Battle balance

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Hail

I have i question for the greatest moders of all time. Will the battle balance change a little? Cause, i think it´s really weird that a phalanx unit, even when charged in the flank or rear, can still turn away and wrack you down. So, could, please, someone tell me if there´re going to be changes in the battles. You guys must know that never a total war game will be as good and historical accurate :book: as Europa Barbarorum.

[Foot]

We will completely have to revisit the stats. As far as phalanxes turning around that isn't something we can change, as it is hardcoded into their behaviour to face the unit with the highest danger rating.

Foot

[russia almighty]

One thing I've seen with The Broken Crescent, the like 2 units that use spear wall all hold their formation pretty good.


Though, due to the lack of lethality, they have 1 attack.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hail

I have i question for the greatest moders of all time. Will the battle balance change a little? Cause, i think it´s really weird that a phalanx unit, even when charged in the flank or rear, can still turn away and wrack you down. So, could, please, someone tell me if there´re going to be changes in the battles. You guys must know that never a total war game will be as good and historical accurate :book: as Europa Barbarorum.

Yeah, those phalanxes are real killers. The EB phalangites are much more powerful than the RTW ones. It is practically impossible to beat a phalanx in an even all-infantry battle. Even if you had, say 5 elite infantry units and the enemy had 5 regular phalanx units, the phalanxes would almost always win.The only time I have beaten phalanxes in an uneven battle were the times when I used all-cavalry armies, which isn't exactly my style. I do have to say that it is pretty easy to win even the uneven battles with phalangites when you're playing as some all-cavalry nomadic factions, such as Pahlava, Sauromatae or Saka Rauka.

In RTW, I remember, a Roman legionary could easily get through the wall of pikes that a phalanx creates, but in EB, units never seem to get behind even the first line of spears.

[General Appo]

Excuse me? Are you kidding? Have you even played RTW? In RTW Vanilla even touching the pikes of a phalanx spelled instant doom for anyone except überelite units.

[Foot]

Of course the phalanx is going to win. They've got the enemy about 12ft from them, its a no win contest from the front. But you get them in uneven territory (trees for favourite) and you pin down their slow moving phalanx, then you've got some winning material. I've played EBI (wow! really!) and I don't buy this "phalanx are really tough even from the flank and back". Firstly never attack their shield-flank side if you are to attack a flank (so their left and your right) because they get the shield bonus to their defense. Pin them down with a powerful unit and use a less powerful unit to flank (this stops the phalanx from just changing direction unrealistically).

In RTW you could also stick a group of roman ninjas in short grass and then watch as the enemy pass. RTW is not a good base on which to judge things. Really.

Foot

[Aemilius Paulus]

Excuse me? Are you kidding? Have you even played RTW? In RTW Vanilla even touching the pikes of a phalanx spelled instant doom for anyone except überelite units.

Maybe, but you'll have to agree that phalanxes are even tougher in EB.

This is one of my previous posts:
"I was playing as the Romani once and I was in a battle against Seleukids. They had 4 Pantodapoi Phalangitai (Hellenic Native Phalanx) with zero exp./weap./armour, which are pretty much equivalent to Machimoi phalanx, among other units. Eventually I routed and destroyed most (except their cavalry) of the other units and was left with the four phalanxes. I sent four units of 2 exp/1 weapons&armour Principes to charge the front of each phalanx as well as 2 Greek Classical Hoplites and 3 Triarii with same weapons/exp/armour to fully envelop the phalanxes. The result was shocking. Those lousy Pantodapoi left each unit of Principes with only about 25 men each (from starting 82 men - large unit scale). After that battle I usually whittled down the Seleukid phalanxes with slingers or cavalry (charging in their backs)."

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

I believe the phalanks in EB are a little bit stronger than they should be, if you go against some elite phalanks it´s almost certain that you´re going to lose even if you charge than in the flank or rear. I´m not saying this´s wrong but i think they should be a little weaker and suffer from a flank or rear attack heavily.

[Foot]

I know, thats what I understood from your first post. Obviously things will change in EBII (they'll have to because lethality don't exist no more), but I disagree with your assessment on strength. We do the best we can given the limitations in the stat code. Phalanxes may be a little too stronger than we might like on the flank and rear, but it is consequence of certain other stats that are essential, not a decision we made but one made for us.

Foot

[satalexton]

i never had problem with phalanx troops, there's nothing a well timed hetairoi charge (or 2 at most) cannot rout =D

[Aemilius Paulus]

they'll have to because lethality don't exist no more
Foot

Whaaat? Why did CA remove lethality from M2TW? To simplify the stats?

