View Full Version : light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
For a week or so, this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114722)has been developing in the main forum. The main point: it seems, that the EB developers have added +4 attack to all spear units to compensate for the -4 defense the light spear units suffer when fighting infantry; and -4 attack that spear units (not light spear) suffer when fighting other infantry.
No conclusive response from the development team has been expressed yet though.
My main concerns:
1. Why was such stat compensation designed in the first place? Weren't spears supposed to 'suffer' when fighting sword units for example? With the current balance, medium swords lose in one on one fight with the lower tier spear units.
2. Could it be that this compensation (+4 attack for light spear units) is a bug?
With the current balance, medium swords lose in one on one fight with the lower tier spear units.
Which levy spearunits? Hoplitai Haploi should be ok this way, but Lugoae shoudn't win in my opinion.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
For a week or so, this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114722)has been developing in the main forum. The main point: it seems, that the EB developers have added +4 attack to all spear units to compensate for the -4 defense the light spear units suffer when fighting infantry; and -4 attack that spear units (not light spear) suffer when fighting other infantry.
No conclusive response from the development team has been expressed yet though.
My main concerns:
1. Why was such stat compensation designed in the first place? Weren't spears supposed to 'suffer' when fighting sword units for example? With the current balance, medium swords lose in one on one fight with the lower tier spear units.
2. Could it be that this compensation (+4 attack for light spear units) is a bug?
This post is quite a coincidence , as I was just about to post a mini mod :)...
It is absolutely a bug. The values were adjusted when all the Spear Units were classes as "spear", and received -4 attack vs Infantry. When all the "Spear" units were changed to "Light_Spear", nobody bothered removing the +4 bonus. Hence now, Skirmishers (with a 2nd weapon light_spear) often have a better attack than Medium and even in some cases Heavy Infantry with Axes and Swords.
Its not just the traditional Spearman either. You'll find all the Phalanx Units have attr "Long_Pike AND Light_Spear" and thus have 4 higher attack than they should. This completely unbalances all Phalanx Units, (just check the EDU yourself, you'll find Levy Phalanxes have a better attack than Elite Swordsmen :dizzy2:). Its like they all start out with a Silver Chevron in attack...
Anyways:-
Mini Mod To Balance All Spear and Phalanx Units
All I've done is remove the erroneous +4 attack from Spears and Pikes.
Copy over the EDU in C:.....\EB\sp game edu backup to make it work for your current Campaign NOT the EDU in EB\DATA as the game reads from the backup file.
EDU zip (http://www.filefront.com/13959593/undefined)
It is absolutely a bug. The values were adjusted when all the Spear Units were classes as "spear", and received -4 attack vs Infantry. When all the "Spear" units were changed to "Light_Spear", nobody bothered removing the +4 bonus. Hence now, Skirmishers (with a 2nd weapon light_spear) often have a better attack than Medium and even in some cases Heavy Infantry with Axes and Swords.
What about Hoplites? They have no Phalanx ability, removing their bonus would make them singnificant weaker. The engine can not represent their Hoplite fightingstyle, so they should get a +4 defence instead.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
This post is quite a coincidence , as I was just about to post a mini mod :)...
It is absolutely a bug. The values were adjusted when all the Spear Units were classes as "spear", and received -4 attack vs Infantry. When all the "Spear" units were changed to "Light_Spear", nobody bothered removing the +4 bonus. Hence now, Skirmishers (with a 2nd weapon light_spear) often have a better attack than Medium and even in some cases Heavy Infantry with Axes and Swords.
Its not just the traditional Spearman either. You'll find all the Phalanx Units have attr "Long_Pike AND Light_Spear" and thus have 4 higher attack than they should. This completely unbalances all Phalanx Units, (just check the EDU yourself, you'll find Levy Phalanxes have a better attack than Elite Swordsmen :dizzy2:). Its like they all start out with a Silver Chevron in attack...
Anyways:-
Mini Mod To Balance All Spear and Phalanx Units
All I've done is remove the erroneous +4 attack from Spears and Pikes.
Copy over the EDU in C:.....\EB\sp game edu backup to make it work for your current Campaign NOT the EDU in EB\DATA as the game reads from the backup file.
60
Well, my original concern is that this might somehow NOT be a bug. Maybe the EB developers were trying to compensate for the anti-cavalry bonus that the "light spear" units lose (relative to the regular spear ones)...
as to vs. 'the other infantry': the situation is not that different now as it was when +4 attack was compensating for the attack lost (in my opinion, there should not have been a compensation in the first place; the spear units were supposed to be weaker against sword units): now, +4 attack compensates for -4 lost in defense (light spears vs. other infantry)...
so, my question still remains: why were they compensating in the first place?
What about Hoplites? They have no Phalanx ability, removing their bonus would make them singnificant weaker. The engine can not represent their Hoplite fightingstyle, so they should get a +4 defence instead.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Here's a classic Hoplite with EB1.2
;333
type hellenistic infantry hoplitai
dictionary hellenistic_infantry_hoplitai ; Hoplitai
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type General_1
soldier hellenistic_infantry_hoplitai_hellenikoi, 40, 0, 1.22
officer ebofficer_hellenic_officer
officer ebofficer_hellenic_standardbearer
mount_effect elephant -1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest
formation 0.7, 1, 1.6, 2.4, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 14, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.13
stat_pri_attr light_spear
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 0 ,0.1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 11, 8, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -3
stat_mental 12, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1367, 342, 80, 498, 1367
Thats a basic 14 attack against anything and 23 Def against other "Spear", 19 Def vs Inf and 31 Def vs Cavalry, and only 1367mnai to recruit, and 342 upkeep. Compare that to any Sword or Axe, and you need an Elite to get anywhere near 14 attack, with twice the upkeep and recruitment cost. So take away the +4 attack vs everything, and you have what is a well balanced low/medium cost allround unit. Good Def, and reasonable attack.
If you are going to start giving stuff like the Hoplite a better defence, to compensate for the better attack that it shouldn't have had in the first place :inquisitive: (and remember this defence would work against everything) , then you'd better make it probably 40-50 % more expensive too, and a higher lvl of MIC to recruit.
Well, my original concern is that this might somehow NOT be a bug. Maybe the EB developers were trying to compensate for the anti-cavalry bonus that the "light spear" units lose (relative to the regular spear ones)...
as to vs. 'the other infantry': the situation is not that different now as it was when +4 attack was compensating for the attack lost (in my opinion, there should not have been a compensation in the first place; the spear units were supposed to be weaker against sword units): now, +4 attack compensates for -4 lost in defense (light spears vs. other infantry)...
so, my question still remains: why were they compensating in the first place?
#1 light_spear: Gives default bonus of +8 to defense vs cavalry, and penalty of -4 to defense vs. infantry. Offers less pushing power than spear.
#2 spear: Gives default bonus of +8 to attack vs cavalry, and penalty of -4 to attack vs. infantry. Offers more pushing power than light_spear. Units with "spear" attribute tend to lose cohesion and break lines (due to the extreme pushing power) with undesired results, so use is advised only with cohesive formations/attributes like short_pike, shield_wall, phalanx etc.
The "Spearmen type" units were apparently all type #2 Spear originally, and +4 attack was added to said unit types. But (see last part under#2) this was found to produce undesirable results , hence they were then all Changed to type #1 Light_spear. BUT this attack was never taken away, for one of two reasons.
1) They forgot
2) They decided to leave it in for "balance"???
1) Means its a bug
2) It screws up the Infantry/Spear balance completely, so its wrong whatever.
From the above #1 Light_Spear Still gets +8 Def vs Cavalry, which is a heck of a boost. It doesn't need any phantom extra attack. The extra def means they still should slaughter Cavalry, because they can stay in battle for so much longer without taking casualties.
Why the heck Creative Arts gave +8 attack to #2Spear vs Cavalry in the first place is beyond me. Spears are not an offensive counter to Horseborne troops, they are a defensive one, i.e to keep the Cavalry off the Infantry's backs. How on earth can men on foot ever chase down men on horseback in an offensive capability? ;)
the spear units were supposed to be weaker against sword units
Perhaps 1 vs. 1, but a spearunit can hit a swordnuit before it's able to attack. Also in a formation, like the Hoplitephalanx, there are no 1 vs. 1 fights (or should not be). They stand behind their shields and protect each other with shield and spears. I don't think that they would be (in this formation) weaker then swordunits.
And about the stats, it's right that Hoplites seem to be much better then for example Roman soldiers. But if you use a Hoplite army against a Polybian army you will see that they are balanced. You will notice that Hoplites break much faster then for example Princeps.
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8247/neubitmap2.jpg (https://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=neubitmap2.jpg)
Thats because they have a higher morale. And remember, Hoplites need a level 3 MIC, Principes only a level 2. You could say that their higher costs are for their higher Morale.
How Slaists already said, it's the question if this is a bug or if it's part of the balance. Would be nice if someone from the EB team could say something to this topic.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Edit:
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7509/hoplitesvsromans2.jpg (https://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hoplitesvsromans2.jpg)
The KH needs a level 4 MIC to get similare morale (Thorakitai Hoplitai) like the Polybian Principes. The stats of this troops are better then the Princeps, but Thorakitai Hoplitai are some of the 'elite' troops of the KH.
Perhaps 1 vs. 1, but a spearunit can hit a swordnuit before it's able to attack. Also in a formation, like the Hoplitephalanx, there are no 1 vs. 1 fights (or should not be). They stand behind their shields and protect each other with shield and spears. I don't think that they would be (in this formation) weaker then swordunits.
And about the stats, it's right that Hoplites seem to be much better then for example Roman soldiers. But if you use a Hoplite army against a Polybian army you will see that they are balanced. You will notice that Hoplites break much faster then for example Princeps.
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8247/neubitmap2.jpg (https://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=neubitmap2.jpg)
Thats because they have a higher morale. And remember, Hoplites need a level 3 MIC, Princeps only a level 2. You could say that their higher costs are for their higher Morale.
