Aeterna Civitas

[McMonkey]

@Jerec

The Vercingetorix message is certainly not in the event file. This must be part of the built in game popups. I will try and work out how it has appeared as it could be harnessed!

Re: Pics. Glad you got it working. There are two ways of adding an image:

- Insert IMG link to a web page or
- Attack PNG/GIF/JPEG

Remember that pictures should be no wider than 800 pixels. If you capture a screenshot using Print Screen (Prt Scr) then paste it into paint you can then attach the saved picture by using 'Attach file' at the bottom of the screen.

Re: Cohorts
Early Legions will be on a par with other troop types. Later Cohorts (Marian Legion era) will be very strong but not invincible!

Re: Barracks
I may include a few barracks at the start of the game and put the tech somewhere down the tree. The problem I find with including barracks is that all units start as veterans. Sometimes it is interesting to take a green army into battle and blood it there. The survivors then become valuable elite troops. No barracks is a feature of John Ellis' scenarios and adds another dimension to the gameplay. I also like the idea that decimated units need time to rest and bring in replacements!

@Exile
I decided to scrap the Pirate ships for now and use the events space for barbarian ground units. I may add a few barbarian pirate ship events when everything else is working but for now it is too much of a headache!

[Jerec]

I finally remembered why Alexander's phalanxes didn't end up destroyed like the Successor phalanxes. Alexander heavily protected the phalanxes' flanks with special swordsmen called shieldbearers and cavalry. By the time Rome was on the scene, this tactic of covering flanks was forgotten, and Rome's legions won.

You know, it would be novel and rather fun to have barracks unbuildable. Except for one or two in Roman cities for historical accuracy I think it's a good idea to scrap them. The idea of green armies, and very valuable vets because of no barracks, and subsequent slow unit repair, is interesting to me. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead McMonkey!

I'll try to post a pic from AC soon. Thanks for the tip!

I'm afraid I'll have to postpone testing AC for a few days. I have four midterm tests to do on Thursday, on top of my daily mound of schoolwork. Business as usual for a highschooler...

[fairline]

Originally posted by Jerec
I finally remembered why Alexander's phalanxes didn't end up destroyed like the Successor phalanxes. Alexander heavily protected the phalanxes' flanks with special swordsmen called shieldbearers and cavalry. By the time Rome was on the scene, this tactic of covering flanks was forgotten, and Rome's legions won.

Yep

Yes, Alexander's army, or rather his dad Philip's, was the ideal tactical mix of phalangites to pin the enemy, elite Companion cavalry to provide the shock force on the right wing with Thessalian and allied cavalry covering the left, and hypaspists forming a flexible link between the phalanx and Companions. The whole force was screened on the flanks by Agrianian and other peltasts.

Successor armies increased the percentage of increasingly heavily armoured phalangites to light and mounted troops to their detriment. The other key advantage of the earlier Macedonian phalanx was it's ability to move quickly and change facing rapidly. Had Rome faced them, my money would be on the Maks to win.

Perhaps the biggest advantage Rome had over the armies of the Successor states was not so much tactics and equipment, but attitude to war. The successor states went to great expense to equip and maintain their phalanxes, and were invariably short of manpower to replace losses. This led to an implied consensus between warring Successor armies that battles should not be bloody fights to the death, but effectively demonstrations of superiority where the defeated side would often give up fairly early on in an encounter without suffering a resultant massacre. Rome had other ideas: she fought total war and gave no quarter to a vanquished enemy. Taking Cynoscephalae as an example again, when the Macedonians saw their flank had been turned and the game was over, they raised their pikes in the accepted (to Macedonians!) sign of surrender. The Romans ignored this and massacred them...

Apologies McM for the OT ramblings

[McMonkey]

Completely off topic!

Found this today and had to share it. A vision of Star Wars in an alternative universe where George Lucas was born a Welshman!

Swearing is not big and its not clever but its quite funny!

Taff Wars

No need to reply, just thought I would spread some immature humour!

[McMonkey]

@Fairline

Ramble away! Interesting stuff!!!

I know the Roman attitude to war was in someways different to the Greeks. I remember reading that the General Pyrrhus defeated Rome on numerous occasions but Rome refused to surrender and eventually their persistence paid off.

Later when faced with repeated defeat at the hands of Hannibal the Romans stubbornly carried on the fight and again the persistence say them through.

Both these Generals failed to land the killing blow against Rome itself. Even when Rome itself was sacked by Celts they bounced back.

