Exilian

Exilian Projects => Rome - Total Realism => Mods, Maps & Game Add-Ons - The Bazaar => RTR 0.5 Imperial Campaign => Topic started by: ahowl11 on February 07, 2014, 05:23:31 PM

Title: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 07, 2014, 05:23:31 PM
I have put this discussion off for far too long now, and since we are very close to testing 0.5 I have decided to make this thread for the next version.
So as the title reads, this is only for faction units. No AOR units right now. There will be some factional units that use AOR but that's different. So basically we need to fill up the rosters and make them balanced for the version after 0.5. We will do one faction at a time to concentrate our focus on. This is the time to research and get everything right. I do not plan on changing faction rosters much after we finish this discussion. We will make it easy and start with Rome.
As far as unit models etc, none of them are set in stone from 0.5. All are subject to change. I have put sources of where we can use models/textures for each unit in parenthesis.
This Discussion Thread will go hand in hand with the Unit Workshop! For every unit finalized here, a DMB and EDU entry will need to be made in the unit workshop thread. From that thread, we will be able to keep count of slots being used, and it will help us keep ourselves organized. Also it will be easy to copy/paste the DMB/EDU entries from that thread into the game files.


Roman Republic
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Republic of Carthage
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Antigonid Kingdom
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Seleucid Empire
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ptolemaic Empire
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hellenic Kingdoms
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Greek Cities & Greek States
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pontus
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Parthia
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 07, 2014, 08:24:42 PM
A good thread I also waited for!

Now onto your first question: That's very difficult. Obviously there weren't any actual reforms that could be recognised as such. What is described as the Polybian system is just the Roman equipment as depicted in Polybios' writings and confirmed by archaelogical finds, in difference to the earlier forms at the time of Camillus and the very early Republic. The Manipular system with the Triplex Acies as such was already introduced in the early 3rd century, while auxiliaries and the new officer structures were only implemented by Scipio during the 2nd Punic War. So we could say the whole ''reform'' happened over a time of not less than 100 years.

So what does that mean for the game? First I'm only an advisor here so I won't, can't and don't want to make a final decision  :P Maybe Rome could start with some ancient units of Camillian style (not sure if they would still be similar to hoplites in 280 BC) who can't be recruited (like Pikemen on Empire) and then we have some militia, but mainly ''Polybian'' units for them.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 07, 2014, 10:58:42 PM
Hmmm I think it would be easier to just do away with a Camillan Army. It would take up a lot of space, and we aren't trying to be the next EB either. So I'll edit it out. I think it will make things a lot easier.

So now, I can slot the Extraordinarii in as the elite troops.

I just need help with the Marian Auxilia, but I'm going to rent the Kindle version of this book. Hopefully I can get some answers.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Roman-Army-Sourcebook/dp/0415178800/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389320584&sr=8-1&keywords=the+republican+roman+army

Also, should the regular Polybian troops only be recruitable from Rome/Capua or just Rome? And would there be an Italic Velite unit?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 07, 2014, 11:35:15 PM
Does RTRVII use Camillan units? I can't remember...
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 07, 2014, 11:52:06 PM
I'm not sure, but regardless we don't need them now.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 08, 2014, 12:22:00 AM
I'm pretty sure RTR VII used Camillan units. Leaving them out, at least for now, will do no harm. As for the auxiliae, there was that thread on the R2TR forum, but actual units are mostly only accredited for the Augustan age.

I don't see a problem with Italic velites, everyone's got skirmishers after all. How do you want to restrict the recruitment exactly? Would you be able to build legionary barracks in other towns later or would we completely restrict the recruitment of Polybian legions to Rome/Capua and only make it possible to recruit Marian troops everywhere? I think on RTR 6 you were able to construct a building called ''Roman citizenship'', which enabled you to build a legionary camp where you would train new cohorts. Maybe the Polybian units should indeed be restricted to Rome and Capua and after the Marian ''reforms'' one could use that citizenship principle to recruit troops otherwhere.

If we want to keep it historical, the citizenship building could have the following effects:
* Enables you to construct legionary barracks
* + 50 % public order (since the population would be happy to be acknowledged in such a way)
* - 20 % income (to reflect economic losses in Italy and minor unhappiness at the court/in Latium. OR, but I don't think that's possible, it should decrease the public order in Latium & Capua, which would be the most realistic. At any rate, there should be a negative effect to giving citizenship to everyone since there was good reason that Rome hesitated to do so for five centuries)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 08, 2014, 01:40:38 AM
Yeah I think tying the barracks to citizenship is a good idea. Rome/Capua will have it initially with the other Italian cities being able to train at first their own style of units such as Bruttian Infantry or Lucanian Skirmishers. Then with an army barracks or something the native troops would disappear and you would be able to train Italic Hastati etc. As for Marian Auxilia, I think they probably relied on basic mercenaries. Cretan Archers, Numidian Cavalry, Gallic troops etc. that fought in their native styles. So we don't need to worry about that. I've also added Funditores and Sagitarii to the list. Sagitarii will be a factional AOR unit for the Marian Army, but what about the Funditores? AOR or no?

Also, as for recruitment with the Romans, Res Gestae has a pretty interesting Script where you can recruit an entire Roman Legion in one turn.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?51049-Some-other-Add-ons-!
Post#2
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Alavaria on February 08, 2014, 04:24:07 AM
If we want to keep it historical, the citizenship building could have the following effects:
* Enables you to construct legionary barracks
* + 50 % public order (since the population would be happy to be acknowledged in such a way)
* - 20 % income (to reflect economic losses in Italy and minor unhappiness at the court/in Latium. OR, but I don't think that's possible, it should decrease the public order in Latium & Capua, which would be the most realistic. At any rate, there should be a negative effect to giving citizenship to everyone since there was good reason that Rome hesitated to do so for five centuries)
Note that if you use -% Tax Income Bonus, you can't reduce a settlement below 0% Bonus. Hardly anything in Vanilla RTW gives the bonus in the first place ...

Amusingly this means the building would be a great thing to build in all the random backwater areas that might grow too large, which you are holding just to hold it.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 08, 2014, 05:08:08 AM
So what would you suggest?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Alavaria on February 08, 2014, 12:50:15 PM
Right.

Well, if you like the (economy is done via income tax bonus) approach, then there's not necessarily a problem.

One could also give it a -trade bonus. (Though I think you can't have a settlement go below 0 trade bonus as well).

Other approaches I've seen include a long build time and/or a high cost for the building. In particular, players will be less tempted to start building it in every frontier settlement because (1) could be building other faster/cheaper buildings for public order and (2) could lose the settlement, which I think means you lose the cash and turns of building the citizenship building.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 08, 2014, 01:11:49 PM
Well I'm not the game mechanics expert here  :P Do whatever you want, but there should definitely be a negative effect to giving citizenship to everyone. Long building times and high costs might just be right, though, resembling the lengthy progress of romanizing the people and building up the necessary administration to naturalise the natives.

About the funditores, to be honest I've never really heard of them outside of mods, so I'll have to research that. For now excuse me, but it's my birthday  ;D
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Alavaria on February 08, 2014, 02:23:16 PM
Yes, you reminded me of the method used in I think FOE or somewhere.

Instead of one long expensive building, it's a line that you "upgrade" ... and some of the initial ones have happiness/law penalties as people are unhappy you are trying to "romanize" them. After you upgrade it some more, they're assimilated and can train in the roman style of troops and become less unhappy etc
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 08, 2014, 02:25:04 PM
Well I'm not the game mechanics expert here  :P Do whatever you want, but there should definitely be a negative effect to giving citizenship to everyone. Long building times and high costs might just be right, though, resembling the lengthy progress of romanizing the people and building up the necessary administration to naturalise the natives.

About the funditores, to be honest I've never really heard of them outside of mods, so I'll have to research that. For now excuse me, but it's my birthday  ;D

Congrats then!
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 08, 2014, 04:07:37 PM
Right.

Well, if you like the (economy is done via income tax bonus) approach, then there's not necessarily a problem.

One could also give it a -trade bonus. (Though I think you can't have a settlement go below 0 trade bonus as well).

Other approaches I've seen include a long build time and/or a high cost for the building. In particular, players will be less tempted to start building it in every frontier settlement because (1) could be building other faster/cheaper buildings for public order and (2) could lose the settlement, which I think means you lose the cash and turns of building the citizenship building.


I see... Well, even if it's impossible to reduce the tax income to below 0%, we can at least ensure that it remains at 0%. For example, imagine that a settlement has 15% tax income and the player decides to build the "Roman citzenship". When it's done, the settlement tax income would go down to 0%, I think that's fair enough. We can also use, as you said, the -% trade bonus. Say, -10% tax income and -10% trade bonus. Also, if the building costs a lot of money and has a long building time, chances are that the tax income rises in the meanwhile.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 08, 2014, 11:54:20 PM
I'm not sure what the best option would be, but let's not stray too far off topic. I will make another thread dealing with Economy.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 09, 2014, 03:54:48 AM
Did a little research and I have decided to exclude the units Sagittarii and Funditores from the game. The Romans never raised or trained these units, they were simply mercenaries. Sagittarii was the name given to the Numidian, Cretan, and Syrian Archers while Funditores was given to the Balearic, Numidian and Rhodian Slingers. So I'll edit the list accordingly. It seems as if we have finished the Roman Roster, now I just need to decide which models I will be using for the units!
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Alavaria on February 09, 2014, 05:50:39 AM
Right.

Well, if you like the (economy is done via income tax bonus) approach, then there's not necessarily a problem.

One could also give it a -trade bonus. (Though I think you can't have a settlement go below 0 trade bonus as well).

Other approaches I've seen include a long build time and/or a high cost for the building. In particular, players will be less tempted to start building it in every frontier settlement because (1) could be building other faster/cheaper buildings for public order and (2) could lose the settlement, which I think means you lose the cash and turns of building the citizenship building.


I see... Well, even if it's impossible to reduce the tax income to below 0%, we can at least ensure that it remains at 0%. For example, imagine that a settlement has 15% tax income and the player decides to build the "Roman citzenship". When it's done, the settlement tax income would go down to 0%, I think that's fair enough. We can also use, as you said, the -% trade bonus. Say, -10% tax income and -10% trade bonus. Also, if the building costs a lot of money and has a long building time, chances are that the tax income rises in the meanwhile.
There is an approach where you make every settlement have say +100% tax income bonus (in say the governor's building) and scale up all costs appropriately.

This means you can have your income cut.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 09, 2014, 06:44:25 AM
Alavaria, I will PM you and also set up a Discussion thread for the Economy.

The Roman Roster is complete, go ahead and take a look at the final list in the OP. Only one unit will need to be edited and that's the Roman General from EB.

Now on to Carthage which should have a pretty small faction roster, I have the first draft of a roster up in the OP.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 09, 2014, 11:52:34 AM
I would suggest that Carthage had some kind of building in Carthago were it could recruit and retrain a large roster of mercenaries.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 09, 2014, 08:13:35 PM
Thanks! @Bercor

To have something like a mercenary center in Carthage sounds neat, can we give them a bonus to have mercenaries available for cheaper like Rome II does?

As for the rest of their troops the roster looks right enough. Roman style equipment was mostly acquired during the early stages of the 2nd Punic War, when the Carthaginians (mainly Hannibal) defeated the Romans and could pick up their weapons and armours.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 09, 2014, 08:28:54 PM
How could we simulate that in game though? Win a huge victory on Italian Soil and then you would have access to the new troop types?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 09, 2014, 08:34:29 PM
How could we simulate that in game though? Win a huge victory on Italian Soil and then you would have access to the new troop types?

Maybe conquer and hold the settlements in south Italia? That's easier to script, I believe.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 09, 2014, 08:56:54 PM
That's a good idea for the player. For the AI I think that the reform should occur when they get down to 3 settlements or less.

Also, the ALX.exe makes it possible for each faction to have it's own unique set of mercenaries. It would be perfect for Carthage but I doubt it could work on the BI.exe. There are ways to get mercenaries though. We could make a Carthage AOR and certain troops such as Iberians, Greeks, and Gauls could be recruited there due to all the trade etc. That's how RTRPE has it.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 09, 2014, 09:00:12 PM
We could make a Carthage AOR and certain troops such as Iberians, Greeks, and Gauls could be recruited there due to all the trade etc. That's how RTRPE has it.

That's exactly what I was thinking.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 10, 2014, 04:33:58 PM
Also, Carthago should have two elephant units, African Elephants and African Towered Elephants, no?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 10, 2014, 06:26:39 PM
I guess they could, but I don't see the point of giving them a small Elephant with one rider. I think giving them the War Elephant with the tower is good enough. If someone can convince me otherwise I will change it.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 10, 2014, 06:30:35 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3605/3323034816_d630461cca.jpg)

Convinced enough?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Jubal on February 10, 2014, 06:34:26 PM
I'd have the war elephant with tower slow to train; unreliable "levy" elephants would be a good thing to have, after all eg Hannibal at Zama basically just scraped together every elephant he could find, and that's what I'd see the non-tower elephants as representing.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 10, 2014, 06:35:33 PM
It's funny because I live by the same saying! Hahaha.
Okay, I'll give it thought, but evidence that they should be in would help.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 10, 2014, 09:19:13 PM
I agree with Jubal.

Historically, the North African Elephants were smaller than their Syrian and Indian counterparts. Gameplay wise, this would translate in a cheaper and weaker local elephant unit (North African Elephant), that, nevertheless, could give Carthago an edge in some battles, and in an imported bigger towered elephant unit, but also very costly (Syrian Elephant).

Hannibal's elephant was named Surus("the Syrian") so we can assume that Carthago had the possibility to import bigger elephants than the local ones. Moreover, many modern scholars consider that the North African Elephant was to small to be capable of carrying a tower in his back.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 10, 2014, 09:24:08 PM
Okay, I'll add it
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 11, 2014, 10:13:29 PM
I can only agree with that, the African elephants used back then weren't the big sub-Saharan ones everyone knows, but their lesser relatives, the African wood elephants. Now you might wonder why you've never heard of them, well, they are extinct. And now if you wonder how they all died, well, that should be obvious...
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 11, 2014, 10:25:04 PM
And now if you wonder how they all died, well, that should be obvious...

Obvious, indeed.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 11, 2014, 10:58:29 PM
The Carthaginian Inquisition, rather...  ;D
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 12, 2014, 12:13:54 AM
Well I believe Carthage is set then. :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Jubal on February 13, 2014, 02:08:42 AM
I believe the Romans had as much or more to do with it - the Carthaginians actually used the elephants and bred them, whereas the Romans were much more into hunting, got up into the mountains far more, and exported large numbers of them for use in the arena.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Sigma on February 13, 2014, 04:41:28 AM
I believe the Romans had as much or more to do with it - the Carthaginians actually used the elephants and bred them, whereas the Romans were much more into hunting, got up into the mountains far more, and exported large numbers of them for use in the arena.

There was also a species of North African lion driven to extinction due to Roman arena demand and there was also that one medicinal herb from Cyrene, Silphium.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Jubal on February 13, 2014, 01:50:08 PM
*shakes fist* damn Romans coming over here and stealing our wildlife.  :P
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 16, 2014, 06:03:36 PM
The Antigonid Kingdom is up. Kind of messy, would really like to organize them and determine how they will recruit their units.

Also, a new Roman unit!

From JaM:
Quote
btw, reading some books about Punic Wars, found some mentions of Roman Garrison forces that fought during sieges - Roman Historians called them Proletarii, and they were usually armed with swords and spears, used scutum, but usually have no other armor besides helmets.. I think such units would be much better to have than current Rorarii.. we could even create two different, one armed with swords/javelins and second with spears/javelins.

For us, I think taking the cape off of the town militia unit would do the trick!
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 16, 2014, 07:10:15 PM
he Antigonid Kingdom is up. Kind of messy, would really like to organize them and determine how they will recruit their units.
Mausolos is probably the right man for that.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 16, 2014, 08:00:57 PM
What are the possibilities of Thorakitai and Thureophoroi being included in the mod? The spear units not the sword.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 16, 2014, 08:25:10 PM
100% possible but it doesn't look like they'll be for Macedon
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 16, 2014, 09:14:14 PM
Cool, where do you plan on getting them from? the Diadochi versions look like they would fit, given some re-skinning of course.

I also like the plan in regards to units, using the RTRPE units and supplementing them with some other similar units is a good plan.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 16, 2014, 10:04:32 PM
Need to do some research. There are a lot of options.
Yes, I am glad we are doing it this way. Makes it easy.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 16, 2014, 11:47:22 PM
I know you have already set the roman roster but the one you Presented in RTRPE II was good:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?562091-RTRPE-II-(1-1-Patch-Released!)&p=12257731&viewfull=1#post12257731
a fine example of what you are planning now, RTRPE units combined with other units similar in appearance :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 17, 2014, 12:15:35 AM
You called me? Here I am! First of all, Antigonid Macedon will be a very big talking point when we come to the distribution of regions and how we handle the situation we have in 280 BC (since in RTR VII it is depicted realistically, which is too hard for the AI, but great fun for the human player).

