Some questions about game mechanics...

[Aper]

Hi all... I have an incurable illness: modifying EB edu! :2thumbsup:
So wandering through unit stats I have encountered some things I don't understand, and want to ask about...
No criticism/bashing here, only curiosity..:embarassed:

1. Why cavalry unit size is the same for all units? I think katas are overpowered a bit IMHO, I reduced grivpanvar unit size to 10 and I still can vanquish scordiscii easily.. (custom battle test)

2. Why slashing longswords are more lethal than thrusting weapons? Shouldn'be the opposite? I remember legionaries stab their enemies because they could easily reach vital organs and they mocked their gallic foes because their blows were spectacular but less effective and more "exposing"

3. Why the attack of the spears is higher than the attach of the swords? A balanced sword less than one mt. long shouldn' be more "handy" than a 2-6 mt. piece of wood? I know the issues of the "spear" attribute, but the "light_spear" one that you use now lowers only the defense, not the attack, according to the EDU Guide, so.. I'm a bit confused..

4. Why did you give the AP attribute to nearly all spear-armed cavalry units? I knew only contus could pierce armors in charge, maybe I'm wrong, what do you think? It's something about game balance?

5. Onestly, I don't think levy slinger should be so strong.. in my EDU I left the AP attribute only to professional slingers like balearic and rhodians, raising a bit the attack of the others: what do you think about that?

6. Broken Crescent, a M2TW mod about medieval middle-east, features 2 different types of horse-archers: close range-high attack (the ones who fight forming a shooting-circle) and long range-low attack (the armored ones who shoot standing still). Do you think this system can work well in EB?

Finally, this is not about EB but a more generic question: the "spear"/"light_spear" attributes work on cavalry weapons?

Many thanks in advance and sorry for: bad english, lenght of the post, annoying attitude.. quite a lot of things :laugh4:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

1. There was talk of varying cavalry sizes based what type of cavalry they were, but it was decided against. Just use less units of a certain type if you think you have too many. Besides, I think cataphracts would still be in large groups even if that plan was implemented.
3. Spears get a hardcoded -4 against infantry, so they are given extra attack to counter that.
4. A charging spear propelled by a horse should be able to pierce any armor. It is intended for just the charge but cannot be specific to it...
5. Because leathality cannot be modded for missile units, missile variation is very difficult. The AP on slingers represents the blunt trauma of units that use lead shot.
6. I doubt horse archers would have been divided in such a way... :shrug:

I'll let other answer better...

[Aper]

well regarding HA I know the division is quite arbitrary, but I remember of reading about two different basic tactics (please Persian Cataphract don't crucify me!:clown: ) :
1. shooting from distance then charge
2. get very close to the enemy before attack to maximize potence and precision, then retreat thanks to the high mobility of unarmored horse, and eventually leading enemies to an ambush...:devilish:

however leave me some perplexity see HA running like hell or circling like a whirlwind and in the same time shadowing the sun with millions of ballistic missiles... I think in my game I'll nerf them a bit..:laugh4:

[Watchman]

As a general rule of thumb horse-archery tactics were determined by the availability of remounts - running around tires horses out pretty fast after all, doubly so if they're of the small grass-fed sort (like all steppe horses except for the purpose-bred warhorses of the nobility) and/or heavily burdened with a well-armed rider.

The steppe nomads had an abundance of horses, albeit small and rather low-performance ones, as well as tribal warriors skilled with the bow but nigh invariably only lightly armed to stick on them. Ergo, they could usually draw on a large number of horses per man and simply switch to a fresh one as necessary, allowing for the characteristic skirmish-envelopement tactics. Settled folks conversely had only a few horses at best per soldier, and generally a way lower proportion of cavalry-trained soldiers to boot, but their grain-fed mounts were of much higher "performance specs" and capable of carrying heavier armed men - and the kind of soldier who could afford to fight on horseback could usually afford a decent amount of armour too, for that matter. Ergo, the horse-archers of settled peoples could not afford to dash around the battlefield which would just have blown their mounts, and instead normally operated in more or less closed order, fired by preference standing still (which improved range and accuracy, anyway), were much less vulnerable to return fire due to their heavier armour and by and large could double much better in a shock role.

A case-in-point comparision in EB would be the average steppe HA - of minimal close-combat ability and with little more than the clothes on his back for defense - and the much more formidable (but also expensive and comparatively rare) Baktrian armoured horse-archers. Around Medieval times a comparable distinction was found running between the light tribal horse-archers of the (by that point primarily) Turkic nomads and the generally much heavier "regular" and feudal mounted archers of, say, the Arabs, Byzantines and (some) Russian principalities. Ditto China and the Central Asian statelets.