Rome on the other hand seems to have had no qualms about subjugating and destroying a conquered people. The destruction of Carthage seems like a prime example of this ruthlessness.

I am more than happy for this thread to be used to debate ancient history. It is amazing what new ideas these debates can generate in game terms!

[Jerec]

Love this debate stuff! And I can use it as an excuse to say I'm working on World History...

Fairline

You really know your Greeks. Wow! Personally, I concentrated on the Gallic Wars, Hannibal, and Roman tactics. The Roman legions were geared for their native Italy. They were the ideal infantry with an elastic, in-depth battle line perfectly suited for the rough Italian hills, which a phalanx would have worked horribly on. This also explains why the Romans always used auxiliary, non-Roman cavalry, since horses were a no-no in the Italian mtns. In addition, the legion, was meant for and really was great at trouncing barbarian hordes like the Gauls/Germans with their abilities outlined above, while a phalanx vs 80,000 barb warriors would result in surrounding the phalanx and slaughter, after the Gauls figured out that throwing themselves on pikes didn't work, of course. In general it didn't matter if the Gauls lost men as long as they won the battle. Actually, Gaulish armies usually exceeded 100,000, making forage a huge problem. Caesar, of course, always shied from armies like this until they were forced to scatter for food, and then he inflicted a mass slaughter (just like on the Macedonians, I suppose).

A quick note, Hannibal actually COULD have taken Rome, and he was on its doorstep, but got an uncharacteristic dose of caution and waited for reinforcements. By the time he started the siege, a Roman general (can't remember the name again ) had sailed to Carthage and sacked it. Hannibal was forced to scurry home with his tail between his legs to protect the capital, and was actually defeated when the Romans came to raze Carthage once and for all.

It's pretty obvious I just copied the following...

Roman infantry versus Hellenic phalanx
Strengths of the phalanx. Prior to the rise of Rome, the Hellenic phalanx was the premiere infantry force in the Western World. It had proven itself on the battlefields of southern Europe- from Sparta to Macedonia, and had met and overcome several strong non-European armies beyond - from Persia to India. Packed into a dense armored mass, and equipped with massive pikes 12 to 21 feet in length, the phalanx was a formidable force. While defensive configurations were sometimes used, the phalanx was most effective when it was moving forward in attack, either in a frontal charge or in "oblique" or echeloned order against an opposing flank, as the victories of Alexander the Great and Theban innovator Epaminondas attest. When working with other formations--light infantry and cavalry--it was, at its height under Alexander, without peer.

Weaknesses of the phalanx. Nevertheless the phalanx had key weaknesses. It had some maneuverability, but once a clash was joined this decreased, particularly on rough ground. Its "dense pack" approach also made it rigid. Compressed in the heat of battle, its troops could only primarily fight facing forward. The diversity of troops gave the phalanx great flexibility, but this diversity was a double-edged sword- relying on a mix of units that was complicated to control and position. These included not only the usual heavy infantrymen, cavalry and light infantry- but also various elite units, medium armed groups, foreign contingents with their own styles and shock units of war-elephants.[30] Such "mixed" forces presented additional command and control problems. If properly organized and fighting together a long time under capable leaders, they could be very proficient. The campaigns of Alexander, Pyrrhus and Hannibal (a Hellenic-style formation of mixed contingents) show this. Without such long term cohesion and leadership however, their performance was uneven, as the "scratch" force Hannibal fought with at Zama illustrates.

Advantages of Roman infantry. The Romans themselves had retained some aspects of the phalanx in their early legions, most notably the final line of fighters in the classic "triple line," the spearmen of the triarii. The long pikes of the triarii were to eventually disappear, and all hands were uniformly equipped with short sword, shield and pilum, and deployed in the distinctive Roman tactical system, which provided more standardization and cohesion in the long run over the Hellenic type formations.