As for their roster... the forces of Antigonos Gonatas in 280 BC should still be very much alike to the army of Alexander the Great. While the veterans from the campaigns in the East themselves had long retired or died, units and style of equipment had not really changed yet. Towards the end of the 3rd century, the Macedonian army, similar to their Ptolemaic and Seleucid counterparts, would deploy less and less cavalry, and further enlarge the size of the phalanx spears, but this ''atrophy'' had not happened yet at the beginning of the century. So Gonatas' army relied heavily on a combination of the Phalangites (Pezhetairoi) and Heavy Cavalry (Thessalian cavalry and of course the ,,Earth Shakers'', the Hetairoi).
These were supported by various light troops, peltasts, archers and slingers, among them the feared Agrianian peltasts, who were experts to fight on rough terrain and were often despatched as a flying column, and also light cavalry (Thracian cavalry or Greek javelin cavalry, Sarissa cavalry). Between the two parts of the army fought the hypaspists, elite hoplites who could be used more flexibly than the Phalanx pikemen. Their Greek subjects would obviously still fought in the old hoplite style, accompanied by peltasts.

So far, so good. There are a few things I might have to research (if there aren't already other people here, who know the answers). That would be:

1. Hypaspists- some mods also have hypaspists in phalanx formations with long pikes. That might have happened later on (as decribed above), but obviously it destroys the actual the actual idea of the hypaspists, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to put them in.

2. Psiloi- these might be a lighter version of peltasts, who are featured in some mods. Peltasts were usually very light, too, though, so I'd have to find out what are the exact differences.

There are probably more units we could implement, I'll do some reading.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 17, 2014, 12:16:23 AM
Yup, I remember posting that. Ours is pretty much the same, just without the Camillans.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 17, 2014, 08:36:36 PM
I didn't see your post until just now Mausalos!

Skirmishers are Psiloi, Psiloi are skirmishers :) they are the current Peltasts that we have now.

As for the Hypaspists they will be the elite hoplite. As for the sword hypaspists, I have included them based off my reading from Duncan Head.

Could you please help out with the following units?
Katakoi
Aspidophoroi
Lonchophoroi

Also Seleucid Roster is up
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 17, 2014, 08:57:34 PM
I've never seen any evidence that the Thorakitai Argyraspides are more than an fantasy unit, especially with that mail mask... Maybe Mausolos can prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 17, 2014, 09:15:19 PM
I agree. The diadochi factions need to be done all at once because they are all so similar. I'll have Egypt up soon and then we will focus on those three before moving on to another.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 18, 2014, 04:41:00 AM
Hey ahowl, when this mod goes public on twc will it be using the current reskinned vanilla roster or newer units? if so what are the possibilities of introducing a small AOR using the Mercenaries available in game?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 18, 2014, 05:16:05 AM
The mod will be going public in a few days. In the next release we will include a lot of new units and we can make a general AOR for it.

EDIT:
Posted the Ptolemaic Roster. After looking through all three of their rosters, I can only point out a select handful of troops that were used exclusively by one of the three factions. Most of the units, especially the basic ones should be available to all three Diadochi Factions. For example, Macedon has greek levies, the Seleucids have eastern levies, and the Ptolemies have egyptian levies. Well if you are Macedon and conquer Egypt, shouldn't you have access to Machimoi troops? I believe so.
Egypt already has a few Greek/Hellenic territories, so shouldn't they have access to Levy Hoplites and Deuteroi as well as the greek variant of skirmishers?

A Hellenic/Diadochi AOR will need be made exclusively for the next BETA release.

Mausalos, you have a lot of work cut out for you. Please go through each of the Diadochi rosters and tell us who should we have in or out for each of the factions. There are a lot of units there, but if a unit does not have a significant history or is just mythical I do not want it in! :)

We will not move forward until the Diadochi Faction rosters are complete and agreed upon! Let the discussion begin!
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 18, 2014, 10:14:56 PM
In regards to the elephants, shouldn't the Seleucids have Syrian war elephants? Right now they have two units of imported Indian war elephants, but, historically, they created some of their own elephants in Syria and exported them to whom was able to pay for them. Granted that the Indian and Syrian elephants were very similar, but I feel they also shoud be represented ingame. What I would suggest is that the normal towered elephants remain the Indian war elephants and the cataphract elephants change to Syrian armoured elephants.
The Ptolemies should have the same elephants as Carthage, a smaller North African elephant and an imported Indian war elephant. Ideally, I don't know if this is possible, the Indian war elephant should be more costly to Carthago than to the Ptolemies, to represent the fact that the Ptolemies could buy them in the source, indian rajas, and Carthago had to buy them through intermediaries, Ptolemies or Seleucids.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 19, 2014, 12:38:25 AM
Ooft, that's what you get for missing a few days  ;D My exam went well today, though, so I should have a bit more time now.

Now on the topic, at first I'll answer your questions, ahowl, and then Bercor's:

Katakoi- do you mean Katoikoi? A similar term as Metoikoi (metics), which usually described foreign residents in a Greek polis (e.g. Athenian traders living in Corinth), but during Hellenism it was assigned to Greek/Macedonian military settlers in the East, often in cleruchies (citizen colonies), which were used to control the local population. Katoikoi as a unit would probably be phalanx pikemen? To be honest I don't really see why they should be different from Pezhetairoi. Just looked at your roster and saw you already got Kleruchoi pikemen, Kleruchoi and Katoikoi might had have a different tax status, but I don't really see the differences between Pezhetairoi, Kleruchoi and Katoikoi pikemen.

(Ptolemies) However, there's a book about the katoikoi hippeis , a rare instance of cavalry recruited from the cleruchs. Apparently they were also mixed with Egyptians later on. So, get this, KATOIKOI are the richer part of the KLERUCHOI, but so far historians/archaelogists etc. have only proven this for Egypt. So we could give them the Katoikoi cavalry. In one book about the Seleucid army the author describes the Katoikoi as phalangites as Magnesia, but I'm still not sure how we would differentiate them from the normal Pezhetairoi (the difference was probably rather social than military).

Aspidophoroi- what kind of units are they supposed to be? I saw that EB and another mod have them as pikemen with Aspis shields and skirmisher companion cavalry (Hetairoi Aspidophoroi). The name just means Apis bearers, but I've never heard about them apart from mods for RTW and google also only finds results from mods. Our uni library search doesn't know them either so I can't say anything else here.

Lonchophoroi- Ah, I remember seeing those on RTR 6 and thinking that the name is funny. What are they supposed to be? The names seems to mean something like javelinmen

Thorakitai Argyraspides - there seems to be no final conclusion if they existed or not. They are obscure and if they existed, not more than 1000 may exer have existed so we might leave them out altogether

Elephants: Yeah, agreed, even Rome II added the Syrian elephants (among a number of silly wardogs) so we also need them ;)

On to the rosters in general:

SELEUCID EMPIRE:

Slingers- Yes
Skirmishers (Psiloi(Peltasts)- Yes
Archers- Yes
Gastaphretes- Crossbows? We could also use the English name, although they were very rare so that might speak for a Greek name, not sure. AND the Seleucids almost never used them, only in the Greek world itself did they appear sometimes (AOR in Greece then or scrap)

Levy hoplites- can't we just call them hoplites or Greek hoplites or so? This always annoyed me since hoplites are by definition levies. Sure, not short-term levies, but they are militia troops in all cases but Sparta and Thebes
Pantodopoi- what are these?
Pezhetairoi- Yes
Chalkaspides- Yes
Chrysaspides- Yes
Argyraspides- Yes. Actually I think the Argyraspides ARE the hypaspists with pikes. Often recruited from settlers and always at a strength of about 10 000. They are also called peltasts sometimes (also see below), but only because the Phalanx shield was often also called pelte
Kleruchoi *AOR Syria- Yes (see above)
Allied Phalangites- Yes. They were called: Hypaithroi (mercenary phalangites deployed by the satraps of Sardes and Persia are named as that by Polybios)

Hypaspists- Yes. They should definitely be elite foot troops and we don't need a phalanx version, that would be the Argyraspides
There were also the ''Agema of the hypaspists'', elite hypaspists, a very small corps of foot bodyguards. I finally understood everything now:
The Agema (only Macedon), part of the hypaspists > hypaspists - part of the Argyraspides. All taken together they formed the Seleucid infantry guard

AGEMA (NEW)- However, the Seleucids HAD an unit called Agema, 1000 elite horsemen formed of oriental riders, similar to the Hetairoi, but of a different social status
Thureophoroi- Yes
Thorakitai- Yes
Thorakitai Argyraspides- No, see above
Machairophoroi- No, this is only the name given to the ''elite'' part of the native Egyptian troops, who were also used as police forces

Hippakontistai *AOR Greece- Yes I guess
Prodromoi- Yes
Lonchophoroi?- see above
Xystophoroi (NEW)- standard spear cavalry with lighter armour than the companions
Hetairoi- Yes
Hellenic Cataphracts- Yes

Indian War Elephants- see above for elephants
Armoured Indian War Elephants
NEW Scythed Chariots- were definitely used by the Seleucids, more than every other nation at the time probably (apart from Celtic chariots, but they are fundamentally different)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 19, 2014, 12:46:08 AM
I'm against the crossbowman. They were very rare, you'd never find an entire unit of them, and I've never seen any mention of them in any battle.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 19, 2014, 01:02:36 AM
ANTIGONID MACEDON

Slingers *Only in Greece - Yes, but why only in Greece?
Skirmishers *Only in Greece- Yes, same question lol Only as Psiloi then?
Archers *Only in Greece- yes, same
Peltasts (Similar to Thureophoroi) *Only in Greece- Yes (There should be two units, peltasts AND Thureophoroi, right?)
Kestros Slingers- the Kestros was only invented during the late 3rd century, mind you. But it was definitely a Macedonian speciality, who used the weapo against the Romans in the 2nd century. Apparently some Greek states (Aitolian League, Epiros?) already used them before
Gastraphetes- Again, they were only used rarely

Levy Hoplites *Only in Greece- Yes
Deuteroi *Only in Greece- How would that unit look? Again, it's primarily a social difference
Pezhetairoi- Yes
Asthetairoi *Only in Macedon- Yes to both. They are described as ''more like the Hypaspists'', the most flexible of all phalangites. It seems doubtful if game mechanics could reflect that
Chalkispides- Yes
Leukaspides- Yes, Leukaspides were not that often used (the Seleucids also used them once, but only under Antiochos IV Epiphanes) since they were ornamented. Maybe they could give a morale boost, but would be extremely expensive, despite being weaker than the Asthetairoi
Katoikoi *Only in Illyria or Thrace?- If at all, they would be settlers in Illyria or Thrace
Bottian Phalangites *Only Western Macedon- is there a need for a different unit?
Amphipolitan Phalangites *Only Eastern Macedon- see above
Allied Phalangites * Only in Greece- Yes (Not sure if we could also call them Hypaithroi since that term was only attributed to the Seleucid mercenary/allied phalangites)

Hypaspists- Yes
Sword Hypaspists- Does that mean in differences to phalangites or to hoplites?

Hippakontistai *Only in Greece- Yeah
Prodromoi- Yeah
Sarissophoroi- Yeah
Xystophoroi *Only in Greece- Yeah (Why did you leave them out for the Seleucids then if you would put them for Macedon?  :P )
Hetairoi- Yes

Aspidophoroi? - See above
Lonchophoroi?- See above

One general thing on the Pezhetairoi... the word describes Hellenistic Pikemen in general. For example, the Macedonian pikemen were made up of Chalkaspides (bronze shields) and Leukaspides (white shields), supported by the Asthetairoi as an elite contingent. So the Chalkaspides are Pezhetairoi, like the Hypaspists are Argyraspides.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 19, 2014, 01:28:00 AM
PTOLEMAIC EGYPT

Slingers *AOR Egypt- Yes
Skirmishers *AOR Egypt- Yes
Machimoi Archers *AOR Egypt- Yes
Peltasts- Yes. The Ptolemaic peltastai were inspired by Thracian troops and had hats instead of helmets (like Cretan archers. I'm sure this will look cool :D )
NEW: Cretan archers (maybe AOR)
Galatian Warriors (Celtic Swordsmen)
Thracian Warriors (probably in their typical equipment)
Carian Warriors (axemen like on Rome II or javelinmen, surely light infantry that could also pack a punch in melee ;))
Rhodian slingers

While Carians had a long tradition of serving and living in Egypt, the others were mistrophoroi (mercenaries), but they were regularly used, like Carthage did, so we might also give them Mercenary barracks or make them cheaper and recruitable in the Nile Delta. Their sons often used to live in Egypt and thus they stayed, so I'd prefer the first option

Machimoi Phalangites *AOR Egypt- Yes
Kleruchoi Phalangites- Again, the Kleruchoi are Pezhetairoi
Pezhetairoi- Socially they are devided into Kleruchoi/Katoikoi (Greek settlers), Machimoi (Usually Egyptians, but also Jews or poor Greeks) and Stratiotai (settlers without a kleros, that means, without land). So if we want a weaker unit of the Kleruchoi, we could call them Stratiotai
Ptolemaic Elite Phalangites-

Machimoi Infantry *AOR Egypt- Yes
Epilektoi (NEW)- Elite Machimoi Infantry
Thureophoroi- Yes
Thorakitai- Yes, I think. But it should be noted that books on the Ptolemaic and Seleucid armies (and the Macedonian army, even though they mainly describe the very early one under Alexander and his generals) never even mention the term Thorakitai. Yes, there is proof for Roman influences, but it has often been exaggerated, especially for the Ptolemies. So while Thorakitai in the Antigonid and Seleucid armies could have existed, they seem doubtful for the Ptolemies, since they never fought against the Romans themselves.
Machairophoroi- Yes, Egyptian and Semitic guard and police troops. The name implies that they bear swords, and there seems to have been a little cavalry unit of them
Basilikon Agema- Yes, 3000 men

Hippakontistai *AOR Egypt- Yes
Machimoi Cavalry *AOR Egypt- Yes
Prodromoi- Yes
Hetairoi- Yes
Machairophoroi cavalry- see above, sword cavalry
Xystophoroi- again, everyone used them, they were the most common infantry

Elephants?- See above
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 19, 2014, 01:32:24 AM
Carian Warriors (axemen like on Rome II or javelinmen, surely light infantry that could also pack a punch in melee ;))

I sense some bias in the air.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 19, 2014, 01:36:53 AM
Phew, okay, there you go. As I said we could scrap the Gastraphetes, but Macedon and other Greeks (The Aitolian League mainly since they had a focus on skirmishers) might get them. They are unrealistic for the two Eastern kingdoms, though.

Well, that took me a few hours and I hope that will have been a big step. @ahowl I'm still trying to get cold_mac and Great Montrose on here since I will be unable to say a lot on Celtic or German rosters. I know they probably didn't reply to your PM but I'm still working on that front, to be sure ;)

@ Carians Oh come on  ;D It's just a fact that Caria was pisspoor and so it was common since about 600 BC that Carians would join the Egyptian army and make their fortune there. Due to the rough terrain at home they were excellent mountain warriors, and were both effective as skirmishers and as melee troops. However, they are of course light infantry and couldn't beat heavy cavalry. But they could well harass them and beat other light troops in melee with their axes. I'm not sure if there ever was an unit of axemen with javelins or something like that before, but that's the most likely equipment  ;)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 19, 2014, 01:43:31 AM
Oh come on  ;D It's just a fact that Caria was pisspoor and so it was common since about 600 BC that Carians would join the Egyptian army and make their fortune there. Due to the rough terrain at home they were excellent mountain warriors, and were both effective as skirmishers and as melee troops. However, they are of course light infantry and couldn't beat heavy cavalry. But they could well harass them and beat other light troops in melee with their axes. I'm not sure if there ever was an unit of axemen with javelins or something like that before, but that's the most likely equipment  ;)

Uhm, I suppose you want us to represent them like this:
(http://th02.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2012/026/0/8/the_warrior_of_the_mountain_by_noxypia-d4nnynv.jpg) ?

Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 19, 2014, 04:59:04 AM
Wow, thank you so much for that Mausalos!

In regards to Katoikoi/Kleruchoi, I found this from an RS2 Preview:
Quote
The terms for landowner (kleruchoi) and settler (katoikoi) would change with the times. Before the 3rd century B.C., the Greek and Macedonian land holders were referred to as kleruchoi. Starting with successes at Raphia and the demands for greater say in the running of their homelands, the natives were being granted land ownership too. In 197 B.C. during the reign of Ptolemy V Ephiphanes the natives were used in more substantial roles within the empire and were increasingly granted land allotments themselves; attaining kleruchoi status themselves. In response to this the Greek and Macedonian land holders, and perhaps other European settlers like the Celts and Thracians, increasingly chose to be called katoikoi, not kleruchoi, to distinguish themselves from native kleruchoi.

In the same preview (For the Ptolemies) it addressed that Pezhetairoi was a universal term, just as you explained.
Quote
Pezoi, by definition, basically means "foot soldier," and was the term generally applied to all Ptolemaic phalangites. The Makedonikoi Phalangitai of the Seleucids, Pezoi of the Ptolemies, and the Pezhetairoi of Macedonia are all from the same background.

Okay so let's see if I can get these right!


