My opinion: 1- Burgundians, by quite far. Royal Lancers are scary strong, except for Tagmata, even in Diamond formation most cavalry don't beat them. With super cost effective double handed axes and Germanic Archers to support though, they can destroy most ERE builds. 2- ERE. Tagmata with Protectores Domestici is a solid combo. 3- Langobards, Horse Slayers are OP, Godansmen, Scaled and Langobard Clubmen are all awesome, access to pikes and Germanic Archers give this faction a massive advantage against other Germanic factions.
No langobard pikes sadly I must say the alamans are quite decent except for the lack off shock infantry i really like them the bejewelds are so strong late game for the rest i agree oh and burgundian barbeb skirmishers gaaah so hot
The reason I rate the Burgundians below the ERE is two-fold. A cavalry general with brace on Tagmata gives them a 39 bonus against Large for 30 seconds. Enemy cavalry melts, and you will have units free to deal with archers and axes reasonably fast. The second reason is that a strong Burgundian army is very reliant on clean charges. Stop the charges of the Burgundians and they are melee cavalry with poor stats. Block Tagmata and they are melee cavalry with awesome stats. It's going to be super annoying to deal with the Germanic Archers protected by Burgundian Lancers and Axes for sure, but I still think the edge goes to the ERE.
***** I specify that this is for multiplayer. For single player you can steamroll the entire map with armies consisting of 18 warhounds and one onager.
Don't forget in Campaign Mode that The Burgundians start out sitting on top of a major food/trade resource (salt) and this grants them access to a unique Burgundian building (a salt house for preserving meat) chain and that they can get more food out of infertile land (due to being good hunters from further up north supposedly) in-game.
I rarely play multiplayer, but in single player, the West Romans are capable of laying down the law with a combo of herculani seniores, cornuti seniores, and large onagers with the explosive shot.
The Eastern Roman Empire has the most OP cavalry unit--so ridiculously strong that it can charge a unit of Armored Indian Elephants and win. What the fuck.
Since everything is about cav, specially germanic horsemen at the moment, i also would give the langobards a honorable place in the second group. Their horse hewers, if used right, melt cav in seconds meaning that your own will survive for late game.
As far as campaign goes I'd say Suebian because of their bonuses. Very low upkeep costs and you still get most core germanic units so a decent overall roster just not spectacular. You can create several stacks and shock Western Rome into submissions. I have a Kingdom about the size of modern day France, a bit smaller but if it was real it would be a respectable Kingdom that even the Romans would be reluctant to attack again. I like to RP in my head when playing Total war games XD
well it's alsoo possible to search the best spearmen in the game to counter the cavalry and use horse archers close to the spears, i guess it's a playing style preference
Because they have the most broken horse archers in the game. Spet Xyons. Also they have stronger infantry units that the Huns doesnt have. By far, i think White Huns if not the most but one of the strongest faction in the game.
Storm Breaker Even the western Romans were the same. A large amount of the late Romano-British garrison troops were from Germania as it was better not to arm the local populice.
Alans were Northwest Iranic, I think... I know for sure that they are the ancestors of today's Ossetians, though. Yes, in a way, there are Alans to this day, living in the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania within the Russian Federation, and in South Ossetia (which is, depending who you ask, either independent or a part of Georgia).
@@thelocustgrappler513 well huns remained hunnic mostly till their end but of course as an empire there were several other nations noblemen in their lines.
I think the Huns are the best faction in the mod. I literally razed and destroyed 75% of the settlements and I was able to defeat an enemy army even 3x bigger than my army. I plundered through ERE, WRE, North Africa and the Sassanid Empire. I ended the game in the Carpathians with Cultural victory having 10 full horde with almost all the maxed building Huns have. And I done it in Hard difficulty. I can't understand why everybody can't use them. All you have to do is to recruit as much horse archer as you can and slowly shoot down all the enemy units in skirmish formation, that's all. Just don't use infantry because Hunnic infantry is useless and they just slow you down both in the battle and in the campaign map. I only used infantry in sieges like Constantinople, Rome and Ctesiphon and some walled city like that. On these battles I always had like 4 medium/heavy mercenary infantry unit and 12 horse archer unit and 4 shock cavalry unit. Of course my second favourite faction in the game is Eastern Roman Empire.
