"Winning With Celts?" Topic

I've just finished painting a last few figures for my Insubres army for Hail Caesar and, while it looks magnificent on the table, it has been one of my least successful armies.

On their own, it has won exactly one battle and that was heavily stacked in its favour. NB as part of a Carthaginian army, a better record but then, the Carthos did the heavy lifting.

The army has:

five medium warbands
an elite Soldurii unit
three cavalry and one light cavalry units
three lots of skirmishers
two chariot units

On paper it seems dangerous. In practice it usually charges enthusiastically, inflicts some early damage, then gradually loses momentum as the battle develops: ending in a heap.

I'm interested in advice from players of any ancient rules, not just Hail Caesar.

How do you get the best from Celtic armies?

Do you:

attack immediately?
refuse a flank?
concentrate everything on one wing?
use terrain aggressively?
hold warbands back until the right moment?
rely on attrition rather than shock?

What have you found actually works?

I think Celts are doomed to fail as well! I only think they have much of a chance if they can push the flanks of an enemy before the main lines engage.

I am looking forward to trying the "Sword in Gaul" variant for The Sword & the Flame, which ought to be balanced for large scale skirmish battles/ small pitched battles of Caesarian Romans vs. Gauls or Germans of the period.

I expect the key is like other "Colonial" games pitting "natives" against "imperial" forces -- use greater mobility and numbers to maneuver your imperial opponent into fighting at unfavorable terms, then rush in to hit the vulnerable elements.

Lining up to fight a pitched battle in a classical sense is probably doomed to repeat the historical outcomes of such affairs. That's what "imperial" armies want you to do!

It would be amusing to do a what if alt history with the Celts operating under some sort of Maoist philosophy of people's war that eschewed big battles and prioritized not only guerilla raids on Roman supply but also liberation of slaves and assassinations of Romans etc. MIGHT work although Roman ruthlessness probably had no limits. But the Celtic culture would have to be totally different to even try such a thing.

Interesting that both replies are pointing in the same direction.

Rather than asking, "How do I beat a Roman-style army in a stand-up fight?" perhaps the better question is, "How do I stop them fighting the battle they want?" The Celts should win by being Celtic, not by pretending to be Romans.

That would suggest broken terrain, threatening one flank, local superiority and avoiding a long slog in the centre.

Perhaps I've been playing the Insubres too conventionally, lining them up and charging straight ahead instead of trying to create a decisive local advantage.

Has anyone found success by deliberately refusing to fight a "fair" battle?

The problem is that many wargame scenarios have a fixed number of turns or require one side to attack. That almost forces the Celtic player to advance and charge, playing into the hands of a more disciplined army.

Perhaps the answer lies as much in the scenario as in the tactics?

Make the warbands Belgae (no charge). Gives you a little better value.
I always run my Romans and haven't really been beaten by Celts. The heavy armor and pilum really make it tough for the Gauls.
Ya have to win a couple of fights at the beginning to really have a chance.

Chariots feel a bit old school for Gauls, unless you are invading Italy in an early Republican period.

Fight other Celts.

Chariots feel a bit old school for Gauls

I totally agree, the last time they used them in battle was in northern Italy – alongside cavalry, and of course as Galatians in Asia in the 3-2nd centuries BC.

Not quite, Herky.
Julius Caesar's Expeditions (55–54 BC)
The Invasion of Claudius (43 AD)
Boudica's Rebellion (60–61 AD)
Battle of Mons Graupius (83 or 84 AD)

Of course it depends on what you mean as a 'Celt' & any of the above might be challenged – the Caledonians especially.

I would contend all of them spoke a Celtic language & had aspects of Celtic culture.

However, I think the historians are probably right. By 225 BC chariots had largely disappeared from Continental Celtic armies, so if I were building a museum display they wouldn't be there.

The wargamer in me, however, has made a small compromise. I wanted an army of about fifteen units, balanced enough to give a decent game on a weeknight and the two chariot units help achieve that.