Antigonids
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Seleucids
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ptolemies
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Alright that's it. Took me a few hours to compile everything! Everything should look good for the Seleucids and Ptolemies. There are still a few units in question for the Antigonids. Mausalos, if you could read what I put about them and check your sources I think we can come up with a final roster.

I'll restate that I think that Greek (Antigonid), Asian (Seleucid), and Machimoi (Ptolemaic) troops should be available for all Diadochi factions based on regions owned. The Antigonids and Seleucids should have access to Machimoi troop types if they ever conquer Egypt.

Also, I believe each faction needs a Levy Militia unit for garrisoning/public order. It would replace the peasant unit and it stops the revolt CTD that will occur if Peasants are removed. Thoughts?

Once we finalize these three rosters we will do the Hellenic States roster, which will be fun because it will feature units from Epirus, Pergamum, Cyrene, and Bactria :)

Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 19, 2014, 11:44:25 AM
In the hellenistic period the hypaspist was an elite unit, so giving the Seleucids an unit called Elite Hypaspists it's redundant. Also, I don't think there should be a Sword Hypaspist unit, the engine allows to give two weapons to any unit, as such, we can have an hoplite with a sword as secondary weapon, and it's an unnecessary unit that takes a spot that we may need in the future. If the player wants more assault units then he can buy mercenaries.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 19, 2014, 03:35:34 PM
Bercor, don't be silly, there isn't any snow in Caria.

And ahowl, it's MausOlos, not Mausalos, just by the way  :P

But back onto the topic:



Katoikoi: Maybe that's right, what I found was that Katoikoi were the socially higher standing part of the Kleruchoi later on. I forgot to add to the roster above that the Ptolemaic Empire should have the Katoikoi Hippeis as I pointed out above. Katoikoi cavalry would also be a good solution and shows that they are the richer cleruchs since they can afford their own horses. > Add Katoikoi cavalry to Ptolemaic Empire

MACEDON

Thureophoroi were invented as a reaction to Celtic raids, and since Macedon was the first of the hellenistic state to encounter Celtic enemies it would seem logic that they were the ones wo even invented the Thureos shield troops. Should definitely get them.

Sword Hypaspists Okay this is complicated now. The Royal Peltasts seem to be the so called ''Agema of the Hypaspists'', the elite of the elite, formed from the original corps of Alexander's hypaspists, counting 2000 men. They are described as peltasts, but in pitched battles they are described as a Macedonian phalanx. Bercor makes a good point about the two weapons one can have, but it seems that the Agema Hypaspists could actually fight as phalangites and swordsmen. So if you don't form them into a phalanx they would be elite sword hypaspists. But I don't think that's possible in the game mechanics, or is it?

Amphipolitan and Bottian Phalangites If you want them, put them in, but I'm sure they were part of the Chalkaspides & Leukaspides ;)

Lonchophoroi They seem to be extremely similar to Xystophoroi then. If we find enough differences we could put both in, or alternatively Ptolemies and Seleucids get Xystophoroi while Macedon has Lonchophoroi as medium cavalry.

Aspidophoroi: Well the different mods don't seem to agree on their role and equipment  :P I found mounted Thureophoroi being mentioned and from the descriptions they could be the Aspidophoroi, although they carry a Thureos shield and not a Aspis shield, while both have javelins and the machaira sword for melee. So we could put them in I guess.

+ Illyrian cavalry was even stationed by Alexander in Bactria so they were probably part of later Macedonian armies, too. Making them available as mercenaries seems sound.

+ Gallic cavalry was also deployed as mercenaries after the Gallic invasion of Greece and still served in the Macedonian army by the 190s. Perhaps some of them also fought by foot like the Galatian mercenaries deployed by the Ptolemies. The element of ,,barbarian'' troops in the Macedonian army, be it Celts, Thracians, Illyrians or others was constantly on the rise during the 3rd and early 2nd century BC

Thorakitai: I read another book (Hans van Wees) on the topic and he attests this ''cuirassed infantry'' only to the Seleucid and Achaian armies.


SELEUCIDS

Elite Hypaspists- sorry for not being clear enough there, the Seleucids had a unit called Agema of the Hypaspists, but they were never described in any of the recorded battles and thus it is very likely that it this was rather meant as the Agema of the Argyraspides, being the Hypaspists. So in difference to Macedon, there wasn't a special core of the Hypaspists, just Hypaspists

Everything else is fine, but we can add another unit:

+ The Dromedary corps - I think that's self explaining ;) Obviously they are slower, but spread fear among horses. Dromedar cataphracts are only attested some 400 years later in the Parthian army, so these would have been medium spear cavalry I think (since camels/dromedars don't have a lot of use against infantry they wouldn't have carried swords)

PTOLEMIES

Add Katoikoi Hippeis (see above)

Everything else is fine, but don't forget about the Cretans, Galatians, Rhodians and Carians  ;)


P.S: The Achaian League also fielded the Epilektoi as Elite infantry, as they did have Thorakitai (just putting this here for later)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 19, 2014, 04:21:43 PM
Sword Hypaspists Okay this is complicated now. The Royal Peltasts seem to be the so called ''Agema of the Hypaspists'', the elite of the elite, formed from the original corps of Alexander's hypaspists, counting 2000 men. They are described as peltasts, but in pitched battles they are described as a Macedonian phalanx. Bercor makes a good point about the two weapons one can have, but it seems that the Agema Hypaspists could actually fight as phalangites and swordsmen. So if you don't form them into a phalanx they would be elite sword hypaspists. But I don't think that's possible in the game mechanics, or is it?

So we have three possibilities to represent the hypaspists:
- as an elite phalangite, with sword as secondary weapon;
- as an traditional hoplite, with sword as secondary weapon;
- as an royal peltast, with sword as secondary weapon.

In my opinion, we should discard representing them as an elite phalangite because, while it's true what Mausolos said, we already have an elite phalangite unit for both Macedon and the Seleucids. So, this gives us the last two options. If we want to make them an assault troop, probably more adequated to the hellenistic period, then we should make them royal peltasts. On the other hand, if we want them as an defensive sturdy unit, more antiquated, then we should represent them as tradiotional hoplites.

Personally, I would make the basic Hypaspist unit as an traditional hoplite and give Macedon an Hypaspist peltast unit "Agema Hypaspistai" or something similar. This way I believe we can represent the "elite" macedonian hypaspists.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 19, 2014, 05:03:49 PM
Yeah I think that would be the best way to handle it. We should be aware of the fact that the description ''peltast'' only refers to the pelte shield, apart from that they will have been rather swordsmen than light troops. So they would be elite assault troops then, while the ''normal'' hypaspists are elite hoplites, more flexible than the phalanx- guard hoplites, if you want.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 19, 2014, 07:45:01 PM
This is the Europa Barbarorum profile for the Carian Warriors:
(http://gyazo.com/c4b1c6552146b01b2551897235932a31.png)
Is this historically accurate?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 19, 2014, 10:03:16 PM
See, that's exactly how I tried to describe them before ;D Yes that's legit.

As for the militia to defend towns, I forgot to adress that, I guess we can just put them in as ''militia'' or ''citizen militia'' or so.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 19, 2014, 10:45:59 PM
But did they use mainly swords or axes?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 19, 2014, 11:21:20 PM
Well as the name says they are a warband, for most of the time Caria had neither a state nor any common rules or organisation. EB gives them the kopis sword, Rome II gives them axes, a quick google search shows that they could also be equipped with a falx. Whatever fits the game mechanics best, but I'd like to see them with axes since there are very few other unites with axes (thus making them more unique and not just another swordsmen unit).
An interesting thing I read is that a Carian at the Pharao's court is credited to say that ''the Carians were the first to use feathers on their helmets''. However, that quote is from about 600 BC so they would probably (and sadly!) have looked different by the Hellenistic age :p

By the way I think it is important, that they belong to the normal troops. While they initially came to Egypt as mercenaries in the 7th and 6th centuries BC, they settled down there over the generations and had their own communities, for example in Memphis (Hrdt. 1,1,3), like the Jews in Alexandria or later the Italians in Constantinople. So they should be recruitable there.
The other foreign troops, Thracians, Rhodians, Cretans and Galatians also formed part of the main body of the Ptolemaic Army. Quoting one historian ''During peace time, these troops formed the majority of the army''. Many Galatians emmigrated to Egypt after their expedition into Asia Minor came to a halt thanks to the rising power of Pergamon (late 3rd century BC) while Eastern Crete was occupied by the Ptolemies at the same time and the Nesiotic League (of which Rhodos was a member for a while) came under heavy Ptolemaic influence, while the independent Rhodos also always enjoyed good relations with Ptolemaic Egypt.
This means, that especially the Carians, and to a slightly lesser extent the Cretans and Rhodians, and to again a lesser extent the Galatians were always available and thus different to mercenaries who would be hired ad hoc.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 19, 2014, 11:37:43 PM
I agree.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 20, 2014, 12:46:13 AM
Sorry MausOlos :)

Okay so for Macedon:
Keep Thureophoroi
Add Agema Hypaspists
No Thorakitai

Seleucids:
Camel Corps

Ptolemies:
Katoikoi Cavalry
Carian Warband *AOR Caria/Egypt

I'll keep the Lonchophoroi but I don't know about Aspidophoroi. Are there any written records on either of them?

Also, with all of these units for the Diadochi, how are we going to recruit them?

I think that a 'Doryphoroi' unit will serve well as a garrison unit.

And what are your thoughts about Asian, Greek, and Egyptian troops being available to all Diadochi factions?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Jubal on February 20, 2014, 04:06:24 PM
I'm generally of the opinion that local troops should be available to all the Diadochi as AOR types, given they were all operating pretty similar governance models it makes quite a lot of sense.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 20, 2014, 04:23:13 PM
Seeing they serve in the Ptolemaic army it might be better to call them ''Carian Light Infantry'' or something like that (Warriors, Infantry, Axemen, whatever), since ''warband'' implies they are free of any command structures ;)

I have really no idea where I should even look to find Aspidophoroi or Lonchophoroi being mentioned. Even those mods that used them admits that they are only obscurely mentioned in a few passages and the internet doesn't know about them at all (like a wikipedia article where there are notes like ''Polybios, I''). Furthermore, translations of the ancient sources will call them different, while Greek originals would put them in Greek letters so it's nigh impossible to find those obscure passages.

What exactly do you mean? I guess there should be buildings for them?  ;D

I'm not sure if Doryphoroi is a good name for a militia unit, since it is usually connected with Peisistratos' mercenary bodyguard (while not really an elite, they were also called Doryphoroi) or sometimes statues of spear bearers are called Doryphoroi. In Greek versions of Roman sources the Praetorians are called Doryphoroi.

Well we have already included the Egyptian troops for the Ptolemies, do you mean the other Diadochi should have the possibilty to recruit them if they are to conquer Egypt?
As for the other two factions, Macedon should definitely have access to Greek hoplites, peltasts and hippeis in Thessalia, Euboia & Corinth (all the territories they control outside of Macedon). The Seleucids should also have access to Sparabara and other local troops in the East, fitting to the different region. But I would like us to make the cheaper troops of their main roster easily available and not primarily local troops, since on many mods you see the Seleucids fielding armies made up of much more local troops than Phalangites and other Hellenistic units and while the latter's number was obviously restricted, they were also careful in recruiting not too many locals (not as cautious as the Ptolemies, but still).
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 20, 2014, 04:50:48 PM
Hmmm I say we don't include Lonchophoroi or Aspidophoroi then, just because of the murkiness of their existence.

So what do you suggest as a militia/garrison unit?

Also, yes that is what I am saying. If Macedon conquered Egypt they should have access to the local troops. If Macedon conquered the east they should have access to the asian troops.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 20, 2014, 05:05:46 PM
1. Well maybe they did exist, I mean there are many famous battles or persons we only know from 1 or 2 lines in an obscure author's text who lived 500 years after the things happened. I just don't know where to look since I've never heard or read about these cavalry units outside of EB & RSII. Do you know the historians of EB or RS, for chance? We could ask them after their sources for those units then.

2. For all Diadochoi? We don't have to dig too deep there if you ask me, just give them a citizen militia based on vanilla's militia hoplites and it should be fine. Call them citizen militia or militia spearmen or so, I don't think we need to find a proper Greek name for a garrison unit.

3. Yeah I'm okay with that.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 20, 2014, 05:21:55 PM
I was wondering, is there any record of the using of phalanx inside a city? I guess probably not, since these streets were pretty narrow and the battle at that time were mainly fought in the walls, but maybe Mausolos can contradict me...
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 20, 2014, 05:33:53 PM
1. Keravnos was the RS2 historian and he hasn't been active since 2009. I could ask the EB members but I rather just leave them out. These factions are already getting a lot of cavalry. Maybe we could add them in later once we have better evidence.

2. Sounds good to me
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 20, 2014, 11:08:57 PM
Okay then, I'll keep my eyes open since I suppose it will still be some months before our final release anyway. As for your question, Bercor, I've never heard of it and quickly screened Plutarchs and Alexander Demandt's biographies of Alexander the Great. No mentioning of that, defenders are always on the walls and are taken out on them and not on the plaza and streets. The tactic to deploys phalanxes on streets is just a human player idea on RTW, while it works great we should be aware of the fact that, as you said, real streets might have been too narrow and the big streets would have lanes on their sides through which one could send assault infantry to break up the defender's phalanx.

Another idea: Ptolemies and Seleucids should also have access to ordinary Greek hoplites, as AOR troops in the Aegean and Western Asia Minor.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 20, 2014, 11:25:14 PM
Okay then, I'll keep my eyes open since I suppose it will still be some months before our final release anyway. As for your question, Bercor, I've never heard of it and quickly screened Plutarchs and Alexander Demandt's biographies of Alexander the Great. No mentioning of that, defenders are always on the walls and are taken out on them and not on the plaza and streets. The tactic to deploys phalanxes on streets is just a human player idea on RTW, while it works great we should be aware of the fact that, as you said, real streets might have been too narrow and the big streets would have lanes on their sides through which one could send assault infantry to break up the defender's phalanx.

Another idea: Ptolemies and Seleucids should also have access to ordinary Greek hoplites, as AOR troops in the Aegean and Western Asia Minor.

Yeah, it's a pretty cheap trick, since the AI doesn't know to do the same.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 20, 2014, 11:26:17 PM
I wonder if there is a way to edit settlement plans to make streets narrower and less defensible? For me I always put all of my troops at the center of a city. Makes it easier to defend because they will never route!

Rosters are complete for the Diadochi. Check the OP for any mistakes.

Now on to the Hellenic Kingdoms: I'll post the draft right here because it shouldn't take long. Remember that Epirus, Bactria, Pergamum and Cyrene are going to be represented by this faction. Mausolos, this is where real digging begins!

Missile Troops
Skirmishers
Slingers
Archers
Peltasts

Phalangites
Deuteroi/Pantodopoi/Machimoi
Kleruchoi
Tarentine Leukaspides
Agema Phalangites

Infantry
Hoplites
Thureophoroi
Thorakitai
Hypaspists
Chaeonian Agema
Bactrian Agema

Cavalry
Hippakontistai
Prodromoi
Xystophoroi
Hetairoi
Molossian Cavalry?
Bactrian Cataphracts

Other
Indian Elephants
African Elephants
Syrian Elephants

I need to do a little research myself!


Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 20, 2014, 11:34:03 PM
I think the bactrian troops should only be recruitable in bactria region, epirote troops in epirus, etc. Otherwise, we'll have stupid scenarios like Bactrian Cataphracts in Macedonia and stuuf like that.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 20, 2014, 11:43:38 PM
Of course, It would be RTF (Rome Total Fantasy) if we allowed that
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 20, 2014, 11:46:01 PM
Still need to add Katoikoi cavalry  :P The rest looks fine.

I think the bactrian troops should only be recruitable in bactria region, epirote troops in epirus, etc. Otherwise, we'll have stupid scenarios like Bactrian Cataphracts in Macedonia and stuuf like that.

Oh yes, indeed, but I guess ahowl already figured that himself. Edit: He already saw that ;)

The roster looks good so far, and yes Epiros should have an Agema phalanx. Epiros should get Indian elephants somehow, but I saw that they are recruitable as mercenaries in Epiros right now, which would also be good enough. Bactria should probably also get access to elephants, being close to India.
And yeah Bactria should have cataphracts, as Bercor just mentioned.

Pergamon also used quite a lot of mercenaries, especially Greeks (like Cretan archers) and Galatian swordsmen as well as cavalry, I believe.

Didn't Bercor also upload a book about the Bactrian army here? Did any of you two read it?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 20, 2014, 11:49:02 PM
Oh yes, indeed, but I guess ahowl already figured that himself. Edit: He already saw that ;)

The roster looks good so far, and yes Epiros should have an Agema phalanx. Epiros should get Indian elephants somehow, but I saw that they are recruitable as mercenaries in Epiros right now, which would also be good enough. Bactria should probably also get access to elephants, being close to India.
And yeah Bactria should have cataphracts, as Bercor just mentioned.

Didn't Bercor also upload a book about the Bactrian army here? Did any of you two read it?