As for the OP, 2.) seems to be taking Roman propaganda a bit too much at a face value. There were solid reasons behind the near-universal popularity of long swords after all, especially the ones specialised for cutting (as most Celtic types more or less were) where heavy armour was not commonly encountered. While a short blade is undoubtly quite useful in the crush of shield-to-shield combat due to its "handiness" and any deep puncture in the body has always tended to be rather singularly fatal (if only because it wasn't until fairly recently that such wounds could actually be effectively treated), one should not underestimate the sheer reach and cleaving power of a long blade which will quite easily indeed remove a limb or other appendage unless it is quite well protected. (Not that most short swords weren't quite suited for the cut anyway - the Romans certainly employed theirs for it too readily enough - they just don't have the sheer leverage and cleaving power of a longer blade, all other things being equal. As an aside I've read faithful reproductions of some Celtic longsword types with a decent tip "follow through" a thrust rather better than one would expect, too.)

Quoth George Silver (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/GSilver.htm), a 16th-century Master of Defence: "I have known a gentleman hurt in rapier fight, in nine or ten places through the body, arms, and legs, and yet has continued in his fight, & afterward has slain the other, and come home and has been cured of all his wounds without maim, & is yet living. But the blow being strongly made, takes sometimes clean away the hand from the arm, has many times been seen. Again, a ful blow upon the head or face with a short sharp sword, is most commonly death. A full blow upon the neck, shoulder, arm, or leg, endangers life, cuts off the veins, muscles, and sinews, perishes the bones. These wounds made by the blow, in respect of perfect healing, are the loss of limbs, or maims incurable forever. --- For what man shall be able long in fight to stand up, either to revenge, or defend himself, having the veins, muscles, sinews of his hand, arm, or leg clean cut asunder?"
(Granted, he was being shamelessly partisan against the newfangled Continental rapier, but that does not detract from the truth of what he has to say concerning the "terminal effects" involved.)

Gist of the matter being, to be immediately disabling (nevermind fatal) the thrust has to strike a fairly limited range of targets in the opponent's physique, which inconveniently enough also happen to be almost wholly located in the very parts most readily and intuitively covered by the shield; and owing to issues of reach and leverage the short blade has a comparatively more difficult time landing a blow on and delivering critical amounts of injury to other parts. In comparision the long blade has an easier time reaching a suitable target and delivering enough damage to render the opponent hors de combat - I understand surviving battle-casualty skeletons from regions where hand-to-hand combat with long swords and shields were common often show heavy damage (up to outright amputation) to the lower legs, for example.

And whatever the not-exactly-unbiased Roman chroniclers might say, it's a given the average "barbarian" swordsman was just as intensely concerned with his continued physical well-being as the common legionary, and did not lightly open up his guard to deliver a heavy full-extension cut; rather, like any sane warrior most anywhere, he would most of the time limit himself to launching careful probing attacks from behind his shield. The mutual-slaying sort of heedless aggression tended to be more the preserve of the berserker shock troop types (and the likes of Japanese samurai, who did not use shields (at least in hand-to-hand combat) and had some funny ideas regarding death anyway...).

In conclusion, within the limits of the engine I'd say the EB statting of the different sword types - with the short ones more likely to "score a hit" but less likely to actually take out the other guy as a result - reflects the actual usage and capabilities of the weapon types concerned well enough.

Here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html) is incidentally some "food for thought" reading concerning the cut-and-thrust dichotomy, for whoever might be interested.

[Aper]

@ Watchman

Thanks for the info and the link, but about shortswords vs. longswords, I have some observations..

First, regarding maiming & cleaving, shortswords seem not inferior to long ones: you surely know the reports of ancient authors about the terrible wounds inflicted by slashing with a gladius hispanicus, a falcata or a kopis. This in EB is portrayed by giving to the last 2 weapons the AP attribute (a solution less than ideal IMHO, but anyway, it's not my mod..:shrug:).

About the deadlyness of thrusting weapons, well, I think the wounds inflicted by the large blades of a gladium, celtic longsword or most spears (even celtic ones) are not comparable with the wounds from a rapier, that is almost "chirurgical", when large bladed weapons, even thrusting, cut large portions of flesh..

Regarding the reech of the longsword, I don't know how it matters when you have a tower shield behind you can hide, and change in a relative safe manner the distance from your enemy.. And surely it's easier to hit an enemy with a longsword but, if he is armored, stabbing is usually the best way to break a chain mail or hit an uncovered spot (not only in europe - according to an ARMA article even in japan, in popular culture the land of the cutting sword) and if he is unarmored no matter how you hit, if you have a war-sword
(not a rapier) the wound is usually incapacitating enough IMHO.

so why the longsword was so popular and romans in the end adopted them? I think simply because this weapons have the same features of a gladius, but slightly improved.. at a much greater cost (this is why romans used shortswords, and should say something to the people who think that the late roman army was a bunch of almost unarmed farmers + savage barbarians). With a longsword is also easier to use fencing techniques (usually not very useful on a battlefield, but they can come in handy..) than with a shortsword, weapons for butcher's work (like someone-a roman- said:laugh4: )