Who will you play first

[Centurion_13]

Iberians do look pretty fun, but so do many other civs

[tauhammerhead]

celts might be quite good fun as they would probably be quite barbaric and disorderly, a true test of a commander

[Paal_101]

I will say that after Rome I will probably play Iberians, very cool civ with very cool weapons, units, and tactics. One could make an awesome movie out of Caro no?

[Cassius Allanus]

I'll probably do Romans first, then Celts.

*struggles not to brag about all the prominent Celtic ancestry he has *

[Mr.C]

I voted Persians. I like the ancient Mesopotamian (sp?) cultures, like the Assyrians and Babylonians. I know Persians aren't the same, but I guess they are similar. They just seem really colourful and unique compared to the other civs, so that might be another reason why I'd like to play them first.

Iberians will be fun I think. In RTS's, I like raiding, and it would be interesting to try them out. Carthaginians would be cool too.

Peace!

Mr.C

[Fire Giant]

*comes back from the shadows of inactivity*

Romans, of course The RVF shall not rest until all other civilisations have been ... convinced ... to obey the Roman rule over the world.

[Blorx2]

I'd probably be the Celts first...

[DarkAngelBGE]

I voted for the celts, because I like fast moving infantry with tatoos on their arms.

[Blorx2]

yes! Ten on my side!

[Phoenix-TheRealDeal]

I'll probably play the Iberians first because I designed that civ first. Then, I'll play the Carthaginians second because I disigned that civ second. Then I'll prolly play all the rest of 'em, too, but I wasn't the principal desingner on any of those. :D

BTW, I deliberately picked the Iberians and Carthaginians to design myself because those are the ones that people know the least about (but I had some good help doing that by a professor of Romano-Greco-Iberico history at a university in Spain--Piteas).

[Will]

Definately the Celts for my first couple times playing it.

[Iberian Overlord]

Iberians and Celts all the way.

[Dnas]

Celts because they have by far my favorite helmets. Shiny....

[dwx1618]

I don't know... I voted romans, but only because I know most about them and successful civs in the real world are usually better in games, but I currently hold almost no loyalty to an civ really...

WHERE ARE THE CHINESE HERE???!!!

Anyways, as for that Third Triumphirate of the staff from earlier...since triumphirates never lasted long and nearly always ended with the death of one (or death of right after), I'm not holding too much faith in it.

P.S.: When do we get tech trees for the civs? I really want to see them.

[golthos]

I`m not sure it will be either celts hellenes or persian, depents on my mood. Right now I feel like playing with the persians

I think the Persians deserve to played by a good tactician. I think if they were good tactically in reality they would have ruled the ancient world

[Mythos_Ruler]

The problem with Persian armies were their cosmopolitan nature. Too many nationalities in one army, meaning an ineffectual chain of command and non-standard military tactics and procedures. They also had a huge array of weaponry and armor with little to no standardization, making supplying the army with arms and the maintenance of the army that much more difficult. Lastly, a large percentage of Persian armies were peasant conscripts that lacked any meaningful tactical training (although most had some sort of arms training, usually for hunting and protecting their families from bandits).

[TheCobra1]

Totally Romans! Their my favorite Nation!

[Iago]

Surelly Iberians!!!!!!

[golthos]

The problem with Persian armies were their cosmopolitan nature. Too many nationalities in one army, meaning an ineffectual chain of command and non-standard military tactics and procedures. They also had a huge array of weaponry and armor with little to no standardization, making supplying the army with arms and the maintenance of the army that much more difficult. Lastly, a large percentage of Persian armies were peasant conscripts that lacked any meaningful tactical training (although most had some sort of arms training, usually for hunting and protecting their families from bandits).

Well I don't really agree with your first sentence but I do agree with most of what you stated.