First question, I did. Second question, I did not.:P

Epirus should have Syrian/Indian elephants the same way as Carthago. Bactria should also get them, but because they're around the corner from India.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 20, 2014, 11:51:26 PM
I'll add Cataphracts. If there is anything specific to certain kingdoms please tell me. I'd like to reflect the uniqueness as best as I can! I can understand that Cyrene would be tough, but maybe Pergamum had something? Also, Molossian Cavalry for Epirus? Maybe rename them to Molossian Nobles?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 20, 2014, 11:55:35 PM
I'll add Cataphracts. If there is anything specific to certain kingdoms please tell me. I'd like to reflect the uniqueness as best as I can! I can understand that Cyrene would be tough, but maybe Pergamum had something? Also, Molossian Cavalry for Epirus? Maybe rename them to Molossian Nobles?

Never heard of Molossian cavalry. They probably should get a Companions look-alike elite heavy cavalry.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 21, 2014, 12:34:34 AM
Okay Bercor, have a look at your own source then!  ;D Because I have no effin idea about the Bactrian army.

Kyrene and Pergamon are hard... I saw that other mods like Extended Realism also went guessing about them. As I said, they should get Galatian mercenaries, maybe only after the battle of the Kaikos sources in 234 BC. I will try to get a description of the battle and look if it says anything about the Pergamene army composition.

Well the Molossians were Pyrrhos' own ''tribe'' among the epirotes. Still, Epirotes were Greek and Greek noble cavalry are the hippeis. I will check if they have them on RTR VII, but maybe we could just call them Molossian hippeis and make them a bit stronger than city state hippeis, since Epiros was surely more able in cavalry operations than the (Southern) poleis.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 21, 2014, 01:00:23 AM
Alright, I've checked both. First, Livy and Polybius hardly mention anything about the Kaikos battle but the terrible, ferocious nature of the Galatians and that even the Seleucids feared them, and that the kind and bright big daddy Attalos defeated them at the Kaikos springs, near Pergamon and in Caria. No word on the troops he used, though, and this is the only bigger battle where Pergamon fought on its own. At the battle of Magnesia, they mention ''Pergamene cavalry'' and hoplites/phalangites.

And RTR VII gives Epiros the normal Hippeis. As I said they should maybe get stronger hippeis than the common Greeks. Also, RTR VII has Paionian cavalry for Macedon and Epiros. I would support adding them to the Macedonian roster, not so for the Epirotes, though.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 21, 2014, 01:04:12 AM
Wasn't Thessalian Cavalry the big thing at that time, though? Shouldn't Epirus get acess to them, aswell as Macedon?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 21, 2014, 01:08:16 AM
Oh I thought we had already included them in the Macedonian roster... yes they should definitely have them, both factions.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 21, 2014, 04:22:31 AM
Hmm alright, thanks. I wish we had more detailed accounts on certain kingdoms. I'm going to say that Cyrene probably should have a unit roster similar to Egypt.

Bercor, could you dig into the Bactrian Army book and report what you find? I think we may have covered everything.

As for Thessalian and Paionian Cavalry they will be AOR so no need to add them yet.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 21, 2014, 12:09:50 PM
Yeah, I'll see to that.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 21, 2014, 02:55:10 PM
Well there is this issue with Kyrene & Pergamon... we start in 280 BC, right?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 21, 2014, 02:59:22 PM
That's what ahowl said, yes.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 21, 2014, 03:31:59 PM
Well, Philetairos seized control of Pergamon during the 280s, but he submitted his little fiefdom voluntarily to the Seleucids in 281 BC, following the death of Seleukos Nikator. Eumenes would later defeat Antiochos I at the battle of Sardes in 261 BC before Attalos I would name himself king after the battle of the Kaikos sources. So Pergamon became independent in 261 BC and became a kingdom in 233 BC, in 280 BC Philetairos was probably acting like a satrap for the Seleucids.

As for Kyrene, it was annected by the Ptolemies in the late 4th century. During the early 280s Magas, the half brother of the later Ptolemaios II, was appointed satrap of Kyrene after having defeated a five-year-revolt there. In 283 BC, upon the death of Ptolemaios I, he extended his independence. He would still serve the pharao loyally until 276 BC, when he rebelled against Ptolemaic rule and established an independent Kyrenian kingdom until his death in 250 BC (it was probably only fully subdued a few years later).

Plutarch mentions his usage of Greek (Peloponnesian) mercenaries. Apart from that, this excerpt from Pausanias 1, 7 seems to be the best source we've got:

Quote
7.
This Ptolemy fell in love with Arsinoe, his full sister, and married her, violating herein Macedonian custom, but following that of his Egyptian subjects. Secondly he put to death his brother Argaeus, who was, it is said, plotting against him; and he it was who brought down from Memphis the corpse of Alexander. He put to death another brother also, son of Eurydice, on discovering that he was creating disaffection among the Cyprians. Then Magas, the half-brother of Ptolemy, who had been entrusted with the governorship of Cyrene by his mother Berenice—she had borne him to Philip, a Macedonians but of no note and of lowly origin—induced the people of Cyrene to revolt from Ptolemy and marched against Egypt.

[2] Ptolemy fortified the entrance into Egypt and awaited the attack of the Cyrenians. But while on the march Magas was in formed that the Marmaridae,a tribe of Libyan nomads, had revolted, and thereupon fell back upon Cyrene. Ptolemy resolved to pursue, but was checked owing to the following circumstance. When he was preparing to meet the attack of Magas, he engaged mercenaries, including some four thousand Gauls. Discovering that they were plotting to seize Egypt, he led them through the river to a deserted island. There they perished at one another's hands or by famine.

[3] Magas, who was married to Apame, daughter of Antiochus, son of Seleucus, persuaded Antiochus to break the treaty which his father Seleucus had made with Ptolemy and to attack Egypt. When Antiochus resolved to attack, Ptolemy dispatched forces against all the subjects of Antiochus, freebooters to overrun the lands of the weaker, and an army to hold back the stronger, so that Antiochus never had an opportunity of attacking Egypt (...)

And Polyaenus:

Quote
[28]   Magas.

#  When Magas left Cyrene, to go on a foreign expedition, he left his friends in charge of the city. But he stored the missiles and other weapons of war in the fortress, and dismantled the walls; so that, if any revolution should be attempted in his absence, he should find it easy to re-enter the city on his return.

2   When Magas captured Paraetonium, he order the guards to kindle a "friendly" fire signal both in the evening, and early in the morning. By this deception, he advanced without resistance into the surrounding country, as far as the place that is called Chi.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 21, 2014, 03:48:44 PM
Uhm, the best way to simulate this seems to be through a script then.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 21, 2014, 04:13:15 PM
We could simulate some revolts if need be
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 21, 2014, 04:33:00 PM
We could give that regions to the Seleucids and Ptolemies and then, through a script, make them revolt to the Hellenic Kingdoms in an certain date.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 21, 2014, 04:39:52 PM
I mean for Pergamon it isn't too problematic, we could just have the Hellenic states faction allied with the Seleucids at the start and then they can still break up with each other.

However this brings a problem with Kyrene, since at the start it should be a vassal to the Ptolemies like Pergamon would be to the Seleucids, and then rebel and ally with the Seleucids (if it declares war on Egypt and the Seleucids go to war with Egypt the AI would probably manage that on their own, though). It's just problematic because they are the same faction, so the Seleucids can't be allied with Kyrene and at war with Pergamon at the same time. I'm not sure what to do there, Bercor's idea seems like a good solution.

But back on topic this situation obviously means that they didn't have any different units as their Diadochoi lords. Perhaps Kyrene would deploy some Libyan units (like the mentioned Marmaridae) alongside their Greek mercenaries. As for Pergamon, we know of Celtic influences so they probably used the Thureos shield from very early on.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 21, 2014, 04:47:07 PM
Sounds good to me. We just need to see Bercors results on Bactria before we call it good.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 21, 2014, 10:06:13 PM
Ok, from what I've read, Bactrian troops were pretty similar to Seleucids's (main phalangite corp with eastern and mercenaries auxilaries, accompanied by sarissa cavalry, Companion look-alike, and war elephants) with the diference that the former had cataphract horse archers (similar to Parthia but more hellenized) and indian troops. I guess the latter can be represented through an AOR, so I would suggest giving Bactria an unit called Bactrian Cataphract Horse Archers, an elite indo-greek hoplite (similar to EB's one) and some eastern troops.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 21, 2014, 10:48:24 PM
Sounds good. Some Indian troops will ad spice  ;)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 22, 2014, 09:24:55 PM
Did it mention anywhere that Greco-Baktrian's made use of units like Thorakitai and Thureophoroi or the thureos shield for that matter? Just wondering because from all the carvings and illustrations recovered from archaeological digs it seemed that they used round shields like the Clipeus and Aspis among others and I didn't find any mention of the units I mentioned in the books I read.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 22, 2014, 10:21:22 PM
Did it mention anywhere that Greco-Baktrian's made use of units like Thorakitai and Thureophoroi or the thureos shield for that matter? Just wondering because from all the carvings and illustrations recovered from archaeological digs it seemed that they used round shields like the Clipeus and Aspis among others and I didn't find any mention of the units I mentioned in the books I read.

From what I could gather, they did use Thorikitai and Thureophoroi but only as mercenaries. Most local non-phalangite troops equipped in greek fashion used the circular hoplite shield.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 23, 2014, 03:12:06 AM
Ah, I see, so If baktria is made into a swap faction should it only have access to thorakitai's and thureophoroi's as mercs rather than recruit them from settlements?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 23, 2014, 11:46:59 PM
No, they should have access to the thureophoroi's and thorakitai's as normal units. The things is, the Successor kingdoms, and Bactria, used greek mercenaries to a great extent to a point that they were an integral part of their armies. There's not a single hellenic army post-Alexander thet did not use a great number of greek mercenaries, including thureophoroi's, thorakitai's, peltasts, etc.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 24, 2014, 03:12:53 AM
Ah, I get it now, I feel a little silly thinking that :P
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: The Sloth on February 24, 2014, 01:59:39 PM
Here is a small idea about Carthage: how about allowing them to recruit mercenaries from their ports? This would be a way to simulate Carthage sending reinforcements from other areas, and might help the AI defend its remote settlements. Because if Carthage needs to recruit all its troops in or around Carthage itself, the AI probably won't be able to handle it.
But I also admit that it's quite a large stretch, since you could even recruit those units when your port is blockaded, for instance.

The same method might work out for some greek mercenaries, like Cretan archers.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 24, 2014, 04:13:24 PM
I'm not the expert for the game mechanics, but I like the general idea. On RTR VII it always bugged me that you would have Iberian infantry, Balearic slingers and Libyan spearmen on Sicily at the start, but none of them could be recruited or filled up with new men on the island again, so you would need 20 turns or more to send them back to their recruitment grounds, fill them up, and send them back.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Jubal on February 24, 2014, 04:18:15 PM
I like the Sloth's idea - and actually it still makes some sense, given that even if a port is blockaded, if it's not besieged by land most coastal provinces would have had secondary ports; stopping high-volume and lucrative trade was possible, but stopping all ships getting into a wide province would have been extremely difficult. Naval blockades for military purposes could only really be done on small islands (as in the Athenian Empire on numerous occasions) or, most often, in conjunction with a siege.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 24, 2014, 04:30:52 PM
Well, it's not a problem. We can do it by having mercenaries recruitable in ports or in their own building. One way or another it's good.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 24, 2014, 06:29:58 PM
It's an idea that I have had for awhile, and I think we should add it.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 24, 2014, 08:44:13 PM
I spoke about this with my brother, and he pointed out that we should put long recruitment times for those mercenaries that come from far abroad, to simulate the travel time. For example, one has the region of Lilybaion:

Mercenaries available in field (the old vanilla recruitment of mercenaries):

Local mercenaries= Greek hoplites, Sicel troops (e.g. peltasts)

Mercenaries available in your port:

- Libyan Spearmen- 2 Turns (since Libya is nearby)
- Ligurian Warriors- 3 Turns
- Balearic Slingers- 4 Turns
- Iberian Scutarii - 5 Turns
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 24, 2014, 09:06:08 PM
I think that is also a good idea :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 24, 2014, 09:41:12 PM
Sounds great, though they will likely have to be pretty decent if a player is going to spend gold to recruit them given their recruitment time.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 24, 2014, 10:39:11 PM
Obviously it would be different in every area. But if you need slingers on Sicily, even though there are no Slingers to recruit on Sicily itself, you can get them from the Baleareas by recruiting them in your part. Or maybe in Spain there aren't good skirmishers available, so you could go and recruit skirmishers from Africa or Sicily at your port.

I hope that sounded less complicated than it seems to me.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 24, 2014, 11:24:25 PM
Sounds fine to me.

One last thing for the Hellenic Kingdoms. Isn't is possible that both Cyrene and Pergamum had an Agema unit? Yes we have Agema Phalangites, but I am talking about a hoplite unit similar to the Chaeonian Agema. I guess we could just give them Pergamene Hoplites and Cyrenian Hoplites?

Okay now to the Greek Cities and Greek States.

Missile Troops
Skirmishers
Slingers
Archers
Peltasts
Gastaphretes *Syracuse Only?

Infantry
Hoplites
Thureophoroi
Thorakitai
Phalangites

City Hoplites?
Athenian Hoplites
Spartan Hoplites
Corinthian Hoplites
Syracusan Hoplites
Massilian Hoplites
Bosporan Hoplites
Byzantine Hoplites

Cavalry
Hippakontistai
Hippeis
Xystophoroi

Any other ideas?

Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 25, 2014, 12:00:27 AM
Seems good. I like the ideia of the city especific hoplite as an elite unit. Does Crete belong to GC or GS? Because if it does, and it seems it does, then Gortyn should be able to recruit Cretan archers. Ah, also Rhodian slingers in Rhodes.

I'm against Gastaphretes - for present and future record.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 25, 2014, 12:03:44 AM
Crete may start out as a Rebel city, just ask Mausolos about the chaos that was going on there. Cretan Archers I think was a term given to Mercenary Greek archers, although I am not sure about Rhodian Slingers.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 25, 2014, 12:08:34 AM
Yeah, but, strange enough, most of them were actually from Krete. It's only natural that the only city in the island can get acess to them. The same goes to Rhodian slingers. But, if Gortyn belongs to the independent peoples, why the Creten hoplites?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 25, 2014, 12:11:43 AM
If you were to conquer crete they would be available. I can edit them out since they won't be immediately available
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 25, 2014, 12:14:12 AM
Uhm, ok. I understand it now.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 25, 2014, 12:20:49 AM
We could add a few units it seems.

Boetian Phalangites
Achaean Phalangites

Iphicratean Phalangites

Ekdromoi Hoplites

Perioeki Phalangites
Perioeki Hoplites
Perioeki Infantry
Helot Slaves
Helot Peltasts

Aetolian Cavalry
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 25, 2014, 12:39:41 AM
Was the Achaean/Boetian phalangite so distinctive that they should be separeted from the normal phalangite? Also, I don't think we should give so many units to a single city in a superfaction (Sparta). I agree with the Ekdromoi and the Aetolian cavalry, though.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 25, 2014, 12:51:41 AM
The Boetian Phalanx was the first Phalangite units used by Greeks in 250 BC. The Achaean Phalanx came later sometime after 220 BC?

True that could make a faction too powerful. I think Perioeki Phalangites should be in though. Maybe Helot Skirmishers? We will have to wait for Mausolos' knowledge :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 25, 2014, 01:06:54 AM
Yeah, summon the Mausolos.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 25, 2014, 01:34:20 AM
Possible, yes, but unlikely (on the Agema question). The quality of the Pergamene troops is usually described as inferior to those of the Seleucids, while Kyrene fielded only provincial Ptolemaic troops, so both probably missed out on the elite troops (especially Kyrene). At least the Attalids had enough time to standardise their army similar to their Seleucid neighbours and found military settlements to defend their borders (a little difference to the Seleucid or Ptolemaic cleruchies).

Maybe the Ptolemaic Empire should have Gastraphetes, since both our sources for them being used in the Hellenistic world lived in Alexandria.

I will work in more detail on the Greek roster since there are dozens of different factions. For now, I can only say that Corinthian hoplites probably don't make much sense due to the fact that it was always occupied by Macedon, or part of the Achaian League, during our timeframe. Probably we can also dimiss Syracusan hoplites since they favoured to rely on mercenaries.

In general, how would these hoplites differ from each other, apart from the looks and the obviously very special Spartiates?

Edit: Oh it seems like I missed a lot here during typing, I'll discuss that tomorrow in a bigger post about all the Greek armies ;) On Crete, I've been thinking about this for a while now... considering the fact that there was a lot of inter-poleis wars and even a Ptolemaic garrison on the Eastern part of the Island we might consider splitting it into two regions, if we are going to do the same for Sardinia anyway.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 25, 2014, 02:39:17 AM
Sounds good, looking forward to it!
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 25, 2014, 04:49:29 PM
Okay, on the Greek cities... it is difficult to attach certain units to the hundreds of different factions and city states, but I will give some information on the most important actors:

Achaian League: Probably the most renowned and exemplary Greek army in the mainland. While their hoplites were not as impressive as the Spartans, they would later adopt the Macedonian phalanx and use them to great effectivity. They were probably the only ones to adopt Thorakitai later on, but their cavalry was somewhat inefficient until the reforms of Philopoemen. Like most other states, they also used the Ekdroimoi, light hoplites who could fight in the old phalanx style, but would exit it (hence the name) to flank enemy troops.