How Slaists already said, it's the question if this is a bug or if it's part of the balance. Would be nice if someone from the EB team could say something to this topic.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Nice comparison post, but you as the player can compensate. The morale difference is tiny -seasons, general traits etc. all change the morale more than this. I honestly think (and no offence to you or anyone), that people have got used to fighting easier battles with spear/phalanx heavy unit composition than they should, because they all kill MUCH faster than they should.
Rome should be more dominant in the game (in the hands of the ai) than they currently are. Most of the time, if you play another faction Rome don't really go anywhere( But I haven't yet seen any significant changes how auto-resolve calculates things, that is ai on ai battles, that would make a huge change to the campaign map).
The hoplitai was becoming extinct at the time..from the EB unit info list
The classic Greek hoplite still uses the old Argive shield, spear, short sword and linothorax. Although surpassed by the times they can still be usefull in any battle line.
They really shouldn't be a killing machine.
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8247/neubitmap2.jpg (https://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=neubitmap2.jpg)
You could say that their higher costs are for their higher Morale.
Outdated. Now Princeps (Polybian) cost 1185 mnai and Principes (Camillan) cost 1046 mnai. So they are cheaper then Hoplitai with 1367 mnai (which are now more expensive).
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
How Slaists already said, it's the question if this is a bug or if it's part of the balance. Would be nice if someone from the EB team could say something to this topic.
Yup, it would be really nice if any of them responded to this thread. I guess, everyone's busy playing ETW, LOL...
While I understand the points Drewsky is making I am still not convinced the current attack scheme was not set in place for some balance reasons. Maybe due to same factors that we do not know about.
For example, Drewsky argues that +4 attack was given to all spear units to compensate for the -4 attack penalty they suffer against other infantry. Well, they were meant to 'suffer' in that department so +4 attack does not seem justified just by the aforementioned penalty.
I fought some costume battles against the AI, no outflanking, no great strategies, nearly no battlemanagement, grassland map, medium.
Koinon Hellenon (7 Hoplitai) vs. Romani (7 Principes Polybian)
#1 Koinon Hellenon vs. Romani (AI)
https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6950/athenai1.jpg (https://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=athenai1.jpg)
#2 Koinon Hellenon vs. Romani (AI)
https://img239.imageshack.us/img239/2795/athenai2.jpg (https://img239.imageshack.us/my.php?image=athenai2.jpg)
#3 Koinon Hellenon (with guardmode on) vs. Romani (AI)
https://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3568/athenai3.jpg (https://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=athenai3.jpg)
#4 Romani vs. Koinon Hellenon (AI)
https://img50.imageshack.us/img50/583/roma1.jpg (https://img50.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roma1.jpg)
#5 Romani vs. Koinon Hellenon (AI)
https://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2037/roma2k.jpg (https://img16.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roma2k.jpg)
#6 Romani (with guardmode on) vs. Koinon Hellenon
https://img186.imageshack.us/img186/6842/roma3.jpg (https://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roma3.jpg)
Here (http://files.filefront.com/HoplitaivsPrincipesrar/;13515730;/fileinfo.html) are the replay files, put them into your Europabarorum1.2/EB/replays folder.
Hoplitai (#1,#2,#3) without guardmode had no chance, with guardmode pyric victory.
Principes (#4, #5, #6) won all 3 battles easely even with guardmode off.
So my opinion is, that Hoplites are no match (without support) for Principes, that's ok, they are outdated how Drewski already said. But remember, Principes are availabel at MIC level 2, Hoplitai at MIC level 3. Also Principes (Polybian) are with 1185 mnai cheaper then Hoplitai.
If you make them weaker that would be a problem for KH, who have no better standard line infantery, Thorakitai are even worser as line infantery. Thorakitai Hoplitai are only slightly better (higher morale) then Thorakitai. Whats left are the Epilektoi Hoplitai (high costs) or the Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai (only available after MoT). The KH really depends on these Hoplitai (before the MoT). At the moment they are just weak against Principes, but if you take them their bonuses, they would be even weaker. That's why I say, that they should stay as they are or get something in exchange (defence bonus, lower density).
As for the Phalangitai, I agree, they are overpowered in EB (my opinion) and should get a weaker attack, their Phalanx ability makes them still a good line infantery.
I'm not against your change Drewski (the opposite, I really think that the Phalanx units should get a weaker attack too). But as a KH Player I have to say, that Holites already perform weak against swordunits (especially Romani). Of course, a human player still has no problem with that and it's historical correct, but to make Hoplites even weaker as they are now (see the battleresults again) makes no sense for me.
My :2cents:
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
I fought some costume battles against the AI, no outflanking, no great strategies, nearly no battlemanagement, grassland map, medium.
Koinon Hellenon (7 Hoplitai) vs. Romani (7 Principes Polybian)
#1 Koinon Hellenon vs. Romani (AI)
https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6950/athenai1.jpg (https://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=athenai1.jpg)
#2 Koinon Hellenon vs. Romani (AI)
https://img239.imageshack.us/img239/2795/athenai2.jpg (https://img239.imageshack.us/my.php?image=athenai2.jpg)
#3 Koinon Hellenon (with guardmode on) vs. Romani (AI)
https://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3568/athenai3.jpg (https://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=athenai3.jpg)
#4 Romani vs. Koinon Hellenon (AI)
https://img50.imageshack.us/img50/583/roma1.jpg (https://img50.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roma1.jpg)
#5 Romani vs. Koinon Hellenon (AI)
https://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2037/roma2k.jpg (https://img16.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roma2k.jpg)
#6 Romani (with guardmode on) vs. Koinon Hellenon
https://img186.imageshack.us/img186/6842/roma3.jpg (https://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roma3.jpg)
Here (http://files.filefront.com/HoplitaivsPrincipesrar/;13515730;/fileinfo.html) are the replay files, put them into your Europabarorum1.2/EB/replays folder.
Hoplitai (#1,#2,#3) without guardmode had no chance, with guardmode pyric victory.
Principes (#4, #5, #6) won all 3 battles easely even with guardmode off.
So my opinion is, that Hoplites are no match (without support) for Principes, that's ok, they are outdated how Drewski already said. But remember, Principes are availabel at MIC level 2, Hoplitai at MIC level 3. Also Principes (Polybian) are with 1185 mnai cheaper then Hoplitai.
If you make them weaker that would be a problem for KH, who have no better standard line infantery, Thorakitai are even worser as line infantery. Thorakitai Hoplitai are only slightly better (higher morale) then Thorakitai. Whats left are the Epilektoi Hoplitai (high costs) or the Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai (only available after MoT). The KH really depends on these Hoplitai (before the MoT). At the moment they are just weak against Principes, but if you take them their bonuses, they would be even weaker. That's why I say, that they should stay as they are or get something in exchange (defence bonus, lower density).
As for the Phalangitai, I agree, they are overpowered in EB (my opinion) and should get a weaker attack, their Phalanx ability makes them still a good line infantery.
I'm not against your change Drewski (the opposite, I really think that the Phalanx units should get a weaker attack too). But as a KH Player I have to say, that Holites already perform weak against swordunits (especially Romani). Of course, a human player still has no problem with that and it's historical correct, but to make Hoplites even weaker as they are now (see the battleresults again) makes no sense for me.
My :2cents:
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Great post :)
I see what you mean totally, but (and this is just my opinion ) An Army of pure swordsmen, with excellent Armor, and who throw pilae too, should utterly destroy an Army of pure Spearmen who don't. In your battles, The Hoplitai killed 41% of the Principes (as an average). That's obviously because of the +4 attack. Losing 41% of your heavy Infantry, is a pretty Pyrrhic result too ;)
I don't think that comparing Rome in its ascendency, to KH in its decline (and last days) is really fair either. Rome should wipe the floor with KH (imho). They don't need to be "balanced" and made equal. Also the Hoplites would have a massive advantage in a similar staged battle, where you matched the Princepes against Heavy Cavalry, then the Hoplitai against same Heavy Cavalry.
Rome relies on its Infantry. KH has a more diverse array of weapons at its disposal. (but yes I still prefer Rome's ;))
I maybe agree that Hoplites (with 4 attack removed) might need a slight tweak elsewhere, but think its slightly unfair to compare them against Rome. Maybe against Epiros, Mak,or Arch Seluk, is a fairer comparison.
Glad we agree on the Phalanxes though, which again imo, fall into the "what were they thinking" category, they are so unbalanced.
Btw, I'm not some Rome junky either. I like playing all the factions, and think that some should be a lot weaker than others, that's part of the challenge :) I'm still quite new to EB btw, but a very old hand at RTR and modding bits and pieces in general....
artavazd
03-24-2009, 02:41
All units should not be balanced. Historicaly some units were just better than others. An armored swored unit is more flexible than an armored spear unit. Historicaly that is how ROme beat KH. They were more flexible. NOw KH can make use of Thesalyian Cav. When fighting against Rome. If it becomes a little more difficult for KH to face a Roman army, than that is better because it is more historicaly accurate.
All units should not be balanced. Historicaly some units were just better than others. An armored swored unit is more flexible than an armored spear unit. Historicaly that is how ROme beat KH. They were more flexible. NOw KH can make use of Thesalyian Cav. When fighting against Rome. If it becomes a little more difficult for KH to face a Roman army, than that is better because it is more historicaly accurate.
i take 'balanced' to mean proportionally adjusted; not equal to...
mosedavid
03-24-2009, 22:17
hi, downloaded your file.................... makes since to me (!) but i got an error....i didnt write it down but it said 'couldnt find' some bit.. i'm using RTW era's edition. I'm assuming you made an error somewhere.
... i'll write it down later if you want but was mid flow so didnt want to have to start the campaign again
hi, downloaded your file.................... makes since to me (!) but i got an error....i didnt write it down but it said 'couldnt find' some bit.. i'm using RTW era's edition. I'm assuming you made an error somewhere.
... i'll write it down later if you want but was mid flow so didnt want to have to start the campaign again
I'm sorry, I don't completely understand you (if you meant the file I adjusted)...can you restate your error and the problem you are having?.
Thanks.
Anyone tried the Spears/Pikes fix? And if so, what have your impressions been?
Thanks.
Ravenfeeder
03-29-2009, 12:47
Haven't tried it yet. Is it save game compatible? How does this affect autoresolve?
