@Ville Jokela. Let's see 10,000 modern Finnish soldiers vs 1 million Spartans or Romans.

Don’t worry Finland, we will protect you. Love, America

331 million -America

@@RMFCfan137 Even more crazy to think the USSR lost 20 million soldiers during WW2. This really puts it into perspective.

My country America has 100 million

Awesome thanks for letting me know :D

Unit creator? Like in tabs?

@@yigaboii2254 We have never played TABS here. UEBS1 has a unit creator and it's the new version for the sequel.

@@yigaboii2254 it’s more or less kind of like that but you can make whatever almost like modding. Also I would love some more units per era I know you guys are already trying your hardest and this game is crazy but yeah I would love some American soldiers and German soldiers, as well as like Soviet soldiers so yeah that would be very cool

Will UEBS2 have a custom workshop like the first game?

You're close. Having 8 armies with an even amount is the most ideal for performance. This will likely be handled internally in a later update, so eventually the user won't need to worry about this.

Yep, Spartans were fantastic individual warriors, while the Romans made ARMIES. Formations, combined arms, and siege craft were their fortes

@@gaiusmarius4209 Indeed although Spartans, and Greeks/Macedonians fighting was also contingent upon fighting as a group, ie the Phalanx. But I think what you are saying is on a larger scale beyond a few hundred guys. Romans were the first real masters of being able to work countless unit types and moving pieces synchronized together like a well oiled machine

Also there was about 400 to 500 years difference between when Sparta and Rome were at their respected peaks

@@88006 Indeed, Iron Age vs Roman Age. The only question is when was Romes "peak" but even if we go to the very beginning of the Empire with Augustus and Germanicus, that is about 500 years from the Peleponessian War when arguably Sparta was at their most powerful. For reference if modern military forces with high powered rifles, jets, tanks etc fought the Spanish or English from 500 years ago they would be using pikes, swords and primitive lit fused cannons and Arquebus.

@@thegadflygang5381 Since technology is speeding up it would be more like a modern army vs WW1 or WW2 army. The Romans still used swords, spears, shields and armor as the Spartans did, albeit more advanced and varied.

it was.. very cool tho

Well not really the spartans did have better training and better moral

@@user-hv3xx1gu1p spears aren't much use in a tight melee like that compared to the Gladius And the Roman shields make them hard to break through.

@@user-hv3xx1gu1p also I imagine being a part of the legion would give you pretty high moral Spartans hardly ever stood and fought in many battles that are recorded they tended to avoid them but even when they would lose the Legions would do their damndest to fight

@@desertranger1095 first of all the spartans did have swords and second the way spartans did use spears is that the first line would hold and the second would stab with the spears

@@desertranger1095 spartans never avoided a fight they were raised to fight even their mothers told them it is better to die in the fight than come back defeated

Spartans were literally trained for war starting at 7 years old

Roman legionnaires were the best soldiers of the ancient time. Unstoppable war machine. Spartans are mostly overrated and lost battles to Persians, Athenians, Macedonians and ultimately Romans easily defeated them in 170 BC. So this battle is crap.

The only reason they lost some wars and power was because Sparta was running out of real Spartans​ and many outsiders become "spartan" citizens @adolphbismark4331

Sparta was a warrior state ,that was life there, discipline and blood was normal until you die. Romans were just wanna be soldiers for money as you said

4,000,000 Spartans would trample Rome. Roman soldiers were good, not that good though. In real life, yes, Rome would’ve won because Sparta didn’t have many soldiers. Rome did.

@@Tacoman542 so they dominate europe for so long because they've not so good. Ok :)

​@@Tacoman542 Depends. Technology is a big help. Romans had better armor, weapons, and artillery. They also were overall more effective as an army, since Spartiates didn't really fight in massive numbers like the Romans did, with more effective battle tactics that incorporated their artillery and weapons effectively. Spartiates also didn't use bows and arrows, so Roman army has the advantage of range and since Spartiate armor doesn't protect the chest, that is gonna be very useful. Romans also have less cumbersome equipment, allowing them to move around the battlefield, whereas the Spartiates have heavy and cumbersome equipment, which could make it hard for them to take the offensive against the much more agile Roman army. More and better training doesn't always mean a stronger or better army. There is almost a 600 year difference between the height of Sparta and the height of Rome.

I'm going to have to call shennigans on your claim that that Greek hoplites were individually superior to Roman legionaries. Greek hoplites were a citzen milita called up when needed and then disbanded afterwards. They did not receive military training as mentioned by Xenophon, a very experienced Greek mercenary and historian. Plus the *aspis,* the hoplite shield was a bad shield for individual fighting. Great for formation fighting, but terrible for a one-on-one. A Roman legionary on the other hand was a professional soldier with equipment and training provided by the state. As a professional soldier he didn't have to split his time between his trade and his role as a soldier meaning the average legionary was more disciplined and experienced than his hoplite counterpart. Finally the legionary had ranged options and a shield better suited to one on one fighting. (The *scutum* had a single central vertical grip similar to later norse/saxon round shields, which made it easier to defend with.) Rome had quite possibly the best army in the ancient world for a damn good reason.