This list uses the criteria that in a fight with unlimited resources and money which army has the best unit you can spam. That makes this list bogus for a few reasons. First of all he only looks at who has the best cavalry unit in the game. He didn't look at who has the best anti cav units in the game which in a game that is so reliant on cavalry I think he should've looked into it. The sassanids for instance field heavy elephants that are more effective against melee cavalry than anything else and these elephants also cost more than tegmata cavalry so why aren't they the best? The huns field cavalry with the scare ability that reduces enemies morale. You also have to take into account special formations the units have like the testudo which greatly enhance unit abilities. There's a lot of factors that come into play so you cant just say the eastern roman empire is the best faction because it has the cavalry unit with the best stats. This list needs better criteria such as which faction has the best units at causing the enemy to break and run the fastest thereby winning you the battle and with fewer casualties. If you build a list based on that the huns are very near the top and way ahead of either of the roman empires.
Ice Sharq FALSE. Axes and most swords do but Roman and himyarite infantry (the heavy infantry) are able to take a full charge and still win at times. What you might mean are lancers and such then yes the Unit will most of the time break
Absolutely of topic but i wanted to know your thoughts on how the warscape engine deals with melee combat. For me it really takes away alot from the Total War series as at their time combat in Medieval 2 and Rome 1 was some of the best. I feel increasingly dissatisfied with the random heartattacks, lack of collision and units fazing through each other to do animations especially with mounted combat. It bugs me Medieval 2 released in 2006 has better combat than Attila released 2015.
Having tried to make a few documentary-style videos lately and get decent footage, I feel that. The flashy animations are a horrible, horrible idea. I'd like to see units hold formation better, hack and stab at units without having to do a fucking tango with them.
Maximus Decimus Meridius Yes, would love to see units trying desperately to hack and slash their way through a shield wall. Not engage in a fancy animation which sends the enemy dancing through the ranks of your troops only to pop out the other side and die of a heart attack as he realises what he has just done.
I've been playing TW games since Medieval 1 and I still have no idea what you guys who whine about the engine are all complaining about. Go watch any Rome 1 video and you'll see far more glitchy bullshit unit movement then you probably care to remember. Also, cavalry knocking human beings upwards. How realistic.
Yeah but try taking a city with walls with that tactic. The mogolians had heavy infantry and siege weapons at hand. Try getting horses on walls and defending in a siege aswell. :D
rasmus hansen Destroy any army with bow caw. Siege the enemy, take some artillery with you. Kill enemy gen with bow caw. Pick flaming arrows. Chain mass route the whole army, destroy the fleeing enemy.
rasmus hansen Who said anything about bow cav only? Huns have other units too right? Also I have taken cities with bow cav only. It´s pretty easy honestly. Anyway, to use bow cav, does not mean you have to only use bow cav. I had a situation, where I settled my hordes in Italy. At war with the whole world. Sourrounded by like 20 armies who did not want to attack my two stack bow cav armies. Always placing one army at the border so both armies can support each other while not having the debuff with food and money.
I don't get it. A ton of people say cavalry wins wars in this game. Whenever I've fought cavalry, I've RUINED them. Like.. Not even a fight. It was a slaughter. They're only good for dealing with skirmishers, stopping enemy cav from flanking you, or hitting infantry from behind, but you have to deal with the skirmishers first so they don't ruin your cav. By the time that's dealt with, the infantry is almost already dead from your other units.. Infantry and tactics win my battles, not cav.
Cav do win battles but this brainlet makes it seem like it is impossible to win with infantry. I had an army of vandal berserkers and spear master and was able to win many battle with that alone. So it is true cav will win fights and they are the most important (save for shock infantry or archers) but it is possible to win without cav or with very little cav. This impecel really does crank up that idea to „only cav will be able to win you battles” which is retarded
I cant belive someone would ever rate Burgundians and Langobards worse then some germanic factions (the vandals, for example), and they are deffinitly WAY better then the Alamans. Burgundians for example, I would say only the ERE are better then them. They have all the important units from a germnic build: noble swordmen, pikes, germanic archers and germanic horsemen. They dont have a mounted general, thats bad, but I think you give too much credit to using your general on horses offensivly. Yes, brace is good to support cav fights, yes, such generals can support the fights and get lots of kills. But Burgundians have the most cost effective double handed axe unit in the game, the axemen are stupidly cheap. And the royal lancers are amazingly good, they dont need as much micro as other shock cav units (20 bonus vs cav OP). If you have your general on a horse unit it demands extra micro and attention on him. I cant see any reasons why the Vandals, for example, would be better than Burgundians or Langobards. Langobards have the germanic majestic roste (all but the pikes...), plus the clubmen, cheaper than noble swords and just as effective, the goddansmen (amazing vs infantry and a very cost effective) and the expert anti cav units. How are Franks, Alans, Vandals or Goths rosters better than this?