Aitolian League: Due to their position in the North Western mountains, they were especially skilled in skirmishing and especially their peltasts were regarded as worthy foes. Primarily citizen levies, few mercenaries, favoured Cretan archers and Tarentine style cavalry as mercenaries . Later adopted the Macedonian phalanx. Their whole cavalry only numbered at 500 men and was never higher than that, but it was regarded as very effective, the infantry manpower was about 14 000. Generally avoided big pitched battles and fortified it's own lands to follow a very defensive strategy. Defeated Celtic, Macedonian and other Greek armies (like the Boiotians) thanks to their fortresses and the use of missile troops like slingers or peltasts from hills. Very flexible army.

Athens: During this time they had a little army, that was primarily a defensive garrison and rarely ever left Attica. Iphicrates' reforms already came in the early 4th century and seem to have increased the strength and number of the peltasts. It is hard to see if he only recruited peltasts or if hoplites (who are said to have been equipped with longer spears and little shiels to be more fleixbile) were actually very much like phalangites. Okay I'll translate this here from a dictionary:

Quote
(...) die Peltasten, die, mit kleinem runden Schild, leinenem Panzer, Gamaschen (Iphikratiden) statt Beinschienen, langer Lanze und großem Schwert bewaffnet (...)

''Peltasts were equipped with a little, oval shield, linen armor, leggings (Iphikratides) instead of jambarts, long lances and a big sword.''

Apart from that Athens relied on their citizen infantry with some hippeis and usually Ptolemaic reinforcements.

Boiotian League: The first of the free Greeks to adopt the Macedonian phalanx, perhaphs even before 250 BC. Boiotia was usually believed to be a hoplite country, and fielded quite a big army in 245 BC with 10 000 men, which was roundly defeated by a much smaller Aitolian force and indicates a decline in the quality of the Boiotian army despite its adoption of the Macedonian phalanx around the same time.

Bosporan ''Empire'': Initially a citizen hoplite army like everyone else. Skythian influences led to an early adoption of oval shields and probably also the recruitment of Thureophoroi. It seems doubtful if they adopted the Macedonian phalanx before Mithridates of Pontos took over the rule. From a Polish book I could gather as much, that their hoplites would also throw javelins or darts, similar to the native tribes of the Maeotis. They were later influenced by Roman traditions and during the time of the Principate they would equip their soldiers with big shields a lance and three or five javelins, very much like Lanciarii. A bit late for our timeframe, though, but this development might have begun earlier, with a similar increase of Sarmatian cavalry since the days of Caesar. All in all, an archaic Greek army combined with Scytho- Sarmatian skirmisher warfare

Cretan League: Old- style citizen militia, never used mercenaries. Strong cretan archers and skilled skirmishers, similar to the Aitolians, that inflicted heavy losses on their Macedonian and later Roman foes. Defeated Rome in the first Roman- Cretan war thanks to skirmisher warfare and 24 000 citizen soldiers. Experts at ambushes.

Massalia: Those mods that have them represent them with heavy Celtic influences. While units liek Thureophoroi or even Thorakitai (considering their alliance with Rome) are likely, they seem to have been mostly a victim of raids by their Celtic neighbours. During the 2nd Punic War the Volcae tribe were allies of Rome and thus might also have been allied to Massalia, but the sources hint more at Ligurian slaves (not captured by war, but by commerce, though) and contacts to them. Other mods also claim they had strong archers, but again it is hard to find proof for that. The problem lays in the focus on its navy, similar to Rhodes or similar states. Their army doesn't seem to have been very great since they always called on Rome for help, but I guess we could give them good archers, Ligurian auxiliaries and Thorakitai.

Rhodes: Same as Massalia, they favoured ships over armies. Maybe we can give both of these a shipyard where they have access to improved ships, and an additional building that increases their urban trade income. Howeber, Rhodes tried to expand in Asia Minor and held a peraia in Caria for a good while, so they could get access to the Carian infantry the Ptolemies use as well. And obviously, Rhodian slingers.

Sparta: Fielded it's old, well known army with Spartiates, helot skirmishers and other units like the famous Skiritai, basically no cavalry and the Kyrpteia, teenagers that had to survive on their own for a year and where also used to terrorize the helots. Later this ancient army was reformed by Agis IV, Kleomenes III and Nabis, who introduced the Macedonian phalanx, naturalized Perioikoi and helots and recruited mercenaries: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?584316-Sparta-in-the-hellenistic-period

Syracuse: (And other Sicilian Greeks) Strong cavalry, heavier than the common hippeis. Heavily relied on mercenaries, fielded Peloponnesian hoplites as well as Macedonian phalanges and unique siege weapons (like the various devices constructed by Archimedes). Since it's geographical position between Carthage and Rome they would also field Thureophoroi, Thorakitai, mercenaries from abroad and also draw on Sicel troops.

Thessalian League: Famous for the Thessalian cavalry, the most effective and most feared regular shock cavalry of the day. It also possessed a federal army, most likely made up of citizen hoplites and peltasts. During Epirote or Macedonian occupations they obviously fought under foreign lords, and the position between the two Hellenistic kingdom probably means they also had their own phalangites at some point.

That's all I could gather thus far. I'll be in the library tomorrow because of my paper and will skip by the part about ancient warfare. Perhaps I can find out some additional stuff.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: xeofox on February 25, 2014, 06:13:24 PM
 
Sorry again about the steppes of Central Asia.
Given the proposed boundary maps. Will Sako-masagetae tribes and Dahae. There will be separate from the Dahae Parni (or moving away from them) and would send its troops to the South. Massagetae, will call (Saka-massagetae tribes).

If a larger map (to the North), or simply the principle of realism. Will all the same, only the tribes of Saki and massagetae will be different (but friendly). Here is another problem the scenario. We should see the Wusun who will press on to Saka from East. but, for the sake of the beautiful company of Parthia Wusun we can not insert
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 25, 2014, 11:37:20 PM
Okay Mausolos, great research. I've seen a few of these units such as Aetolian Skirmishers and Peloponnesian hoplites in Philadelphos' RTH mod, but sadly they are just edited vanilla units.
Tomorrow after your research if you could come up with what you think would be a suitable roster for the Greek Cities/Greek States that would help immensely.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 07:00:43 PM
Okay guys, I'm back from our uni library and the results of the research are, to speak frankly, overwhelming. Not only units for the Greek city states and leagues, but also for the successor kingdoms, most of them mercenaries, but I'll just list everything here:

Seleucid Empire

Asian Levies consist of the Pantodapoi (meaning: ''Mixed Infantry'', mostly styled as Macedonian phalanxes but without the experience of the Macedonian veterans) and a more traditional infantry, probably Sparabara - like infantry made up of Medes, Cissians, Cadusians, Caramanians and others.

Persian Archers (AOR Persia) - obviously very strong archers, if we go for a Greek name Persai Toxotai

Persian slingers (AOR Persia) - they did exist, but were probably very light troops, not as effective as Rhodian slingers, for instance

Carmanian infantry (AOR Carmania) - Probably Light Spearmen or Javelinmen

Cilician Light Infantry (AOR Cilicia)- Labelled ''Cilician Pirates'' in other mods, probably javelinmen with a sword and very few armour, or light swordsmen (see RTR VII)

Pisidian Infantry (AOR Pisidia)- Native levies, probably Sparabara- like Spearmen, too

Pamphylian Cavalry (AOR Pamphylia) - Heavy Cavalry, but not exactly renowned, not as strong as Thessalian or Cappadocian heavy cavalry

Neocretans- Settlers (Greeks/Macedonians) in Cretan Style= Archers

Agrianian Peltasts- already described for Macedon, Elite skirmisher unit, the Seleucids also had a few hundred of them, maybe AOR Antiocheia, so they can't be recruited too often

Mysian Infantry (AOR Mysia) - Lightly armoured, probably skirmishers or Light hoplites or both

Jewish Infantry (AOR Judaea/Palestinia) - A small number, they didn't fight in a phalanx but I can't find much more on their equipment. They were ONLY recruited from Diaspora Jews and seem to have been an effective force, being successfull in crashing lesser rebellions in the East. The Seleucids almost NEVER EVER employed Syrians (including Palestinian Jews), because it was their power base and they feared similar consequences as the Machimoi had in Egypt. Greco- Macedonian troops could still surpress uprisings in far parts of the Empire like Pamphylia or Carmania, if those troops rebelled, but Syria (and Babylonia probably, too) was too important. Only Babylonian Jews and other Diaspora Jews were recruited and formed this skilled force

Lydian Akontistai (AOR Lydia)- Those of the Psiloi that fought as javelinmen were called Akontistai. The Lydians are compared to the Agrianians by the author I read, so they might have been an elite (Elite Javelinmen)

Mercenaries of the Seleucid Empire:

Arab mercenaries (AOR Arabia) - Light spearmen probably, as portrayed in RTR or RS. When the Seleucids fought in the South, they were sometimes recruited in huge numbers (over 10 000 were present at the battle of Raphia)

Galatian swordsmen (AOR Asia Minor, Thrace, Macedon and the Western Balkans... if the Seleucids ever thus far) - not much has to be said on them

Galatian cavalry - same, noble cavalry

Thracian mercenaries- probably swordsmen and falxmen

Dahae mounted archers- the good old horse archers we all love, recruited from the Dahae tribes beyond the border of the Seleucid lands

Dahae foot archers- at Raphia, a number of 2000 Dahae infantry is mentioned. No further information on them, but they were very likely archers


See, that's only the Seleucids! I will continue in another post so you can read this before I write about all factions.

Footnote: Slingers in general are called Sfendonitai or Lithovoloi, but maybe we should just leave them as slingers because the names could be too confusing.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 07:10:42 PM
And on we go...

THE PTOLEMAIC EMPIRE

Cilician Light Infantry (AOR Cilicia) - see above, should also be available on Cyprus as mercenaries

A note on the Thracian mercenaries: Those the Ptolemies hired were Broadswordsmen, NOT falxmen

Lycian infantry (AOR Aegean, Cyprus) - the main garrison force in all Ptolemaic settlements outside of Africa, along with the Cilicians. Probably a bit heavier than the Cilicians, I would imagine them as hoplite- like

Libyan Cavalry (AOR Libya- which basically starts West of Alexandria)- could be the same unit the Carthaginians have

Libyan phalanx- Yes, indeed, the Ptolemies also armed some thousand Libyans as a Macedonian phalanx

Neocretans- see above

Cretan archers- we mentioned that above, but again I must insist to have them as regular forces like the Carians. Yes, they were paid and recruited like mercenaries, but often came to live in Egypt and the example of the Neocretans shows their big influence on Ptolemaic warfare

Greek hoplites- Peloponnesians, fighting as mercenaries


Perhaps a solution for the many Greek, Thracian and Galatian mercenaries could be, that we give the Ptolemies the same mercenary recruiting harbour as Carthage. Food for thought. I will continue splitting my posts for each faction so you won't get confused too much. And sorry for mixing levies and mercenaries in this post, but it weren't as many new units as for the Seleucids.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 07:24:23 PM
Number Three

THE ANTIGONID KINGDOM OF MACEDON

Paionian skirmishers- recruited from the lands of Paionia, west of Macedon. Since the Agrianians also hailed from there, these could be a weaker version, axemen throwing javelins

Kleruchoi- yes, they are already in the roster, but we should be aware of the fact that Macedon did not really found new military settlements after 320 BC and these men were so rare and valuable that they didn't fight in ''common'' wars, only when it was really important. So they should be good warriors, but on restricted availability

INSTEAD Macedon settled it's mercenaries in new colonies, even Gauls, but mainly Thracians and Illyrians.

The mercenaries of Macedon

The proportion of mercenaries in the Macedonian army was ever on the rise and by the 2nd century BC they made up the majority of the army, with the greatest corps always coming from Illyria

Illyrian mercenaries- on RTR 6 & 7 they were spearmen and battle descriptions seem to confirm that assumption. More flexible than hoplites, but ligher armoured, experts in ambushes and difficult terrain

Gallic/Galatian swordsmen - see above

Gallic skirmishers- see above

Cretan archers- In 220 BC (I think, I didn't put down the year) Macedon struck a treaty with the Cretan cities Eleuthernae and Hierapytna to deliver the kingdom with a steady stream of mercenaries. Thus we shouldn't underestimate their number, after the wars against Rome many of them continued to fight- but now in the service of Rome

Thracian infantry- see above

Trallian infantry- Thracians recruited from the Trallian tribe of Thrace. By the 180s BC the Trallians were chosen as an elite force and personal bodyguard of the king of Macedon. Maybe we could call them Trallian guard and make them available only late on, with them being stronger than the ''normal'' Thracian mercenaries

For the Third war against Rome, Perseus also paid 20 000 (!) Bastarnae to fight alongside him to sweep away the Romans. 10 000 of them fought on horses

Another general point: I think we haven't included artillery in the rosters yet, have we?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 07:36:03 PM
EPIROS and PERGAMON

1. THE AIAKID KINGDOM OF EPIROS

A general information: Beloch guessed the population of Epiros at roughly 300 000 at this time. Thought it could be useful.

Gallic mercenaries (infantry)- see above

Aetolian/Akarnanian/Athamanian mercenary infantry- hoplites

Cavalry from the same regions- like hippeis


2. THE ATTALID RULE (later Kingdom) OF PERGAMON

Mysian light infantry (AOR Mysia) - as Mysia was mostly controlled by Pergamon, they might have been quite important. See above at the Seleucid roster for the unit

Trallian mercenaries- no elite this time, just Thracian mercenaries, but those used by Pergamon were only recruited from the European Thracian tribe of the Trallians

Seleucid Katoikoi ! (AOR Seleucid regions) - Yes you read this right. When Pergamene influence expanded into formerly Seleucid controlled territories like Sardes, the Seleucid settlers would just offer their services to Pergamon. Fighting as a Macedonian phalanx, of course- but it would be reasonable to assume that they prefered to fight against Macedon, Bithynia and the Galatians and very rarely against their Seleucid comrades

Cretan archers- mercenaries, see above. As ever hellenistic state, Pergamon also used them

Achaian peltasts- after the alliance with the Achaian League against Macedon, 2000 Achaian peltasts were handed over under Pergamene command for a decent sum of gold

Later, when expanding there:

Cilician light infantry/pirates (AOR Cilicia)- see above

Carian warriors/light infantry (AOR Caria)- see above

Kilikes (Cilician) Euzonoi (AOR) - Cilician skirmishers, see RTR VII
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 07:47:04 PM
CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARIES

I also found some mercenaries deployed by Carthage, there you go:

Ligurian Warriors- probably skirmishers, see RTR VII

Greek hoplites- recruited from Sicily and the Peloponnese

Greek Cavalry- medium cavalry bearing spears, like hippeis

Gallic swordsmen- see above

Elymi Ekdromoi (AOR Western Sicily) - spearmen drawn from the native Elymians (see RTR VII) NO MERCENARIES

Campanian spearmen- on RTR VII they were called Hoplomachi Campani

Celtiberian mercenaries- probably a mixture of Iberian Scutarii and Gallic swordsmen?

Mauri mercenaries, as:

- Mauri cavalry, similar to the Numidians, maybe not as strong, mounted skirmishers
- Mauri iaculatores, the iacula was the national weapon of ''Morocco'', javelinmen (it seems there was something special about their javelins, but I don't know what exactly it was. The Romans also deployed Equites Mauri during the imperial time so they must have been quite useful)

Obviously both are experts in the desert

By the way, Libyans and Iberians were actually recruited BOTH as mercenaries (in ports in our mod) and levies (AOR units in barracks)

Also, another general note, Gallic mercenaries often betrayed their employers (more often than other mercenaries) and just ran away, sacked the land and then offered their services to someone else. Perhaps there is a way to portray this inside the game mechanics?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 26, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Great findings, Mausolos.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 08:21:56 PM
And finally, the Greeks. I will split this into the different states and their specialities. Obviously everyone had hoplites, slingers, akontistai (psiloi, note they don't have shields, in difference to peltasts), peltasts, Ekdromoi (?), Thureophoroi (likely), toxotai/archers (likely) Prodromoi and hippeis. If a unit is missing I will mention that.

SPARTA:

Periokoi hoplitai- see RTR VII, perioikoi fighting as hoplites

Helot javelinmen- see RTR VII

Helot archers- see RTR VII

Helot slingers- see RTR VII

Neodamōdeis- freed helots that already received their own estates in the 4th century, fighting as hoplites after the defeats to Thebes

Krypteia (Kryptoi) - a teenage garrison unit (again it would be good to show that in the faces/stature, 16- 20 years old)/ ''secret police'', probably equipped with a short sword and a shield, and maybe a javelin

Skiritai- flexible elite hoplites acting as an advanced guard- see RTR VII

Spartiates (homoioi ''The equals)- THIS IS SPAAAARTAAAAAAA. Very few, but the best of the best, at least 20 years old after having gone through the agoge (even though a Macedonian phalanx could overcome them in a frontal charge) again we could borrow them from RTR VII I'd hope

After reforms:

Mercenary cavalry (probably Greeks), like hippeis, since Sparta does NOT have regular citizen cavalry (hippeis), but maybe small detachments of Prodromoi for reconnaisance

,,Tarentine Cavalry'', also mercenaries after Kleomenes

Spartan Pezoi [Macedonian Phalanx] (after reforms)- consisting of citizens, perioikoi and even helots

Euzonoi- light infantry made up of helots and perioikoi, probably like psiloi/akontistai (stronger version of helot javelinmen)

Katapeltai- a special kind of artillery deployed by Machanidas at the battle of Mantineia in 207 BC and later on by Nabis. They fired arrows over huge distances and completely wiped out the Achaian thorakitai at Mantineia (similar to Scorpions?)

