Jump to content

So, how will the civs play.


Recommended Posts

Despite the fact that we have practically no concrete info on what each civ. will be like to play, its never too early to make speculations based on history and what little we have already been told (I'm assuming the "Cultures" info on the main website is still at least mostly up to date). I'm sure the history buffs will be able to tell us exactly how each civ. really fought, but of course theres always the problem of exactly how that translates into gameplay. So a few of my speculations:

Carthagianians: We are told they had a good navy, were good traders, that the walls of Carthage were never breached and that they have a wide selection of units. I see a very good booming civ, one that can always come out with the best economy if not rushed and overwhelming the enemy simply by being able to crank out more units and spend more on upgrades. The power of their navy is explicitly mentioned, but on land no predominant unit is mentioned. It is possible that they will have no predominant unit, but because of the wide selection of units (as they historically used many mercenaries) they will have competent units for every situation and will with some skill be able to react to any attack the enemy sends. They may also have some kind of building bonus, seeing as Carthage was never breached. We also know that they will field Elephants as some kind of super-unit, now that is something I wouldn't like to come up against.

The Celts: We are told that they will have very poor ranged capabilities, so infantry will be the mainstay of their army. I would imagine that this infantry would be very weak (they wore no armour) but cheap and easier to produce en masse, after all the celts always seemed to outnumber the Romans, and training soldiers who don't even use armour is much less expensive. I would imagine the celts to be a perfect example of a rush civ, with a strong early eco and the ability to quickly train large but weak armies. Once the enemies strart upgrading their units I imagine that the celts will be pretty much overwhelmed. Their lack of good archers might make them particalarly vulnerable against certain civs, especially civs with slow powerfull units which are best attacked from range (Greek hoplites, Carthaginian Elephants etc. Now would you rather go up to one of those with a sword or knock 'em off from a comfortabgle distance. We are also told there building will be made of wood and so be cheaper and quicker to construct, but be much weaker.

The Hellenes: Seem to have some similarities with Carthage: a good navy, a strong mercentile base = good eco. However, rather than having a large variety of units, they will mostly be based round the slow and powerfull infantry phalanx. Their architecture is also mentioned, which might translate into more powerfull buildings (possibly not at the expense of price). The enourmous ammount of scientific achievement could mean that the greeks will have much better techs and upgrades then the other civs, giving them an extremelly powerfull late game. I see them as a somewhere between boomers and turtlers. Their (hypothesized by me) stronger buildings and superior upgrades could lead to players holding back till they are fully developed rather than opting for an earlier (and weaker) attack, but will still need to dominate the map to support this development (they did establish colonies in real life after all).

OK, I can't be bothered to right any more today. Why doesn't somebody else try their hand at totally random speculation. And it would be great if the producers gave us a few clues. Even tiny ones. Please?!?!?!? :):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wel, I wouldn't say the celts have weak units, because before the "Rise of Rome" they were vastly superior to them in armour and similar battle techniques. They seem to be the first nation that uses chainmail in large numbers, and their long swords and good helmets seem to have been very good. The Celts would be a civilisation that has comparably good units in the beginning, thus being a rush civ like you said, but their technology wouldn't improve as it would with the romans. But celts being unarmored?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've probably both been reading different sources, because from what I've always heard Celts thought that armour was for cowards and prefered to fight without it (often without any clothes too), believing that fate had already decided whether they would die or not, and no amount of armour would protect them. I'm seriously no history buff, but this is how I've always seen them portrayed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally elaborate armour was reserved for the nobility. It was taken as a sign of courage to fight in the nude with no armor. However, the Celts were still ferocious fighters, so expect them to have high attack, fast speed, and pretty low armor points. :)

I think Aztec_Brave is pretty close so far in his civ descriptions. What do you guys think about the others?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect the Romans to be somewhat capable at all different strategies, but aren't powerful in any particular ones. The Iberians could, somehow, turtle-rush. And the Persians to me will be very similar as the Russians in AOE3, but hopefully not UP. :)

Edited by FirePowa8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic culture, divided into tribes as it was, never gained the affluence to actually armor its warbands. To be fair, though, the Celts had a much better understanding as a society regarding iron-working, so when you do see fine weapons and armor from the Celts, it is best to be afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Some more brainstorming:

Iberians: The worlds first guerillas. We are told that they will be a predominantly defenseive civilisation, but also that they will have the fastest (we're told they have excellent cavalry units) and most rapid firing units in the game, with the addded option of flaming projectiles and some kind of "Toledo steel" bonus. This doesn't really sound like your typical defensive turtle civ. I imagine a more sort of "defend by attacking" approach, or as Firepowa put it, a turtle-rush. Their fast units sound ideal for being able to cover large areas by moving units around, so in theory they should be able to have far fewer units in defense compared to other civs, as they can always move them quickly to the trouble spot. Actually, I'm pretty stumpe with this civ: they are said to be prodominantly defensive, but nothing is said of building bonuses and the description of their units sounds pretty offensive. Their economy doesn't sound like anything special, and we still need details of the "Tactica Guerilla" ability.