[satalexton]

i think that may be able to work around using hp and some adjusting with attack and defense stats... =/

[quackingduck]

personally i think the current unit/battle balance is awesome. once i got over the original vanilla to eb shock, it was really good. i wouldn't know exactly how good the real phalaxes and such would have actually preformed, but for playing the game all the units were spot on, IMHO.

[General Appo]

Maybe, but you'll have to agree that phalanxes are even tougher in EB.

This is one of my previous posts:
"I was playing as the Romani once and I was in a battle against Seleukids. They had 4 Pantodapoi Phalangitai (Hellenic Native Phalanx) with zero exp./weap./armour, which are pretty much equivalent to Machimoi phalanx, among other units. Eventually I routed and destroyed most (except their cavalry) of the other units and was left with the four phalanxes. I sent four units of 2 exp/1 weapons&armour Principes to charge the front of each phalanx as well as 2 Greek Classical Hoplites and 3 Triarii with same weapons/exp/armour to fully envelop the phalanxes. The result was shocking. Those lousy Pantodapoi left each unit of Principes with only about 25 men each (from starting 82 men - large unit scale). After that battle I usually whittled down the Seleukid phalanxes with slingers or cavalry (charging in their backs)."

Sounds like maybe this guy wasn´t playing on Medium.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I've never had any problem with the phalanxes. Sure, they pack quite a punch, but then again, they're supposed to. If you manage to surround them, that ususally does tyhe trick.

[Ibrahim]

well, they didn't totally remove the lethality (at, least, in a manner of RTW). there is a file with the correct info in it. I work on a mod of M2TW myself (frontier, at the TW center). here is a transcript of a PM:


I agree about quick and bloody. If you've got a little time, try opening up your battle_config.xml file and look for the following line:






<melee-hit-rate>1.75</melee-hit-rate>





Comment out this line and change that value to 0.25, like this:






<!--<melee-hit-rate>1.75</melee-hit-rate>-->

<melee-hit-rate>0.25</melee-hit-rate>





This will make your battles last much longer with casualty rates generally between 10% and 30% per battle before an army runs. Assuming no massive cavalry chase, two armies can survive several engagements relatively intact for some time.



To avoid massive damage from missile units, likewise adjust their unit hit probabilities downward. We can make specific values for many types of units, too. Check it out and tell me what you think.





Thanks,

ADM

this is assuming of course that hit rate=similar to, or is lethality.

as for the part highlighted in red, I'm not sure if that is true...I'll let you fellows know on friday.

[Foot]

Wow, great info there. We'll have to look into that.

Foot

[Ibrahim]

thank Kundich. the guy knows his M2TW programming:yes:

[BozosLiveHere]

melee-hit-rate is an entry in battle_config.xml. It is a global value, not unit-specific like lethality was in RTW.

[Ibrahim]

melee-hit-rate is an entry in battle_config.xml. It is a global value, not unit-specific like lethality was in RTW.

well, If Kudich is right, you can make it so that the various types of units have various hit rates. I'm well aware of the limitations as you show them, but its better than nothing. besides, i hope to conduct tests in the weekend (when the laptiop is "ransomed" from its storage), and see it in more detail. I might learn more as I go on with these tests.

[BozosLiveHere]

There's been a furious debate at the TWC about (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3551065#post3551065) that (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=187638). I'd rather side with Lusted and empiricism on this.

[Ibrahim]

There's been a furious debate at the TWC about (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3551065#post3551065) that (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=187638). I'd rather side with Lusted and empiricism on this.

ah, i see now. I didn't know that. I'll notify Kundich.
why didn't you say that the first time? I had no idea, as I said, I was to test this on the weekend-this is by PM mind you.

so only 1 value indeed?

[BozosLiveHere]

For melee-hit-rate? Yes. Or at least it is very very likely to be so. Missile-target-accuracy allows for infantry, cavalry and elephants entries.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Hail

i was wondering since CA removed lethality. Does this means that the EB team, if is their wish to do so, can stop the phalanks of reforming after being flanked because i think this way the phalanks will be better represented.
Polybius tells us that the main reason why the maniple is superior to the phalanks is because of the possibility of keeping man in reserve and when the phalanks start to move flank them and cut them into pieces.

[Foot]

lethality has nothing to do with a phalanx reforming. I don't know where you got that idea.

Foot

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

I´m sorry Foot. But, do you think there´s anyhow for the EB team, if this is their wish to do so, stop the phalanks of reforming after a flank or rear attack.
Again, i´m sorry even i don´t know where i got this idea.:oops:

[Foot]

No, I do not think there is anyway to solve it. They will always reform to meet the toughest unit, which makes pinning them with low-level spearmen pointless. There may be something in the ai files, but I haven't been able to look at them yet.