Cretan archers (mercenaries)- deployed by Nabis


THE ACHAIAN LEAGUE

While they were good soldiers, they always had a lack of money ;)

Surely used Ekdroimoi in big numbers as their League citizen levies

Hippeis- Philopoemen said they were in a very poor state before his reforms. Nobles they might have been, but an elite they were not. Perhaps we just make their hippeis weaker than others and then have them a bit stronger than the normal ones after the reforms, naming them ''Hippeis (reformed)'' or so

Epilektoi- Hand- picked Citizen guard, very few, but very good. An elite similar to the Spartiates or Thebes' Sacred Band, although not THAT famous and feared

Thorakitai - should be clear, their rout at Mantineai seems to demonstrate they weren't an elite

And now the mercenaries introduced by the reforms of Philopoemen, who probably also added phalangites:

(Achaian Pezhetairoi, see above, no mercenaries but I should put them here additionally)

Thracian cavalry (mercenaries)- see above

Cretan archers- see above

Mercenary peltasts - well, yeah, mercenary peltasts  ;D

Illyrian Infantry- see Macedon

''Tarentine Cavalry'' - they were better than Prodromoi I guess

And last but not least an interesting unit introduced by 171 BC, probably earlier: Achaian Ephebes (Between 16- 20 years old, I hope we could make their faces look younger) styled in the ''Cretan style''- so basically archers with Cretan hats, even though they could also have a melee spear (because ''Cretan'' sometimes only meant light infantry, but not archers especially)

I suggest calling them ''Neocretan Ephebes'' or something like that


RHODES

As mentioned before, Rhodian slingers obviously

Carian warriors/light infantry

Cretan archers (standing mercenaries) - like Macedon, Rhodes signed a deal with Hierapytna during the late 3rd century so they could recruit archers and officers on Crete, and that Hierapytnans would not fight for an enemy faction (how this fits together with the Macedonian recruitment and the following war between Macedon and Rhodes remains to be figured out. Perhaps only the other city, Eleutherae, continued delivering mercenaries to the Antigonids, but who knows)

Various Artillery


CRETE

Cretan archers obviously  ;D Regular recruitment this time

Now this might come as a surprise, but the Cretans also hired mercenaries. Probably as part of a deal with Rhodes, they got access to the Rhodian peraia in Asia, so...

Carian warriors (mercenaries)

Cretan citizen hoplites- combined with the archers and light infantry they numbered at 24 000 men and could defeat a Roman army, so I agree with the idea of special Cretan hoplites


SYRACUSE

Various artillery devices like those constructed by Archidemes (for example the Lithobolos, a big stone throwing machine)

Also, Katapeltai- see Sparta

Peltophoroi- Sicel peltasts, perhaps ligher than Greek peltasts but more skilled in rough terrain

Sicel Spearmen (AOR Sicelia/Eastern Sicely) - see RTR VII (similar to Ekdromoi)

Elymi Ekdromoi (AOR Elymia/Western Sicily) - spearmen drawn from the native Elymians (see RTR VII)

Thorakitai- See above

Syracusan Hippeis - stronger than the normal ones

I have no idea if they also had phalangites later on, though. Couldn't find that out sadly

Mercenaries of Syracuse

Campanian spearmen/hoplites- see above (hopplomachi or whatever, see RTR VII)

Oscan swordsmen- see RTR VII

Iberian swordsmen (oh yes) - see above

Etruscan hoplites- see RTR VII

Bruttian swordsmen- see RTR VII

Lucanian spearmen- see RTR VII

Libyan light infantry- see Carthage

Roman deserters (later)- equipped like hastati

Perhaps Syracuse could also get the mercenary port.


And finally (!!!!) ATHENS

I could find out more than I thought here. Forget my earlier statement on their very few mercenaries...

Thracian infantry (mercenaries)- see above

''Tarentine Cavalry'' (mercenaries)- proven by a game called after them in the Theseian games later on

Peripoloi - perhaps my favourite new unit, which will be difficult to portray. Originally a defensive militia formed of the Athenian ephebes (between 18 and 20 years old) . By the 4th century the Athenians had added Argive and Plataiaian officers among them, so the boys would only form half of a regiment. Probably every 18-year-old had to sign up with them for a year or so and to learn his soldier duties, so that these men could form the garrison of Athens in times of war. If our moddelers can portray young men with fresh faces (also since they were probably from the nobility) among more experienced officers with scras, that would be brilliant  ;D. They are probably armed in the usual traditional hoplite style, maybe with Iphicratean influences

Metoikoi hoplites- like the Perioikoi hoplites for Sparta, made up of Metoikoi, foreign Greeks living in the city

Athenian citizen hoplites- as ahowl had planned before, we could give them a nice extra model

Iphicratean peltasts/hoplites/phalangites- still not sure about them, should anyone find out more about them, especially during our timeframe, then that would be very welcome. Or just see post 128 for description


BOIOTIAN LEAGUE

Nothing special really, since it is called a hoplite country, we could give them their own unit, ''Boiotian hoplites'', it should not be hard to find Boiotian symbols for their shields etc.


BOSPORAN EMPIRE

Bosporan Thureophoroi - in a Sycthian style

Bosporan hoplites- can thrown darts

Sarmatian cavalry- heavy cavalry

Taurian skirmishers - Taurian (> Iphigenia in Tauris) javelinmen or darth throwers. Tauris is the Crimea

Scythian horse archers (mercenaries)

I'm a bit speculative here, but we have no other option for the Bosporans.


MASSALIA

Thorakitai (later on)- see above

Ligurian Warriors- see above

Massiliote sailors- archers with Gallic influence. Being creative here  :P


THESSALIAN LEAGUE

Thessalian cavalry- see Macedon


AITOLIAN LEAGUE

I agree with what you suggested before:

Aitolian peltasts- stronger than the normal ones, good at ambushes

Aitolian cavalry- probably more flexible and faster than Hippeis

Aitolian slingers- see peltasts

Cretan archers (mercenaries)- I really said enough on them by now :D

,,Tarentine cavalry'' (mercenaries)- see above


If possible, they should get some forts at the start.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 08:23:21 PM
Thanks, Bercor  :) I will eat my dinner now and then edit all post to add the units I had described in the post before, from yesterday.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 26, 2014, 08:39:37 PM
Very well done. Hellenistic and Greek rosters will be very expansive and diverse :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 09:24:51 PM
Cheers! Phew, I've edited all other units I mentioned in last night's post in now, so the Greek roster is complete. Some of my questions  ;D

1. Can we give the Aitolians forts in the mountain passes at the start so they will be hard to conquer?

2. Is it possible to make some units have their soldiers look like teenagers? And is it possible to even mix them with veterans, for the peripoloi?

3. What do you think about implementing the Carthaginian ''mercenary port'' also for the Ptolemaic Empire (only in Alexandria) , Syracuse (only in Syrakousai) and perhaps Rhodes (only in Rhodos)?

4. I hope I didn't scare anyone by always sticking to the Greek writing instead of the Latin usually used in English  :P

5. Have a look if the Bosporan roster would be okay since it's a bit speculative. Maybe our new expert from Central Asia knows something on them

6. Is there a way to portray the low loyalty of Gallic mercenaries in-game?

7. Sfendonitai or Lithovoloi as names for slingers?

8. What about artillery in general? I think the three big diadoch kingdoms should have ballistas, onagers and maybe we can find more stuff, the Romans should have scorpions, Sparta & Syracuse should have the similar Katapeltes, Syracuse should also get the Lithobolos (it's in RS II, more or less medieval stone catapults) and probably all Greek states should have ballistas. Did I forget any of RTW's artillery?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 26, 2014, 09:33:06 PM
1. Yes we can test that out
2. It is just give them the Roman City Militia Face. No we cannot mix them but we can include officers
3. I've always had this idea for my other mods so yeah I'd love to try it
4. We will get a good balance for the names
5. I like it, seems accurate
6. There might be. A recruitable general with a script attached to him where a few warbands are spawned once he is created. Just give him low loyalty and if he revolts, whatever units are with him would revolt as well. Just an initial idea.
7. Ummm. Slingers :)
8. We will worry about artillery last.

For now I think it would be wise for ALL of us to do some mod research and find the unit models/textures that we could use for all of these units Romans through Greeks. That way we know what we are using and how much space we will be needing in the DMB and EDU. We must be wise with our space. We want as many units as possible, but we only have so much room to work with. Utilizing models to represent more than one unit is the key. For example, Hastati and Principes don't need their own model. They can share one, all they need is different textures.

Also, we need someone who is an expert on the following cultures:
Eastern - Pontus, Armenia, Persia, India, Arabia
Celtic - Gauls, Britons, Celt-Iberians, Galatians
Balkans - Thracians, Illyrians, Dacians
Germanic Peoples
Iberians
Numidians

We have Rome, Carthage, the Greek factions and Nomads covered. I suggest you all give me names of people of who I could contact for help with the above cultures.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 09:53:32 PM
1. Good!
2. Don't they look a bit... angled?  ;D
3. Cool!
4. Alright  :)
5. Thanks ;)
6. Yes that might actually work, on MTW2 there are betrayals all the time and Gauls would fight under their own leaders anyway
7. Haha okay
8. Okay dokay.

As for the Lithobolos, Leif Inge Ree Petersen says the katapeltai (not katapeltes, sorry) were the same as Lithoboloi, only a more literary name. In the Byzantine army the bigger ones are called petroboloi, Lithoboloi must therefore be smaller and could be put on walls. The name petroboloi already existed by the time of Alexander (siege of Tyre) but I'm not sure the distinction into smaller and bigger stone throwers is the same. I would just stay with stone throwers (Lithobolos/oi) and arrow shooters (Katapelta/ai).

I also read about guys called Korynephoroi from Sikyon (in the Achaian territory by the middle of the 3rd century) who fought as clubmen and apparently the Syracusan kyllyrioi fought in a similar way. Anyone who read my article on Gelon will know the latter were the Syracusan ''helots''. While they were most likely abolished (since Gelon did so and I don't think they would be reintroduced in the same way) both kind of warriors's existence seems unlikely by the Hellenistic age, but perhaps some Sicels still fought with clubs? I mean, it was also popular in the middle ages... but probably this is too archaic.

Edit, just saw your edit. I guess most phalangites and hoplites can use the same models, and hopefully we can borrow some models from RTR VII (I always marked that).

I also researched Pontos today, and Cappadocia & Bithynia, I should get a full Pontos roster together, the other two seem to be more common ''Eastern'' armies. Also, Montrose told me he'll join up here soon and he can help with the Celtic people. I will also text cold_mac again for the Germanic peoples and I think I could work out Armenia and Persia as well.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 26, 2014, 10:09:33 PM
Sounds good! Contact your friend who knows about the Iberians as well. The Numidians shouldn't be too hard to cover
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 26, 2014, 10:19:36 PM
There's a pretty easy way to simulate the low loyalty of gallic mercenaries, just give them low morale and it's pratically the same thing (in-game meaning).
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 10:31:12 PM
But not in the campaign, is it? It would be good if they could rebel and change sides, becoming brigants or joining your enemy.

I already texted my friend from Galicia, too  ;) I guess I could also do Numidia as soon as we need them.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 26, 2014, 10:35:34 PM
It's possible to give them low morale in battle, when your men are not loyal they rout more easily. In regards to the other question, maybe, but only through a script (say, when a army has six gallic mercenaries units and suffers a defeat, the mercenaries change to the enemy side).
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 26, 2014, 10:54:36 PM
Will you be doing a unit list for Baktria as well?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 26, 2014, 11:00:15 PM
They are part of the Hellenic Kingdoms
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 26, 2014, 11:25:52 PM
They are part of the Hellenic Kingdoms

Ah, Missed that sorry :P
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 11:56:36 PM
Tell us if you think the Bactrian roster is incomplete ;)

I just checked RTR VII and then edited the post for a last time. Now you can update the starting post I think, ahowl  :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 26, 2014, 11:59:25 PM
I'll have to write everything on paper first! :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 27, 2014, 12:07:21 AM
Haha okay. I just counted the Seleucid roster including mercenaries and there are 43 units  ;D

By the way I'm not so sure about Hypaithroi for the Allied phalangites anymore... it just seems to mean ''troops in the field''  :-\
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 27, 2014, 01:52:24 AM
Greek Cities and Greek States are up. I didn't include many AOR and Mercenary troops just because this thread is based on factional troops only.
Check to make sure it's correct :)
Well should we get rid of them? Did they use Allied Pezoi?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 27, 2014, 01:56:44 AM
No Rhodian slingers? :'(
You're breaking my heart.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 27, 2014, 02:17:09 AM
Ooops! Fixed :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 27, 2014, 06:24:03 AM
Mausolos, trying to figure out units for Macedon and Carthage. Can you go to the OP and give me information on how the units with '??' next to them may have looked? That way I can search around for the right looking models/textures for them.
I am at work all day tomorrow also. If you get the info on Pontus and any other eastern nations feel free to post them here :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 27, 2014, 02:25:51 PM
1. Yeah just the term Hypaithroi seems to be wrong, name them Allied Phalangites again to be safe (although I'm not sure who these allies are...? lol)

2. So where are we putting the AOR troops and mercenaries together?

3. On the Hellenic Kingdoms roster you spelt the Pantodapoi wrongly. DApoi, not dOpoi ;) The Seleucid roster has it right.

4. On the Greek states there is some units you put under the ''common'' roster, that are wrong:

a) Hippakontistai were Iranian mounted javelinmen, the Seleucids used them, the Antigonids and Ptolemies probably inherited them from the part of Alexander's armies they had, Bactria would have them and perhaps Pergamon, but they've got nothing to do with the Greek cities/leagues. Since Sarmatians are also Iranians, ONLY the Bosporan kingdom should have Hippakontistai, scrap them for everyone else.

b) Scrap Xystophoroi. They are just a regular cavalry version of Hippeis. The Successor states modernized their military, so noble cavalry was divided into different units- xystos bearers (xystophoroi), scouts (prodromoi), elite xystos bearers (hetairoi), Sarissa bearers (sarrissophoroi) and special units like cataphracts. The traditional Greek nobles are all named hippeis (with a sword or xystos), ''those who can afford a horse.'' The only other cavalry are scout detachments (prodromoi).

c) Scrap Thorakitai for the common roster. ONLY for Achaian League, Syracuse and Massalia.

5. The Seleucid and Ptolemaic rosters should include the Neocretans as reform units. Okay, Agrianians and Paionians can be made AOR, too...

6. How they looked?  :P Well I'lly try to...

Leukaspides - phalanx wearing white shields with decorations. You said yourself they were younger men

Prodromoi - I think RTR 6 and VII both hade nice models for them

Xystophoroi- similar to Thessalian cavalry, with a long xystos and without a shield (?). Have a look at the Thessalian model

Punic Thureophoroi - no idea, mate. Maybe RTR 6 or VII has them?

African Infantry - the ones styled in Roman fashion? RTR VII has them

Libyan hoplites- where's the difference to Liby- Phoenician hoplites? Libyans usually didn't fight as hoplites

Libyan infantry- RTR VII?

Libyan cavalry- again most mods should have them, right?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 27, 2014, 07:37:37 PM
New units:

Aitolian pirates (mercenaries)/ Aitolai peiratai- similar to Cilician pirates, lightly armoured, but cheap swordsmen. Just like you imagine pirates ;) > Epiros & Macedon used them

Aitolian peltasts (mercenaries)- I already put them on the Epirote list, but the Ptolemies also used them, so they should also be available in their mercenary port

Aitolian cavalry should probably be Greek Hippakontistai and also be available as mercenaries to Epiros (since Pyrrhos had some of them in Italy)


Lonchophoroi (Seleucids) - I finally found evidence for them. But how were they equipped? Flamininus says in his famous speach to the Roman allies:

,, Men of Achaia! Don't fear Antiochos' men, don't fear the Lonchophoroi, don't fear the Xystophoroi and don't fear the Hetairoi, since they are all Syrians after all, just differentiated by different weapons'' Well apart from the fact that they were actually not Syrians ( :D ), Lonchophoroi are often translated as ''spear- bearers'' here. From Flamininus' word we can see that they didn't wear a Xystos either.

This leaves as with two possibilities: Either they had short spears and were a melee cavalry unit, or they had spears as missiles and were akin to Hippakontistai. Since the latter seems very ordinary and to draw on the conclusions of both other mods and authors, it seems most likely that they had a short spear (2.5m like hoplites I'd say) and javelins. So they are mounted javelinmen, that can also survive in melee. Only the Seleucids seem to have fielded them, and that was after 200 BC.