Phalanxes facing the legion were vulnerable to the more flexible Roman "checkerboard" deployment, which provided each fighting man a good chunk of personal space to engage in close order fighting. The manipular system also allowed entire Roman sub-units to maneuver more widely, freed from the need to always remain tightly packed in rigid formation. The deep three-line deployment of the Romans allowed combat pressure to be steadily applied forward. Most phalanxes favored one huge line several ranks deep. This might do well in the initial stages, but as the battle entangled more and more men, the stacked Roman formation allowed fresh pressure to be imposed over a more extended time. As combat lengthened and the battlefield compressed, the phalanx might thus become exhausted or rendered immobile, while the Romans still had enough left to not only maneuver but to make the final surges forward. [31]Hannibal's deployment at Zama appears to recognize this--hence the Carthaginian also used a deep three-layer approach, sacrificing his first two lower quality lines and holding back his combat-hardened veterans of Italy for the final encounter. Hannibal's arrangement had much to recommend it given his weakness in cavalry and infantry, but he made no provision for one line relieving the other as the Romans did. Each line fought its own lonely battle and the last ultimately perished when the Romans reorganized for a final surge.

The legions also drilled and trained together over a more extended time, and were more uniform and streamlined, (unlike Hannibal's final force and others) enabling even less than brilliant army commanders to maneuver and position their forces proficiently. These qualities, among others, made them more than a match for the phalanx, when they met in combat.

The Greek king Pyrrhus' phalangical system was to prove a tough trial for the Romans. But despite several setbacks they inflicted such losses that the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" has become a byword for an unworthwhile victory. A skillful and experienced commander, Pyrrhus deployed a typically mixed phalanx system, including shock units of war-elephants, and formations of light infantry (peltasts), elite units, and cavalry to support his infantry. Using these he was able to defeat the Romans twice, with a third battle deemed inconclusive or a limited Roman tactical success by many scholars. The battles below (see individual articles for detailed accounts) illustrate the difficulties of fighting against phalanx forces. If well led and deployed (compare Pyrrhus to the fleeing Perseus at Pydna below), they presented a credible infantry alternative to the heavy legion. The Romans however were to learn from their mistakes. In subsequent battles after the Pyrrhic wars, they showed themselves masters of the Hellenic phalanx.

Evidence being the Battle of Heraclea, Asculum, Beneventum...

Asculum
The battle was fought over two days. As was customary of the warfare of the period, both armies deployed their cavalry on the wings and infantry in the centre. Pyrrhus held his Guard cavalry in reserve behind the centre under his personal command. The elephants were also kept initially in reserve.

On the first day, Pyrrhus' cavalry and elephants were blocked by the woods and hills where the battle was fought, however, the Italic soldiers in the phalanxes fought well. The Macedonians broke the Roman first legion and Latin allies on their left wing but the Roman third and fourth legions defeated the Tarantines, Oscans and Epirots of Pyrrhus' centre. Meanwhile a force of Dauni attacked his camp. He sent reserve cavalry to deal with the breakthrough, more cavalry and some elephants to drive off the Dauni. When they withdrew to an inaccessible steep hill he deployed the elephants against the third and fourth legions; these too took refuge on wooded heights, but took fire from the archers and slingers escorting the elephants, and could not reply. Pyrrhus sent Athamanian, Acharnian and Samnite infantry to drive the Romans out of the woods, who were intercepted by Roman cavalry. Both sides withdrew at dusk, neither having gained a significant advantage.

At dawn Pyrrhus sent light infantry to occupy the difficult ground which had proven a weak point the previous day, forcing the Romans to fight a set battle in the open. As at Heraclea, a collision of legion and phalanx followed, until the elephants, supported by light infantry, broke through the Roman line. At this point the anti-elephant wagons were driven against them; having proven effective briefly, these were overwhelmed by psiloi who negated the Roman chariots. The elephants then charged the Roman infantry, which buckled. Pyrrhus simultaneously ordered the Royal Guard to charge, completing the rout. The Romans retreated to their camp.

The Romans lost 6,000 men, Pyrrhus 3,500, including many of his officers. A narrow Epirotic victory, it is this battle which gave rise to the term "Pyrrhic victory," meaning a victory at so high a cost as to be worthless. Pyrrhus is later reported to have said, "One more such victory, and we shall be undone."

Beneventum
Pyrrhus had been drained by his recent wars in Sicily, and by the earlier Pyrrhic victories over the Romans. Although the battle was inconclusive, he decided to end his campaign in Italy and return to Epirus; as a consequence of this, many modern sources wrongly state that Pyrrhus lost the battle. Pyrrhus' departure resulted in the Samnites finally being conquered, and the eventual fall of Magna Graecia three years later, which resulted in Roman dominance of the Italian peninsula.

The exact numbers are not known. The Epirot force was scattered before the battle and the Romans were able to scare Pyrrhus's war elephants (presumably with a fire arrow) and send them crashing back to the Epirot ranks.