Foot

[BozosLiveHere]

Actually, our EB2 phalanx doesn't reform at all if hit from behind. It switches to swords and stays that way.

[Foot]

Oh really? Cool. I haven't played with them much yet.

Foot

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Actually, our EB2 phalanx doesn't reform at all if hit from behind. It switches to swords and stays that way.
Great, fantastic :laugh4:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Actually, our EB2 phalanx doesn't reform at all if hit from behind. It switches to swords and stays that way.

So, what would be the point in flanking them from behind if they just break out of their rigid formation? Kind of a lose-lose situation facing against phalanxes then.

[Pontius Pilate]

Actually, our EB2 phalanx doesn't reform at all if hit from behind. It switches to swords and stays that way.


Interesting. I think that seems realistic. It would only seem logical for the soldiers in the back to stop and defend themselves.

[Megas Methuselah]

Yeah. It's nice to hear even though this was posted several weeks ago and ACIN just had to necro this thread...:dizzy2:

[Pontius Pilate]

Yeah. It's nice to hear even though this was posted several weeks ago and ACIN just had to necro this thread...:dizzy2:

?? well it's never too late to add some positive feedback!:yes: and I probably wouldn't have seen this info if someone didn't revive the thread today.

[Megas Methuselah]

Well, that's one way of looking at ****, I suppose! :clown:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah. It's nice to hear even though this was posted several weeks ago and ACIN just had to necro this thread...:dizzy2:

I necro'd this for a good reason, I had a legit question.


So, what would be the point in flanking them from behind if they just break out of their rigid formation? Kind of a lose-lose situation facing against phalanxes then.

Seriously, if they switch to swords as soon as they are out flanked, there is no real benefit from flanking them and phalanx armies become way too O.P. in my opinion.

[Megas Methuselah]

Seriously, if they switch to swords as soon as they are out flanked, there is no real benefit from flanking them and phalanx armies become way too O.P. in my opinion.

Dude, are you sure they meant the whole formation switches to swords? It could just be individual soldiers who are being personally assaulted who drop their pikes and use swords, not the formation as a whole.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Could be, but usually when a soldier is attacked, the whole unit adapts to the new threat not just individual soldiers.

[Megas Methuselah]

Could be, but usually when a soldier is attacked, the whole unit adapts to the new threat not just individual soldiers.

So, you're saying that if I were in the front row of a phalanx fendind off a frontal assault with my pike, I'd drop my pike and take out my sword because the other side of the formation is being assaulted?! Not only would that endanger me as an individual, as I would be more exposed to danger from my more immediate enemies in front of me, but that would only further endanger the whole unit, which would lose its primary advantage in its pikes.

The phalanx, which would previously be exposed only from the flank(s) and rear, would thus be exposed to assaults from all sides of the formation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I was talking about the Rome/M2TW engine not in actual RL.

[Megas Methuselah]

Ok, kool. I need some clarification here. What exactly happens when a phalanx/pike unit in M2TW is flanked?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, kool. I need some clarification here. What exactly happens when a phalanx/pike unit in M2TW is flanked?

Well, if it is like Rome, the entire formation tries to turn and have the pikes face the new/greater threat.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Well, if it is like Rome, the entire formation tries to turn and have the pikes face the new/greater threat.
...if the formation is not already engaged in the front.

Oh, and Mike & Meth, please try not to spam all these threads with conversation between just the two of you. even if they are on topic.

[General Appo]

Oh, and Mike & Meth, please try not to spam all these threads with conversation between just the two of you. even if they are on topic.


A bit of a contradiction there, don´t you think? Spamming...on-topic. :inquisitive:

[a completely inoffensive name]

...if the formation is not already engaged in the front.

I many time have had phalanxes that are engaged on the front (by hastati) try to turn 180 degrees to the bigger threat (triari) and stand there reforming with their pikes in the air shifting the formation. I use BI and Battle Formations if that makes any difference in how the AI would react.

[bovi]

A bit of a contradiction there, don´t you think? Spamming...on-topic. :inquisitive:
It's a reaction to the spamming spree that they did in numerous threads yesterday. I think I deleted over a hundred posts that added nothing, or if it did it was offensive. I allowed the posts here (and certain others in other threads) to remain though, as they actually added something. Back-and-forth is okay in my book, as long as it's not inane crap said just to say anything.

[Megas Methuselah]

...I allowed the posts here (and certain others in other threads) to remain though, as they actually added something. Back-and-forth is okay in my book, as long as-

Cheers! :medievalcheers:


Well, if it is like Rome, the entire formation tries to turn and have the pikes face the new/greater threat.

