Historic Era

[Flameslash]

I am planing a new era, The Historic Era! It will contain Native Americans / Zulus, Celts, Settlers and Romans. I will probaly add more. Does anyone want to help?


Native Americans / Zulus

Melle foucsed.

American Spearman - Brave - Chief
- Strong Spear
Shield Bearer - Protecter
Hunter - Archer - Forest Master
- Tomohawk Master
Runner - Scout


Celts

Mostly cheap and weak units.

Celtic Swordsman - Beserker
- Beheader
Celtic Spearman - Protecter - Shield Master
- Charger
Rider - Skull Rider (Sword)
- Charger (Spear)


Roman

Strong and Expensive Units Balanced


Legionnaire - Decurion - Centurion
Pilum Legionnaire - Roman Thrower
Roman Archer - Champion Archer - Golden Bow
- Balista - Flameshot
Roman Spearman - Roman Champion


Settelers

Offensive ans Ranged Based

Settler Swordsman - Settler Warrior
Settler Captain - Settler Liutenant - Settler Genral
Settler Gunner - Settler Sharpshot
- Settler Solider
Settler Horseman - Mounted Gunner
- Settler Cavalier - Settler Horsemaster


I might split it into 2. Ancient Times (Romans, Celts. Maybe Greeks, Egyptians and Norse). And Era of The Sea (Settlers, Native americans. Maybe Pirates,Navy and More).

[Unnheulu]

I'm not sure a battle between celts and romans would be fair.

Whilst the romans were living in huge cities with massive armies, then we were in tiny villages made of huts and were constantly quarreling among ourselves^^

Anyways, sounds cool.

[Flameslash]

But celts get cheaper units to outnumber expensive Roman ones.

[Unnheulu]

If you can expect them not to quarrel among themselves.

[Flameslash]

You play as one large tribe!

[Unnheulu]

If I was alive 2000 years ago I'd be a celt.

Celts didn't live in tribes, they lived in tiny family villages, perhaps 5-10 people.

[Flameslash]

If I was alive 2000 years ago I'd be a celt.

Celts didn't live in tribes, they lived in tiny family villages, perhaps 5-10 people.

Iceni? Brigates? Vercingetorix? Look them up! Two trribes and a chief!

[Turuk]

Celts didn't live in tribes, they lived in tiny family villages, perhaps 5-10 people.

You might want to inform them of that then. They disobeyed your direct orders not to band together and did indeed form a few tribes. One or two, here or there, you know.

[Unnheulu]

Like Boudica and stuff, but it was pretty rare.

[Turuk]

Like Boudica and stuff, but it was pretty rare.

Did you read the link? It was not rare at all for them to be in tribes.


Flameslash, is this era for just any civilization across history that you like, or limited to a certain period (guessing no judging by the factions named).

[Unnheulu]

But the tribes often consisted of one or two families.

[faring]

They disobeyed your direct orders not to band together and did indeed form a few tribes One or two, here or there, you know.

I love the humour on this forum

there are a few spelling errors in the first post with the unit names
luitenant should be lieutenant
legionare -> legionnaire
javeliner -> javelineer
balista -> ballista
settelers -> settlers
genral -> general
soilder -> soldier

yeah I did only type those out to stop the comment about the awesome humour here being a noise post, also spelling mistakes ruin the polished feel when its finished.. if that makes sense... it probably sounds better in my head

also the factions don't really fit together well... mounted gunners in the same era as romans for example, that's what sticks out most to me anyway
and you can think of a better name than stabber

it does sound good though

[Zachron]

The Celts went through numerous stages of development prior to Roman conquest, and afterward in areas not conquered by Rome. Even in the most primitive stages where the groups were 5-10 in size, said family groups were often part of extended families. Seeing as Teutonic raiders were privy to when their rivals were vulnerable to attack, there were plenty of reasons for Celt to group up into larger units, and there more more than just defensive benefits. Afterall, it wasn't a group of 5-10 that invaded lower Italy and forced the young Roman republic to pay them tribute. It wasn't groups of 5-10 that adopted and improved upon metalworking, but guilds of smiths(not formalized guilds, but groups of artisans nonetheless), who would develop the very swordsmithing techniques that the Romans would use to arm themselves against them. It wasn't 5-10 that set sail to Asia-minor, and conquered half the peninsula(Was about a couple thousand really, they made themselves rulers over the land, but were absorbed into the local population over just a few generations). Their villages may have been small, but there were a whole lot of them. About 5000 in the average area controlled by a Roman city of 50,000 people. So numerous were the Celts that when Rome conquered Gaul, even after slaughtering most of them, the conquest increased the emerging empire's population more than tenfold.

Rome's cities, aside from Rome itself, were not that much larger than the few Celtic cities which existed, until after Rome had conquered Gaul, making some of these Roman cities Celtic cities that had been Romanized. Rome itself did not that greatly enlarge until after numerous public works made in later eras. I'm getting away from myself here. The point is Rome wasn't bigger than Gaul(just compare a map of Italy to a map of France to get that), Rome didn't have the numeric advantage(Caesar was outnumbered 3-fold or more in most of his battles against the Galls, and that was his entire army, whereas numerous Gallic armies would be fielded against the Roman Legion), nor did Rome have a massive technological advantage. (Caesar's famous bridge astounded the Galls because of it's sheer size and how quickly it was built, but they knew what a bridge was.) What won the war was organization, discipline, and willingness. Organization allowed Caesar to use the terrain of their homeland against them, discipline allowed the formations to not break, even when all seemed lost, and willingness to perform the most lowly of duties allowed Roman legionnaires to construct bridges, forts, and siege implements in the absence of a non-combatant workforce. Few understand that Rome was actually the underdog in this struggle.

[Turuk]

Zachron pretty much covered it. Also note, the Gauls were not the only group of Celts, but rather the name that the Romans gave to the Celts living in the region of modern-day France. Beyond the Gauls, Celts could also be found living on the British isle, the Iberian Peninsula, and even in the Balkans.

[TheGreatRings]

Two comments:

First, I like the idea, but Zulus and Native Americans should probably be sepperate factions. Also, you should specify one native faction or at least one area, as their is a world of difference between the Souix (plains tribe), the Iriquoi (East Coast/Great Lakes woodlands), the Aztecs (Central American Empire with major cities), etc. Though I'm no expert, I'd say right now your "Native Americans" are closest to pre- colonial plains tribes (pre-colonial due to lack of horses).

Second, since you are including colonial-era American factions, I humbly suggest that you include a pirate faction of some sort, as that would be insanely awesome. Also, a horse-based faction like the Mongols would be interesting, though I don't know how it would affect balance.