Although they never defeated Pyrrhus on the field, the Romans were able to win a war of attrition against what was the best general of his time, and one of the greatest in antiquity. In doing so, they established themselves as a strong power in the Mediterranean. The Roman battles with Pyrrhus also foreshadowed the superiority of the Roman legion over the Macedonian phalanx, due to the greater mobility of the legion (though many point out the weakening of the cavalry arm in the times of the diadochi). Also, the Hellenistic world would never again have a general like Pyrrhus to challenge the Romans.

The above was not cited, so I don't know if it's all fact...

"Breaking phalanxes" illustrates more of the Roman army's flexibility. When the Romans faced phalangite armies, the legions often deployed the velites in front of the enemy with the command to contendite vestra sponte, to cause confusion and panic into the solid blocks of the phalanxes. Meanwhile, auxilia archers were deployed on the wings of the legion in front of the cavalry, in order to defend their withdrawal. These archers were ordered to eiaculare flammas, fire incendiary arrows into the enemy. The cohorts then advanced in a wedge formation, supported by the velites' and auxiliaries' fire, and charged into the phalanx at a single point, breaking it, then flanking it with the cavalry to seal the victory. See the Battle of Beneventum for evidence of fire-arrows being used.

Oooh...

Against the fighting men from the legion however, the Gauls faced a daunting task. Individually, in single combat, the fierce Gallic warrior could probably more than hold his own against a Roman.[40] In massed fighting however, the Gauls' rudimentary organization and tactics fared poorly against the well oiled machinery that was the Legion. The fierceness of the Gallic charges is often commented upon by some writers, and in certain circumstances they could overwhelm Roman lines. Nevertheless the in-depth Roman formation allowed adjustments to be made, and the continual application of forward pressure made long-term combat a hazardous proposition for the Gallics.The Romans frequently defeated Gallic armies several times the size of their own owing to their brilliant discipline, morale and training.[citation needed]
Flank attacks were always possible, but the legion was flexible enough to pivot to meet this, either through sub-unit maneuver or through deployment of lines farther back. The cavalry screen on the flanks also added another layer of security. The Gauls and Germans also fought with little or no armor(sometimes they fought naked), and with weaker shields, putting them at a disadvantage against the legion, and their logistics were poor compared to the detailed organization of the Romans. [41] Generally speaking, the Gauls and Germans needed to get into good initial position against the Romans and to overwhelm them in the early phases of the battle. An extended set-piece slogging match between the lightly armed tribesmen and the well organized heavy legionaries usually spelt doom for the tribal fighters

I'll sum up in the next post. First time I've ever gone beyond the word limit! Allright! lol:

[Jerec]

More interesting stuff.

More flexible maneuver- use of intervals in combat
Most ancient sources such as Polybius clearly state that the legions fought with gaps in their lines. Yet it also seems that at times a line might be formed into a solid front. Various approaches have been taken to reconcile these possibilities with the ancient writings.[21] The advantages of gaps are obvious when a formation was on the move- it can more easily flow around obstacles and maneuver and control are enhanced- and, as the Romans did in the pre-Marius republic, place baggage between the lines meaning that the cargo cannot be easily captured and that the army can quickly get ready for a battle by using it as cover. After the approach marching was complete, it would be extremely difficult to deploy an unbroken army of men for combat across any but the flattest ground without some sort of intervals. Many ancient armies used gaps of some sort, even the Carthaginians, who typically withdrew their initial skirmishing troops between the spaces before the main event. Even more loosely organized enemies like the Germanic hosts typically charged in distinct groups with small gaps between them, rather than marching up in a neat line.[22]

Fighting with gaps is thus feasible as writers like Polybius assert. What made the Romans stand out is that their intervals were generally larger and more systematically organized than those of other ancient armies. Each gap was covered by maniples or cohorts from lines farther back. A penetration of any significance could not just slip in unmolested. It would not only be mauled as it fought past the gauntlet of the first line, but would also clash with aggressive units moving up to plug the space.[23] From a larger standpoint, as the battle waxed and waned, fresh units might be deployed through the intervals to relieve the men of the first line, allowing continual pressure to be brought forward.