Yeah, I always hated that about Rome, but look a page back on this same thread and you'll find this:


Actually, our EB2 phalanx doesn't reform at all if hit from behind. It switches to swords and stays that way.

Now, I myself don't have M2TW on my computer, so I can't really test this out (naturally). However, Bozoz doesn't really complete his statement, i.e. He doesn't state if the formation as a whole switches to swords or only if individual soldiers being privately assaulted switch to swords. I'm hoping someone will come by the courage to answer this...

[Cute Wolf]

but in M2TW, pikemen tends to overpowered fom the front, even with their 6 attack scots pike militia... capable to rip apart english armoured sergeants from the front...

[bovi]

Huh? My pikemen were slaughtered by any unit. Or perhaps that is because I used them in the Americas campaign.

[Cute Wolf]

@Bovi
In americas, yes... these aztec freaks (chuahchiqueh and temple guards) are strong infantry that fearless for death... in English and teutonics, they can present a strong front, even with scots militiamen... but they will be devastated with a cavalry attack with swords (not charge!) from the rear... as they are poor swordsmen... (except scots noble pike militia and noble pikemen). in EB II, should they lower their pike attack status to let the legionaries enter the fray from the front?!? maybe it was fun, but at least I still prefer to had an a bit overpowered pike formations, because it will "almost historically" bring the diadochis their fatal military mistake by too relied on pike phalanx formations.

I saw the EB II video and I just want to say, is it true in that video they had only 3 ranks presents their pikes to enemies?

[theoldbelgian]

the thing about the whole phalanx unit dropping their sarissas is correct but also the thing where they don't do that is also correct, I've had this one time when on an enemy plaza there was a unit phalangitai deuteroi , I positioned my pezhetaroi in the front in phalanx mode butt when i tried to attack they all dropped their pikes and attacked with their swords, luckily my phalangitai deuteroi who where flanking did their job correct
on the other side I have flanked mak phalanxes with Spartans on several occasions and they never did the drop pike thing

[Megas Methuselah]

the thing about the whole phalanx unit dropping their sarissas is correct but also the thing where they don't do that is also correct, I've had this one time when on an enemy plaza there was a unit phalangitai deuteroi , I positioned my pezhetaroi in the front in phalanx mode butt when i tried to attack they all dropped their pikes and attacked with their swords, luckily my phalangitai deuteroi who where flanking did their job correct
on the other side I have flanked mak phalanxes with Spartans on several occasions and they never did the drop pike thing

It's a buggy formation, especially in a city/settlement.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Actually, our EB2 phalanx doesn't reform at all if hit from behind. It switches to swords and stays that way.

This is great because when an enemy (solduros, for example) close in against the flank of the phalanks it´s realistic that those soldiers that are being attacked switch to sword and try to defend themselves. It will mean a lot in terms of strategical gameplay since the phalanks will retain it´s superiority in an even terrain when fully formed but it will point it´s weakness against flank attacks. We must remember that the phalanks is a dreadful force when fighting as single impregnable unit but there´re not a match individually. And now that they can´t reform when flanked the balnce of the game will be much better. Every Strategos will konw that being flanked is almost their doom as well as the other general will konw that flank is almost mandatory.
:beam::beam::beam:

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I also think that the phalanges in EB are too strong.

it is impossible that a phalanx ga remain strong on uneven terrain or uphill.

In ancient Greece, where a phalanx ever fought, the armies are more or less compared with the same method of fighting were still on training hard almost motionless in front of each other.
The battles were very static and was won by those who break the first line enemy.

But the phalanx is not designed for combat infantrymen in possession of large shields. :embarassed:
With them is easy wedge between the long and unwieldy phalanx of spades. That's why the Romans were literally DRUNK the Macedonians during the Macedonian wars.
In addition, the units of each finger were not on his own as did cohorts or manipulate, but all remained united in compact (easy to circumvent).

Just then the phalanges making less offensive against infantry with large shield.:smash:

[mikil100]

Large shield or not, you are moving through a forest of spears.. making you clumsy as well.

I think the EB team does a good job mentioning how it was not the Phalanx that was faulty, just the commanders using it. The whole point of the phalanx was to pin the enemy down so cavalry could wheel around and smash the enemy. Granted with the TW engines phalanxes are OP'ed.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

I also think that the phalanges in EB are too strong.

it is impossible that a phalanx ga remain strong on uneven terrain or uphill.

In ancient Greece, where a phalanx ever fought, the armies are more or less compared with the same method of fighting were still on training hard almost motionless in front of each other.
The battles were very static and was won by those who break the first line enemy.