Pamphylian Infantry (AOR Pamphylia or mercenaries to the Ptolemies. Wouldn't include them in the port, though, since they were rare) - Similar to Lycians, heavy spearmen, akin to hoplites
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 27, 2014, 08:37:36 PM
THE KINGDOM OF PONTOS

Pontic bowmen - typical Eastern archers

Pontic peltasts - yeah, peltasts, you know

Pontic slingers- common slingers

Native Spearmen- similar to Sparabara

Galatian swordsmen (mercenaries)- see above

Galatian cavalry (mercenaries)- see above

Hippakontistai - mounted Eastern javelinmen

Scythed chariots- see above

Greek hoplites- recruited from Greek cities like Amisos or Sinope that were resp. came under Pontic control

Oreioi (Mountaineers)- experts at ambushes and in mountains, javelinmen that can also pack a punch in melee- RTR VII has them

Armenian heavy cavalry- RTR 6 has them


New units after ,,reforms'' (The Army of Mithridates VI):


Pontic Pezoi - wearing bronze shields and jewels on their shields to display Pontos' wealth, allegedly

Slave phalanx (!) - yes, slaves fighting in a Macedonian phalanx. Mithridates organised 15 000 of them for his war against Rome. Desperate warriors, cheap to recruit

Chalkaspides - named after the original Brazen Shields, these warriors were the elite force of Mithridates' Macedonian phalanx

Perso- Cappadocian noble cavalry- probably akin to Cappadocian cavalry, perhaps the same?

Scythian horse archers (AOR Crimea/Northern Kaukasus) - doesn't need much comment I think

Sarmatian horse archers (same)- same, perhaps with more armour

Thracian infantry (mercenaries)- see above

Kolchian auxiliaries - probably spearmen?

Taurian infantry (AOR Crimea and Northern Kaukasus) - see above

Scythian archers (AOR Crimea and Northern Kaukasus) - Scythian foot bowmen

Imitation legionaries- named ''hypaspists'' in Greek, these men were equipped in the Roman fashion after the first war with Pontos' western foe

Cretan archers (mercenaries)- see above
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 28, 2014, 05:46:08 AM
So many changes haha. Maybe you should be in charge of formatting the greek and hellenic unit rosters. I'm getting lost :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: b257 on February 28, 2014, 05:50:33 AM
My head is literally spinning from all the possible units :P, Mausolos you are a history machine  :).
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 02:53:42 PM
Hehe cheers guys  ;) The main problem is the high number of mercenaries spread along all factions I guess. But that's just the fact, apart from the Greek city-states respectively leagues and Rome, the armies of the great kingdoms and factions of the time (Seleucids, Ptolemies, Carthage, Pergamon, Pontos, Antigonids, Bactria, Epiros, Syracuse etc.) were almost always made up of a great number of mercenaries.
Just take a look at the Seleucid phalanx of Antiochos III- of 20 000 men only 3000 (!) were proper Pezhetairoi, some were natives, some were allies, and over 8000 were mercenaries. This if, of course, the part of the army where mercenaries often made up the smallest proportion, so it's fair to say that a majority of all soldiers were mercenaries. The cleruch system didn't produce enough soldiers in the long time and the epigonoi (sons of the katoikoi) were just too few to satisfy the demand of the state. In 280 BC, the Ptolemaic Empire coudl theoretically call over 250 000 men into arms - by the end of the 2nd century the number had shrunken to less than 80 000.

So what we should discuss is the recruitment of mercenaries and their distribution. I think most of them should be available in high numbers in their native regions, but Cretan archers (for example) should also be available in Macedon, Athens, or Rhodes - or perhaps every Hellenic port should make them recruitable? They shouldn't be too cheap, though.

Give me some ideas how to represent this and then we'll have a better order of the faction rosters ;)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 02:57:03 PM
The only problem with the mercenary port recruitment system it's that cities that do not have coast won't be able to recruit mercenaries... That's why I think a specific building for their recruitment it's more appropriate.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 03:00:58 PM
But it would be a nice way to restrict the access to better mercenaries, wouldn't it? The Seleucids have enough territory for AOR recruitment anyway, while Carthage, the Ptolemies, Syracuse, Macedon and most Greeks have a lot of coastal settlements.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 03:03:10 PM
Yes, in some cases it works, but what about Bactria, for example? Most of its army was composed by hellenic mercenaries.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 03:24:34 PM
AOR, like the Seleucids? Have Greek hoplites or mercenary Pezoi recruitable in all regions, and then Indians as AOR in the East or Scythians in the North?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 03:31:07 PM
I guess it could work, it just a tad bit strange to differentiate Bactria from all the other factions in the game.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 03:39:33 PM
Perhaps I wouldn't give mercenary ports to everyone really. Syracuse, Ptolemies and Carthage should do since they recruited many mercenaries they wouldn't get nearby, but everyone else can do ''home recruitment''. We would just need to make Thracians, Cretans or Galatians available in regions like Macedon as well.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 03:47:47 PM
Yeah, if we make only some especific cities (Carthage, Syracuse, Alexandria) to have access to mercenaries through the ports I would be alright with it. The remaining settlements could use other method, either by a specific building or AOR.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 03:52:10 PM
Yes exactly. We should discuss the cities who could get such a port then, I would suggest that Carthage get's more since they have such a widespreach position:

Carthage (Carthage)
Carthago Nova (Carthage)
Lilibaeum (Carthage)

Alexandria (Ptolemies)

Syracuse (Syracuse)

Perhaps add Rhodes and Athens? Since it would look a bit weird to have Carians in Attica and Thracians on Rhodes. Of course that building should not be buildable, but from what I've seen on other mods that's possible.

As for land, do you think we should make a mercenary center, similar to barracks?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 04:01:01 PM
So:
- Carthago - Carthago, Carthago Nova and Lilibaeum;
- Hellenic Kingdoms - Syracuse;
- Greek Cities - Athens and Rhodes;
- Ptolemaic Empire - Alexandria.

I don't know if we can have a port that has mercenaries in one settlement and the same port in another settlement that has not, so probably we would have to create an specific building mercenary port.

The mercenary center is fine to non-coastal settlements.


Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 04:04:33 PM
Yep, we could just call it mercenary port or something, seeing the cities we have chosen it could maybe also add extra trade income.

So how are we doing that with the mercenary center? Since we would still have Greek hoplites or Aitolian peltasts available as mercenaries in Aitolia the normal way, should we use that for the ''international'' mercenaries everyone used? Thracian infantry, Thracian cavalry Galatian infantry, Galatian cavalry & Cretan archers, most of all.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 04:17:39 PM
That seems a good ideia. Some settlements should start with the mercenary center and it's up to the player, or the AI, to build it in other settlements, if he wants to spend the money (it should be costly).
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 04:22:52 PM
Aye that's true. Would it be possible that every faction is able to recruit different units at those centers? I guess it would, but with the superfactions it might be a problem, that we have Iberians appearing in Bactria or so lol.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 07:55:58 PM
Hello?  ;D Is that possible? Does our mod leader approve?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 08:06:22 PM
The Iberians were hardly international mercenaries. :P

The thing is, we can make it faction-specific, but don't need to have all mercenaries, only those the factions historically hired. So, for example, in Bactria you would be able to hire: phalangites, thureophoroi and thorakitai; Carthago would be able to hire: balearic slingers, gaulish troops, iberian troops; and so on...
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 28, 2014, 08:13:16 PM
I approve. I also suggest making a thread based off Mercenary troops only. This thread is for factional troops :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 08:15:18 PM
Thanks, I already compiled a list anway  ;D Going to make a thread soon when it's half time at the football.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 08:16:51 PM
Now that I see, the Hellenic Kingdoms should have in their roster much more eastern troops, since most of the Bactrian non-mercenary army portion were native troops.

PS: What game?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 08:22:17 PM
Hibernian vs Dundee United in the Scottish Premiership.

You are our man for Bactria! I will make a list with mercenary centers/ports and mercenaries one should be able to recruit there. Not sure how we list the AOR troops since there are soo many different regions.

What I gathered for Bactria as mercenaries so far:

- Illyrian Cavalry (Alexander left his there)
- Greek hoplites? (Or just AOR in normal barracks?)
- Mercenary Pezoi (same question)
- Scythian horse archers (same question, maybe AOR in stables in the Northern part of the kingdom)
- Thureophoroi? (you seemed to mention that they had mercenaries for them on this thread before)
- Thorakitai? (same, in the same post)
- Cretan archers? (Did they get as far?)
- Indian troops? (or AOR like hoplites, in the Eastern part?)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 08:39:30 PM
Ok, to the basic roster this should be added:

Missile Troops
Native Slingers
Native Skirmishers
Native Archers

Infantry
Bactrian Hillmen

Cavalry
Bactrian Hippeis (maybe just the regular hippeis but re-skinned to have a more easterner look).
Native Skirmisher Cavalry.

This troops, plus the elephants, heavy cavalry, pantodopoi and bactrian hoplites were the native portion of the Bactrian army.

Regular hoplites, thureophoroi ,thorakitai, pezoi, peltasts and podromoi should only be mercenaries. We can add to this Dahae cavalry, Illyrian cavalry. Now, I don't think Bactria cared to hire cretan archers, since the eastern archers were pretty good.

Indian troops should be AOR.

Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 10:55:14 PM
Are we also adding Gastaphretes now (for Macedon and Syracuse)? And Kestros slingers (for Macedon, Aitolian League & Epiros)?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 11:00:47 PM
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/423/untitle.JPG)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on February 28, 2014, 11:04:30 PM
I'm not sure if we should. I have Kestros slingers down but not Gastaphretes.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 11:12:09 PM
No replies on my massive mercenary list?  :P

Why are you opposing them so strongly then, Bercor?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 11:18:32 PM
I very much doubt that gastaphretes were used in large scale in Antiquity. If we put it in the game, the player, and AI, can just spam the armadillo out of it.
Kelstros slingers, I don't mind.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 11:33:11 PM
Maybe we could just add a special building for both of them you can only build in a huge city? Thus they could be recruited in Syracuse and Pella (Gastraphetes), but nowhere else, unless the Macedonians get another huge city. And Kestros as a reform unit for Aitolian League, Epiros and Macedon.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on February 28, 2014, 11:35:35 PM
You're the Historian (with capital h). I bow before your knowledge.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on February 28, 2014, 11:41:52 PM
Oh no, I had never heard about gastraphetes before you guys mentioned them here  ;D I'm just searching through some books, though and will try to find more. My suggestion was merely game- mechanical wise.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 01, 2014, 12:03:04 AM
Nae chance, I can only find information about Chinese crossbowmen... put them on hold for now.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 01, 2014, 12:10:11 AM
One less DMB and EDU slot to worry about :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 01, 2014, 12:11:15 AM
So what do you think about my mercenary list ?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 01, 2014, 12:19:55 AM
I think it's good. However I am still having trouble distinguishing which units should be factional or mercenary
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 01, 2014, 12:28:41 AM
Where do you need help?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 01, 2014, 12:48:22 AM
Just go through the current rosters in the OP and let me know if I am missing anything or if I am wrong anywhere.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 01, 2014, 01:12:33 AM
Okay, sure. It mostly looks good now.

RENAME all Greek/Hellenistic skirmishers/javelinmen Psiloi.

Antigonids

ADD Paionian skirmishers


Seleucids

ADD Neocretan Archers - Reform unit

ADD Agrianian Peltasts (restrict them somehow)

ADD Lonchophoroi (will also need to find a restriction) - Reform unit

RENAME Hypaithroi back to Allied Phalangites, as I said before I can't say it's legit


Ptolemies

ADD Neocretan Archers- Reform Unit


Hellenic States (Pergamon, Cyrene, Epiros, Bactria)

Ask Bercor for Bactria, the rest is fine.


Greek States and Cities

REMOVE Hippakontistai - as I said before

REMOVE Thorakitai - same

REMOVE Xystophoroi - same

ADD Thorakitai for Syracuse, Massalia & Achaian League - Reform unit

ADD Sarmatian Cavalry for Bosporan Empire - Reform unit

ADD Ligurian Warriors for Massalia


That should be everything, you can add Pontos in the opening post ;)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 03, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
No update yet?  :(
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 03, 2014, 04:13:24 PM
Ahowl, you're breaking Mausolos' heart!
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 03, 2014, 04:43:42 PM
Sorry Mausolos, I've been really busy with work and school lately and have not had much time to do much other than read what is being said. I'll get to it soon!
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 03, 2014, 04:54:12 PM
Okay, no problem, just wanted to make sure you have it in mind since I mentioned some things twice or thrice now and it would be pointless to do it again ;)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 06, 2014, 11:47:02 PM
Some new knowledge I found out:

It seems we were doubtful about funditores before, but they were actually important both in auxiliary cohorts and in the legion and are attested from the 3rd century BC to the 3rd century AD.

Cretan sphendonetai (Crete) (slingers) - archaeological findings on Crete imply that slingers were actually more important than archers for Cretan civic armies. They seem to have been much rarer used as mercenaries than toxotai, but were surely skilled warriors and more deadly than the common Greek slinger.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 07, 2014, 03:55:56 AM
All other finds have been added to OP as well as the Pontic Roster. I didn't add Funditores. The Funditores were just the name given to the Balearic and Rhodian Slingers that were used by Rome.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 07, 2014, 03:34:22 PM
Mmh yeah that's actually true. They also used Akarnanian slingers, apparently. But the main thing would be to give the Romans access to those troops then. perhaps funditores barracks similar to the mercenary centers of other factions?


We should also add Cyrtian slingers in the East as AOR troops. I remember RTR 6 had them everywhere from Bithynia to Palaestina to India as mercenaries  ;D It's even mentioned on wikipedia haha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrtian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrtian)

Now more serious evidence is here... Livius mentions them as Pergamene auxiliaries when they fought alongside the Romans:

 Liv. 42 58
Quote
[13] The centre was held by Quintus Mucius with a picked body of volunteer cavalry. On their front were posted 200 Gaulish troopers and 300 Cyrtians from the auxiliary troops brought by Eumenes; 400 Thessalian cavalry were drawn up a short distance beyond the Roman left.

And Polybios describes them among the ranks of the army of the rebel Seleucid satrap Molon:

Polyb. 52, 5
Quote
(...) 5 being anxious if possible to gain the hilly part of the territory of Apollonia, as he relied on the numbers of his force of slingers known as Cyrtii.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 07, 2014, 04:30:13 PM
Yeah they will be added.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Tekowiāt on March 10, 2014, 09:14:05 AM
Hey guys, I've been asked for the Armenian and Parthian rosters, and to improve on the Pontic one if I can. It'll take some research obviously, but for now, here's the—local—Parthian units.

Missile Infantry
Iranian Foot Archers
Iranian Slingers

Melee Infantry
Iranian Infantry
Parthian Spearmen *Reform Unit

Cavalry
Iranian Horse Archers
Parthian Lesser Nobility
Parthian Heavy Cavalry
Royal Retainers *Bodyguard Unit

Also my suggestions for the Mithradatid Kingdom (should be called this instead of 'Pontus'):

Missile Infantry
Iranian Foot Archers (Instead of plain old 'Archers')

Melee Infantry
Iranian Infantry
Anatolian Infantry

Cavalry
Cappadocian Landholders
Scythed Chariots
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 11:28:36 AM
Seems like reasonable suggestions.

I agree with the name change, but to "Mithridatid Kingdom" and not "Mithradatid Kingdom". :P
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 11:37:30 AM
I would like to suggest the African infantry model from RTRVII:
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/9607/pr02.png)
It's probably, the sweetest looking unit I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 03:07:08 PM
Not Mithridatic Kingdom?  :P Also, yeah, the model is great and I think I also suggested it before.

As for Pontos, yeah I just saw ahowl screwed the Cappadocian Cavalry in the opening post  ;D Tekowiāt, you see ''Perso'' under Cavalry? That was to be ''Perso- Cappadocian landholders/noble cavalry'' and would be the same as you suggested. I also think I suggested scythed chariots, but perhaps I forgot them.

Wouldn't ''Anatolian Infantry'' be the same as Pontic Spearmen? Obviously they could also be drawn from nearby regions, but I thought calling them ''Pontic'' would show the difference since your faction is Pontos.

As for Iranian Infantry, in both cases, would these be like Sparabara then?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 03:09:41 PM
I prefer using "d" instead of "c", it gives a greeker (if that's a word) inflection, like Antigonid or Seleucid. :P

And yes, Pontus definitely needs some kind of lighter Cataphract cavalry.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 04:09:52 PM
That's a bit Pseudo- Greek  :P But it's true that a guy called Mithridates founded it and another guy called Mithridates was their most famous king.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 10, 2014, 04:55:00 PM
What did I screw up?

Also if we name Pontus that we need to name the other Dynasties that as well.

As for African Infantry, we would need to change his face.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 05:04:52 PM
Well, we already name the Successor kingdoms by dynasties, why should Pontus be an exception?

