EB2 Comabat balance

[Cullhwch]

But wasn't that the issue? Celtic longswords weren't as efficient or deadly as the gladius for exactly the reason you mention. Using a gladius-type animation for a longswordsman is missing the point. Now if we're talking about changing the stats so that when they DO connect, the result is nastier, well, that makes sense.

They could also chop down a spear in real life. But that's not possible in the M2TW engine, and with the current animations, a longsword unit can start his attack animation first and fail to connect because a quick spear thrust interrupts him.

It's one of the reasons that siege battles take forever, even with elite units against levies. The levies won't ever land a killing blow, but their own attacks keep them alive for an absurdly long period of time.

[Cullhwch]

I am actually looking into it now. I agree they could use a little extra speed.

Great! It may be as simple as reducing the frames needed for a full swing.

[Nightshift]

were there any enemy units near yours who were cavalry or elites? need not be fighting your men, just nearby. If a large line of units comes charging at your men and they have a smaller line and weaker morale and worse equipment, they may end up running away, regardless of whether the enemy unit can frighten foot or horse in the EDU or not. your soldiers' morale was designed so that panic can happen at any moment, for any number of reasons (superior enemy equipment, flanking, envelopement, heavy losses (~50% is more than enough), successful ambushes, etc. It is your job to make sure that happens to your enemy before it happens to you. your general is key here: make sure his presence is felt throughout the battle, and that they are always receiving good news.

Has been a while ago but if I remember correctly I have been pretty sloppy:
Main line was consisting of spear units only with better troops all concentrated on far flanks. Second thing is they were still moving instead of standing and thus beeing able to "embrace" any charge. And yes the enemy had very good cavalry moving around.
As for my general, I wanted to take him as a flanking unit for one side as I only had one light cavalry unit.

All of this should probably explain the outcome plus I think that enemy general had a pretty high ranking.

But again I liked the fact that my overconfidence and lazy planning+preperations gave me that surprise.
I like to play with medium difficulty (hard in campaign) as it usually leads to nice battle where you could still beat a much bigger force.

I'm glad I have to rethink and be more carefull now. Keep up the good work!

Had to reinstall the whole thing now since I experienced unbearable CTDs. Hope it works now and I can enjoy the new patch and quickfix for traits. Thanks for that too.

[Kull]

They could also chop down a spear in real life. But that's not possible in the M2TW engine, and with the current animations, a longsword unit can start his attack animation first and fail to connect because a quick spear thrust interrupts him.

It's one of the reasons that siege battles take forever, even with elite units against levies. The levies won't ever land a killing blow, but their own attacks keep them alive for an absurdly long period of time.

Nice diversion. But as to your original suggestion.....the day we take the longsword animation and replace it with a short, jabby gladius animation? That day is "never".

[Cullhwch]

Nice diversion. But as to your original suggestion.....the day we take the longsword animation and replace it with a short, jabby gladius animation? That day is "never".

Wasn't my intention at all. I just wanted either a bit of a reduction on the windup or a rebalancing on unit stats for autoresolve purposes. It's beyond annoying and immersion-killing to see a levy unit kept alive by short pokes that never ever manage to kill an elite unit. Why prolong the suffering for a foregone conclusion?

[Ibrahim]

Nice diversion. But as to your original suggestion.....the day we take the longsword animation and replace it with a short, jabby gladius animation? That day is "never".

that is not necessary; only something slightly faster.

Why prolong the suffering for a foregone conclusion?

well, when the new EDU is up for public consumption, it'll hopefully be a step forward here. animations themselves will take longer to deal with, and whether it will be available in the future is another matter. I'm an animator myself (need to be for my own mod), but have had no luck applying what I know to M2TW animations from RTW: can never get the script to work. Either way, the point is that it is very time consuming, and difficult to get right, and naturally, there are too few animators out there. If there are people who can work on it, I would be very happy. if I can get it to work, I'll do it myself.

either way, I still intend to keep battle speeds slow and relatively historical. we'll see what happens.

@Nightshift: yeah, it was as suspected. but glad you enjoy the fighting!