The problem is that the Longbeards are remarkably one-sided, and can only work in so many situations. For example, the Langobards have a complete focus on powerful infantry, but lack in almost every other department, whereas a faction like the Vandals has excellent (while little) infantry and awesome cavalry and dog units, along with the core Germanic roster. The Burgundians have the same problem, with a complete focus on on powerful Skirmisher and Cavalry, but sparse melee units and archers. It makes even less sense when these factions are lacking units found in a generic Germanic roster. And dont fucking get me started on the Alamans...
The Burgundians deserve a spot at nr 2 ( specified in the video, repeated here ) , together with Germanic factions that have a cavalry general. I have no problems microing my general like any other cavalry unit and using brace in whichever blob he might be. The + 9 bonus is going to be applied to both infantry and cavalry in the blob, which is basically what won me the last tournament I was in. I was up against builds with better cavalry and the same amount of cavalry I had - one the differences was that in the blob I had the brace general at the critical engagement whereas my opponent did not. Langobards are decent, but don't deserve better than nr 3 for the reasons stated in the video. Clubmen are much, much worse than Noble Swords at supporting cavalry fights. Vandals are better than Langobards because they have the best melee cavalry roster in the game and their general has a bonus against cavalry. All the special units of the Langobards die in a second from a cavalry charge, and the hewers are very vulnerable to both charges and missiles.
My only real problem with the vandals are their raiders and chosen raiders. I mean they are a fucking contradiction! High speed, rapid advance, frenzy, relatively low melee damage and attack, incredibly high armor value, low health. Who the hell designed these units?
Maximus Decimus Meridius Dont put the clubmen in the blob, thats what the horse slayers are for. Keep them behind your cav, even if your enemy shots the blob the damage will be done too fast, he cant pull out, his cav is already engaged, soo he cant charge your horse slayers. Just use their infatr units in a more conservative way, infatry does why more than jsut blobing up on cav fights... And gotta love the Vandals and their "best melee cav roster". They have germanic horsemen, noble germanic, and noble alani. And of course a lot of other units that every player should avoid, pretty much the same melee cav as other germanic factions. Their general is AMAZING, about that I cant argue.
Greeks, Armenians, Thracians, Illyrians, the various people from Asia Minor, the natives of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc. as well as the occasional roman colonist or retired veteran granted land in one of the provinces. It was called an empire for a reason.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
My opinion:
1- Burgundians, by quite far. Royal Lancers are scary strong, except for Tagmata, even in Diamond formation most cavalry don't beat them. With super cost effective double handed axes and Germanic Archers to support though, they can destroy most ERE builds.
2- ERE. Tagmata with Protectores Domestici is a solid combo.
3- Langobards, Horse Slayers are OP, Godansmen, Scaled and Langobard Clubmen are all awesome, access to pikes and Germanic Archers give this faction a massive advantage against other Germanic factions.
No langobard pikes sadly
I must say the alamans are quite decent except for the lack off shock infantry i really like them the bejewelds are so strong late game for the rest i agree oh and burgundian barbeb skirmishers gaaah so hot
The reason I rate the Burgundians below the ERE is two-fold. A cavalry general with brace on Tagmata gives them a 39 bonus against Large for 30 seconds. Enemy cavalry melts, and you will have units free to deal with archers and axes reasonably fast. The second reason is that a strong Burgundian army is very reliant on clean charges. Stop the charges of the Burgundians and they are melee cavalry with poor stats. Block Tagmata and they are melee cavalry with awesome stats. It's going to be super annoying to deal with the Germanic Archers protected by Burgundian Lancers and Axes for sure, but I still think the edge goes to the ERE.
***** I specify that this is for multiplayer. For single player you can steamroll the entire map with armies consisting of 18 warhounds and one onager.
***** No, the Langobards don't get pikes.
Don't forget in Campaign Mode that The Burgundians start out sitting on top of a major food/trade resource (salt) and this grants them access to a unique Burgundian building (a salt house for preserving meat) chain and that they can get more food out of infertile land (due to being good hunters from further up north supposedly) in-game.