Yes, the face would need to be changed, but it's easier than creating a new unit altogether.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 10, 2014, 05:08:41 PM
So then what would Armenia be? The Orontid Kingdom? And Parthia? They should start off as the Parni in 280 BC
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 05:21:57 PM
Armenia should be called either Mets Hayk, which means "Greater Armenia" and was the name that it would have been called in Antiquity, or Orontid Kingdom. ;D
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 10, 2014, 05:36:52 PM
Orontid Kingdom it is. I don't like getting crazy with the language :) I am liking that African Infantry unit. His face needs to be swapped though. It's not too hard, just take the Numidian Javelinmen's face and put it on the African Infantry.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 05:51:41 PM
Yeah, one of the skinners can do it pretty easily.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 06:10:26 PM
What's wrong with the face?

I don't know, Kingdom of Armenia would be okay as well. In difference to the other hellenistic state they actually ruled a territory with one people, after all, and not a great variety like the Ptolemies or Seleucids, who were also Graeco- Macedonian foreigners. Perhaps Pontos is similar... sure, both were ruled by Persian families, we also shouldn't over-do historic names like these.

As for screwing up, in the opening post the Pontic roster has this under ''cavalry'':

Armenian Heavy Cavalry
Perso


Perhaps because I wrote ''Perso- Cappadocian noble cavalry'' you thought the second part would be the description ;) I know that happens when one has to do several things at a time ;) But the unit shouldn't be called ''Perso''  ;D
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 10, 2014, 06:16:12 PM
It's a face that does not match the look we are trying to get.
Fixed the screw up
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Tekowiāt on March 10, 2014, 09:55:23 PM
Thanks Mausolos, I forgot to ask to ask you about those units. Well, I'd leave the 'Perso' out of the name, since AFAIK there's no 'Graeco-Cappadocians' or similar as to need particular distinction, at least not in this period. Also 'Anatolian Infantry' wouldn't be the same to 'Pontic Spearmen', it'd be both an AoR unit there and a core Pontic unit fighting in the Anatolian fashion, maybe skirmishers with good melee skills. Likewise the 'Iranian Infantry' would be strong, lightweight infantry, probably also armed with javelins. However, they'll fight as Takabara. In fact, despite every single mod adding Sparabara in, I have reasons to believe that kind of tactic went all but extinct after the phalanxes became commonplace. By the way are you sure the 'Armenian Heavy Cavalry' should be a core unit for Pontus, if an avaliable unit at all?

Also, as Bercor said I agree on using a 'd', it does match with all but one Hellenistic kingdom name (And it's the way I found it). However, I prefer MithrAdates to MithrIdates. The Greeks may have used the latter more, but the former is closer to the original Iranian Mithradāta.

Lastly, your approach to using English-only names makes it all easier to sort out. I'd say dynastic names fit when the political entity is defined by the ruling dynasty itself, as is the case with the diadochi. When it's the opposite, like a state ruled by a particular people, as Mausolos said, where the dynasty may change and the polity doesn't, then it should be the country's name, which is the case for both the Kingdom of Armenia and the Parthian Empire/Confederacy.

EDIT: On a second thought, It doesn't apply to the Parthians. There was constant conflict among the clans and in the end it was them who chose the ruler, so the possibility of a dynasty change could well happen in-game. In reality, however, no one displaced the Arsacids as the ruling family. So 'Arsacid Confederacy' may be better. It does also link their Aparna origins in the beginning with their later status as an Empire.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 10:08:21 PM
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/47043915.jpg)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Tekowiāt on March 10, 2014, 10:38:39 PM
Wait, what?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 10, 2014, 10:42:31 PM
Just kidding. It's actually a compliment to your historical knowledge.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 10, 2014, 10:44:29 PM
Yes that sounds very good, Tekowiāt   :)

You are right about Mithradates being the original name and we can use that if you want. Didn't Takabara also fight with axes? They would indeed be a good unit then and also add diversity.

The Armenian cavalry was always among the forces of Mithridates VI Eupator (the Greek form here because of the sobriquet) and I think I suggested them only as a reform units as well (?). Probably Tigranes the Great gave him a contingent of his forces as part of their alliance, but that's just what I personally suppose, to be honest.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Tekowiāt on March 11, 2014, 12:08:24 AM
Haha, thank you both :)

Regarding Takabara, the tribes of North Iran such as the Hyrcanians usually fought as axemen, where the sagaris was very common. This may be a separate unit from the spear Takabara avaliable only as AoR, but I'm not sure yet. And the 'Armenian Heavy Cavalry' should definitely be post-reform. They were crucial in the Armenian armies and among the best cavalry around, but this is by the times of Arsacid dominion. Before that, the army had to resemble Achaemenid past more than anything else, that's what I can say for now. Also, based on what you say Mausolos, shouldn't they be AoR for anyone besides Armenia?
 
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 11, 2014, 12:35:07 AM
Okay, you should revise then if we could have both axe and spear Takabara ;) Yeah the Armenian cavalry could also be available as an AoR unit, but I think Pontos should also be able to recruit them in their home territories after the ''reforms'', resembling the alliance with Tigranes and the following influx of Armenian soldiers.



Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Fëanáro on March 11, 2014, 09:49:53 PM
I prefer using "d" instead of "c", it gives a greeker (if that's a word) inflection, like Antigonid or Seleucid. :P

And yes, Pontus definitely needs some kind of lighter Cataphract cavalry.

Actually, in that case the "c" would b more appropriate :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Bercor on March 11, 2014, 10:10:32 PM
Yeah, I'm not the biggest expert in the world in regards to Ancient Greek. :P
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Tekowiāt on March 12, 2014, 05:46:50 AM
If sounding 'Greeker' is not an argument there, convention definitely is though.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Tekowiāt on March 12, 2014, 05:50:56 AM
Oh and by the way Mausolos, keep the gameplay in mind, regarding the Cataphracts. Anything can happen in the game, Pontus ending up as a bitter enemy of Armenia, for one.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on March 12, 2014, 03:31:48 PM
Oh and by the way Mausolos, keep the gameplay in mind, regarding the Cataphracts. Anything can happen in the game, Pontus ending up as a bitter enemy of Armenia, for one.

Sure, but we want to have realistic units, right? ;) Also, do you think the Armenian cavalry would be equipped like cataphracts?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Tekowiāt on March 14, 2014, 05:56:44 AM
Of course. A realistic setting so far in the game however is a whole other can of worms. Also yes, 'Armenian Heavy Cavalry' could only refer to Cataphracts by the time of the alliance.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on March 30, 2014, 09:52:13 PM
Parthian Roster posted in OP
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: bucellarii on April 15, 2014, 11:13:05 PM
ahowl11 asked me to comment on the Roman unit roster....

 I would say that broadly speaking the proposed roster is fine depending on the team’s vision of the mod. However, here are some  episodic and fairly random observations:

1) The ‘Polybian’ roster more accurately reflects the late third century/early second century army of the Roman Republic rather than that the early third century, which is when the mod opens.

2) It is reasonable to conclude that the changes in the equipment and organisation of the Roman hoplite army can be dated, under Samnite influence, to the end of the fourth century BCE (Diod. Sic. 23.2, Sall. Cat. 51.37-8, Ath. 6.273F, Ined. Vat) and consequently call into question the major military reform, or series of reforms, supposedly instigated by M. Furius Camillus (Liv. 4.59, Dion. Hal. 14.9.1-2, Plut. Cam. 40.3-4). For example, Roman tradition put the blame for the great Roman defeat at the Allia in 390 BCE on religious flaws, not tactical weakness (Cass. Hem frg. 20; Cn. Gell. Frg 25 – Macrob. Sat. 1.16.21-24; Verrius Flaccus ap. Gell. NA 5.17.2) Liv 6.1.12) and this is one of the factors that counts against an early fourth century reform. Moreover, Camillus is said to have effected reforms which involved the adoption of the scutum to counteract the Gallic attack of 367; but the authenticity of the details of this episode are most doubtful….Certainly there is no reason…(to) argue for a Camillan reform of the army: Oakley S, P. A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X, Volume II: Books VII-VIII (Oxford, 1998)

3) Livy believed that an early Roman manipular legion compromised thirty maniples of antepilani (front columnists), fifteen each of hastati and principes (with twenty leves attached to each maniple) and fifteen ordines (units) of pilani (columnists), each ordo divided into three vexilla (banners or detachments), one each of triarii, rorarii, and accensi (Liv. 8.8.5-14). However, It would seem impossible to believe that Livy’s legion ever existed in reality…the whole farrago appears as an antiquarian reconstruction, concocted out of scattered pieces of information and misinformation….One of its underlying features seems to be a strained attempt to establish some sort of relation between the new military order and the five categories of the census classification (Sumner, G. V. The Legion and the Centuriate Organization, The Journal of Roman Studies Vol. 60, 1970).

4) Details about the early third century Roman army are elusive and whilst I could reproduce extensive research posts I have submitted elsewhere on the subject I have no real appetite to re-visit old ground in any detail. Consequently, I will restrict myself to suggesting that although Livy appears not to have considered either the rorarii or accensi as light troops there is good reason to believe that the rorarii were indeed part of the light-armed. The accensi might more properly be viewed as non-combatant supernumeraries.  Thus one is left to conclude that the leves distributed amongst the hastati were less well equipped than the rorarii of the ‘fourth line’, who may have been equipped in a similar manner to Polybios’ grosphomachoi (usually translated into Latin as ‘velites’) or that  leves and the rorarii were conterminous; both being equipped with only a spear and javelins.

5) With regard to the principes there is no general agreement about whether in the early third century they were still armed with the ‘phalanx’ spear. Dionysios of Halikarnassos (Dion. Hal. 20.11.2) is the only ancient source who states that the maniples of the principes were equipped with such a weapon and whilst there appears to be a growing tendency among modern scholars to accept the reliability of Dionysios’ testimony, so far as I can tell only Nathan Rosenstein (Phalanges in Rome in New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare; Brill, 2010) has highlighted a particularly troubling feature of this account; namely the claim that the principes at Benevetum needed to grasp their dorata (spears) with both hands.  Accordingly Rosenstein speculates that the dorata carried by the principes “must have been some type of sarissa” and suggests that this represented a temporary ploy to counter Pyrrhus’ sarissa armed mercenaries. In support of his argument Rosenstein points to Polyb. 2.33.1-4 who describes an example of Roman innovation to counter a specific tactical threat. Whilst, I am not convinced by Rosenstein’s theory I am unable to offer any convincing alternative and I am therefore left to posit the following:

a) The principes (or triarii if in agreement with D. Hoyos, The Age of Overseas Expansion (264–146 bc) in A Companion to the Roman Army ed. Erdkamp; Blackwell, 2007) at Benevetum were equipped with dorata/hastae but Dionysios of Halikarnassos was mistaken when he stated that they were grasped by both hands

b) The passage of Dionysios of Halikarnassos is so flawed that no weight can be placed upon it

c) Rosenstein is in fact correct

6) In view of the above it is possible that at the start of the mod you may wish to include spear and javelin armed leves (no helmet or shield) rather than velites and spear armed principes. For example, there is reasonable evidence to suppose that the better equipped velites were a product of the bellum Hannibalicum (Liv. 26.4.9 contra 21.55.11; Val. Max 2.3.3). Similarly, the transition from light to heavy Roman cavalry equipment may also date to this period (Polyb. 6.25.3-11). The year 211 seems to have been the beginning of a turning point for the Roman cavalry as Livy’s account of the creation of the velites in 211 suggests (McCall, Jeremiah B. The Cavalry of the Roman Republic : Cavalry Combat and Elite Reputations in the Middle and Late Republic; Routledge, 2002).

7) Primary evidence for the arms, equipment and organisation of the socii nominis Latini (Allies of the Latin Name) and the socii Italici (Italian Allies) is scarce. The equipment and tactics of the Romans and Latins were supposedly indistinguishable when they fought one another in 340 BCE (Liv. 8.8.15). However, Livy’s description is probably an anachronism retrojecting the homogeneity of the opposing armies during the bellum Marsicum of 91 -87 BCE (Army and Battle during the Conquest of Italy: Rawlings, 2007). Military homogenisation was most likely the result of a fluid process of interaction that gradually eliminated regional Italic panoplies during the third century. This process included the Roman adoption of equipment and tactics from the Italic peoples, an interchange especially associated with the Samnites (Ined. Vat. 3; Diod. Sic. 23.2 Sall. Cat. 51.37-38; Ath. 6.273). The socii (allies) were presumably organized and equipped in much the same way as the cives Romani (Roman citizens) by the time of the bellum Hannibalicum, “since otherwise it would have been difficult for Roman generals to draw up  armies of mixed citizen and allied contingents” (Hannibal’s War: Lazenby 1978).

That’s it for now. I will leave it to the full time mod members to determine what they wish to  make of the above

Regards

buc
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: anunnak on April 16, 2014, 05:45:26 PM

               Hey,

bucellarii is right, i second his comments.At this stage of my thesis research i came to the same conclusions. And it seems we read the same sources and critical comments.  For some more info about this subject this makes a good read too:

http://σσσ.digressus.org/articles/romanizationpp060-085-burns.pdf
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on April 16, 2014, 07:26:52 PM
Okay so basically from the period of 280 BC to about 211 BC, Principes used a Spear and there were Leves attached to the Maniples; There was either no lorica hamata used or it was used only by the wealthiest of soldiers/officers; Italians and Romans were still distinguished by their own arms and armour. Most Italians resembled Roman troops around the 2nd Punic War.
Also, Leves and Rorarii were roughly the same, being equipped with some javelins, nothing else; Equites were more lightly armed, with maybe just a breastplate.

Did I get this right?
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Alavaria on April 16, 2014, 08:43:28 PM
Roman pikemen... interesting concept.
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: bucellarii on April 16, 2014, 09:31:44 PM
Quote
Did I get this right?

Not quite  :)

 
Quote
basically from the period of 280 BC to about 211 BC, Principes used a Spear

No buddy, as has been previously observed the system envisaged in our passage cannot have lasted very long after that period (i.e. the bellum Pyrrhicum). Polybius’s narrative of the Gallic wars makes it clear that by then the triarii alone had thrusting spears (Rawson. E, The Literary Sources for the Pre-Marian Army; Papers of the British School at Rome 39, 1971)

Quote
Also, Leves and Rorarii were roughly the same, being equipped with some javelins, nothing else

Livy says those were called lights (i.e. leves) who carried only a spear and javelins (Liv. 8.8.5).

Quote
Equites were more lightly armed, with maybe just a breastplate

Polybios says The cavalry are now armed like that of Greece, but in old times they had no cuirasses but fought in light undergarments, the result of which was that they were able to dismount and mount again at once with great dexterity and facility, but were exposed to great danger in close combat, as they were nearly naked.  Their lances too were unserviceable in two respects. In the first place they made them so slender and pliant that it was impossible to take a steady aim, and before they could fix the head in anything, the shaking due to the mere motion of the horse caused most of them to break.  Next, as they did not fit the butt-ends with spikes, they could only deliver the first stroke with the point and after this if they broke they were of no further service.  Their buckler was made of ox-hide, somewhat similar in shape to the round bosse cakes used at sacrifices. They were not of any use for attacking, as they were not firm enough; and when the leather covering peeled off and rotted owing to the rain, unserviceable as they were before, they now became entirely so.

Polyb. 6.25.3-7

Quote
There was either no lorica hamata used or it was used only by the wealthiest of soldiers/officers

The spread of lorica hamata among the prima classis is likely to have started during the last quarter of the third century. Before this time mail cuirasses are likely to have been extremely rare. See the Roman armour thread for further details.

I'm now away and unlikely to be able to post anything else until late next week

Regards

buc
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on April 16, 2014, 10:03:41 PM
Thanks for clearing that up!
Okay thanks for letting us know :)
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Mausolos of Caria on April 24, 2014, 12:32:08 AM
For the Roman units:

Velites: Wearing javelines, a small shield and a gladius, they were introduced in 211 BC to counter the heavy Campanian cavalry. Initially, they fought mixed with the equites and replaced rorarii, leves & accensi. Abolished by Gaius Marius 100- 90 BC.

Heavy Infantry:

''(..) All (Hastati, Principes, Triarii) wore a bronze helmet and carried a long, semi-cylindrical body shield, constructed of plywood and covered with calfskin to gve it an effective mixture of flexibility and resilience. The wealthier men wore a mail or scale cuirass, but some made do with a simple bronze plate strapped in place over the chest.'' Adrian Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, P. 50

The gladius hispaniensis and the scutum were introduced by the three Scipios between 220 and 210 BC. .Before that Etruscan/Greek swords were used.

Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: ahowl11 on April 24, 2014, 12:39:21 AM
Okay currently the Hastati and Principes have a Spear/Scutum shield. The Triarii are equipped as Hoplites.

When do the hastati/principes lose the spear? Historically it looks as if they ditch spear for Italian sword, and then go to gladis shortly before 2nd punic war. We don't have room to simulate that. So we need to choose a date where they go from Spear to Sword. Unless you want 3 types of each unit!

Okay so Leves, Accensi, and Rorarii stay in until 211 BC. We can discuss a scenario for a script..
Title: Re: Discussion: New Faction Units
Post by: Ballacraine on April 25, 2014, 11:15:43 PM
I really don't see the point of 3 eras for that.

The middle one is so transient.

Balla.  8)