Haven't tried it yet. Is it save game compatible? How does this affect autoresolve?
EDU (export_descr_unit) changes are savegame compatible.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Revenant
03-29-2009, 13:41
Anyone tried the Spears/Pikes fix? And if so, what have your impressions been?
Thanks.
I did.
Currently, I am playing as KH, so I am in the middle of it:)
So far the majority of my opponents, namely Macedonia, Pontos and AS are using mainly spear units too, so no much power shift here.
At the beginning, the strong unit are peltasts, because they are sword unit. They work like "baby legionnaries". Interesting are also Iphikratean Hoplites, because they have secondary sword and they have a bit better defence than peltasts.
But the most excellent unit are of course Thorakitai hoplitai. Not only they have decent stats and affordable upkeep/price, but they have armour piercing sword as their secondary weapon. Nice versatile unit with spear/ap sword combo.
Traditional infantry types like Hopliatai and even Epilektoi Hoplitai pale before mentioned units. But I used family members units (spartiates and Epilektoi BG) a lot and they performed well.
The same is with Thorakitai and maybe Thurephoroi, but i did not try any of the latter yet.
So the conclusion is, KH has units that can stand toe to toe against sword infantry, but it differs to unmodded version of EB, whre classical hoplitai were one of the most useful units.
Thats probably because opponents are using a lot of infantry here, if they were using cavalry instead, it would be another story.
Lately I tried Thorakitai Hoplitai vs. Hypaspists in SP to test them and they butchered macedonian elites with no mercy. The same case would probably be with even such units as roman principes or maybe even legionnaries, ap sword is really killer vs. well armoured infantry.
The conclusion is I like it. The only drawback is that AI probably do not use secondary weapons, so some units will be probably too weak when used by it. True, as somebody posted here before, KH should be a weak faction anyways.
Rev
The same case would probably be with even such units as roman principes or maybe even legionnaries, ap sword is really killer vs. well armoured infantry.
After all the Thorakitai Hoplitai are elites and you need a level 4 MIC to recruit them. Princeps are only medium infantery (available at level 2 MIC).
The Mod as far as I know didn't change the Thorakitai Hoplitai (ecxept removing the +4 attack bonus for spear attack). So the sword attack is the same as in vanilla EB.
If you fight against other Roman elites (such as Pedites Extraordinarii) you will see, that the Thorakitai Hoplitai are still a 'weak' elite unit.
The only drawback is that AI probably do not use secondary weapons, so some units will be probably too weak when used by it.
AFAIK if a soldier gets knocked down he will switch to his secondary weapon automaticly. So the Thorakitai Hoplitai would fight with swords (not all, but some of them).
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Well I've tried a couple of major campaigns myself. First as Casse (who are just riduculously easy to play imo--take the British Isles at your leisure, then start mopping up Celts who have kindly weakened themselves/the slave settlements). Its surprising, how many Spear units are involved in Casse/Celt battles, but I liked how upper lvl sword units actually stood out from the pack a little (as they should), instead of taking heavy losses vs some levy spearmen.
Currently playing a Getai campaign (and jeez, are they hard to get going, and even to keep going). You're 4000 mnai in debt before you even reach a settlement to take! Anyways, persevered with it, and now have around 10 provinces, and of course I've been backstabbed by all three "Greek" nations on the peninsula. I can only afford two 3/4 stacks, and they are pretty banged up, just won 3 heroic victories with one army, all on the ai's turn.
The last couple of battles, against decent ai armies, really proved a point to me, that the ai is sometimes worse than clueless. It had a decent Cavalry/phalanx/hoplite/skirmisher mix and if it had just attacked even in a straight line, I would have been pretty screwed. But no, it lost a third of its men trying these crazy premature flanking attacks, e.g. the troops walk straight forward (quite missile proof) the turn sideways within never mind archer range, but javelin range. This results in most of the "flankers" dying before even getting to the flanks. Then it tries to charge its Cavalry at troops who aren't engaged in melee, which while getting a decent kill score from the charge, then results in their quick demise. Would it have been to difficult to code in to the ai "charge then back up, then charge again", and "hold the charge until your melee guys are engaged"? Especially if you have much superior numbers. Ho hum.
(Apologies for rant)
Did quite a bit of messing around with all the Steppe factions too (in my own game). Some of those generals/horse units have frankly ridiculous armor, so I toned them all down quite a bit. Also lowered the missile attack for most horse archers (a touch)..no-one in the world will ever convince me, that guys on horses with bows, are more accurate than guys with the same bows on foot. Its pure nonesense, but EB has that in it. And we all know that Horse Archer only armies are basically illegal ;).....don't remember any Steppe faction cutting a swathe across the world either....well not until around 1500 yrs later ;)
jhhowell
03-31-2009, 01:47
I've been using this minimod - thanks for doing the EDU edit and posting it! Can't really tell the difference, honestly, other than seeing more sensible attack numbers on the unit cards of hoplitai, etc. Late stage Romani, 150s BCE. Long standing low intensity war against the Lusotannan in western Gaul (Lusos now hold Brittany, Normandy, and the central province south of Normandy and east of Lemorisae - apologies for the weird mix of modern and EB names, that's how my memory works...). Since the Luso armies now consist entirely of Lugoae, some sort of Celtic shortswordsmen, and the usual Celtic slingers and archers, they get stomped regardless of the spear fix. Especially since they're usually attacking a bridge.
The Fourth Macedonian War was also not obviously affected by the mod, for similar reasons (I picked up Mytilene, Byzantion, Tylis, and Serdike, leaving them with the northernmost Thracian provinces). Maybe without the mod a hoplitai plus phalangitai deuteroi would have defeated a cohors reformata on the walls before a second cohort cut through to the other side of the phalangitai. But maybe not, and there were plenty more cohorts where those came from so the city was going to fall regardless.
Just started the First Mithridatic War (really, the Pontic king happens to be Mithridates Somebody-or-other! :2thumbsup:), as might be guessed from acquiring Mytilene and Byzantion. Gotta love the campaign "AI"... Again, no obvious effects. Facing the front of a phalanx even in guard mode still costs men quickly even with the -4 from this mod. The other Pontic spearmen I've seen have been levies - in fact I can't think of any quality non-phalanx spearmen in their roster other than hoplitai. And cohors reformata ate hoplitai for lunch even without the -4 to the latter.
Probably the only way I'll see any difference in this campaign would be in fights against the Ptolemaioi. If I play that far, which is by no means certain (starting to grow bored, and hearing Baktria calling to me... ~:)).
Steppe factions/HA: a steppe faction did cut a swathe across the world - Parthia. And I believe they really did have ridiculous armor... I know much less about them, but I gather the Saka also kicked serious butt in this period. Do horse archers have higher ranged attacks than the archers with the same bows (Scythian foot archers vs. Scythian horse archers, say)? I don't recall for certain from my Hai campaign back in 1.0, but I thought they had the same attack (5 or 6, can't recall which).
I've been using this minimod - thanks for doing the EDU edit and posting it! Can't really tell the difference, honestly, other than seeing more sensible attack numbers on the unit cards of hoplitai, etc. Late stage Romani, 150s BCE. Long standing low intensity war against the Lusotannan in western Gaul (Lusos now hold Brittany, Normandy, and the central province south of Normandy and east of Lemorisae - apologies for the weird mix of modern and EB names, that's how my memory works...). Since the Luso armies now consist entirely of Lugoae, some sort of Celtic shortswordsmen, and the usual Celtic slingers and archers, they get stomped regardless of the spear fix. Especially since they're usually attacking a bridge.
The Fourth Macedonian War was also not obviously affected by the mod, for similar reasons (I picked up Mytilene, Byzantion, Tylis, and Serdike, leaving them with the northernmost Thracian provinces). Maybe without the mod a hoplitai plus phalangitai deuteroi would have defeated a cohors reformata on the walls before a second cohort cut through to the other side of the phalangitai. But maybe not, and there were plenty more cohorts where those came from so the city was going to fall regardless.
Just started the First Mithridatic War (really, the Pontic king happens to be Mithridates Somebody-or-other! :2thumbsup:), as might be guessed from acquiring Mytilene and Byzantion. Gotta love the campaign "AI"... Again, no obvious effects. Facing the front of a phalanx even in guard mode still costs men quickly even with the -4 from this mod. The other Pontic spearmen I've seen have been levies - in fact I can't think of any quality non-phalanx spearmen in their roster other than hoplitai. And cohors reformata ate hoplitai for lunch even without the -4 to the latter.
Probably the only way I'll see any difference in this campaign would be in fights against the Ptolemaioi. If I play that far, which is by no means certain (starting to grow bored, and hearing Baktria calling to me... ~:)).
Steppe factions/HA: a steppe faction did cut a swathe across the world - Parthia. And I believe they really did have ridiculous armor... I know much less about them, but I gather the Saka also kicked serious butt in this period. Do horse archers have higher ranged attacks than the archers with the same bows (Scythian foot archers vs. Scythian horse archers, say)? I don't recall for certain from my Hai campaign back in 1.0, but I thought they had the same attack (5 or 6, can't recall which).
Thanks for reply....I maybe did go a bit nuts on the Steppe armor, its just that it can't be properly represented in the RTW world. FM generals already can take ridiculous amounts of damage, Samartian ones are just completely silly in any players hands. With all that armor, charging around should make the horses tire very quickly (far more than they do), and make them loose effectiveness.
I just took all HA ranged attacks down by 1, to make their equiv foot soldiers slightly better. (in my latest personal experiment ;))...
Re Parthia, ok they annihilated Rome at Carrhae, but its a bit of a myth about their dominance over Rome. From wiki:-
The Battle of Carrhae was one of the first major battles between the Romans and Parthians. This battle also created the myth—both in Rome, Parthia, and today—that Rome's legions could not combat the Parthian army. This myth was not dispelled even when the Parthian capital was sacked twice. It was this belief that led Parthia to invade Syria and Armenia several times, usually unsuccessfully.