Supposedly.
I rarely play multiplayer, but in single player, the West Romans are capable of laying down the law with a combo of herculani seniores, cornuti seniores, and large onagers with the explosive shot.
The Eastern Roman Empire has the most OP cavalry unit--so ridiculously strong that it can charge a unit of Armored Indian Elephants and win. What the fuck.
Duesal Bladesinger Which one?
Tagmata Cavalry.
Duesal Bladesinger it could do that in past those days are long gone, they got nerfed
No, the White huns have the most op Cav unit...its also the best unit in General.
The Slavs aren't bad either. Best in sieges.
Those fucking Slavic Hunters.
Duesal Bladesinger racist much?
DiamondGamez how the fuck is that racist? He is saying Slavic hunters are good units.
S_Kuzi sorry. Thought he meant they were bad xD
Even if he did say they were bad it wouldn't be racist
Since everything is about cav, specially germanic horsemen at the moment, i also would give the langobards a honorable place in the second group. Their horse hewers, if used right, melt cav in seconds meaning that your own will survive for late game.
As far as campaign goes I'd say Suebian because of their bonuses. Very low upkeep costs and you still get most core germanic units so a decent overall roster just not spectacular. You can create several stacks and shock Western Rome into submissions. I have a Kingdom about the size of modern day France, a bit smaller but if it was real it would be a respectable Kingdom that even the Romans would be reluctant to attack again. I like to RP in my head when playing Total war games XD
I agree suebi are strong very early on aswell although only having 1 army but they do have those amazing seubi oath takers
Well in my Expierince as Ostrogoths play like 6 pike units can wreck enemy cavalry if they are trying to flank and don`t pay attentin
Alans are actually number one since the roster update
turd
It’s 2023 and I agree, for campaign.
back in the days when cohors costs more than protectores domistici
well it's alsoo possible to search the best spearmen in the game to counter the cavalry
and use horse archers close to the spears,
i guess it's a playing style preference
If you’d remake thise video today, which faction would you put on the top spot and why would it be the white huns?
Because they have the most broken horse archers in the game. Spet Xyons. Also they have stronger infantry units that the Huns doesnt have. By far, i think White Huns if not the most but one of the strongest faction in the game.
From where do you read the 200 range of that missile unit?,its not writing anywhere.
the game should be rename to Total War: Germania
Can a faction with good melee infantry but bad cavalry be competitive if it fields spears istead of cavalry?
Yes, if you know your oponent will rely on cav, a combination out of spears and bows will give you the upper hand.
The Alans are Iranian nomads who came to Europe they aren't even of the Germanic culture.
+Storm Breaker Nobles probably would have been Iranian but they migrated through Germania making most of their people Germanic same with the Huns.
Storm Breaker Even the western Romans were the same. A large amount of the late Romano-British garrison troops were from Germania as it was better not to arm the local populice.
Alans were Northwest Iranic, I think... I know for sure that they are the ancestors of today's Ossetians, though. Yes, in a way, there are Alans to this day, living in the Republic of North Ossetia - Alania within the Russian Federation, and in South Ossetia (which is, depending who you ask, either independent or a part of Georgia).
@@thelocustgrappler513 well huns remained hunnic mostly till their end but of course as an empire there were several other nations noblemen in their lines.
To be honest when tagmata get nerfed, the eastern Roman Empire will become pretty mediocre.
Wait did they get nerfed?!
@@s.h1434 tagamata's melee was changed from 65 to 55
IS the estern roman Calvary still as good as it was when you made this video?
Yes
No, it's not so imbalance today.
I think the Huns are the best faction in the mod. I literally razed and destroyed 75% of the settlements and I was able to defeat an enemy army even 3x bigger than my army. I plundered through ERE, WRE, North Africa and the Sassanid Empire. I ended the game in the Carpathians with Cultural victory having 10 full horde with almost all the maxed building Huns have. And I done it in Hard difficulty. I can't understand why everybody can't use them. All you have to do is to recruit as much horse archer as you can and slowly shoot down all the enemy units in skirmish formation, that's all. Just don't use infantry because Hunnic infantry is useless and they just slow you down both in the battle and in the campaign map. I only used infantry in sieges like Constantinople, Rome and Ctesiphon and some walled city like that. On these battles I always had like 4 medium/heavy mercenary infantry unit and 12 horse archer unit and 4 shock cavalry unit. Of course my second favourite faction in the game is Eastern Roman Empire.
fucking rofl
are u commenting every fucking video with this AGAIN thats multiplayer ....
best factions for sieges? defence and attack plz also any good siege maps you know?