[kdrakak]

As per a previous post, I played a brief KH campaign. I made peace with Epeiros and wiped out Makedonia. I also took Krete before turning to the mainland. Took Knossos, Korinthos, Demetrias and Pella with hardly any open field battles. Since sieges are not that good a testing ground with the low lethality and all the narrow corridors, I decided to try a few custom battles to see how the hoplites fare against different opponents. I used a mix of 6 Haploi, 4 regular, 2 epilektoi and a bodyguard unit, complemented by 2 Xystoforoi

First up were the Aedui:

This reminded me of the Norman charge at Hastings
The Gauls are no match for a hoplite line head-on. I didn't charge much in this battle; I didn't have to. Plus with a Brihentin and a Donno Eponodoi unit roaming unengaged in the battlefield, a hoplite unit does not want to find itself off formation. Generally the heavier line held better and longer. The hoplite charge results in a few casualties upon contact, something like 10 kills against 160 men unit. Depending on the enemy unit's composition (and disposition) there can be some effect on the formation consistency. This and further casualties are more a result of attrition though.

Then the Camillan Romans
I called this the Sabeli sandwitch. A sabellian spearmen unit is caught between a Haploi and an Epilektoi unit.
I noticed that even haploi delivered a similar effect when charging, which can be explained with the +28 charge bonus shared with other hoplite units. Still I am not sure that makes sense. Same for a comparison between epilektoi and regulars.

Then the Polybian Romans.
This epilektoi charge had an almost negligible effect on the Hastati and Principe units mixed in that part of the map. It managed to hold them in place though and keep them both engaged until another unit could deliver the kill. The epilektoi were even causing more casualties than the were receiving, following the charge, despite the heavier armour of their opponents (perhaps there was a fatigue factor involved?).

All in all, I think they deliver what you guys were going for. They hold the line, they charge effectively, but not devastatingly, and they behave very convincingly once engaged, either slightly enveloping their opposing unit if it presents a narrower front, while they pack tighter together when being hard pressed themselves. Still this 10/160 kill thing is what you often get from some descent medium cavalry units in the game such as the Greek regular Hippeis. I am not sure this is balanced. Still it's the cavalry that could use the change in this case.



But don't they look awesome?

[Ibrahim]

All in all, I think they deliver what you guys were going for. They hold the line, they charge effectively, but not devastatingly, and they behave very convincingly once engaged, either slightly enveloping their opposing unit if it presents a narrower front, while they pack tighter together when being hard pressed themselves. Still this 10/160 kill thing is what you often get from some descent medium cavalry units in the game such as the Greek regular Hippeis. I am not sure this is balanced. Still it's the cavalry that could use the change in this case.

That's exactly what I was looking for: the whole idea is to recreate the shock and horror of a hoplite assault on an enemy--not unlike what was described by Xenophon (where even a mock charge was enough to frighten the viewers). In addition, this test gives me an idea of how to implement infantry shock in general--something some celtic units will need as well.

As to the haploi having a similar charge: that is deliberate. It is intended that hoplites of all classes be relatively powerful, differing only in staying power (the heavier being the better), as measured in armor, unit defense, unit mass, and perhaps unit radius (better/worse cohesion). Hoplite warfare after-all evolved for use by amateurs (i.e. militia). Attack itself will be left to the usual divide between elite and non-elite.

[QuintusSertorius]

Still this 10/160 kill thing is what you often get from some descent medium cavalry units in the game such as the Greek regular Hippeis. I am not sure this is balanced. Still it's the cavalry that could use the change in this case.

Uh, Hippeis aren't "decent medium cavalry", they're pretty poor medium cavalry. Greek native cavalry is amongst some of the worst in the game - by design.

[Ibrahim]

Uh, Hippeis aren't "decent medium cavalry", they're pretty poor medium cavalry. Greek native cavalry is amongst some of the worst in the game - by design. not really...

I didn't design the unit's stats that way specifically. just the way the stats fell together at the time. they lack a shield, which with their spears puts them at a distinct disadvantage against the Xystophoroi and Hetairoi (who have armor, but still no shield). The Roman cavalry units are similar, but have a shield: this makes all the difference in the world. (btw: the hippeis are getting an armor upgrade: with new information about the cuirass, it is necessary).

frankly I'm puzzled by the lack of shields on the unit (EDIT: or while we're at it, a secondary kopis), but I didn't design the unit's appearance or equipment, so it's not my problem. I go by what is available, as best as I can. bear in mind that till recently, I had no automated means of entering stats in--hence any inconsistencies.