Parthia at its greatest extent :- http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/parthia/images/pamap.jpg
Yeah Ok, not bad, But I was thinking of this Steppe Empire http://chinggiskhanfound.com/images/Mongol%20Empire%20Map.jpg ;)
A Very Super Market
03-31-2009, 03:41
Hoo boy. Its the mongols again. Yes, they had a large empire, but if you looked closer, you see that almost half of that empire is empty steppe. The gains in the Middle East and China are more impressive, but no real testaments to the mongols. The world at that time simply did not have an answer to horse archers, akin to trying to fight a helicopter gunship with assault rifles.
The mongols also lacked any real ability to govern the lands they conquered. There were not enough of them to keep the populace happy, nor were they especially good administrators. They simply slaughtered enough people to keep the rest at a low enough level and high enough fear to prevent rebellion. After Kublai Khan died, the empire quickly broke up into pieces, and disintegrated shortly afterwards. Only the vast imperialist domains of various European powers can be called great empires.
Revenant
03-31-2009, 07:44
After all the Thorakitai Hoplitai are elites and you need a level 4 MIC to recruit them. Princeps are only medium infantery (available at level 2 MIC).
The Mod as far as I know didn't change the Thorakitai Hoplitai (ecxept removing the +4 attack bonus for spear attack). So the sword attack is the same as in vanilla EB.
If you fight against other Roman elites (such as Pedites Extraordinarii) you will see, that the Thorakitai Hoplitai are still a 'weak' elite unit.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
In my experience, the Roman infantry is a bit stronger than they "should be", if you look at their price and MIC from where they are available. I understand that its because of limitation of their recruitment zone and also because they really were tough as nails.
My mentioning of Thorakitai Hoplitai was because of concern if Koinon has some solid line unit, I know the attack of sword was not changed. And they are good, not very expensive and versatile (spear + ap sword). That they cannot be compared to such units as Pedites is obvious :yes:
It just surprised me, how they wiped floor with Hypaspists... Probably because of spear modification (-4 att for Hypaspists and they sadly have spear as primary weapon)
Rev
Did quite a bit of messing around with all the Steppe factions too (in my own game). Some of those generals/horse units have frankly ridiculous armor, so I toned them all down quite a bit. Also lowered the missile attack for most horse archers (a touch)..no-one in the world will ever convince me, that guys on horses with bows, are more accurate than guys with the same bows on foot. Its pure nonesense, but EB has that in it. And we all know that Horse Archer only armies are basically illegal ;).....don't remember any Steppe faction cutting a swathe across the world either....well not until around 1500 yrs later ;)
I agree, but all steppe lovers will kill you for that. You better take a fast horse and keep yourself hidden in Britain or something thats far away from the steppes.:laugh4:
In my experience, the Romani infantry is a bit stronger than they "should be", if you look at their price and MIC from where they are available. I understand that its because of limitation of their recruitment zone and also because they really were tough as nails.
IMO Romans are with and without Drewski mod overpowered. But in vanilla EB it was in a way that was still ok. My main concern was, that this mod would make all sword factions (like Romani and the Celts) unbalanced. But was I heard so far, was that the balance is still ok. I mean, if the Lusotannan (a spear faction) are still able to take Gaul (sword and spear) then there is no problem for me (concerning the spear/sword balance, balance in general...we need a second spainfaction to balance the beige death).
It just surprised me, how they wiped floor with Hypaspists... Probably because of spear modification (-4 att for Hypaspists and they sadly have spear as primary weapon)
That's interesting. Hypaspistai have sword as primary weapon and spear as secondary, Thorakitai Hoplitai have spear as primary and sword as secondary. And still they beat up Hypaspistai? Would be nice if someone could make some costume battle tests with Hypaspistai and Thorakitai Hoplitai.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Hoo boy. Its the mongols again. Yes, they had a large empire, but if you looked closer, you see that almost half of that empire is empty steppe. The gains in the Middle East and China are more impressive, but no real testaments to the mongols. The world at that time simply did not have an answer to horse archers, akin to trying to fight a helicopter gunship with assault rifles.
The mongols also lacked any real ability to govern the lands they conquered. There were not enough of them to keep the populace happy, nor were they especially good administrators. They simply slaughtered enough people to keep the rest at a low enough level and high enough fear to prevent rebellion. After Kublai Khan died, the empire quickly broke up into pieces, and disintegrated shortly afterwards. Only the vast imperialist domains of various European powers can be called great empires.
Quite true, but then Alexander's empire hardly even outlasted the man himself aswell...anyways, this isn't the place to argue about an empire that was 1 and 1/2 millenia laster than the time frame of EB ;)
Edit: Also, the amount of people in China in 1250AD outweighed the whole population of Europe, so I don't know how that's not an Empire? Damn, Im arguing again...must...stop ;)
The world at that time simply did not have an answer to horse archers, akin to trying to fight a helicopter gunship with assault rifles.
Not true at all, many of the emipires destroyed by the mongols had been fighting HA armies for centuries by that point (eg the turkic invasions of the middle east, china) or had HA/heavy calvary based armies themselves (Khwarezmids).
What really made them successful was excellent tactics, disipline and above all mobility, the mongols armies could move at up to 100 miles a day, a figure probably not matched until modern times.
Sorry for contuning th argument btw.
Anyway back on topic: has anyone on the EB team ever given an answer concerning the spear stats question?
No conclusive response from the development team has been expressed yet though.
I'm still waiting for some respones from the team. Alternatively we could post it in the bug thread and tease bovi with our question:laugh4:.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Woreczko
03-31-2009, 14:25
That's interesting. Hypaspistai have sword as primary weapon and spear as secondary, Thorakitai Hoplitai have spear as primary and sword as secondary. And still they beat up Hypaspistai? Would be nice if someone could make some costume battle tests with Hypaspistai and Thorakitai Hoplitai.
That`s because non-phalanx infantry units with 2 melee weapons tend to switch to secondary arm durin melee. Thus hypaspistai were fighting mostly with spears and Thorakitai with ap swords. No wonder, that Th. hoplitai won. The above mechanics makes all sword@spear infantry (mainly elites) much weaker than it should be. They receive cavalry charges with swords, and melee other infantry with spears - exact opposite of what they should have been doing.
Spear as primary and sword as secondary works pretty well for the very same reasons.
Spear as primary and sword as secondary works pretty well for the very same reasons.
I think so too. Same goes for Massaliotai Hoplitai and the Indogreek Hoplites. How you already said, if a soldier is stoken down but not killed, he stands up and switch to secondary weapon. As human player you have to order the unit to attack again and again only to maintain the swordfight. Thorakitai Hoplitai are easier to use, if they are in melee with an infantery unit, only klick alt attack one time and they will fight with swords until you order something else.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
I think so too. Same goes for Massaliotai Hoplitai and the Indogreek Hoplites. How you already said, if a soldier is stoken down but not killed, he stands up and switch to secondary weapon. As human player you have to order the unit to attack again and again only to maintain the swordfight. Thorakitai Hoplitai are easier to use, if they are in melee with an infantery unit, only klick alt attack one time and they will fight with swords until you order something else.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
A very long time ago I asked for help trying to switch spear as primary and sword as secondary for those elites: sadly people answered that the only way to do this is to change the model of the unit with 3D Max or similar...
There are two possible solutions:
1) change EB units with similar units of other mods that have spear as primary and sword as secondary
2) remove the spear
I use the second option and I'm quite satisfied: they suffer charges but in melee they perform better than before.
BTW, have you considered the idea of linking the reduction to soldier's radius to morale, giving a lesser bonus to levies and a greater one to elites?
I'm using this system with success in the development of Paeninsula Italica mod...
Woreczko
03-31-2009, 18:11
Yep, you need 3dmax to switch weapons. Unless you don`t care about the visuals - unit stats themselves can be easily swapped.
Personally I did, what you did - removed spears from said units. While celtic and germanic elites are ok that way, I feel hypaspistai-like infantry should be rather like classical hoplites, than swordsmen...oh, well.
Regarding spear units - I divided them into overhand, hoplite-like ones and underhand, anti-cavalry spearmen.
- First type has -4 attack, no light_spear attribute (no longer anti-cav) and 0.3 radius (except units, who naturally operate in loose formation, like ekdromoi)
- Second type has -4 attack. These are usually low-grade spear units (who aren`t expected to be good vs other infantry) or higher quality spear&sword infantry (who got swords for meleeing other inf.).
- All spears get lethality of 0.18
I changed a lot of lethality and attack values as well as distribution of "ap" attribute and numerous other things... so don`t expect above modifications to work flawlessly in vanilla EB. I thought of releasing a whole mod out of this, but i`m not sure yet.
why change lethality values at all?
Woreczko
03-31-2009, 18:49
That`s a long story. As I said - I modified a lot of things, so 0.18 lethality of spears fits my version of EB well. Generally the outline is like this:
- spears have low to medium attack and 0.18 lethality. Overhand get a "density bonus", underhand are good vs. cavalry
- shortswords have medium attack values, low lethality (0.1-0.13) and are armour piercing (unless used by horsemen)
- longswords have high attack values and 0.2 lethality
- axes have low attack values and 0.25 lethality, no longer armour piercing.
- falcata, sica and other fancy sword-like weapons have very high attack values and medium lethality (0.16). No ap.
- 2-handed weapons got even higher lethality, than before, but lose the "ap" attribute.
The reasoning:
It was always strange to me, why best ap units (axemen, 2-handers) were found in areas, where heavy armour was pretty rare. Then I thought, why are heavy weapons ap? Sure, they are good vs. armour, but aren`t they even more deadly vs. unarmoured foes? It can be simulated IMHO better with high lethality or attack values, rather than ap attribute.
And that`s why, I gave "ap" attribute to weapons, who should be specifically efficient vs. armoured warriors. To soldiers, who are used to fighting opponents clad in linothrax or iron. Roman legionaries were an obvious choice, and so shortsword became an ap weapon in my version of EB.
I was also dissatisfied with unnaturaly high attack values of spearmen - so I lowered their attack and gave them higher lethality - spear is surely a deadly weapon. Then I thought - are hoplites indeed an anti-cavalry arm? Sure, they are not. They evolved in theatre dominated by infantry combat, and so are trained and equipped to fight infantry mainly. No reason for "light_spear" attribute. And thus came the division of spear-armed units into "general-purpose" short, overhand spears and anti-cavalry, longer spears, not-so-good vs. other foot soldiers.