The Spartans were professional soilders basically trained from birth. Nothing came close in the ancient world not even the romans. The romans real advantage would have been numbers. Sparta was just one city state and the rest of Greece didn't field professional armies. If the forces were equal I'd always give it to the Spartans. I highly doubt that the forces would ever be equal but on a soilder to soilder basis the Spartans were just better and probably also on a unit to unit basis. Training from the time you are 7 years old to do just one thing and only one thing has to give you an advantage. LOL.

@@edwardhardwick2180 you're nit-picking because I went from saying "Spartan hoplite" to "Greek hoplite" but it wasn't just the Spartans - they're simply the best example of a more Peloponnesian phenomenon. The Hellenes and the northern Dorians differed from the southern Dorians in the Peloponnese by using irregular citizen-soldiers as their armed forces, while the Peloponnesian city-states had some form of regular force consistently active - whether or not they were Spartan, their allies, or their enemies at that immediate moment.

Count yourself lucky. I'm Persian and look how they rate our armies smh. It's a bit perturbing.

@@Initium1000 Operation Human Wave is usually a success. And you guys taught the Russians something so that bears mentioning. Two thumbs up mate, sorry pop culture is so mean to y'all.

In UEBS2 the have added a new rts factor so you can create your own formations

@@fieldfighter6952 You're correct. To add that that, when ordering units they do sorta attempt to create a line formation on the destination of their order, we have more work to do on this though. Watch the video we did on RTS mode, there is more info.

Yeah that was the reason why sparta lose to the romans

I think catapults Arches and other early types of artillery is exactly what you are looking for.

he could have up to a million of each troop type on both sides with his pc being perfectly fine lol.

If you combine your PC with combining another PC that is combined to another PC, it should be better to combine Another PC which is combined to another PC that is combined to another PC, so you would get something at least.

The Roman's were infantry soldiers, the Spartans were special forces! it would be like sending a normal infantry unit against the SAS! a fair way would be to reduce the numbers of the specialist unit. imagine if you sent 4 mil normal soldiers, against 4 mil special forces. it would probably be 10 to 1, not 3 to 1 kill ratio!

Macedonia did the Spartan way better even conquered them then Rome conquered both.

hi

This isn’t a medieval battle, the Greeks and romans fought over a 1000 years before medieval times

@@kiely4561 no one asked

@@scoobus5419 salty and liked his own comment lol, did I hit a sore nerve or something pal?, I was merely correcting you on your inaccuracy, no need to get your little panties all bunched up.

Bro he just corrected you, dont get mad​@scoobus5419

Yep. These programs love the movie 300. Naked men are unbeatable. Even fighting armored soldiers. Yes the spartans were quicker and lighter for that reason, but they would not have won this battle.

im team roman

aw shit bad idea

@@kuerbisformel_388 This game has a custom unit creation so you can up or lower unit stats and create your own unique unit. The Spartans won in this because they are over all the better unit compared to the romans in the game. But with unit creation option you can up the romans stats to match or come close to the Spartans and then do this same battle and it will be very close between the romans and spartans.

This would be like 2 million WW2 SAS vs 2 million current Marines. The Spartans and Greeks in general did not do well against the Romans.

Roman legionnaires were the best soldiers of the ancient time. Unstoppable war machine. Spartans are mostly overrated and lost battles to Persians, Athenians, Macedonians and ultimately Romans easily defeated them in 170 BC. So this battle is crap. Also Spartans might have thought to have been born warriors but they were not. Roman war machine and legions were a pure roman invention.

@@adolphbismark4331 That quite a screen name you got there Adolph. Anyway, you were not there, you did not see, and the Romans were fine soldiers but they won due to numbers and not because they were better or worse than the Spartans. The Romans adopted the Spartan phalanx and even kept the Greek Gods for themselves. Next you'll be telling me how unstoppable the Bismark was.

@@stevenreyngold1166 I’m pretty sure most spartan losses were due to numbers and not poorly trained soldiers

Debatable , romans were further down the timeline Spartans were extremely disciplined and had a special diet which made them powerful, true the romans had better equipment but further down the timeliness I guarantee Spartans would crush them , a close battle but a spartan victory

Roman legionnaires were the best soldiers of the ancient time. Unstoppable war machine. Spartans are mostly overrated and lost battles to Persians, Athenians, Macedonians and ultimately Romans easily defeated them in 170 BC. So this battle is crap.

Spartans were a failure miltary wise and never managed to be a big power. You are just imagining too much

@@adolphbismark4331 it was mainly due to not having massive armies. Their military was ver well trained but they didn’t have tens of thousands of soldiers like most armies.