But the phalanx is not designed for combat infantrymen in possession of large shields. :embarassed:
With them is easy wedge between the long and unwieldy phalanx of spades. That's why the Romans were literally DRUNK the Macedonians during the Macedonian wars.
In addition, the units of each finger were not on his own as did cohorts or manipulate, but all remained united in compact (easy to circumvent).

Just then the phalanges making less offensive against infantry with large shield.:smash:

I´m not sure if this is the way to go since Polybius and other historians tell us that the sarissa could smash trough shields and armor. In fact a charging phalanks is almost impossible to stop, at first. For instance, take the poybius legions to each legionaire there´re 10 sarissa pointed towards him. Therefore, i think it´s a good and realistic solution the one that EB II will use. Make the phalanks switch to sword and try to defende themselves when charged in the flank or rear.

[Phalanx300]

I agee, that would be great. As long as it stays with individual soldiers only switching to swords when outflanked that is, otherwise it would be even more annoying then the entire formation switching :2thumbsup:.

[Cute Wolf]

are they going to add the 2 handed swordsmen units that especially created to smash the pike formations from the front? the Casse Champions are too far from any hellenist faction...

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

are they going to add the 2 handed swordsmen units that especially created to smash the pike formations from the front? the Casse Champions are too far from any hellenist faction...

How do they (2 handed swordsmen ) work? Little armor, mobility to avoid the pikes?
THx

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I still think that the phalanx is too strong in EB.

Also maintain a phalanx formation is extremely difficult for the soldiers.
Fatigue forces opliti to fall apart the ranks making the phalanx rather exposed to the attacks of heavy infantry.

An example is the battle of Pidna (Macedonians vs Romans), in which the Romans lost only 1,000 men against the 20,000 Macedonians losses.

The phalanx is hard to hold, much of the testudo. All the great generals of history have understood the importance of taking second or third line fresh, from Hannibal to Ezio ... :idea2:

If you want to learn the classical battle of phalanges sought "phalanx oblique":smash:

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

I still think that the phalanx is too strong in EB.

Also maintain a phalanx formation is extremely difficult for the soldiers.
Fatigue forces opliti to fall apart the ranks making the phalanx rather exposed to the attacks of heavy infantry.

An example is the battle of Pidna (Macedonians vs Romans), in which the Romans lost only 1,000 men against the 20,000 Macedonians losses.

The phalanx is hard to hold, much of the testudo. All the great generals of history have understood the importance of taking second or third line fresh, from Hannibal to Ezio ... :idea2:

If you want to learn the classical battle of phalanges sought "phalanx oblique":smash:


I read in one of the steles that some phalanx will be slightly weakened. I think it´s stele 1 or 2. Anyway i like the solution that the EB team has come up as long as we look to what phalanks300 said.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I think in EB is also a lack compared to pilum.

Points of damage pilum are too low!!!
Also it would be nice that the pilum had a secondary effect.

for example the units affected by pilum increase their fear or their fatigue.
That's because the pilum rendered unusable shields where stuck.

This side effect should, in my opinion, give qulche kind of disadvantage to the enemy in the next hand to hand.

[mikil100]

I think in EB is also a lack compared to pilum.

Points of damage pilum are too low!!!
Also it would be nice that the pilum had a secondary effect.

for example the units affected by pilum increase their fear or their fatigue.
That's because the pilum rendered unusable shields where stuck.

This side effect should, in my opinion, give qulche kind of disadvantage to the enemy in the next hand to hand.

I think Javelins as a whole in EB are quite weak, especially against armored uniform units.. but I guess thats the whole point.

[mikil100]

I wonder how much an effect the Roman artillery had in battles, I just don't see how it could make any significant damage, other than moral...

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I think that the javelin is the right strength in EB.

But it is unlikely that a Gauls javelin is more harmful than a pilum.

[Ibrahim]

I wonder how much an effect the Roman artillery had in battles, I just don't see how it could make any significant damage, other than moral...

depended on the battle really.

but IMHO, I don't think we need to use catapults of the field type in EB2: they're a hastle, they were rarely used outside of sieges, and they do too much damage for their numbers (especially the smaller ones).

just me :2cents:

[antisocialmunky]

They are a hassle but they have their uses.

[seienchin]

depended on the battle really.

but IMHO, I don't think we need to use catapults of the field type in EB2: they're a hastle, they were rarely used outside of sieges, and they do too much damage for their numbers (especially the smaller ones).

just me :2cents:
No catapults but scorpions and other torsion weapons. They found masses of bit torsion projectiles
at a battlefield in germany 200 A.D. , but we know nearly nothing about roman warfare in the EB timespan via battlefield studies.