[QuintusSertorius]

I didn't design the unit's stats that way specifically. just the way the stats fell together at the time. they lack a shield, which with their spears puts them at a distinct disadvantage against the Xystophoroi and Hetairoi (who have armor, but still no shield). The Roman cavalry units are similar, but have a shield: this makes all the difference in the world. (btw: the hippeis are getting an armor upgrade: with new information about the cuirass, it is necessary).

frankly I'm puzzled by the lack of shields on the unit (EDIT: or while we're at it, a secondary kopis), but I didn't design the unit's appearance or equipment, so it's not my problem. I go by what is available, as best as I can. bear in mind that till recently, I had no automated means of entering stats in--hence any inconsistencies.

That's how they were in EB1 and I assumed they were simply translated across much as is (which is why I said by design - they're not supposed to be good). The main thing is that lacking either a lance or kopis/axe means they don't have the same impact on charging and fare poorly in melee against others who have AP secondary weapons. Basic Greek cavalry was never very good, which is why anyone with a choice used anything else available to them (Thessalians, Illyrians, Scythians, Thraikians, Numidians, Persians, Keltoi, etc). The Greeks (and Romans) were amongst some of the worst horsemen in antiquity.

As to the lack of shields, it's my understanding that before contact with the Keltoi, most Greek cavalry didn't use shields, preferring to have two hands on a lance and trusting to their cuirass to protect them against missiles. Using a shield on horseback requires quite a bit of skill, too.

Do you have an automated means of entering stats, now?

Two questions while you're on. Firstly, what's the underlying philosophy behind unit costs? Is it an assessment of quality? Availability/frequency? Something else?

Secondly, what's the effect of the move_speed_mod attribute? I ask because either cavalry are too slow, or infantry too fast, and there isn't enough distinction between light and heavy cavalry, speed-wise. Heavy cavalry struggle to catch fleeing infantry - even heavy infantry who shouldn't be very fleet of foot at all. Light cavalry can't catch fleeing heavy cavalry, or indeed anyone else much of the time. So that's an area that feels off, balance-wise.

[Ibrahim]

That's how they were in EB1 and I assumed they were simply translated across much as is (which is why I said by design - they're not supposed to be good). The main thing is that lacking either a lance or kopis/axe means they don't have the same impact on charging and fare poorly in melee against others who have AP secondary weapons. Basic Greek cavalry was never very good, which is why anyone with a choice used anything else available to them (Thessalians, Illyrians, Scythians, Thraikians, Numidians, Persians, Keltoi, etc). The Greeks (and Romans) were amongst some of the worst horsemen in antiquity.

perfect then. But no, the stats were not translated.

As to the lack of shields, it's my understanding that before contact with the Keltoi, most Greek cavalry didn't use shields, preferring to have two hands on a lance and trusting to their cuirass to protect them against missiles. Using a shield on horseback requires quite a bit of skill, too.

they had shields in EB I, which was what puzzled me. I suppose new research came in

Do you have an automated means of entering stats, now?

Trying to get it to work right now: it was brought to my attention from the TWCenter. We'll see what will happen.

Two questions while you're on. Firstly, what's the underlying philosophy behind unit costs? Is it an assessment of quality? Availability/frequency? Something else?

I did not design that aspect of unit design: my work is entirely to do with the battlefield. I know there's talk inside our work forum about dealing with this, but what will come of it, I know not.

Secondly, what's the effect of the move_speed_mod attribute? I ask because either cavalry are too slow, or infantry too fast, and there isn't enough distinction between light and heavy cavalry, speed-wise. Heavy cavalry struggle to catch fleeing infantry - even heavy infantry who shouldn't be very fleet of foot at all. Light cavalry can't catch fleeing heavy cavalry, or indeed anyone else much of the time. So that's an area that feels off, balance-wise.

I agree with you there: this is one area I only recently started to look into. The values as they are were from before I started.

and yes, move_speed_mod does affect the speed of unit movement. the default speed should be about 120 steps a minute for infantry, so the number shown will affect the above. I'll be giving the Roman infantry the equivalent of 100 steps a minute. other armies will depend on what I find.

[QuintusSertorius]

I agree with you there: this is one area I only recently started to look into. The values as they are were from before I started.

and yes, move_speed_mod does affect the speed of unit movement. the default speed should be about 120 steps a minute for infantry, so the number shown will affect the above. I'll be giving the Roman infantry the equivalent of 100 steps a minute. other armies will depend on what I find.