This list uses the criteria that in a fight with unlimited resources and money which army has the best unit you can spam. That makes this list bogus for a few reasons. First of all he only looks at who has the best cavalry unit in the game. He didn't look at who has the best anti cav units in the game which in a game that is so reliant on cavalry I think he should've looked into it. The sassanids for instance field heavy elephants that are more effective against melee cavalry than anything else and these elephants also cost more than tegmata cavalry so why aren't they the best? The huns field cavalry with the scare ability that reduces enemies morale. You also have to take into account special formations the units have like the testudo which greatly enhance unit abilities. There's a lot of factors that come into play so you cant just say the eastern roman empire is the best faction because it has the cavalry unit with the best stats. This list needs better criteria such as which faction has the best units at causing the enemy to break and run the fastest thereby winning you the battle and with fewer casualties. If you build a list based on that the huns are very near the top and way ahead of either of the roman empires.
Ice Sharq FALSE. Axes and most swords do but Roman and himyarite infantry (the heavy infantry) are able to take a full charge and still win at times. What you might mean are lancers and such then yes the Unit will most of the time break
Absolutely of topic but i wanted to know your thoughts on how the warscape engine deals with melee combat. For me it really takes away alot from the Total War series as at their time combat in Medieval 2 and Rome 1 was some of the best. I feel increasingly dissatisfied with the random heartattacks, lack of collision and units fazing through each other to do animations especially with mounted combat. It bugs me Medieval 2 released in 2006 has better combat than Attila released 2015.
Having tried to make a few documentary-style videos lately and get decent footage, I feel that. The flashy animations are a horrible, horrible idea. I'd like to see units hold formation better, hack and stab at units without having to do a fucking tango with them.
Maximus Decimus Meridius Yes, would love to see units trying desperately to hack and slash their way through a shield wall. Not engage in a fancy animation which sends the enemy dancing through the ranks of your troops only to pop out the other side and die of a heart attack as he realises what he has just done.
I've been playing TW games since Medieval 1 and I still have no idea what you guys who whine about the engine are all complaining about. Go watch any Rome 1 video and you'll see far more glitchy bullshit unit movement then you probably care to remember. Also, cavalry knocking human beings upwards. How realistic.
***** I like to whine :-)
***** It is an old game, but unit collision was much more realistic.
Do you still think that is ERE is top three, as Tagmata gets nurfed?
Alans for life! 👊
The most powerful should be anything with bow cav. Bow cav can jump and shoot all day.
Yeah but try taking a city with walls with that tactic. The mogolians had heavy infantry and siege weapons at hand. Try getting horses on walls and defending in a siege aswell. :D
rasmus hansen Destroy any army with bow caw. Siege the enemy, take some artillery with you.
Kill enemy gen with bow caw. Pick flaming arrows. Chain mass route the whole army, destroy the fleeing enemy.
Have you any idea how hard it is to take a max level city with nothing but bow cav and atilary it's near fucking imposible.
rasmus hansen Who said anything about bow cav only? Huns have other units too right? Also I have taken cities with bow cav only. It´s pretty easy honestly. Anyway, to use bow cav, does not mean you have to only use bow cav.
I had a situation, where I settled my hordes in Italy. At war with the whole world. Sourrounded by like 20 armies who did not want to attack my two stack bow cav armies. Always placing one army at the border so both armies can support each other while not having the debuff with food and money.
yeah ok that's nice. But multiplayer is alittle more... complicated. But the huns are a powerhouse so I see where you're comming from.
I don't get it. A ton of people say cavalry wins wars in this game. Whenever I've fought cavalry, I've RUINED them. Like.. Not even a fight. It was a slaughter. They're only good for dealing with skirmishers, stopping enemy cav from flanking you, or hitting infantry from behind, but you have to deal with the skirmishers first so they don't ruin your cav. By the time that's dealt with, the infantry is almost already dead from your other units.. Infantry and tactics win my battles, not cav.
