Historic Battles for EB?

[QuintusSertorius]

I went to the trouble of checking (having never actually looked before) to see what there was, and there are precisely two in 1.0.

Has anyone put any thought into doing some more historical battles for EB? Are they a difficult thing to do? Would anyone be interested in playing them?

[keravnos]

There will be more.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Quite a few were simply not yet ready by 1.0, but in 1.1 you should have a much wider selection...

[bovi]

Are they a difficult thing to do?
Yes. Scripting the AI to not do its usual thing and botch everything up is really hard.

[Lysander13]

@bovi
BTW, thank you for the thorough explanation regarding the rebellion CTD in that other thread.

Regarding historical battles:

Perhaps this is a futile question considering the known limitations of the Battle AI but I'll ask it anyway. Why is the AI so horrible with historical battles? This is not an EB specific thing of course just a generality that applies in general IMO. One can go thru the trouble of setting up the initial deployment formation that is to be used by the combatants and come pretty close to the formations that were actually used in that particular battle based on a description let's say. Relatively speaking of course. However, once the battle actually begins it is a complete and utter mess. It makes the standard Battle AI Formations seem like Hannibal Barca by comparison. Will the battle scripts help with this? How effective is this script? How do the commands work in the script? Has anyone ever attempted to reference one of these battle scripts in descr_formations_ai.txt file in some fashion that of course would be custom written to fit the file it was being referenced by? Of course this hypothetical custom battle script would have to reside in the data folder where the ai formations file exist. Just curious if the compiler would acknowledge it there?

[QuintusSertorius]

There's another limitation of the AI related to morale and lethality; namely that some of the tactics used, like those by Hannibal at Cannae, are impossible in the RTW engine. His centre would simply have been shattered and the wings would run away before doing their work.

[Lysander13]

There's another limitation of the AI related to morale and lethality; namely that some of the tactics used, like those by Hannibal at Cannae, are impossible in the RTW engine. His centre would simply have been shattered and the wings would run away before doing their work.
Yes of course. Those kind of tactics would require a quick thinking, fast clicking human player, if at all. I was of course strictly speaking of working within the known limitations of the Battle AI as far as the end user is concerned and was curious if anyone has ever tried using a battle script to be referenced by the descr_formations_ai.txt file....in some fashion. In the same manner that descr_battle references a script in some historical battles. Perhaps to aid in flanking cavalry movements and such. More than likely not possible. Just curious if anyone has actually tried it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Scripting possibilities range from diasbling the AI & scripted control of units & unit groups (both AI & human armies') ... hey, why do you think it is used... <_< to formations, to such basic things as modifying attributes of a unit run-time (e.g.: morale can be set to routing.).

[brymht]

I'm anxious to see what historic battels come out of eb 1.1. Should be interesting to say the least.

:book:

[abou]

One of the things I've noticed with scripting the computer is that sometimes I get the feeling that the scripting commands are fighting with the AI. Something about the way the units move just doesn't seem right.

Thankfully Lysander and I are working together on new formations as I work on new battles. Unfortunately, I couldn't add a new one for 1.1, but expect a release of Raphia (finally!) as well as a few others before the final release of EB1, which might just end up being a patch.

[Eduorius]

You guys liked the battles?

[ombudsman]

You guys liked the battles?

i just tried a couple of them, carrhae, the one with the luso and the one between ceasar and pharnakes, they are great! love the info on the battles, very interesting read, and the battles themselves are great, i lost at carrhae and disgraced my poor cataphracts:shame: and very interesting to see what units you have used and how many of each, to make up a historical army, good reference for the campaign. my favorite battle was the one between ceasar and pharnakes, sorry can´t remember the name, when those chariots charged right through my galatians i got quite a scare :2thumbsup: Now i gotta go back and try the other ones, im really excited to try Telamon :beam:
thanks for taking your time to make them!

[Eduorius]

and very interesting to see what units you have used and how many of each, to make up a historical army, good reference for the campaign.

I am happy to read this. This was one of my main goals.

[keravnos]

Τhe level of Commitment Eduorius has shown is above and beyond. I want to publicly commend him for it!

Thank you Ed, and may you do a lot more of those battles, I know how time consuming they are!

[Eduorius]

Τhe level of Commitment Eduorius has shown is above and beyond. I want to publicly commend him for it!

Thank you Ed, and may you do a lot more of those battles, I know how time consuming they are!