Persians: Cannon fodder infantry, powerfull archers (but probably easy to slaughter if you get close enough) and an extremely diverse and powerfull cavalry. They do actually sound a bit like the Russians in AOE3 (although so do the Celts somewhat). Their attack strategy already seems obvious now: use the cheap infantry as a meatshield for your powerfull archers and mow down the enemy with your powefull cavalry. We are told they were extremely wealthy, with a powerfull trade empire, which will almost certainly translate into some cool economic bonues. They're architecture is said to be grand, which could possibly translate into building bonuses, although I don't see what sort of a bonus a building gets for looking night (it might even mean more expensive buildings. I'm interested to see what sort of a bonus the religious and cultural tolerance that is mentioned will turn into (if it does have some kind of effect on gameplay at all). On the whole I see them as boomers, needing to gain as much from their economic bonuses as possible in order to be able to afford the hordes of meatshield infantry and uber-cavalry. They may also be good turtlers, with (possible) building bonuses and an economy based on trade rather than gathering (a la the Dutch with their banks in AOE3).

Romans: We are told explicitly that they are the best rounded civ in the game, but don't really excel in anything, although their inantry, siege weapons, construction and mining are said to be superior. They are also said to be very adaptable. I see them as similar to the Greeks (read: my hypothesized Greeks): strong buildings, powerfull late game upgrades) but with an army less based around slow heavy infatry. The extremely good organisation of the army will quite possibly translate into some sort of price or training speed bonus, which could give them the edge when more powerful units clash (Celt and Persians also probably have some very fast-training units, but these will probably be inferior to the Roman ones). I can see them doing any strat, but excelling in none of them. Their strength will probably lie in not having any specific strats: making them completely unpredictable and even able to radically change strat mid game or even do more at once (doesn't everyone dream of rushing the enemy and then turtling in and booming). Sounds like they'll be very newbie friendly, but more skilled players will go for the other civs which are much powerfull in specific areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Roman weakness will be definitely in cavalry and not superior archery.

As core of army was created by native Roman heavy infantry, which should be strong indeed, and archers and cavalry was provided by roman allies.

Roman cavalry was used mainly for scouting or pursuing fleeing enemy. BTW, lack of good cavalry caused roman deffeat at Karrhae, because Romans weren't able to respond to Persian bowfire and heavy cavalry.

So, I think, that roman tactics will be attack on open field (to use formations), but not that open to prevent effective use of enemy cavalry. They will also use Ballista and catapults to compensate weaker archery. I think, that roman unique skill should be ability to build military camps (perhaps some improvements by additional work could be possible to further improve defences) to further compensate lower firepower (disadvantage of being ellite assault infantry).

Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, for the sake of a good and blanced gameplay, i would not nessessarily FORCE a Roman Player (for example) to repeat the failures of history -

if there is automatic defeat when a possible persian enemy can use its cavalry it is probaly historical accurate (at least if you want to replay the battle of 'Karrhae' or whatever it was)

but it is probably not good for gameplay

historical accuracy is good, but gameplay is more important

Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, for the sake of a good and blanced gameplay, i would not nessessarily FORCE a Roman Player (for example) to repeat the failures of history -

if there is automatic defeat when a possible persian enemy can use its cavalry it is probaly historical accurate (at least if you want to replay the battle of 'Karrhae' or whatever it was)

but it is probably not good for gameplay

historical accuracy is good, but gameplay is more important

You don't have to. If Romans take Ballistas and mangonesl, they have pretty much firepower to respond to persian horse archers. Romans can aso catch Persian horse archers in area which doesn't fit persian tactics. IMHO Romans didn't loose to Persians everytime.

I just wanted to say, that Romans won't be that versatile. As their battle style was rather uniform.

Infantry formed core of army, Light cavalry (not numerous) was used for scouting, some archers, more Velites and Catapults and Ballista. Perhaps around 50-100 AD should appear Cataphractarii and Clibanarii. But Cavalry woudn't be strong in Roman army indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrhae was a dissaster because there was no roman experience to surena's way of war. THe 10000 of surena's horsemen were never defeated because they were what no Eastern army had ever done, adapt and use the terrain to its fullest. Hit and run, and then muscle the separated portions of an army. surena's cav was a professional army never seen again in the era.

Crassus was never prepared for that kind of warfare. What are you gonna do with 1300 celtic cav, against 9000 horsearchers, and 1000 cataphractoi. the horse archers were using shield piercing arrows, as they were able to pierce roman shields together with limbs.

As far as the best infantry, romans would be up there, but i think that the iberians were better overall. What made the romans so good was the weaponry that they used together with the swordmanship. The pila would take away the shield of the enemy, leaving him helpless against a roman swordman. The iberian saunion, could be reused by the enemy as it was made completely of iron and was quite robust.

At cannae, the iberians and gauls, held the hastati, and principes firm for the necessary time for Hannibal's african infantry to flank them on the side, and destroy them. Lets not forget that Hannibal was vastly outnumbered by the 80000 men of the consular legions.