I might have a go at altering cavalry speed in the meantime. What do you think are sensible, rough gauges for light, medium and heavy cavalry? Currently they range from 0.74 to 1.13, from Parthian Cataphract to Numidian Skirmisher Cavalry. Something like 1.8, 1.5 and 1.2? Higher?

I'm also wondering about either making light infantry a little faster, or heavy infantry a little slower. Any thoughts?

[QuintusSertorius]

I've had a go at cavalry speeds in my latest edit, heavy cavalry are 30% faster, light/missile/skirmish are 60% faster.

[antisocialmunky]

How do other mods deal with animation speed issues? I thought they just made it so animations were all roughly the same speed to make balancing easier.

PS: Remember when MIITW first released and peasants were the best units because they attacked so fast and stun locked everything they touched?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ZeD40Rg8A

[QuintusSertorius]

@Ibrahim - if my testing is any good to you, I think heavy cavalry need to be 25% faster and light cavalry (basically everyone else) need to be 35% faster.

[Ibrahim]

@Ibrahim - if my testing is any good to you, I think heavy cavalry need to be 25% faster and light cavalry (basically everyone else) need to be 35% faster.

seems reasonable. I'm also looking at RC's philosophy of this, and hope to see if this can be improved on. if not, I'll just integrate your cavalry speeds into the trunk.

[abou]

As to the question on unit costs, that is my area. The equation I have devised is not perfect and there will be room for tweaking after all the numbers have been crunched (eg. multipliers for upkeep for regionals). Essentially the goal is to find the average cost per man on a very rudimentary level dependent on the following:

A = social level
B = amount of armor
C = type of weaponry
H = horse type plus level of barding
D = training

That final value is then multiplied by the number of men in the unit. I'm leaning on EB1 numbers and so expect some changes. For example, Epilektoi Hoplitai will have the same number of men as Hypaspistai.

Since we can control the recruitment pool, cheap units cannot be spammed - nor are they very good at holding a line anyway. That being said, once you start including armor, the cost begins going up dramatically. This will provide a standard framework across factions and provide some sense and logic to cost -- even if it isn't perfect historically.

[QuintusSertorius]

seems reasonable. I'm also looking at RC's philosophy of this, and hope to see if this can be improved on. if not, I'll just integrate your cavalry speeds into the trunk.

I'm still testing those numbers, some heavy cavalry seem a little twitchy looking; so perhaps 20%/30% might be a safer amount to increase if we want to keep a simple rule of thumb. Otherwise if you want something more in depth and unit-dependent, anywhere between 20-35% could be viable.

I'm also looking into a suggested change of formation for the underarm lancers, and possibly shortening charging distances, though I don't know if the latter will shift the balance too far in favour of cavalry.

As to the question on unit costs, that is my area. The equation I have devised is not perfect and there will be room for tweaking after all the numbers have been crunched (eg. multipliers for upkeep for regionals). Essentially the goal is to find the average cost per man on a very rudimentary level dependent on the following:

A = social level
B = amount of armor
C = type of weaponry
H = horse type plus level of barding
D = training

That final value is then multiplied by the number of men in the unit. I'm leaning on EB1 numbers and so expect some changes. For example, Epilektoi Hoplitai will have the same number of men as Hypaspistai.

Since we can control the recruitment pool, cheap units cannot be spammed - nor are they very good at holding a line anyway. That being said, once you start including armor, the cost begins going up dramatically. This will provide a standard framework across factions and provide some sense and logic to cost -- even if it isn't perfect historically.

It probably won't surprise you when I say things felt about right in EB1, so to hear you're using it to help inform costing is reassuring to me. As you say, there's already a separate mechanic to control spamming of cheap units, so I think gameplay is probably the bigger consideration than historicity.

Any thoughts on the suggestion of high recruitment/low upkeep from this post?

[Ibrahim]

I'm still testing those numbers, some heavy cavalry seem a little twitchy looking; so perhaps 20%/30% might be a safer amount to increase if we want to keep a simple rule of thumb. Otherwise if you want something more in depth and unit-dependent, anywhere between 20-35% could be viable.