One scenario for not using gaps is deployment in a limited space, such as the top of a hill or ravine, where extensive spreading out would not be feasible. Another is a particular attack formation, such as the wedge discussed above, or an encirclement as at the battle of Ilipa. Yet another is a closing phase maneuver, when a solid line is constructed to make a last, final push as in the battle of Zama. During the maelstrom of battle it is also possible that as the units merged into line, the general checkerboard spacing became more compressed or even disappeared, and the fighting would see a more or less solid line engaged with the enemy. In Caesar's armies the use of the quincunx and its gaps seems to have declined, and his legions generally deployed in three unbroken lines as shown above, with four cohorts in front, and three apiece in the echeloned order. The Romans still remained flexible however, using gaps and deploying four or sometimes two lines based on the tactical situation. [24]


[edit] Greater combat stamina- reserves and formation depth
Another unique feature of the Roman infantry was the depth of its spacing. Most ancient armies deployed in shallower formations, particularly phalanx type forces. Phalanxes might deepen their ranks heavily to add both stamina and shock power, but their general approach still favored one massive line, as opposed to the deep three-layer Roman arrangement. The advantage of the Roman system is that it allowed the continual funneling or metering of combat power forward over a longer period--massive, steadily renewed pressure to the front--until the enemy broke. Deployment of the second and third lines required careful consideration by the Roman commander. Deployed too early, and they might get entangled in the frontal fighting and become exhausted. Deployed too late, and they might be swept away in a rout if the first line began to break. Tight control had to be maintained, hence the 3rd line triari were sometimes made to squat or kneel, effectively discouraging premature movement to the front. The Roman commander was thus generally mobile, constantly moving from spot to spot, and often riding back in person to fetch reserves, if there was not time for standard messenger service. The large number of officers in the typical Roman army, and the flexible breakdown into sub-units like cohorts or maniples greatly aided coordination of such moves.[25]

Whatever the actual formation taken however, the ominous funneling or surge of combat power up to the front remained constant:

"When the first line as a whole had done its best and become weakened and exhausted by losses, it gave way to the relief of fresh men from the second line who, passing through it gradually, pressed forward one by one, or in single file, and worked their way into the fight in the same way. Meanwhile the tired men of the original first line, when sufficiently rested, reformed and re-entered the fight. This continued until all men of the first and second lines had been engaged. This does not presuppose an actual withdrawal of the first line, but rather a merging, a blending or a coalescing of both lines. Thus the enemy was given no rest and was continually opposed by fresh troops until, exhausted and demoralized, he yielded to repeated attacks." [26]

[edit] Tactical commands after deployment

Roman re-enactors demonstrate a variant of the Roman testudoWhatever the deployment, the Roman army was marked both by flexibility and strong discipline and cohesion. Different formations were assumed according to different tactical situations.

Repellere equites ("repel horses") was the formation used to resist cavalry. The legionaries would assume a square formation, holding their pila as spears in the space between their shields and strung together shoulder to shoulder.
At the command eicere pila, the legionaries hurled their pila at the enemy.
At the command cuneum formate, the infantry formed a wedge to charge and break enemy lines. This formation was used as a shock tactic.
At the command contendite vestra sponte, the legionaries assumed an aggressive stance and attacked every opponent they faced.
At the command orbem formate, the legionaries assumed a circle-like formation with the archers placed in the midst of and behind the legionaries providing missile fire support. This tactic was used mainly when a small number of legionaries had to hold a position and were surrounded by enemies.
At the command ciringite frontem, the legionaries held their position.
At the command frontem allargate, a scattered formation was adopted.
At the command testudinem formate, the legionaries assumed the testudo (tortoise) formation. This was slow moving but almost impenetrable to enemy fire, and thus very effective during sieges and/or when facing off against enemy archers. However in hand to hand fighting then the testudo was a weak formation and therefore it was only adopted when the enemy were far enough away so as the legionaries could get into another formation before being attacked.
At the command Agmen formate, the legionaries assumed a square formation, which was also the typical shape of a century in battle.

Hope you guys can get through all that!

[fairline]

Re: Completely off topic!

Originally posted by McMonkey
Found this today and had to share it. A vision of Star Wars in an alternative universe where George Lucas was born a Welshman!

Swearing is not big and its not clever but its quite funny!

Taff Wars

No need to reply, just thought I would spread some immature humour!

Star Wars with swearing and Valleys accents, love it!


My favourite episode is 6: Late night taxis: 'effing right I could, I got a provisional license and everything'. Loving the jawas as cockney wide-boys in Splott market in episode 5 as well

[Jerec]

Had Rome faced them, my money would be on the Maks to win.

Ditto.