I also have to confess I have absolutely no desire to paint any more Celts!

So I'll happily accept the historical criticism, but the chariots are staying. They make for an enjoyable game and, after all, we all make the occasional compromise between historical accuracy and tabletop practicality.

One practical thought that has come out of this discussion: I remember I still have a box of old wattle fencing from my 'Field of Glory' days. Perhaps I should start using it again.

Evidently, because it was light and easily moved, wattle fencing was used deliberately by the Celts to shape the battlefield. A few stretches of fencing, together with rough ground and small enclosures, would make it much harder for a Roman-style army to deploy into one neat line while giving the Celts opportunities to fight for local superiority.

That may be part of the answer: not making the Celts stronger, but making the battlefield less convenient for their opponents.

Cheat

The problem is that the image of Celts does not match the rules for Celts. As I player, I think of fast, swarming attackers passing easily through rough terrain. The rules give me big units which have to win on turn 1 of the charge, and function poorly in rough terrain.

Romans frequently have rules to withstand the first charge, then grind the Celts down. And the trained/drilled Romans are faster/more agile in maneuver/terrain than the Celts.

Not quite, Herky.

– of course, how could I forget! I am painting an Ancient British army at the moment!!! – put it down to forgetfulness as I age!!!

Assuming the Celts are the defender, you can have them choose the placement of some terrain features like in DBA.

To represent Celt use and knowledge of local terrain and better scouting, you can have the Celts set up half their army, then have the Romans set up their entire army, then have the Celts put on the second half of their army.

Sometimes I think the limitations of a 4'x6' table do the light mobile armies dirty. Just not enough room.
Applies to a light cavalry force – especially horse archers – as well.

Korvessa +1

Use a wider table, so the chariots and cavalry can get behind the flanks and create panic ! It's morale, not casualties.

I have the same plan with my Egyptians, if I ever get any, against Sea Peoples, if I ever get any.

You can never have enough Celts, but it's easy to have too many Celts. I can't resolve this dilemma.

All the ancients rules I've ever played leave it mostly to the dice to let Celts win. You can stack the odds with deployment and coordination (basically – setting up the largest mad rush at the enemy as possible), but ultimately the gods must favor Celtic dicing to get a Celtic victory.

The Romans feared the Gauls less over time, either because they'd learned to fight them, or because the Gauls declined as a battle force (or maybe both). Does Hail Caesar have a way to make earlier Romans more vulnerable than late Republican Romans?

@YA. Most of my Celts vs X games have been with Field of Glory (Ancients). It's a ruleset steeped in historical precedent and, rightly or wrongly, I always felt the Celts had an uphill struggle. Given their historical record against the Romans, perhaps that's not surprising.

We've been using Hail Caesar for our Ancients games for a while now, but I've only managed two Celt vs X battles. Although both ended in defeat, they were close enough for the Celts to smell victory. They certainly felt more competitive than my previous experiences.

Perhaps that's one reason I started this thread. I'm trying to work out whether it's my tactics, my scenarios or simply my expectations that need changing. I am working on a scenario of Celts Vs Carthaginians for a soon-ish game.

My impression is that scenario and terrain are key to balancing the odds. (Also numbers to a degree.) A straight-up, pitched battle, conventional, plays to Roman strengths. If a Celtic army is to have a decent chance to win, other factors need be addressed. That may not be strictly historical (as much as we can tell), but it would produce an even game. That makes me think smaller actions are preferable to big battles. Maybe a campaign of smaller engagements that culminate in a big battle, as modified by earlier results? (I think of Boudicca's revolt, which saw the Britons win some clashes (ambushes? Sudden assaults on towns?) but eventually have to fight a proper Roman army, albeit a shrunken one. They got beat, but might they have won with craftier generalship? Or inept Roman leaders?

Teutoburg Wald might be the classic way for barbarians to wear down a Roman army, altho' that is likely hard to recreate on a tabletop.