I'm also looking into a suggested change of formation for the underarm lancers, and possibly shortening charging distances, though I don't know if the latter will shift the balance too far in favour of cavalry.

have already implemented a tighter formation in the trunk build for Hellenistic and Roman cavalry: been reading that Peter Connolly work of his, and it mentions the spacing: according to what was said, the spacing in the current release is likely too wide. yes, it does make the charge stronger...perhaps a bit too strong with some units. might increase mount radius in descr_mount...

some units will get a shorter charge distance, but I need some data on what the charge distance actually was: I would use data from the 18th century (charge distances depended on the army's tactical doctrines), but obviously there are issues with that

[QuintusSertorius]

have already implemented a tighter formation in the trunk build for Hellenistic and Roman cavalry: been reading that Peter Connolly work of his, and it mentions the spacing: according to what was said, the spacing in the current release is likely too wide. yes, it does make the charge stronger...perhaps a bit too strong with some units. might increase mount radius in descr_mount...

some units will get a shorter charge distance, but I need some data on what the charge distance actually was: I would use data from the 18th century (charge distances depended on the army's tactical doctrines), but obviously there are issues with that

I don't envy you the tricky business of trying to get the balancing right! Is there any chance you'll release your updated EDU before the next full patch, or is it too interdependent on other changes elsewhere, making it hard to integrate into 2.01?

Yeah, I suspect even moreso than with infantry tactics, the amount of hard data on cavalry tactics is pretty thin. I guess 18th century data is better than nothing, at least they were practised uses of cavalry, not just theoretical musings.

Have you made any changes to javelineers (infantry and cavalry) since 2.01? They both suffered the same problem of having a range too close to their skirmishing distance. And a projectile weapon with poor accuracy. Plus inefficient animations for the infantry.

[Ibrahim]

I don't envy you the tricky business of trying to get the balancing right! Is there any chance you'll release your updated EDU before the next full patch, or is it too interdependent on other changes elsewhere, making it hard to integrate into 2.01?

to be honest, I do not know

some changes are being made right now, which I am having trouble finishing due to RL issues.

Yeah, I suspect even moreso than with infantry tactics, the amount of hard data on cavalry tactics is pretty thin. I guess 18th century data is better than nothing, at least they were practised uses of cavalry, not just theoretical musings.

trust me, it would not be a good idea. Cavalry in that time-period had swords only, and were in way tighter formations. they also charged at much greater distances if following the prussian model.

Have you made any changes to javelineers (infantry and cavalry) since 2.01? They both suffered the same problem of having a range too close to their skirmishing distance. And a projectile weapon with poor accuracy. Plus inefficient animations for the infantry.

yep--many changes, and a new set of animations. Javelins have greater distances of course. also, the battle_config was changed. the accuracy should be about 0.1 or so (and may be lowered more): more inaccurate than arrows and slingshot, but better than the 0.2 originally there.

[Sarkiss]

Ibrahim, regards sources on cavalry, here is some that might be of use, if you didnt consult them already:
Medieval Cavalry Tactics. Europe AD 450-1250, Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare, and Xenophon's On Horsemanship.

[QuintusSertorius]

to be honest, I do not know

some changes are being made right now, which I am having trouble finishing due to RL issues.

I've suggested in the recruitment thread that you enlist the aid of torongill. I was going to offer to help, since I have time and attention to detail, but his understanding of the EDU dwarfs mine.

trust me, it would not be a good idea. Cavalry in that time-period had swords only, and were in way tighter formations. they also charged at much greater distances if following the prussian model.

They had carbines and lances as well as swords in the 18th century. Did lancer tactics not make it into the period manuals?

yep--many changes, and a new set of animations. Javelins have greater distances of course. also, the battle_config was changed. the accuracy should be about 0.1 or so (and may be lowered more): more inaccurate than arrows and slingshot, but better than the 0.2 originally there.

In the kludge I've put out as unofficial hotfix, I switched the weapon to the more damaging ones in the descr_projectile.txt. Infantry javelineers were using the prec_javelin80, which had an accuracy of 0.08 so only slightly better than 0.1. I'm not sure I'd go lower than that, unless they've been made a lot more lethal in the battle_config.xml.

Do cavalry javelineers have the same range as infantry ones in your latest EDU?

[QuintusSertorius]

Since we've been talking about units in here too, I thought I'd query something I raised over on TWC: Hippakontistai.