That`s a long story. As I said - I modified a lot of things, so 0.18 lethality of spears fits my version of EB well. Generally the outline is like this:
- spears have low to medium attack and 0.18 lethality. Overhand get a "density bonus", underhand are good vs. cavalry
- shortswords have medium attack values, low lethality (0.1-0.13) and are armour piercing (unless used by horsemen)
- longswords have high attack values and 0.2 lethality
- axes have low attack values and 0.25 lethality, no longer armour piercing.
- falcata, sica and other fancy sword-like weapons have very high attack values and medium lethality (0.16). No ap.
- 2-handed weapons got even higher lethality, than before, but lose the "ap" attribute.
The reasoning:
It was always strange to me, why best ap units (axemen, 2-handers) were found in areas, where heavy armour was pretty rare. Then I thought, why are heavy weapons ap? Sure, they are good vs. armour, but aren`t they even more deadly vs. unarmoured foes? It can be simulated IMHO better with high lethality or attack values, rather than ap attribute.
And that`s why, I gave "ap" attribute to weapons, who should be specifically efficient vs. armoured warriors. To soldiers, who are used to fighting opponents clad in linothrax or iron. Roman legionaries were an obvious choice, and so shortsword became an ap weapon in my version of EB.
I was also dissatisfied with unnaturaly high attack values of spearmen - so I lowered their attack and gave them higher lethality - spear is surely a deadly weapon. Then I thought - are hoplites indeed an anti-cavalry arm? Sure, they are not. They evolved in theatre dominated by infantry combat, and so are trained and equipped to fight infantry mainly. No reason for "light_spear" attribute. And thus came the division of spear-armed units into "general-purpose" short, overhand spears and anti-cavalry, longer spears, not-so-good vs. other foot soldiers.
Sounds very interesting, like the ideas :)
jhhowell
04-01-2009, 02:37
To clarify, in my campaign the Lusos were reduced to NW Gaul well before this spear mod existed (big empire plus not a lot of playing time means rather slow progress, sadly...). So their presence there doesn't say anything meaningful about balance.
On the plus side, I noticed just before quitting last night that the Maks have displaced the Getai from their homelands. I find that impressive since the Makedonian armies I see lately are a few Phalangitai Deuteroi, a fair number of those Thracian levy spearmen, and an odd and unpredictable assortment of other troops (akontistai, or thracian peltasts, or lugoae, very rarely a rhomphaiaphoroi will pop up). Unless the AI started spamming rhomps a few turns ago, I find it very surprising that such a force could push the Getai around. Will send spies to see what's going on next time I play.
Drewski, that Parthia map you posted was what I was thinking of. I find that pretty impressive, both in absolute terms and especially considering their starting position in 272 BCE.
To clarify, in my campaign the Lusos were reduced to NW Gaul well before this spear mod existed (big empire plus not a lot of playing time means rather slow progress, sadly...). So their presence there doesn't say anything meaningful about balance.
On the plus side, I noticed just before quitting last night that the Maks have displaced the Getai from their homelands. I find that impressive since the Makedonian armies I see lately are a few Phalangitai Deuteroi, a fair number of those Thracian levy spearmen, and an odd and unpredictable assortment of other troops (akontistai, or thracian peltasts, or lugoae, very rarely a rhomphaiaphoroi will pop up). Unless the AI started spamming rhomps a few turns ago, I find it very surprising that such a force could push the Getai around. Will send spies to see what's going on next time I play.
Drewski, that Parthia map you posted was what I was thinking of. I find that pretty impressive, both in absolute terms and especially considering their starting position in 272 BCE.
On your first point, I've played enough campaigns to know that the RNG holds more sway over the campaign map, than any little tweaks I (or anyone else) can add...e.g. play 5 campaigns as Casse, where u dont really influence anything for 30 yrs or so ...and sometimes The Arverni rule France and The Lowlands, sometimes The Aeudil, sometimes the Sweboz, sometimes even The Romans.., most of the time, they are all still slugging it out..
Its MOSTLY down to the great RNG.
Second point, yep that really is quite an impressive Parthian map. Point one, Id just got my Northern Getai army completely Nuked by Samartian HA and was very pissed off, Point 2a, don't EVER code ANYTHING when u are pissed off ;)
Point 3, in the cold Light of Wednesday, I still reckon the whole steppe factions need a little rebalance--HA secondary attack is equal to Princepes primary (with MIC taken into consideration), for friks sake ...
I changed a lot of lethality and attack values as well as distribution of "ap" attribute and numerous other things... I thought of releasing a whole mod out of this, but i`m not sure yet.
:laugh4: It seems like you just read my mind: the same thoughts occupied too much of my time in the last weeks... Maybe we can discuss about this through PMs and release a joint project...
And that`s why, I gave "ap" attribute to weapons, who should be specifically efficient vs. armoured warriors. To soldiers, who are used to fighting opponents clad in linothrax or iron. Roman legionaries were an obvious choice, and so shortsword became an ap weapon in my version of EB.
Well, actually until Romans fought Hellenistic kingdoms (vs. Phlilip V in 197 B.C. IIRC), heavily armored enemies were pretty rare, and however the broad point and blade of pre-Imperial Gladii don't suit well in an anti-armor role... I think your approach of raising the lethality of the most effective weapons should be more appropriate for the Gladium than the AP attribute.
It was always strange to me, why best ap units (axemen, 2-handers) were found in areas, where heavy armour was pretty rare. Then I thought, why are heavy weapons ap? Sure, they are good vs. armour, but aren`t they even more deadly vs. unarmoured foes? It can be simulated IMHO better with high lethality or attack values, rather than ap attribute.
I totally agree:2thumbsup:
Africanvs
04-03-2009, 15:23
Well, actually until Romans fought Hellenistic kingdoms (vs. Phlilip V in 197 B.C. IIRC), heavily armored enemies were pretty rare, and however the broad point and blade of pre-Imperial Gladii don't suit well in an anti-armor role... I think your approach of raising the lethality of the most effective weapons should be more appropriate for the Gladium than the AP attribute.
I agree with you here. I think all of his changes make a lot of sense, but the gladius was effective because of the scutum. The Romans would hide behind that shield and thrust the gladius into the neck/face or slash the hamstring, not necessarily stab through armor.
Re: KH
@Zett in particular.
Playing a massive campaign as KH at the moment (with Spear changes). I have to agree that KH probably suffer the most. But I'm absolutely loving it. The KH get SO many other bonuses that say the Romans don't. Almost anywhere you conquer early on, has a least one mid level barracks you can instantly recruit from. And what a wonderful myriad of troops to choose from. Plus, you can get "super lance cavalry", which are the real killers, almost anywhere (with a lvl 2 home MIC), with a MUCH lower MIC than other factions' elite troops( and yes in my view they are extremly elite).
My plan (which worked nicely), was to run up through Makedonia, and into Tylis, making Tylis my sole LVL 4 Gov, and growing it as fast as possible. In 25 yrs from the start of game, I am churning out Elite Thracians every turn. 3 per 20 stack, and 3 Noble Cav, plus a good mix of heavy/light hoplites make an awesome army. I even started adding a 30 mnai stome thrower to each army. Yes that's incredibly expensive, but as the KH, you get so rich so fast, you can afford it, and it's so much more fun than the boring old Romani ;)
And then there's Syracusian hoplites, distinguished hoplites (both veritable tanks), and of course, home grown non merc Kretian Archers, and Rhodsian Slingers. What more could a leader want? Yes it's pretty hard in the early days (isn't it for most factions?), with 8 or 9 attack Levy Hoplites, but that's when your Generals earn their mettle. I haven't had a General actually fight in a battle for many a year now.
Took Dalminion and Syracuse, sat there for 15 yrs with mutual Romani borders (some kinda record) without them attacking, and when they finally did, it was with a 20 stack, almost all Pedites Extras, with a few cavalry plus 8 star general. I thought (gulp), here's the test, my Dalminion Army of mostly hoplites, a few illyrian spears, some Rhodes slingers, Kretan Archers, requistite Elite Thracian, wing Galatians Shordswords and lance cavalry absolutely massacred them. And the full stack right behind it.;)
My new favorite faction to be sure :)
Back on the post topic, giving all these guys 4 attack back, would make it so easy as to be almost pointless fighting..........
Re: KH
@Zett in particular.
Plus, you can get "super lance cavalry", which are the real killers, almost anywhere (with a lvl 2 home MIC)
Level 3 MIC if you mean these guys
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/koinon-hellenon/kh_hippeis_xystophoroi.gif
Hippeis Xystophoroi (Greek Noble Cavalry)
After I thought a while about the +4 attack bonus I have to agree, that it is not necessary for KH. Nice to hear, that you like KH:laugh4:.
There is a additional point that speaks for KH, they have only one unit (if you leave the artillery out) that requires a level 5 MIC, Spartiatai Hoplitai (only recruitable in Sparte). All other "elite" units (Thorakitai, Thorakitai Hopitai, Epilektoi Hoplitai, Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai) only need a level 4 MIC.
And back to the Hippeis Xystophoroi, if you compare them with their counterparts, they are mostly slightly inferior, but you can recruit them (how you already said) nearly everywhere and you only need a level 3 MIC.https://img49.imageshack.us/img49/5838/neubitmapto2.png
From up to down: Hippies Xystophoroi (KH), Hippies Thessalikoi (Makedonia, Epeiros and KH), Agema Klerouchikon Hippeon (Ptolemaioi), Eqvites Extraordinarii (Romani), Hetairoi, Molosson Agema (Epeiros)
https://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6538/hippeisxystophoroigs8.jpg
Area of Recruitment
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Level 3 MIC if you mean these guys
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/koinon-hellenon/kh_hippeis_xystophoroi.gif
Hippeis Xystophoroi (Greek Noble Cavalry)
After I thought a while about the +4 attack bonus I have to agree, that it is not necessary for KH. Nice to hear, that you like KH:laugh4:.
There is a additional point that speaks for KH, they have only one unit (if you leave the artillery out) that requires a level 5 MIC, Spartiatai Hoplitai (only recruitable in Sparte). All other "elite" units (Thorakitai, Thorakitai Hopitai, Epilektoi Hoplitai, Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai) only need a level 4 MIC.