The battle of Telamon was a hard-fought Roman victory that followed some reverses. And Brennus won convincingly at Allia a century and a half earlier, what details do we know about that battle?

"Teutoburg Wald might be the classic way for barbarians to wear down a Roman army, altho' that is likely hard to recreate on a tabletop."

A version of this was actually the one game the Celts won.
The premise was a Roman force had to relieve a fort in the midst of wild forest. There were two roads, both through hilly forest. the Romans split into two forces & were, in turn, overwhelmed.

Clearly, they didn't have a chance- which doesn't provide for a satisfying game for anyone.

I suppose the rules set used is important, and then modifications for balance. Probably need to play-test a number of variant scenarios to adjust the terrain and victory conditions.

I think there's a lot to learn from "Colonial" games in terms of giving the Natives some advantages from terrain, movement, etc., but this leads back to small, skirmish-level games. Or arbitrarily hobbling the Romans from the start.

I think Teutoburger Wald is a bad example, Germani were not Celtic.

We use home brew rules and the Gauls have a fighting chance.

1) The Gauls are allowed to move as LI, disregarding rough terrain, but fight as normal infantry. This simulates them closing quickly.
2) We use stand to stand combat, 1D10 plus base rate per stand. In the first round, the Gauls get 3D10 and can pick the highest one.
3) In the second round they get 2D10 and pick the highest one. Anything after that is as per normal.
4) In round one, the Gauls cause double casualties.
5) Gauls can breakaway from a combat, twice per game. They do this by declaring it, then moving a standard move away, facing the enemy. No follow up is permitted by the enemy. Then they can charge again.

Around 40% of the time, the Gauls will break through the line they face (we have used Romans, Greeks, other Gauls as opponents). This requires the use of an effective reserve by their opponents to prepare for such an eventuality.

This also works for Zulus, or other barbarians who relied on an almighty charge. Might not suit everyone, but our rules do the job for us.

Lots to think about – if nothing else, thinking of the Celts as Mahdists or Zulus is insightful.

@korsun0 – Your points 1,3,4 & 5 have similar rules in HC.
Maybe some minor tweaking is needed?

Everyone will understand that the last thing I want to do is create some super-Celt army that never loses.

Best advice ever given re wargaming

Roll 6s and may your opponents roll 1s

I m guessing your playing a late Celtic army, where they were on the receiving end of the best army in the ancient world and probably outnumbered to boot. The history was written by the conqueror after all. But like Scotland v Brazil in the world cup, a win not impossible but unlikely.

The earlier Celts of course rampaged over (early) Romans, Hellenistic Greeks and misc Italiot and Balkan tribes and probably themselves with a high degree of success.

Play the earlier Celts and opponents

In DBMM, I figure ancient Celtic armies are favoured over mid/late Republican Romans at equal points. Basically, the bulk of the Romans are classed as "Blades", which are all-around types who are pretty good against most opposition, whereas the Celts (excluding Scots-Irish and some late Gauls and Galatians) are classed as "Warband", who happen to be good against heavy infantry and not much else. Since the points values roughly reflect overall utility, the a warband monotype is going to have an advantage over a blade monotype.

Of course, if you play a historical scenario, the Romans are likely to have a substantial points advantage. And Imperial Romans are much tougher for the Celts.

I note and accept the difference between German armies and Gaulish / Celtic armies, in the late Roman Republic/early Roman Imperial eras.

If anything, I'd guess that the Germans would have less armor but more ferocity? The Romans of that time recruited both Gallic and Germanic horsemen, so we can accept those as a given for superiority as natives but a grade higher as "regulars" when organized and led under Roman command.

German tribes in the late Republic / early Imperial era seem to be less armored than the Gauls of Caesar's age (or before), so that should be taken into account.

I once complained to a top competition Wargamer about the general shortage of terrain such as steep hills or large woods in competition battlefields. I thought that would make a Gallic army much stronger. He pointed out that (under WRG rules) a series of small units emerging from cover would result in an almost permanent -3 on morale for the more usual Roman or Successor armies, giving the Celts a huge advantage. Go Celts !!