The AI uses cavalry really bad. In Attila I can rekt a lot of well equipped roman armies with only light cavalry.
depends on how the player uses cav
Cav do win battles but this brainlet makes it seem like it is impossible to win with infantry. I had an army of vandal berserkers and spear master and was able to win many battle with that alone. So it is true cav will win fights and they are the most important (save for shock infantry or archers) but it is possible to win without cav or with very little cav. This impecel really does crank up that idea to „only cav will be able to win you battles” which is retarded
My top 1 factions is the faction that has a general. So all of them. And it still makes more sense than your grading.
I cant belive someone would ever rate Burgundians and Langobards worse then some germanic factions (the vandals, for example), and they are deffinitly WAY better then the Alamans. Burgundians for example, I would say only the ERE are better then them. They have all the important units from a germnic build: noble swordmen, pikes, germanic archers and germanic horsemen. They dont have a mounted general, thats bad, but I think you give too much credit to using your general on horses offensivly. Yes, brace is good to support cav fights, yes, such generals can support the fights and get lots of kills. But Burgundians have the most cost effective double handed axe unit in the game, the axemen are stupidly cheap. And the royal lancers are amazingly good, they dont need as much micro as other shock cav units (20 bonus vs cav OP). If you have your general on a horse unit it demands extra micro and attention on him. I cant see any reasons why the Vandals, for example, would be better than Burgundians or Langobards. Langobards have the germanic majestic roste (all but the pikes...), plus the clubmen, cheaper than noble swords and just as effective, the goddansmen (amazing vs infantry and a very cost effective) and the expert anti cav units. How are Franks, Alans, Vandals or Goths rosters better than this?
The problem is that the Longbeards are remarkably one-sided, and can only work in so many situations. For example, the Langobards have a complete focus on powerful infantry, but lack in almost every other department, whereas a faction like the Vandals has excellent (while little) infantry and awesome cavalry and dog units, along with the core Germanic roster. The Burgundians have the same problem, with a complete focus on on powerful Skirmisher and Cavalry, but sparse melee units and archers. It makes even less sense when these factions are lacking units found in a generic Germanic roster. And dont fucking get me started on the Alamans...
The Burgundians deserve a spot at nr 2 ( specified in the video, repeated here ) , together with Germanic factions that have a cavalry general. I have no problems microing my general like any other cavalry unit and using brace in whichever blob he might be. The + 9 bonus is going to be applied to both infantry and cavalry in the blob, which is basically what won me the last tournament I was in. I was up against builds with better cavalry and the same amount of cavalry I had - one the differences was that in the blob I had the brace general at the critical engagement whereas my opponent did not. Langobards are decent, but don't deserve better than nr 3 for the reasons stated in the video. Clubmen are much, much worse than Noble Swords at supporting cavalry fights. Vandals are better than Langobards because they have the best melee cavalry roster in the game and their general has a bonus against cavalry. All the special units of the Langobards die in a second from a cavalry charge, and the hewers are very vulnerable to both charges and missiles.
My only real problem with the vandals are their raiders and chosen raiders. I mean they are a fucking contradiction! High speed, rapid advance, frenzy, relatively low melee damage and attack, incredibly high armor value, low health. Who the hell designed these units?
And a crappy charge bonus...
Maximus Decimus Meridius Dont put the clubmen in the blob, thats what the horse slayers are for. Keep them behind your cav, even if your enemy shots the blob the damage will be done too fast, he cant pull out, his cav is already engaged, soo he cant charge your horse slayers. Just use their infatr units in a more conservative way, infatry does why more than jsut blobing up on cav fights...
And gotta love the Vandals and their "best melee cav roster". They have germanic horsemen, noble germanic, and noble alani. And of course a lot of other units that every player should avoid, pretty much the same melee cav as other germanic factions. Their general is AMAZING, about that I cant argue.
waiting for some Celts dlc
with how the game is atm they'll probably have a germanic roster too xD
germanic roster for everyone!!! except sassanids, romans and huns
Well Huns are OP, and best
White Huns are even stronger
What a very interesting meta.. not.
The eastern roman empire are not eastern romans they are greeks.
+Sid The Sloth Residents of ERE called themselves Rhōmaîoi which means Romans.
+Sid The Sloth Dumbass no they aren't they just spoke Greek. Sure you would still have some Greeks but majority would have been Roman citizens.
Greeks, Armenians, Thracians, Illyrians, the various people from Asia Minor, the natives of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc. as well as the occasional roman colonist or retired veteran granted land in one of the provinces.
It was called an empire for a reason.
Greeks arent greeks they are thessalians, macedonains, athenians, thebans and spartans and the other states. Not greeks