Well you and the other historians helped a LOT too. Pyrrhus has the most accurate army for Ausculum thanks to your research and thanks to that battle we added like 4 more units missing in EB and the Epirus roster :2thumbsup:

[Sir Edward]

Played ausculum with both sides, I won both time but playing with rome at a pretty steep pyrrhic victory. Is there something up with the historical battle scripting because in a couple of cases I attacked AI cavalry without them turning around and fighting just slowly mowed them down from behind and they didn't even swing a sword.

[bovi]

Scripting the AI to not do its usual thing and botch everything up is really hard.
So yeah, the script says that the cavalry is supposed to go that way instead of charging into the first spearmen to come its way. Then it's a problem to take into account all the stuff that can happen to it underway, such as being slowly cut to pieces from behind.

[Matinius Brutus]

I tried Zela last night. Awsome!!!!Kudos to Eduorius!!! Thank you man!
I took a look at Carrhae(sp?) and got scared to try it out. Seemed Impossible. But than again, Imbossible is nothing!

[QuintusSertorius]

I've got a minor criticism on the historical battles: namely the composition of the Roman forces for Telamon, Metaurus, Cynocephalae and others. They're all-Roman, or only featuring a token allied component. Historically (and presumably at the battle in question, too) half of a Roman army was composed of allies, and not just cavalry and skirmishers.

Especially given the rich variety of allied troops available in the Romani campaign, I would have expected to see them represented amongst those armies.

[abou]

By this point in time the Italian allies would be equipped just as the Romans would have except for the Extraordinarii.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As well as the fact there's only so much you can do with 20 unit slots -> i.e. units which are too small to pass the 'rounding error' will hardly make it in (unless they were a key feature in the battle of course, such as the Elephants or Chariots...)

[Tellos Athenaios]

Played ausculum with both sides, I won both time but playing with rome at a pretty steep pyrrhic victory. Is there something up with the historical battle scripting because in a couple of cases I attacked AI cavalry without them turning around and fighting just slowly mowed them down from behind and they didn't even swing a sword.

Yeah I see your point. When we turn off the AI (which we do in order to get unit x moving towards a sensible location instead of certain death straight away) the problem that arises is that, basically, we just shut down all forms of response from the PC to your movements. I don't see how we can fix that, without re-enabling the AI, though. :juggle:

[QuintusSertorius]

By this point in time the Italian allies would be equipped just as the Romans would have except for the Extraordinarii.

There are several problems with that approach.

First and foremost, the sources aren't brilliantly clear on how (or if) the Italian allies were identically equipped, or to what level of homogeneity there was in arms and armour. If that were the case, it begs the question why there are Italian troops differing from Roman ones in the game at all, or at least why they don't all vanish with the Polybian "reform". I believe the EB team has done it's homework in that regard, thus you don't simply have Roman troops throughout Italy.

Secondly, there was never anything like the picture-perfect matching gear we see in the RTW engine, not with most panoplies being heirlooms passed down through the generations and repaired, cannibalised and customised by each wearer. While there isn't a lot that can be done about that within the confines of the engine itself, the variation within units nominally recruited in the same place can only highlight the likelihood of variety between units from different places.

Thirdly, have you looked at the Italian troop roster? It's not exactly wildly different to the Romans at all. Samnite Allied Medium Spearmen are very similar to Camillian Principes, and differ only in their main weapon to Polybian Hastati. Bruttian Infantry are pretty similar to Polybian Hastati and vary only in their main weapon to Camillian Principes. Samnite Heavy Infantry are a poor man's pedites extraordinarii. Campanian Cavalry were used extensively by Roman armies.

Lastly on the "numbers" issue, it really wouldn't be hard to reduce the number of hastati, principes and triarii and replace them with Italians. One battle had four each of the two former - easy switch right there.

[keravnos]

By this point in time the Italian allies would be equipped just as the Romans would have except for the Extraordinarii.

And this here fellow is equally responsible for the splendor of what you see in Historical battles. EUGE Abou! :yes:

[Sarkiss]

awesome battles! and very informative descriptions.
just read (and played) about battle of Carrhae and learned a few things. very good account of events surrounding battle.:thumbsup:
thanks a lot!

[Eduorius]

Thirdly, have you looked at the Italian troop roster? It's not exactly wildly different to the Romans at all. Samnite Allied Medium Spearmen are very similar to Camillian Principes, and differ only in their main weapon to Polybian Hastati. Bruttian Infantry are pretty similar to Polybian Hastati and vary only in their main weapon to Camillian Principes. Samnite Heavy Infantry are a poor man's pedites extraordinarii. Campanian Cavalry were used extensively by Roman armies.

Lastly on the "numbers" issue, it really wouldn't be hard to reduce the number of hastati, principes and triarii and replace them with Italians. One battle had four each of the two former - easy switch right there.