And back to the Hippeis Xystophoroi, if you compare them with their counterparts, they are mostly slightly inferior, but you can recruit them (how you already said) nearly everywhere and you only need a level 3 MIC.https://img49.imageshack.us/img49/5838/neubitmapto2.png
From up to down: Hippies Xystophoroi (KH), Hippies Thessalikoi (Makedonia, Epeiros and KH), Agema Klerouchikon Hippeon (Ptolemaioi), Eqvites Extraordinarii (Romani), Hetairoi, Molosson Agema (Epeiros)
https://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6538/hippeisxystophoroigs8.jpg
Area of Recruitment
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Didn't notice it was only a Lvl 3 GVT to recruit Xyst's ...excellent news !
I checked the files to make sure I had the right province to recruit Elite Thracians (as in Tylis), but I've put a self imposed ban on checking recruitment viewer and code for a while, it's good to get surprises still :laugh4:
Btw, excuse my mix of modern and ancient names for places and units, its part how I best remember them, and part lazyness ;).........now if only my PC would finish defragging my hard drive...I've been waiting almost 4 HOURS NOW and want to get back to the campaign....:lam:
seienchin
04-10-2009, 15:43
That`s a long story. As I said - I modified a lot of things, so 0.18 lethality of spears fits my version of EB well. Generally the outline is like this:
- spears have low to medium attack and 0.18 lethality. Overhand get a "density bonus", underhand are good vs. cavalry
- shortswords have medium attack values, low lethality (0.1-0.13) and are armour piercing (unless used by horsemen)
- longswords have high attack values and 0.2 lethality
- axes have low attack values and 0.25 lethality, no longer armour piercing.
- falcata, sica and other fancy sword-like weapons have very high attack values and medium lethality (0.16). No ap.
- 2-handed weapons got even higher lethality, than before, but lose the "ap" attribute.
The reasoning:
It was always strange to me, why best ap units (axemen, 2-handers) were found in areas, where heavy armour was pretty rare. Then I thought, why are heavy weapons ap? Sure, they are good vs. armour, but aren`t they even more deadly vs. unarmoured foes? It can be simulated IMHO better with high lethality or attack values, rather than ap attribute.
And that`s why, I gave "ap" attribute to weapons, who should be specifically efficient vs. armoured warriors. To soldiers, who are used to fighting opponents clad in linothrax or iron. Roman legionaries were an obvious choice, and so shortsword became an ap weapon in my version of EB.
.
Mmh... Maybe it balances the game better, but I disagree to your reasoning.
It is unimportant if you use a huge Axe or a short sword against an enemy wearing no armour, but you get a big advantage against heavily armoured people, if you use a big Axe, sword or somehting. It just has to do with the kinetic energy you get from using a heavy weapon. It is much easier to fight with a short sword, because it is small and light. It would be more logical to give shortsword fighters a high atack skill and no armour pircing and the 2 Hand weapons and maybe longswords the AP skill, low atack skill and high lethality.
If you dont believe me, go to the forest and try to pierce through hard wood with a dagger and then with a giant axe. It simply has more impact on hard materials.
Woreczko
04-10-2009, 17:03
Well, after a conversation via PMs with Aper I revised my modded EB. Shortswords are no longer AP, just have the highest attack value (just like in vanilla EB).
However we are both staunchly against axes and 2-handers having an ap attribute. In RTW AP+high lethality = overkill. In EB, armour is relatively high, while differences between stats like attack or defense skill are relatively small. So... AP practically eliminates the need for a high attack value. E.g. you get +5 attack bonus vs. Thureophoroi; +7 vs hypaspistai. At the same time said elite hypaspistai have just 4 points of attack more than yer anatolian hilly-billy hillmen and exactly the same defense skill. If both units get tired, than their skills go down, but massive +7 bonus due to AP remains.
High attack + low lethality is comparably good in a head-on or even a loosing fight. Your soldiers may hit the enemy , despite them having all of their defense working against you. It`s also comparably poor, for attacking in favorable conditions, as your soldiers, despite hitting the enemy even more often, have a low chance, to actually kill them.
Low attack + high lethality is good in favorable conditions. Because of various factors (flank attack, enemy being tired, etc.) you soldiers, despite low attack will hit often enough. And, when they hit, they have a good chance to kill. However, in "fair fight" they may have problems hitting the enemy often enough, for their high lethality to make a difference.
This = balanced. However AP, which often takes away a good chunk of enemy`s defense (and unarmoured units having a low defense overall) combined with high lethality = high chance to hit + high chance to kill.... you get the picture.
If you dont believe me, go to the forest and try to pierce through hard wood with a dagger and then with a giant axe. It simply has more impact on hard materials.
"Giant axe" simply can simply accumulate much more kinetic energy, due to it`s weight and (im)balance. It posses absolutely no advantage over dagger, when it comes to using this energy to penetrate things.
Moreover, a typical fighting axe is a rather light weapon, often no heavier, than a sword. It`s just, that most of it`s weight is concentrated at it`s end - so it can strike harder and is more unwieldly at the same time.
Sorry to intrude upon this discussion, but I am wondering if there was a modded EDU that balanced the light spears for multiplayer. I accidentally applied the mod to the mp backup and while the light spears are now balanced, the troop selection in custom battle consists mostly of mercenaries and not native troops.
Sorry to intrude upon this discussion, but I am wondering if there was a modded EDU that balanced the light spears for multiplayer. I accidentally applied the mod to the mp backup and while the light spears are now balanced, the troop selection in custom battle consists mostly of mercenaries and not native troops.
I didn't do one for MP sorry....
If you need the original EB 1.2 mp game edu backup, here it is 77
Oh, thanks a lot, mate. I'll take the time to apply your changes to the mp edu and upload it when I have time.
hi, ive tried downloading this file but everytime i go to unpack it, it says file is corrupt and is empty??? any ideas??
Aurgelmir
04-16-2009, 12:57
I playing now for e few weeks with Drewsky´s EDU,and i think that the balance is just right now..
And the AI balance is the same as it was before.The romans are still slowly,even now that they have an advantage.
Drewsky did you cahange the HA stats?
hi, ive tried downloading this file but everytime i go to unpack it, it says file is corrupt and is empty??? any ideas?? I just downloaded the file from this thread, and it unzipped fine. Sorry don't know what happened for you if you keep getting the same error.
Here's the same file again, maybe try downloading this one 87
I playing now for e few weeks with Drewsky´s EDU,and i think that the balance is just right now..
And the AI balance is the same as it was before.The romans are still slowly,even now that they have an advantage.
Drewsky did you cahange the HA stats? Glad you like it :) Now I've had plenty of time to try out various nations with it (Rome, KH, Epiros, Casse, Getai), I too think the battles really are balanced properly now. No problems here either with ai expansion patterns, I don't think the changes make that much of a difference, to the way ai auto-resolve battles are calculated.
NO the file in this thread DOES NOT change Horse Archer stats at all. (just to clarify). I'm still personally tinkering a little with those in my own games.
PraetorFigus
04-16-2009, 19:19
I have also done some tinkering with the edu.
I gave all light_spear units an attack of 11, the result has been surprisingly no spamming of low end levees with more elites in armies. against aedui and arverni as romani I was fighting more gaesatae then expected, Epeiros have phalangites with lots of chevrons very tough to face :wall: triarii and principes are no longer that superior then other units, and hastatii are actually more useful making battles far more interesting for and against romani.
I currently have a Seleukid campaign where I am not steamrolling into Egypt against Ptolies with Pezhetairoi and ranged support. it's been back and forth for a while, and I'm looking forward to fighting other factions besides Pahlava whose bodyguard are now very very tough in melee.
One thing I like with the 11 attack is that cavalry now do not die like flies when the AI tries to out flank me and have been more successful causing mass routs instead of getting chopped up and getting routed with the rest of the AI army wavering, so a little less micro managing for the player also. :2thumbsup:
But I'm not entirely clear on the benefits of some of the other changes you have made compared to vanilla EB, I've also gotten bogged down with the lower radius for units in terms of assigning appropriate values without turning units into tanks. but one thing for sure, with the 11 attack there does not seem any away to fight battles with time limits, battles run much longer. :dizzy2:
how are the battles with your changes? what else can you share with your observations from your changes? I certainly like were these changes are going while we wait for EBII!
also, I want to eventually incorporate the lower radius but with RL :juggle2: don't have enough time to test and tinker
I have also done some tinkering with the edu.
I gave all light_spear units an attack of 11, the result has been surprisingly no spamming of low end levees with more elites in armies. against aedui and arverni as romani I was fighting more gaesatae then expected, Epeiros have phalangites with lots of chevrons very tough to face :wall: triarii and principes are no longer that superior then other units, and hastatii are actually more useful making battles far more interesting for and against romani.
I currently have a Seleukid campaign where I am not steamrolling into Egypt against Ptolies with Pezhetairoi and ranged support. it's been back and forth for a while, and I'm looking forward to fighting other factions besides Pahlava whose bodyguard are now very very tough in melee.
One thing I like with the 11 attack is that cavalry now do not die like flies when the AI tries to out flank me and have been more successful causing mass routs instead of getting chopped up and getting routed with the rest of the AI army wavering, so a little less micro managing for the player also. :2thumbsup:
But I'm not entirely clear on the benefits of some of the other changes you have made compared to vanilla EB, I've also gotten bogged down with the lower radius for units in terms of assigning appropriate values without turning units into tanks. but one thing for sure, with the 11 attack there does not seem any away to fight battles with time limits, battles run much longer. :dizzy2:
how are the battles with your changes? what else can you share with your observations from your changes? I certainly like were these changes are going while we wait for EBII!
also, I want to eventually incorporate the lower radius but with RL :juggle2: don't have enough time to test and tinker
The only thing I changed was removing 4 attack from all Light_Spear Units, which also includes all Phalanx units. I didn't alter the radaii at all (assuming you were addressing me that is ;))
Sorry, but I don't like the idea of making ALL light_spear 11 attack. Why bother recruting the better units if you do this? If you just take 4 attack away, then spear units go from (I think) 8-16 basic attack, which still makes sense.