For the most part I've ignored the specifics of individual units, since I've been focused on entire classes of them (javelineers, secondary spear users, cavalry, etc), but this is one that's jumped out at me. I have a sneaking suspicion that as an expediency the Akontistai model has been re-used to do the Hippakontistai. A knife as a backup weapon is fine for psiloi, especially since they represent the poorer members of a poleis, thus that's all they'd likely have.

However, it doesn't fit for Hippakontistai for two reasons. The main one is that any man who owns a horse (and by implication remounts, since a man isn't a cavalryman unless he has at least two, or better yet four horses) is not poor. Hippakontistai are a call-back to the older form of Greek cavalry before Philip of Macedon, where the aim was to be mobile, harry routers and be able to flee if things went badly for the poor buggers in the phalanx. A man who can afford a horse can afford a sword or spear as backup.

Secondly, a knife is useless on horseback, it's too short to reach anything. Holding back a heavier javelin for melee would make more sense than something not much longer than your hand. The kopis was a popular weapon for this sort of cavalry (mentioned in Xenophon and indeed was the model in EB1), and would have been well within the budget of a man who can afford horses. Doesn't even have to be a kopis like they had in EB1, arguably it's the Hippeis who should have one since they're supposed to reflect an adaptation to Macedonian warfare, any sword will do.

Here's the relevant bit off the EB1 website:

Hippos Akontistes (literally "javelin horsemen") are the standard among Hellene light cavalry. They are lightly armored, often wearing nothing but padded cloth for protection. The key to their method of warfare is speed, and they are armed accordingly. They ride small, but swift horses and harass enemy infantry and heavy cavalry with javelins. This is their primary use, because their light armor is really a detriment when they are engaged in any kind of melee combat. Their swords and shields are simply no counter to lances or heavier cavalry swords.

Historically, Hellas did not have a great tradition of light cavalry warfare, or indeed of any cavalry warfare. Hippakontistai were much like the Equites of Rome, the spoiled children of the richest families that could afford horses. They were usually not used in any front line capacity other than skirmishing and pursuit, and their equipment reflects this. Makedonian cavalry of the same type operates in a similar fashion, but generally comes from the poorest noble families, those who can afford horses but not the heavy armor required for the heavy cavalry

[Ibrahim]

I've suggested in the recruitment thread that you enlist the aid of torongill. I was going to offer to help, since I have time and attention to detail, but his understanding of the EDU dwarfs mine.

while I do not doubt he may have the know-how, I have to assured he'll actually continuously contribute for me to begin to think of it. I had an assistant before, but he disappeared off the radar and has not been heard from since, which leaves me wary of new offers of that nature. If he's accepted into the team though and is constant, perhaps.

They had carbines and lances as well as swords in the 18th century. Did lancer tactics not make it into the period manuals?

no, they didn't, because there weren't any (not in the ones I study: I am a member at www.kronoskaf.com). Lancers in the Napoleonic wars were a reintroduction inspired by Polish cavalry (which itself was a bit of a throwback, and rarely took the field during this time--the 18th century, not the Napoleonic wars, calm down ). Certain units were equipped with lances prior to that, but they were few, largely irregulars, and in small numbers (and as mentioned, no known manuals). As to carbines: these were not used in a standard charge, but often on patrol or dismounted. in fact by 1750, hardly anyone used pistols on the charge, instead preferring to directly have at it with the sword (which was held forward in order to act as a super-short lance). the only exception I know of after 1750 was in the Austrian army, where horsemen formed super tight ranks and fired their pistols at the trot (if even moving), but that was a measure against Ottoman cavalry, not regular European varieties (the same enemy also meant that Austrian cuirassiers only wore the full cuirass and a lobster-tail helmet against the Ottomans--as late as 1789 in fact: against other Europeans they wore only the breastplate and a secret, which was a latticework of iron fitted into the tricorne to provide protection from downwards cuts by the pallasch or sabres of European cavalry..

and again, even ignoring all the other stuff: the formations really are much tighter than what I have gathered on ancient cavalry formations thus far: the men are riding knee to knee in most armies. this would make cavalry using lances of the Hellenistic period way overpowered.