In Ausculum, many of the Italics were allied to Epirus so NO. I am not going to have armies that have Samnites with the Romans, if the Samnites, Bruttians, Lucanians, Tarentines, etc were allied to other guy. I apply the same rule to Metaurus.

I dont like to use armies that use hoplite shields for the allies. The Bruttians was one of our last units so they were not there when I made the battles, beside they were not used after the Second Punic War in Roman armies because they sided with Hannibal and even left Italy to fight in Zama.

I use plenty of Italic cavalry.

[QuintusSertorius]

So we get homogenous, Roman-only armies? Aren't there any other non-Roman units that could have been mixed in to vary it? Or done some battles with more variety, like Scipio's in Spain?

And what about Telamon? Or Cynocephalae (assuming it's the Roman battle, not the other one)?

[Eduorius]

So we get homogenous, Roman-only armies? Aren't there any other non-Roman units that could have been mixed in to vary it? Or done some battles with more variety, like Scipio's in Spain?

And what about Telamon? Or Cynocephalae (assuming it's the Roman battle, not the other one)?

After the Second Punic War, the allies looked more like the Romans. I really think that the allies you want are better for the Camillan period. Maybe for something of the First Punic War.

Celtiberians were also one of the last units to arrive to the game. Me and tk wanted to do Ilipa, but decided it was better to wait for that unit. Right now, I cant promise nothing because I am busy.

By the way. I think I have great variety with the battles. Almost one for every faction in EB.

[QuintusSertorius]

I don't mean to come across all negative, I was just disappointed seeing the battles featuring the Romans, and they were all pretty uniformly mostly-Roman (since we don't have any differentiated "Italian" hastati/principes/triarii, and no space in the unit roster either). I'm not disputing that there's a variety of battles, or that there's even treatment of all factions, just wasn't impressed with the Roman rosters. Which admittedly is a result of the choice of battles.

Some battles from the First Punic War - like those in Africa, for example (even if Regulus was defeated), or some later like Magnesia (which surely would have had some Greek troops alongside Roman) might have given that. Or indeed the earlier battles like Trebia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae (although I recognise the latter is hard to do with the RTW engine), before the defection of the socii.

Shouldn't Telamon (immediately before the Second Punic War) have some Italics at least?

Ilipa would have been nice, but if the units aren't ready, then I guess it would have been missing out on something. Tis a shame.

[Eduorius]

The Historical Battles Team is going to give you a nice surprise sooner or later :yes:

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Just keep at it Ed and don't worry about things like this. Actually creating them is where the tite spot is and you've done a great job at it.

[Ibrahim]

i just tried a couple of them, carrhae, the one with the luso and the one between ceasar and pharnakes, they are great! love the info on the battles, very interesting read, and the battles themselves are great, i lost at carrhae and disgraced my poor cataphracts:shame: and very interesting to see what units you have used and how many of each, to make up a historical army, good reference for the campaign. my favorite battle was the one between ceasar and pharnakes, sorry can´t remember the name, when those chariots charged right through my galatians i got quite a scare :2thumbsup: Now i gotta go back and try the other ones, im really excited to try Telamon :beam:
thanks for taking your time to make them!

YOU LOST AT CARRHAE? you los at at carrhae? all you need to do is kill Crassus' son-don't tell me you tried breaking through the square? (I won when I killed the son-then killed the father as a bonus-though you don't want to know how...

well good luck at Telamon!!

and them chariots were scary indeed-and the enemy attack was just this big human wave coming-took 20 minutes hard fighting to break them took 26% casualties (miraculously only 1 unit cracked-equites Gallorum-caught too early by asiatikoi hippeis. the other routed the other asiatikoi and hit the enemy in the back at the entrenchments-ending the fight there)
play Kynoskephalai as a roman for real challenge-that was friggin scary, almost lost the battle at one point (thank god for the Elephantes)
Areios is still fun as ever, have replayed Ebhernis (yet to win it anyhow)

[ombudsman]

YOU LOST AT CARRHAE? you los at at carrhae? all you need to do is kill Crassus' son-don't tell me you tried breaking through the square? (I won when I killed the son-then killed the father as a bonus-though you don't want to know how...

well good luck at Telamon!!


yes, ´tis true, i lost at carrhae:shame: the bugger ran away and hid in the square. and then i was kind of doing this = :wall: my cats being the head and the wall being the romans, until i lost. but i guess ill have to try again. i am itching to try telamon though, just to prove that i can make it:beam:

[Strategos Alexandros]

Having only tried 2 battles (the Luso one and Ausculum) I have to say that so far they are great, especially the descriptions and the placing of the troops to start with. Are you still planning to make the series of battles based on the campaigns of Antiochus the great that were previewed? Although the 1.1 ones are more than enough to be going on with!