I found it tough at the start in a KH campaign, but then Levy Hoplites really shouldn't be anything but emergency battlefield troops. Vanilla EB 1.2 gives them 12 attack, which is to my mind quite ridiculous, when taken into account that's more than a pretty decent sword or axe unit.
As I said above, I personally find battles a lot more realistic. Spear on spear is exactly the same balance as before, high lvl sword/axe units perform better vs mid/low spears, but then they should.
i think i have got it to work,well i hope so.. but when i was trying to unzip it, it kept giving me this error message,--unsupported compression method for export_descr_unit txt-- and it kept saying the title was broken... baffled me it did.. but with perserverance,i somehow managed to do it.. (i think)..
anyway,it does seem like a good thing to have.. good work.
i think i have got it to work,well i hope so.. but when i was trying to unzip it, it kept giving me this error message,--unsupported compression method for export_descr_unit txt-- and it kept saying the title was broken... baffled me it did.. but with perserverance,i somehow managed to do it.. (i think)..
anyway,it does seem like a good thing to have.. good work.
Which unzip prog were you using to get those messages?
winrar and z-zip...
Very strange. I use winrar too. Oh well, glad you finally got it to work ~:thumb:
I have also done some tinkering with the edu.
I gave all light_spear units an attack of 11, the result has been surprisingly no spamming of low end levees with more elites in armies. against aedui and arverni as romani I was fighting more gaesatae then expected, Epeiros have phalangites with lots of chevrons very tough to face :wall: triarii and principes are no longer that superior then other units, and hastatii are actually more useful making battles far more interesting for and against romani.
I currently have a Seleukid campaign where I am not steamrolling into Egypt against Ptolies with Pezhetairoi and ranged support. it's been back and forth for a while, and I'm looking forward to fighting other factions besides Pahlava whose bodyguard are now very very tough in melee.
One thing I like with the 11 attack is that cavalry now do not die like flies when the AI tries to out flank me and have been more successful causing mass routs instead of getting chopped up and getting routed with the rest of the AI army wavering, so a little less micro managing for the player also. :2thumbsup:
But I'm not entirely clear on the benefits of some of the other changes you have made compared to vanilla EB, I've also gotten bogged down with the lower radius for units in terms of assigning appropriate values without turning units into tanks. but one thing for sure, with the 11 attack there does not seem any away to fight battles with time limits, battles run much longer. :dizzy2:
how are the battles with your changes? what else can you share with your observations from your changes? I certainly like were these changes are going while we wait for EBII!
also, I want to eventually incorporate the lower radius but with RL :juggle2: don't have enough time to test and tinker
you made all spear units have 11 attack? what the hell is the point of that?:thumbsdown:
with no distinction for skill or training or anything, you've taken out much of the diversity between units. am i missing something?
drewski how would i be able to find out if i have got it working ok?? where would i be able to see the changes made? also, how do you get your units to use their secondery weapon,ie swords instead of the spear/ or do they just do it automaticly?? cheers
PraetorFigus
04-17-2009, 23:17
you made all spear units have 11 attack? what the hell is the point of that?:thumbsdown:
with no distinction for skill or training or anything, you've taken out much of the diversity between units. am i missing something?
Yes, I was testing unit recruitment to see how much the AI values attack rating and how much influence armor, shields and defense affects spearmen.
I understood that -4 would put weak levees at a huge disadvantage against other units and I have found that most phalanxes are still very effective with 11 attack, (not enough time for me to test everything right now:juggle2:).
There are also factors of lethality, overall defense rating (and the three individual ones), moral and training and then number of officers and units 162 versus 160 versus 200 or 202 as a few examples. Also spear heavy factions such as the Lusotannan are not as such a disadvantage.
In my tests I only altered units classified as spearmen with the light_spear attribute. what I want to see is how to better control for the other factors to eventually test with an adjusted radius.
I guess I should have explained more in my earlier post.
Just have to keep plugging away :smash:
I hope this provides better insight into what I am testing with the 11 attack rating.
PraetorFigus
04-17-2009, 23:26
The only thing I changed was removing 4 attack from all Light_Spear Units, which also includes all Phalanx units. I didn't alter the radaii at all (assuming you were addressing me that is ;))
Sorry, but I don't like the idea of making ALL light_spear 11 attack. Why bother recruting the better units if you do this? If you just take 4 attack away, then spear units go from (I think) 8-16 basic attack, which still makes sense.
I found it tough at the start in a KH campaign, but then Levy Hoplites really shouldn't be anything but emergency battlefield troops. Vanilla EB 1.2 gives them 12 attack, which is to my mind quite ridiculous, when taken into account that's more than a pretty decent sword or axe unit.
As I said above, I personally find battles a lot more realistic. Spear on spear is exactly the same balance as before, high lvl sword/axe units perform better vs mid/low spears, but then they should.
With the attack rating, no prob, I'm still testing other things out as well. When I made the changes I was also intrested in seeing how early ai progression goes and ai army compositions.
Better units also have other things going for them with there other attributes. What I'm not clear on is how some attributes like AP could be reassigned and on what basis, since experience also influences attack rating and defense skill.
But I agree that there is an unnecessary bonus of +4 for spearmen because of the previous use of the spear attribute in vanilla EB. :2thumbsup:
With the attack rating, no prob, I'm still testing other things out as well. When I made the changes I was also intrested in seeing how early ai progression goes and ai army compositions.
Better units also have other things going for them with there other attributes. What I'm not clear on is how some attributes like AP could be reassigned and on what basis, since experience also influences attack rating and defense skill.
But I agree that there is an unnecessary bonus of +4 for spearmen because of the previous use of the spear attribute in vanilla EB. :2thumbsup: Glad we agree on the last point :beam:
All I can really add, is good luck with the rest of your testing.
drewski how would i be able to find out if i have got it working ok?? where would i be able to see the changes made? also, how do you get your units to use their secondery weapon,ie swords instead of the spear/ or do they just do it automaticly?? cheers
Easiest way to check, is just look at any spear unit card within the game itself...(Hoplitai, Triarii, Celtic Spearman, any will do).. If it's attack is 4 less than you are used to, then it's working.
To get them to use their secondary weapon, just hold ALT + Right Click on the enemy. Also, some units will switch weapons automatically in certain circumstances.
seienchin
04-19-2009, 10:54
A very long time ago I asked for help trying to switch spear as primary and sword as secondary for those elites: sadly people answered that the only way to do this is to change the model of the unit with 3D Max or similar......
No... you can make even Roman phalangitai with just the exp descr unit :book:
Woreczko
04-19-2009, 18:26
You can switch sword and spear in the EDU, but the unit would still look like using swords, even if these swords have all properties of a spear.
Aurgelmir
04-20-2009, 12:56
Yeah why does a unit have probs with the second weapon and others not?
I always asked myself...
You can switch sword and spear in the EDU, but the unit would still look like using swords, even if these swords have all properties of a spear.
you have to change the animation used in the DMB
Yeah why does a unit have probs with the second weapon and others not?
I always asked myself...
there are only problems when the unit uses an overhand spear animation
you have to change the animation used in the DMB
I did, but it was not enough: there's a problem of model/skin/dunno...
No... you can make even Roman phalangitai with just the exp descr unit :book:
From Eastern Auxilia, sure; from other units, how? thx
BTW I was speaking about Soldurii/Hypaspistai-like units, and about how to make the spear their primary and the sword their secondary: I don't see how phalangitai entered in the discussion...
there are only problems when the unit uses an overhand spear animation
but WHAT exactly are these problems? It seems that nobody can/want to aswer this question...
Watchman
04-23-2009, 18:53
Regarding the original topic of the thread, while I'm not entirely familiar with the original testing that was done to determine it the consensus among the folks who've SRSLY investigated the murky inner workings of the EDU and the battle engine seems to be that there's a 4-point penalty on something for units unig the "spear" and "light_spear" weapon attributes.
And I know that when I rather extensively tested the two - to see which one would work better as the standard spear-unit attribute - there was a clear difference (all other things being equal, natch) between how those two behaved.
Anyways, in general "light_spear" with the +4 compensation seems to work well enough overall.
As for the "swords beat spears", bollocks. They don't. Except maybe at point-blank quarters where a shorter weapon has an advantage, but in general there's some *very* good reasons why the spear has been the primary infantry weapon par excellence the world over and throughout the ages - among other things it's *very* effective in massed formations, and even in individual combat easily rivals a sword in properly trained hands.
Usually, the fighting-spear was the primary initial weapon; the sword or whatever was drawn once the combat moved into close quarters, or the spear-shaft broke.
Regarding the original topic of the thread, while I'm not entirely familiar with the original testing that was done to determine it the consensus among the folks who've SRSLY investigated the murky inner workings of the EDU and the battle engine seems to be that there's a 4-point penalty on something for units unig the "spear" and "light_spear" weapon attributes. Yes its been documented in this thread and otherwise.
And I know that when I rather extensively tested the two - to see which one would work better as the standard spear-unit attribute - there was a clear difference (all other things being equal, natch) between how those two behaved.
Anyways, in general "light_spear" with the +4 compensation seems to work well enough overall.
Why compensate something that absolutely doesn't need or warrant it? To make levy spears killing machines?
As for the "swords beat spears", bollocks. They don't. Except maybe at point-blank quarters where a shorter weapon has an advantage, but in general there's some *very* good reasons why the spear has been the primary infantry weapon par excellence the world over and throughout the ages - among other things it's *very* effective in massed formations, and even in individual combat easily rivals a sword in properly trained hands.
Usually, the fighting-spear was the primary initial weapon; the sword or whatever was drawn once the combat moved into close quarters, or the spear-shaft broke. The reason spears were so popular...they are very easy to make, and were therefore common place. So being the "standard" weapon of mass manufacture, soldiers of course became proficient with them, and tactics developed around the spear. A good sword /axe takes far more manufacture and is (probably) more difficult to become proficient fighting with. Its also far more lethal than a spear.