Tactically, the legions should be better, by employing testudo, building forts, and having better morale, but the superiority in swordmanship should stay the lighter iberian units like devotio, or caestrati, maybe scutari, as i see scutari as a response to the roman legionary. I think that the iberian caestrati together with the numidians were the ones that gave rome the defeat lake tresemene, throught the ambush set by hannibal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you talk about Celts, you leave out one very important character that makes many of the Celtic problems dramatically less; Vercingetorix. He united most of Gaul, and invaded those who did not join his confederacy against Rome. He made the Celtic armies carry sheilds and wear chainmail, and greatly reduced the tension between tribes. Suddenly you goes from huge screaming hordes of Celtic and Belgic warriors to one huge screaming horde of armored, disciplined Gaullic warriors. Sounds like one big headache for Rome, doesn't it?

Also, I think that Roman Legionaires should be able to actually alter the terrain and build ditches and earth-walls, assuming that terrain plays a part in 0AD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Iberians: The worlds first guerillas. [...], I'm pretty stumpe with this civ: they are said to be prodominantly defensive, but nothing is said of building bonuses and the description of their units sounds pretty offensive. Their economy doesn't sound like anything special, and we still need details of the "Tactica Guerilla" ability.

Hi all,

Here are some random ideas I have about how the "Iberian Tactica Guerilla" would work

Pros:

  • Fast individual units (cavalry)
  • Able to set buildings on fire (so they start decaying gradually until a worker repairs them - it might be necesary to have water near for that)
  • Able to steal resources by raiding buildings (this would make economy special, wouldn't it?)
  • Able to hide-and-ambush in terrains like deep forest, mountains, defiles...
  • Good combat skills/speed in irregular terrain (forest, mountains) except for the cavalry
  • Strong units in the late game (Toledo steel)
  • Strong buildings. Infantry/archers can get inside them for extra defense. Archers could shoot from inside them.

Cons:

  • Formations: Inexistant or without bonuses
  • Weak in open ground against organized forces.
  • Siege units nonexistant (they are slow).
  • Weak ships (maybe with incendiary hability?)
  • Slow internal gathering of resources -> raiding prefered (again, special economy)
  • In general, units are weak until Toledo steel is available, what happens in the later games.

So the typical strategy would be:

Early game: using a small force, get to the enemy's least vigilated village, turn most buildings on fire, kill its workers, steal some gold and flee using through the forest/mountains, avoiding main roads and open plains. Maybe set up some ambushes in selected places. Avoid direct fighting.

If forced to fight, try to lure the enemy away from open ground where he could use formations, or near villages, where archers can shoot at them from inside buildings.

Late game: Toledo steel available, so stronger units appear -> time to start attacking.

Just my two cents ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I'm still thinking about Toledo steel. Was it really so famous in these days?

I thought, that Spanish or maybe Moors made use of that and thus made it famous.

But I like your ideas, kikito. Especially raiding. But I don't know if it should be made like you say.

What would you do if playing in MP against Iberians? Fortify and thus decrease their chance to loot and survive. If this is so crucial and they simply MUST loot something, they would be easy prey if they don't achieve so.

In general, I like your idea, but I don't know how to implement it to the game.

Though, let WFG to surprise us. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Toledo Steel - That is perhaps not the best name for it ;) That is an old name that resides in a rather dusty section of the DD. More to the point the historical Iberians were granted with extremely high-grade iron deposits in the Peninsula, allowing them to make excellent weapons with very little refinement of the ore. However steel it was not, but probably the closest natural thing to it. As with several other things in the DD i.e. Amrtaka, it could use a rename :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you do if playing in MP against Iberians? Fortify and thus decrease their chance to loot and survive. If this is so crucial and they simply MUST loot something, they would be easy prey if they don't achieve so.

In general, I like your idea, but I don't know how to implement it to the game.

Well, I wasn't thinking about making them totally useless in regarding resource gathering, just a bit slower than the rest, like 60% - 70% slower, or maybe capped somehow (i.e. can use only a certain number of workers per city center, or can only use one worker per field/mine/whatever, etc). This way, raiding would be encouraged, but not absolutely necesary; getting more resources faster would be an alternative, in order to get over this limitation.

In your scenario, the Iberian player should try to expand fast - while the oponent is busy fortifying, he should be building defensive structures around the most important resources. He should be able to defend them given Iberians "highly defensive" capabilities. With more resources available and defensive buildings around them, it would be just a matter of creating a massive army and crush the oponent.

In addition to this, remember the ambushes! The Iberan could place some of them near his base or resources in order to weaken the attaking forces, kill its workers quickly and run through the mountains, etc.

In other words... fortifying at the begining could be suicidal against a normal human player.

Regarding Paal_101's post, I agree that the "Toledo steel" doesn't sound very good. Maybe "Iberian Forge" would be better?

Or maybe it would be better just to dump the whole concept and give iberians bonuses with the "mineral gathering". That would give them a very special economy too: fast mineral gathering but slow with food and wood. In other words, relatively quick weapon technology development but comparatively slow... euh ..."birthrate".

Keep up the good work guys ;).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...