[Eduorius]

Carrhae is more challenging when using Publius, since it ends if he gets killed.

I am glad people liked Zela, even tough I didnt spend that much time doing the battle.

[abou]

There are several problems with that approach.

First and foremost, the sources aren't brilliantly clear on how (or if) the Italian allies were identically equipped, or to what level of homogeneity there was in arms and armour. If that were the case, it begs the question why there are Italian troops differing from Roman ones in the game at all, or at least why they don't all vanish with the Polybian "reform". I believe the EB team has done it's homework in that regard, thus you don't simply have Roman troops throughout Italy.You're right with your first comment, but I'm not entirely sure how you're trying to close your argument. Although, considering that they would be organized in the same manner as Roman troops it gives on the impression that they would be equipped similarly. Also, Rome's dominance over the peninsula by the Polybian period probably has a little to do with it too. Hence the reductionism you see.


Secondly, there was never anything like the picture-perfect matching gear we see in the RTW engine, not with most panoplies being heirlooms passed down through the generations and repaired, cannibalised and customised by each wearer. While there isn't a lot that can be done about that within the confines of the engine itself, the variation within units nominally recruited in the same place can only highlight the likelihood of variety between units from different places.Okay, but again I don't see how this actually furthers what you're trying to get across. It's a limitation we need to deal with and so we compromise by using what would be the most probable equipment.


Thirdly, have you looked at the Italian troop roster? It's not exactly wildly different to the Romans at all. Samnite Allied Medium Spearmen are very similar to Camillian Principes, and differ only in their main weapon to Polybian Hastati. Bruttian Infantry are pretty similar to Polybian Hastati and vary only in their main weapon to Camillian Principes. Samnite Heavy Infantry are a poor man's pedites extraordinarii. Campanian Cavalry were used extensively by Roman armies.Okay, but not every allied troop would be drawn from just the Samnites or just the Bruttians. There would be allies from the north and the south. Again, limitations and we simply cannot justify giving another unit slot for allied hastati, principes, or triarii.


Lastly on the "numbers" issue, it really wouldn't be hard to reduce the number of hastati, principes and triarii and replace them with Italians. One battle had four each of the two former - easy switch right there.How we do numbers in battles depends on the battle itself, but if our impression is that the Italians would have fought as Roman units and that they would be drawn from all over Italy, what would be the point of including those very specific Italian tribe units?

[QuintusSertorius]

The point? The beauty of variety and being able to make distinct the legion from the ala. The Italian peoples themselves certainly thought their heritage worthy of note, even when they were recruited, equipped and trained in the Roman manner. Such as Samnite legionaries painting their icons on their shields.

Furthermore, where are the pedites extraordinarii in any of those battle rosters?

[abou]

The point? The beauty of variety and being able to make distinct the legion from the ala. The Italian peoples themselves certainly thought their heritage worthy of note, even when they were recruited, equipped and trained in the Roman manner. Such as Samnite legionaries painting their icons on their shields. I agree in principle, but that isn't enough justification to include three extra units that are redundant.


Furthermore, where are the pedites extraordinarii in any of those battle rosters?I haven't looked at the new battles closely. You would have to ask the guys who did the research.

The extraordinarii will be in the version of Magnesia I am working on. We don't know much about how they were deployed in the battle, but considering their march order I'm assuming they would be place at the far ends of the infantry in the first row between the hastati and equites.

[QuintusSertorius]

I agree in principle, but that isn't enough justification to include three extra units that are redundant.

I'll admit you've got me there. While it would be nice in a way to get "Italic hastati" et al, it is pretty redundant to have three extra units in the roster who differ only in having slightly different skins, since there's no evidence they were any better or worse than Romans were.

My own inelegant solution is to continue using the Bruttians as "Italic hastati" (even if the real Bruttians were no longer recruited as such, there's little to separate them from Polybian hastati), then use pedites extraordinarii in place of "Italic principes", and forget about the "Italici triarii" because I never double them up with allied spearmen anyway. Stack is already too big without adding still more units to it.


I haven't looked at the new battles closely. You would have to ask the guys who did the research.

The extraordinarii will be in the version of Magnesia I am working on. We don't know much about how they were deployed in the battle, but considering their march order I'm assuming they would be place at the far ends of the infantry in the first row between the hastati and equites.

Cool, look forward to seeing it.