I beleive it wasnt the fact that they were cosmopolitan as much as (as you alluded to clearly) they completely depended on the individual nations to supply their own troops with weapons and armor (which saved the king from having to come up with the expense of supplying most of the troops) and because of political reasons there was no tactical training which would have allowed for a more integrated, flexible, combat structure and a more efficient top down chain of command.

This lack of integrated tactical training meant the king left it up to the individulal nations to provide their own training as they saw fit (which sometimes meant none). This meant that the Persian King had to be extremely knowledgable about each individual nations troop types and overall tactics and combine and manipulate them as best as he could on the battle field. Although this method was easy on the treasury and kept the peace within the empire it required too much management for the commanders especially the king. Logistics was a nightmare for anybody who was less than brilliant.

The King and his commanders realized this inherent weakness so they compensated by having a very large army, which at the time made the most sense because often larger numbers were enough to intimidate a smaller armed nation or force. Unfortunately this also exacerbated management. So when these levies fought the idea was if all else failed at least they could wear out their opponent due their sheer numbers.

Carthage and later Imperial Rome are good examples of great tactical use with different kinds troops and levies. Especially in the roman case there was much tactical training with auxilliaries and mercenaries which allowed for good cohesion in battle.

I just feel bad for the Persians because I feel if only they just had a more tight military a good tactician and strategist could mop the floor with any opponent using the variety of troop types the Persians had at their disposal including the Greek mercenaries.

Edited February 15, 2006 by golthos

[Paal_101]

As you said, Persian armies were also large for intimidation purposes. Mesopotamian and Near Eastern practice for a millenia had been to scare one's opponents into submission by bringing a massive force to his doorstep. The Bible, for example, has several incidents where massive armies are brought to bear by the Cannanites, Assyrians, and Babylonians in attempts to frighten the opponent.

Persian armies followed the same practice. Western armies like the Greeks and Romans always went out with the intention of fighting each time, so every man there was necessary. On the other hand Persian armies could be made up of thousands of unnecessary, untrained men to simply provide bulk and a fear factor. Darius III at Gaugamela planned to fight, but dead to rights he was trying to scare Alexander by having 100,000 men arrayed against him, knowing that his previous attempts had failed.

That being said the Persians did have some very highly trained troops, usually Medes and Persians. In addition the Assyrian and Sakae troops in their armies could not be discounted, nor the Cissians and Bactrians. Particularly the cavalry from these nations were hardly negligiable. If anything the Persians lacked in trained infantry, and indeed once they began to fight as karadakes they proved to be tough opponents.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Paal_101

[Radagast]

Romans. Doesn't the name alone conjure up pictures of spectacular sieges, vast hordes falling before the gladius, and brilliant tactical geniuses? The legions shall conquer again!

[Paal_101]

Yes Another one stands with the winning side

[mista_maggoo]

celts might be quite good fun as they would probably be quite barbaric and disorderly, a true test of a commander

Chinese would be cool the reason ithink people choose certain civs is they have cool units or or a big differance from the others.in aom i used to always be greek cus that was the one the campaighn started you out with. but then i switched to norse for the unique gameplay of them.they had ox carts!

dont mind that qote^ my b

[Paal_101]

Funny you should raise the issue of the Chinese There is currently a large debate raging on Roman Army Talk concerning an essay written by a member of that forum arguing for Han dominence over the Roman army in a theoretical situation. A lot of partisan positions, but its is coming down to the agreement that in whole the Romans may lose a couple battles but most likely would win the war.

Disregard the massively off-topic argument of gladius slashing capabilities Interesting but wholey out of place.

So what needs to happen after the release of 0 AD is for someone to manufacture a faithful Han Chinese mod and see the fun we could have when the greatest civilizations of the 1st century AD go at it. Obviously won't settle anything but it'll provide substance for substantial "game history" debate.

Plus this post gets revived for some more votes to be tallied. Hmmm....Romans seem to have the edge....

[Yamato Take]

1. Carthage

2. Iberians

3. Celts

(4. Ptolemaic Egyptians )