In the kludge I've put out as unofficial hotfix, I switched the weapon to the more damaging ones in the descr_projectile.txt. Infantry javelineers were using the prec_javelin80, which had an accuracy of 0.08 so only slightly better than 0.1. I'm not sure I'd go lower than that, unless they've been made a lot more lethal in the battle_config.xml.

pretty much what I have in mind as the most accurate possibility. for now I'll keep it at 0.1 and see how that works.

Do cavalry javelineers have the same range as infantry ones in your latest EDU?

roughly the same, yes.

Since we've been talking about units in here too, I thought I'd query something I raised over on TWC: Hippakontistai.

I refrain from quoting the whole passage only to save space and avoid spoilers, but I was not the one who decided to design them with knives: they were in the game in this state when I started. Will bring it up with @paullus, who might know the basis for this choice. until I have a sword in their hands, I had to go with their concept--hence the small (pathetically so) attack they have.

@Sarkiss: already have Xenophon. will see about the others. thanks!

[paullus]

Yeah, it was an expediency thing a while back, and was always intended to be addressed. I'll talk to someone about making that change. Hopefully it would not be too complicated.

[QuintusSertorius]

while I do not doubt he may have the know-how, I have to assured he'll actually continuously contribute for me to begin to think of it. I had an assistant before, but he disappeared off the radar and has not been heard from since, which leaves me wary of new offers of that nature. If he's accepted into the team though and is constant, perhaps.

I was going to offer my own services, if you needed help with the gruntwork. My EDU knowledge is rudimentary, but I'm pretty thorough and document what I've done (see here). I'm not going anywhere, either.

no, they didn't, because there weren't any (not in the ones I study: I am a member at www.kronoskaf.com). Lancers in the Napoleonic wars were a reintroduction inspired by Polish cavalry (which itself was a bit of a throwback, and rarely took the field during this time--the 18th century, not the Napoleonic wars, calm down ). Certain units were equipped with lances prior to that, but they were few, largely irregulars, and in small numbers (and as mentioned, no known manuals). As to carbines: these were not used in a standard charge, but often on patrol or dismounted. in fact by 1750, hardly anyone used pistols on the charge, instead preferring to directly have at it with the sword (which was held forward in order to act as a super-short lance). the only exception I know of after 1750 was in the Austrian army, where horsemen formed super tight ranks and fired their pistols at the trot (if even moving), but that was a measure against Ottoman cavalry, not regular European varieties (the same enemy also meant that Austrian cuirassiers only wore the full cuirass and a lobster-tail helmet against the Ottomans--as late as 1789 in fact: against other Europeans they wore only the breastplate and a secret, which was a latticework of iron fitted into the tricorne to provide protection from downwards cuts by the pallasch or sabres of European cavalry..

and again, even ignoring all the other stuff: the formations really are much tighter than what I have gathered on ancient cavalry formations thus far: the men are riding knee to knee in most armies. this would make cavalry using lances of the Hellenistic period way overpowered.

Interesting, I'll freely admit my knowledge of 18th century warfare is pretty thin (and more focused on infantry than cavalry); what I do know more about is the later Napoleonic period, which as you highlighted is different. I didn't realise lancers were a re-introduction, don't see many of those in the development of tactics.

pretty much what I have in mind as the most accurate possibility. for now I'll keep it at 0.1 and see how that works.

Cool.

roughly the same, yes.

I guess that makes sense. You can throw with your whole body on foot, but you potentially have the horse's momentum to add to your power from horseback.

I refrain from quoting the whole passage only to save space and avoid spoilers, but I was not the one who decided to design them with knives: they were in the game in this state when I started. Will bring it up with @paullus, who might know the basis for this choice. until I have a sword in their hands, I had to go with their concept--hence the small (pathetically so) attack they have.

You were statting to concept, as above with the Hippeis, so no fault there.

Yeah, it was an expediency thing a while back, and was always intended to be addressed. I'll talk to someone about making that change. Hopefully it would not be too complicated.

I suspected as much, glad to hear it was temporary. Any thoughts on giving the Hippeis a kopis now they've (rightly) lost their shield?

[Ibrahim]

Go ahead and offer your services officially, and I'll see about you going in. I just don't want you disappearing on me though

EDIT: I'll admit, once accepted though, I'm not so sure where to begin: much needs to be done at this time, and a lot of ideas need testing.

[Sarkiss]

@Ibrahim.
there is also this book. it is Osprey and outside EB timeframe, yet probably better than nothing