My point of the last two gigantic posts was to say that the Cohort should be able to beat the Hellenic Phalanx unit, at least on non-Defense-bonus terrain.

[N35t0r]

If you still haven't caught the problem with the grassland and grassland (shield), IIRC it works like this:

All grassland use the same line from rules.txt. The two lines which would correspond to grassland's resources are, AFAIK ignored.

What happens is that grassland (shield) uses the values provided on that line (say, X,Y,Z) while regular grassland uses the same value but with 0 shield output (X,0,Z)

[McMonkey]

I think I fixed that but I will double check!

[Jerec]

Midterms were postponed 'til the end of Christmas break.

I went back to testing AC, and sacked Rome as the Celts after retaking Gaul from the barbs. Sacrificed something like 12 warbands for just Rome, and 2-3 per other city, but it's amazing what all the cities in Gaul can produce when they're all set on warband. Print screen? Where do I find that? I want to take a pic of a sacked Rome.

Notes

1) Didn't the Ptolemaic Greeks have a powerful fleet to protect far-flung territory? They did dominate the eastern Mediterranean...but there are only a few biremes in the game in their possesion. Perhaps a city building those pirate triremes or whatever? This could be their unique "advantage."

2) For some strange reason, the barbs are clustering their units around their cities and fortifying. In the original alpha I played, they didn't do this. Now, I find only 1 garrison unit, and cavalry, warbands, archers, pretty much all the barb units in a ring, fortified around cities. Could this be because of the unit stat changes? Not that clustering is a necessarily bad thing. I think it certainly slows down expansion, providing a wide buffer around cities, so that you can't just waltz by them. When I, for instance, move a warband beside a fortified barb cavalry that's beside a city, on the barb's turn it will attack my warband (and destroy it, with my luck).

3) I sure hope the PBEM player for the Germans is a non-aggressive one. In my game, I promptly made peace with the Germans, concentrating on the barbs in Gaul. Later, my border cities were being trespassed upon by huge hordes of German warrior and falxman units. EEK!

Sorry about the totally off-topic posts about the Roman infantry, McMonkey. I get carried away easily when discussing stuff like this.

[AGRICOLA]

1. Have the picture you want on the screen.
2. Hit the PRINT SCREEN/SYSRQ button, not SHIFT and PRINT SCREEN/SYSRQ. You are actually using SysRq but Print Screen is easier to remember.
3. Open MS Paint or equivalent.
4. New File
5. Paste
6. Trim and make any other alterations.
7. Save as a .gif, .png or .bmp file.
8. Attach the file to your post. .gif and .png files will show up in your post. .bmp files will become attachments which have to be downloaded.
9. There is a difference in the quality of .gif and .png pictures but I can't remember which is better. Take a look at both.

[McMonkey]

On my keyboard Prt Scr/Sys Rq is directly to the right of the F12 key. I normally save screenshots as .Png files as .Jpegs are often too large to post. You also need to make sure the file is not wider than 800 pixels!

In the PBEM things will probably play out a LOT differently than in single player! When I get round to making the single player version I will probably make it playable as Rome only to begin with. All the other AI nations will be given more of the Barbarian cities and the events and unit stats will favour Romes enemies to make the game more challenging.

I would also beef up the armies/navies of Carthage and the Greek successor states. In the PBEM the Ptolemic player will have the Lighthouse wonder so they should be quite an effective maritime power.

The new behaviour of the Barbarian AI is interesting. I like the fact that they are coming out of the cities but it would be good if they would attack the Romans in the open.

I want the Germans to be hard to conquer and hopefully a strong Celtic player will be able to match the Germanics. Who knows what will happen in the multiplayer game. For the single player version I may have to strengthen the Celts a little!

As I said before, please feel free to use this thread to discuss Ancient history, strategy and tactics. I do not consider it to be off topic!

Spent a quiet evening at work using CIVCITY to sort out the barbarians improvements, food/shields and production. I can now get on with the changes on my TO DO list.

[McMonkey]

Just an idea. I used CIVTWEAK to change the barbarian activity from Raging Hordes to Villages only. Could this explain their passive stance.

I did not want barbarian hordes of elephants appearing in Britain and so on so I thought it would be easier to switch off the random barbs. I may take a look at how they behave at different settings and also which units would appear. I must admit that I did not consider the barbarian slots when creating the original units file! I will dig out the barbarian papers and see if I can use this to my advantage.

If anyone has info about the barbs and their behaviour at different settings please let me know.