Theme Switching #4

[Corban]

Hey, I just thought of something interesting. What do you all think about throwing naval strength/weakness into the whole Prominance mix? What I mean is making naval strength (or even individual unit strength) vary depending on which civilization you choose. An example of this would be increasing the Greek Naval (skiff) units attack and defence +2 but have their basic troops (mice) attack and defence weakened by say -0.5. You could even do it the same way as it is done now only separating the naval and land units. Anyways its just a thought...

[Devari]

I'm still going to argue against dropping the Celts. They were an important, albeit disorganized, force across Europe. In all honesty, if we're dropping the Celts we should probably get rid of the Germans and Gauls.

Actually, that in itself might not be bad idea. I'm pretty sure we were focusing on the Mediterranean anyway.

[neobaron]

Mhmm I thought about the same thing but then that leaves us with 3 Races short, and people still whining for incredibally monor races to fill those shoes... so I included North African nations and strong middle eastern nations.

[Devari]

We can always go for the subrace idea...

[The Beatles]

Corban -- good idea, although tricky to implement.

Devari -- subraces is a can of worms...

[Devari]

Corban -- good idea, although tricky to implement.

Devari -- subraces is a can of worms...

Twue.

So, keep Northern Europe (as in, Germans, Gauls, and/or Celts), or drop it?

[neobaron]

I say keep it so we can have generalized races without people adding more and more to the pile as far as subraces...

[Gen. Volkov]

You guys do realize that there were no significant germanic/celtic/gothic peoples until the middle of Roman rule right? During the time before Alexander, Europeans were essentially Stone Age. That's why I proposed my list, because they were actually you know civilizations and cultures. But meh, I can't stop you.

[Devari]

Military power != advanced culture. Celts, Gauls, and Germans were fierce warriors, even though they had little discipline compared to an army such as the Romans.

[Gen. Volkov]

That's my point, unless you go middle to post Roman, the germanic tribes didn't HAVE military power. They were barely able to support themselves, let alone a warrior class. The Celts even less so. You're thinking of them when the Romans faced them, I'm telling you that before Roman times, that is, when you want to base your game, they had just started farming and making towns. And very few of them at that. They don't gain any real power until near the end of the Roman Empire. And before that, during the middle of Roman rule, they may have been fierce warriors, but the Romans rolled right over them for centuries. Rome was THE power in that time. So unless you want to go post Roman, Goths/celts/germanics are not a viable race.

[Devari]

"There was also an early Celtic presence in northern Italy. Other Celtic tribes invaded Italy, establishing there a city they called Mediolanum (modern Milan) and sacking Rome itself in 390 BC following the Battle of the Allia."

"In 279 BC, another army of Celts led by one Brennus invaded Macedonia and northern Greece. He turned the Greek defense at the pass of Thermopylae, and sacked Delphi, where he was wounded. He then penetrated into Epirus and sacked the treasures of the temples of Zeus at Dodona and Olympia. Facing determined Greek resistance, he withdrew to Macedonia, dying from his wound. Without him, his people split. Some of them crossed the Bosporus and settled in a part of Asia Minor that came to be called Galatia. The others returned to their homelands in Gaul, keeping in trust the treasures of Brennus' campaign."

The Celts were a viable force pre-Roman. Germanic tribes, perhaps less so. But Celts and the Gallic supgroup were both decent militarily.

[The Beatles]

Those are mostly noted in legend as the Gauls, not the Celts. But that's irrelevant, good point.

As for sacking Rome, that's not entirely accurate. From what I recall, the defenders retreated into the Capitoleum, while the old and infirm stayed below -- quite heroically, actually. Then a dictator in exile came back with a victorious force and scattered them, and Rome was rebuilt. True, it was one of the worst humiliations the Romans faced, but it was nowhere near the height of their power -- it was during the early Republic -- and Rome wasn't actually completely sacked. The besiegers were never able to actually breach the Capitoleum's defences, although they got near on a few occasions (Juno's ducks, and when they were bartering tribute).

[Devari]

Indeed, but the generalization gets the point across.

[Gen. Volkov]

Hmm. More organized than I thought. I need to do more reading on this. But if you'll notice, when they sacked Rome, it wasn't exactly Rome yet, I mean it had that name, but it wasn't what it would later become, the capital of a vast empire. Still It does prove some military power, despite the lack of any real civilization or writing. I suppose they could be used, but given how close they are in time to Alex, Macedon is going to have to be massively upped in terms of combat power. 279 BC is only 70 or 80 some years after he died. And 390 BC is only 60 years before he conquered Persia.

[The Beatles]

Even when they sacked Rome, it was a very significant power, having practically wiped out the Etruscans.

Which reminds me, why don't we have Etruscans in the races?