And would make a Spanish army, with tow-wrapped pila fire weapons almost invincible !!

doc mcb
"It would be amusing to do a what if alt history with the Celts operating under some sort of Maoist philosophy of people's war that eschewed big battles and prioritized not only guerilla raids on Roman supply but also liberation of slaves and assassinations of Romans etc."

No need to reach for Mao if we're referencing "guerrillas"!
For every large battle in a campaign, there are tens of unrecorded smaller encounters and skirmishes.

So the celts (or more properly, the Gauls) indeed used guerilla tactics against Romans particularly during Julius Caesar's campaigns from 58–50 BC.

For example in 52, the Arverni chieftain Vercingetorix eschewed pitched battles and adopted a strategy that included:
• scorched-Earth,
• whittling away supply lines and foragers using cavalry,
• isolating Roman units and
• targeted sieges & fortifications.

Ochion
"two chariot units"
&
John the Red
"I m guessing your playing a late Celtic army, where they were on the receiving end of the best army in the ancient world." Except:

Don't forget the Celts stopped using war chariots soon after the Battle of Telamon in 225 BC, so never against Caesar, and concentrated on more flexible cavalry. And sure, it's the flanks they went for.

Caesar famously faced chariots in Britain.

I believe it's true, though, that Telamon is the last time we hear of chariots being used by Celts on the Continent.

The Last Conformist

"Caesar famously faced chariots in Britain".

Yep. But those were Britons. Or Pritanī, as we called ourselves.

The ancient Britons were Celts.

The Last Conformist
"The ancient Britons were Celts"

Afraid cracking the human genome debunked that in the 90s.

Celts never came to Britain in any significant numbers. The most we got were arguably a small elite who established a Parisii tribal village in East Yorkshire around the 5th century B.C.
The Welsh and Scottish have haplogroups L21 (also known as M529) subclade, whereas continental Celtic populations are characterized heavily by U152.
Most Britons, including the English, can still trace their genes to the few thousand hunter-gatherers cut off by the last Ice Age.

I think culturally they were pretty Celtic!!

Being Celtic is a matter of language and culture, not genes.

L21 is associated primarily with the pre Celtic Beaker folk, and is found in Spain and Ireland, as well as the UK.

U152 is linked to Belgae migration and is found in the East of the UK, which is also where the Germanic tribes later invaded.

So the tribes that Caesar fought were indeed Celtic

Herkybird,
"I think culturally they were pretty Celtic!!"

The Last Conformist
"Being Celtic is a matter of language and culture, not genes"

The Iceni and the Kentii spoke a Brythonic language which is insular to Britain. The Celts spoke variants which could have separated on the Steppes. They were all Indo-European but Gauls, for example, would have had some trouble understanding a Kentish man. The Gaulish (rix) for King was similar to the Brythonic (rhi) so with a bit of trouble and some time, individuals might have worked what each other was saying. But it wouldn't have been easy.

Bit like saying modern English are the same as modern French since we share a few words, wear similar clothes and like the same paintings. But saying Englishmen are French is a little meaningless and people at the time would have strenuously disagreed.

Dagwood
"U152 is linked to Belgae migration and is found in the East of the UK, which is also where the Germanic tribes later invaded."

Yes, Yorkshire. The hotspot for the Celtic U152 subclade is around Genoa. Once we get to the Atlantic seaboard they started to thin out so coming from Europe doesn't make a tribe "Celtic". Admittedly there's an increase in that subclade in Belgium. There were some in Norfolk.

"So the tribes that Caesar fought were indeed Celtic"

Not that we know of. Caesar fought the tribes in Kent. They were not Belgae. Even the Iceni from Norfolk, who were responsible for the great uprisings, traded with the Belgic tribe but the Iceni traced their roots back to at least 500 B.C., well before a small number of Belgae, linked to the Celts, came down.