dead Sea Scroll entitled "The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness". The text covering the heavier cavalry is slightly corrupt, but describes them as armoured (possibly with some horse armour) and using 12 foot spears. It also makes sense that any heavy cavalry they had would be based on those used by their Hellenistic neighbours. Which, of course, begs the question of whether they should in fact be cataphracts as by this date the Seleucids were using cataphracts, although the Ptolemies were still using lighter armoured xystophoroi. However, although the scroll may possibly describe cataphracts, it describes an ideal army - we don't know to what extent its precepts were put into practice. Hence rating them as Xystophoroi is a best-guess compromise.

[lapdog666]

#7

The relief looks like the foot holds the thureo, so it can be categorized as thureophoroi.

#9
The sacred band can be represented by Veteran African Spearman. To save unit seats, I guess dev won't make another sacred band.

#10

I didn't find Xystophoroi in Arab lists.

veteran spearmen are specifically part of hanibal's italian campaign. list runs from 280 bc to 140s

[melm]

veteran spearmen are specifically part of hanibal's italian campaign. list runs from 280 bc to 140s

No. I can find Veteran African Spearmen in Carthaginian lists from the earliest 490BC-411 BC to late 340BC-281BC.

[lapdog666]

veteran spearmen are specifically part of hanibal's italian campaign. list runs from 280 bc to 140s

No. I can find Veteran African Spearmen in Carthaginian lists from the earliest 490BC-411 BC to late 340BC-281BC.

but you cant find them in between 280 - 218 .

veteran african spearmen appear in 218 because they are veterans of hanibals italian campaign (which was from 217 to 205 lets say) , not because they are sacred band. Now i dont own immortal fire and rise of persia, but if they are wearing chainmail they are just copied from Fog2 vanilla roster , originally meant to be hanibal's veterans

checkmate

[melm]

but you cant find them in between 280 - 218 .

veteran african spearmen appear in 218 because they are veterans of hanibals italian campaign (which was from 217 to 205 lets say) , not because they are sacred band. Now i dont own immortal fire and rise of persia, but if they are wearing chainmail they are just copied from Fog2 vanilla roster , originally meant to be hanibal's veterans

checkmate

As I say, the unit seats are limited, as well as model. Dev usually use the same name with the same model for the units they think that make no difference. In this case, sacred band and Hannibal's veteran.

[lapdog666]

but you cant find them in between 280 - 218 .

veteran african spearmen appear in 218 because they are veterans of hanibals italian campaign (which was from 217 to 205 lets say) , not because they are sacred band. Now i dont own immortal fire and rise of persia, but if they are wearing chainmail they are just copied from Fog2 vanilla roster , originally meant to be hanibal's veterans

checkmate

As I say, the unit seats are limited, as well as model. Dev usually use the same name with the same model for the units they think that make no difference. In this case, sacred band and Hannibal's veteran.

k but where are my sacred bands in 280-218. theres not enough space to put them in there? the same model and same name . that sounds suspicious if that is the argument

[melm]

k but where are my sacred bands in 280-218. theres not enough space to put them in there? the same model and same name . that sounds suspicious if that is the argument

Then you have to prove there ARE sacred bands in any historical account during 280 BC - 218 BC.

Quote from my quick search on wikipedia, Sacred_Band_of_Carthage,

After its destruction in 310 BC, the "Sacred Band" disappears from historical record. When Carthaginian citizen infantry turn up in the historical sources during later wars, their numbers are significantly higher implying a levy of all available citizens due to crisis. Larger citizen forces turned out at the Battle of Bagradas during the First Punic War, the Mercenary War, and the Third Punic War, but the "Sacred Band" is not mentioned in any of the surviving accounts we have of these wars.

If there is any evidence saying Sacred Bands are existing during this time period, I'd like to see this being proposed to dev to make the change.

[lapdog666]

k but where are my sacred bands in 280-218. theres not enough space to put them in there? the same model and same name . that sounds suspicious if that is the argument

Then you have to prove there ARE sacred bands in any historical account during 280 BC - 218 BC.

Quote from my quick search on wikipedia, Sacred_Band_of_Carthage,

After its destruction in 310 BC, the "Sacred Band" disappears from historical record. When Carthaginian citizen infantry turn up in the historical sources during later wars, their numbers are significantly higher implying a levy of all available citizens due to crisis. Larger citizen forces turned out at the Battle of Bagradas during the First Punic War, the Mercenary War, and the Third Punic War, but the "Sacred Band" is not mentioned in any of the surviving accounts we have of these wars.

If there is any evidence saying Sacred Bands are existing during this time period, I'd like to see this being proposed to dev to make the change.

damn.
ok then i ll use same logic against your thureoporoi argument. The statue or wall in your picture is from azerbaijan , which wasnt conquered by parthians untill at least 140s bc , when they gang banged seleucids. that means that the wall/statue cannot be older than 139 bc if its parthian work. That means you are basing your thureophoroi argument from a mid/late 2nd century bc evidence but we have thureos in the army list which starts in 250 bc

[lapdog666]

on other hand i ve re read what RBS said "#7 The Parthians had access to infantry from the Greek colonies in their territory. This is why their thureophoroi are Raw Militia Thureophoroi. The Parthian army at Cannae was not a typical Parthian army - it was only a holding force, the main army was elsewhere. Parthian armies could contain substantial numbers of infantry - if anything, they may be underrepresented in the army list."

bactria had greeks
that could explain it , perhaps
i ll have to check it

[melm]

damn.
ok then i ll use same logic against your thureoporoi argument. The statue or wall in your picture is from azerbaijan , which wasnt conquered by parthians untill at least 140s bc , when they gang banged seleucids. that means that the wall/statue cannot be older than 139 bc if its parthian work. That means you are basing your thureophoroi argument from a mid/late 2nd century bc evidence but we have thureos in the army list which starts in 250 bc

First, I need to clarify that the relief is in Azerbaijian province, aka in today Iran, not in Azerbaijian, an another independent nation.

You can be right that the relief is weak in argument. Butit raises another two related questions: a) why the same list goes from 250 BC all the way to the end of Parthian Empire as they are just a vassal of Seleucids in 250 BC; b) Is there any evidence that Parthian army's composition changed during this time period?

RBS has the reply above about it. I quote it here(Cannae must be an error which should be Carrhae.)

#7 The Parthians had access to infantry from the Greek colonies in their territory. This is why their thureophoroi are Raw Militia Thureophoroi. The Parthian army at Cannae was not a typical Parthian army - it was only a holding force, the main army was elsewhere. Parthian armies could contain substantial numbers of infantry - if anything, they may be underrepresented in the army list.

[lapdog666]

i concede , my points are either not correct or they are simply demanding something that wont (but should) happen due to economy