PraetorFigus
04-23-2009, 22:59
The reason spears were so popular...they are very easy to make, and were therefore common place. So being the "standard" weapon of mass manufacture, soldiers of course became proficient with them, and tactics developed around the spear. A good sword /axe takes far more manufacture and is (probably) more difficult to become proficient fighting with. Its also far more lethal than a spear.
Well in terms of manufacturing arms, I can understand how there is more work in swords then spears, but axes could be considered easier then the other two.
The Sarissa and Xyston (hope I spelled them right :sweatdrop:) are not that easy to make though, but I have no idea about spears from other peoples though.
What I wonder is about phalangites, now were they really skewering machines as they are with the high attack values they have in the RTW engine or were they more pinning forces for flanking with assault forces, cavalry and heavy infantry for example?
I've played as Macedon, KH and Seleucids with the -4 attack and seemed fine with fighting battles. Phalangites still get lots of chevrons! I've done different tests with the attack rating for spearmen with the light_spear attribute and I certainly like what I see.
For pseudo-phalanx units I can see keeping their attack values as is in vanilla EB because of how other changes like adjusting unit radius affects other things as well. Watchman, what do you think?
Cheers:2thumbsup:
Well in terms of manufacturing arms, I can understand how there is more work in swords then spears, but axes could be considered easier then the other two.......
Your right, I was thinking more of the "falx" type axe. Should have said so ;)
On a side note, I've been reliably informed, that all phalanx units have their base shield value doubled
. Since all phalanx units in EB have 5 base shield, that gives them 10 shield plus their armor. No wonder they are missile proof!
On this basis, I edited all phalanx units to give them 2 shield for basic phalanx and 3 shield for elites (4 and 6 in actual play). The phalanxes are still pretty bullet proof, but they occasionally take the odd missile hit pre melee. In about 75 + hours of play testing, I'm liking the results better..:beam:
Watchman
04-24-2009, 00:07
Why compensate something that absolutely doesn't need or warrant it? To make levy spears killing machines? I fail to see where levy spears are killing machines. Though you may want to be careful with cavalry around even such low-end spearmen, which is quite realistic.
The compensation is there to make spears appropriately lethal in infantry-to-infantry combat, more on which below.
The reason spears were so popular...they are very easy to make, and were therefore common place. So being the "standard" weapon of mass manufacture, soldiers of course became proficient with them, and tactics developed around the spear.Yeah well, obviously. A spear is pretty much a knife on a stick. Plus, in many societies they had ready use as hunting tools (much like axes had any number of utility functions)...
Feel free to try to explain why also wealthy, well-equipped warriors such as Greek Hoplites, "barbarian" warrior elites, Persian warrior-nobles etc. then were such universal afficiandos of long pointy sticks and carried swords, axes etc. primarily as backup sidearms and for combat at ranges too short for a spear ?
A good sword /axe takes far more manufacture and is (probably) more difficult to become proficient fighting with.An axe, hardly. There's not much more metalwork involved, actually, and great many of the people who carried one as a weapon were practised in wielding it as an everyday tool.
A sword, conditionally. Short swords - the line between one of those and a large knife or dagger is often blurry indeed - weren't too difficult to make and hence were cheap and common enough. The larger kinds of spearheads tended to readily rival them in size, actually. Longer blades get exponentially more difficult to make, however, and were duly that much more expensive and prestigious weapons; I've occasionally seen it suggested that the same is true for concave-curved "sabres" like the falcata/kopis/machaira family, too.
Beats me what you base the argument about difficulty on; becoming a genuinely effective fighter with any weapon demands skill and hence, training, but spears have the real advantage they're incredibly well suited for close-order massed infantry formations - a good instructor can turn complete novices into a credible if not very reliable battlefield presence in a matter of days.
Should tell something that even elite warriors tended to have them as their primary weapons, though.
Its also far more lethal than a spear.Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.
I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes...
Your right, I was thinking more of the "falx" type axe. Should have said so ;)The falx isn't an axe. Not even close. It's really more or less a cheaper "staff-weapon" version of the Thracian rhomphaia, which was very much a kind of sword.
I fail to see where levy spears are killing machines. Though you may want to be careful with cavalry around even such low-end spearmen, which is quite realistic.
The compensation is there to make spears appropriately lethal in infantry-to-infantry combat, more on which below.
Yeah well, obviously. A spear is pretty much a knife on a stick. Plus, in many societies they had ready use as hunting tools (much like axes had any number of utility functions)...
Feel free to try to explain why also wealthy, well-equipped warriors such as Greek Hoplites, "barbarian" warrior elites, Persian warrior-nobles etc. then were such universal afficiandos of long pointy sticks and carried swords, axes etc. primarily as backup sidearms and for combat at ranges too short for a spear ?
An axe, hardly. There's not much more metalwork involved, actually, and great many of the people who carried one as a weapon were practised in wielding it as an everyday tool.
A sword, conditionally. Short swords - the line between one of those and a large knife or dagger is often blurry indeed - weren't too difficult to make and hence were cheap and common enough. The larger kinds of spearheads tended to readily rival them in size, actually. Longer blades get exponentially more difficult to make, however, and were duly that much more expensive and prestigious weapons; I've occasionally seen it suggested that the same is true for concave-curved "sabres" like the falcata/kopis/machaira family, too.
Beats me what you base the argument about difficulty on; becoming a genuinely effective fighter with any weapon demands skill and hence, training, but spears have the real advantage they're incredibly well suited for close-order massed infantry formations - a good instructor can turn complete novices into a credible if not very reliable battlefield presence in a matter of days.
Should tell something that even elite warriors tended to have them as their primary weapons, though.
Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.
I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes...
The falx isn't an axe. Not even close. It's really more or less a cheaper "staff-weapon" version of the Thracian rhomphaia, which was very much a kind of sword.
There's a lot here. Some true, a lot speculation, some just plainly wrong and misinformed. I don't want another complicated internet arguement, just haven't the time or inclination ;)
At least I/We know where the +4 phantom attack comes from. Its just your opinion, mine differs. Let's leave it at that.
Watchman
04-24-2009, 01:38
"Some true, a lot speculation, some just plainly wrong and misinformed" aren't exactly the words to amiably part ways from a discussion with, you know.
:stare:
The last two, in particular, sit firmly in the "back up or get out" category.
Sigh:- ok
Falx, I don't know why I said were axes, they were the first two handed "chopping" weapon that came to mind (had a long few days). They are not axes, but then they are not really swords either. More a spear/sword amalgam. I was wrong.
I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes... Well there's no big secret here. Its because 1) again ease of manufacture and in the greater part 2) So that said hunting can be done from a distance of (relative) safety. To get close enough to kill a bear with a sword, means that the bear is close enough to also dismember the wielder with a huge paw swipe.
Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.
Nonesense? Learn to reply politely if you will..;)
Yes of course having a spear thrust into the abdomen can be lethal, but then so can having a steak knife. The point was about general lethality in battle of a weapon. In Greek "hoplite type" fighting, many, many battles resulted in tiny amounts of casualties, often less than 5% for the losing side. A spear can only generally be used to thrust (hoplite type spears). In close combat, a sword (lets say Gladius), despite being designed for thrusting at the enemy from behind the protection of the shield, all types of gladius appear to have been suitable for slashing and chopping motions. Also, a sword is more effective in parrying or deflecting blows. A 2m long spear is great at a distance, and in a tight formation, but the tight formation and the relative unwieldyness of the spear are telling in close combat.
Stabbing was a very efficient technique, as stabbing wounds, especially in the abdominal area, were almost always deadly. However, the gladius in some circumstances was used for cutting or slashing, as is indicated by Livy's account of the Macedonian Wars, wherein the Macedonian soldiers were horrified to see dismembered bodies.
Though the primary infantry attack was thrusting at stomach height, they were trained to take any advantage, such as slashing at kneecaps beneath the shield wall.
Yes, there can be really only one form of "lethal", as a fatal car crash is only as fatal as a fatal plane crash. General versatality, in causing fatalities is what Im really referring too, and for that I still insist the sword wins out over the spear.
Nobles and Elites carrying spears? I won't deny that they did. Why? Can't honestly say I'm sure. Partly tradition, partly because it was easier to fight an enemy similarly equipped in a "mutually assured minimal casualties way" (see hoplites comment), partly through a lack of high quality swords (speculation on my part).
Spears then in general for the same reason as killing a bear. Because it can be done at greater range and more safely, plus totally agreed, they work excellently well in a close tight formation. But then why should anyone attack from the front, as the Romans proved. Just go around the sides, engage in close range sword combat and negate the spear wall. Then the sword wins out. THAT's why CA put the spear / light_spear penalties vs Infantry in the first place.
So, ok let's not get off on a bad footing then Watchman, and agree to politely differ :yes:
Watchman
04-24-2009, 11:14
Much better.
Well there's no big secret here. Its because 1) again ease of manufacture and in the greater part 2) So that said hunting can be done from a distance of (relative) safety. To get close enough to kill a bear with a sword, means that the bear is close enough to also dismember the wielder with a huge paw swipe.For the record, hunting large game was long also the favourite pasttime of the aristocracy who, obviously, had no particular money problems.
You are correct on the distance thing, obviously. Which should also tell you rather a bit of why spears were so popular for killing humans too - as infantry close-combat weapons go, their killing reach is flat out unmatched. (That many types can also be thrown if necessary, hopefully killing the foeman that much further away or at least encumbering his shield with a spear now transfixed in it, didn't hurt...)
Another factor, which you either ignore or are ignorant of, is the actual ability to *kill* said animals, which have thick hides, strong bones and lots of muscle over their internal organs (which you need to reach to take the critter down). Trying to cut through such a barrier is, obviously, not a very sensible proposition; driving a sharp point through works much better. A somewhat extreme version would be the massive all-metal harpoons whalers used to punch through the thick hide and deep layer of blubber of their prey...
Humans, being rather more fragile and less well-protected organisms, obviously go down rather easier.
Oh, and as you may already have deduced from the above, spears, like dedicated thrusting swords, are pretty good at going through armour too. Force concentrated behind a narrow point and all that.
Nonesense? Learn to reply politely if you will..;)"Nonsense" is my polite reply when confronted with obvious nonsense. The impolite ones tend to net me warnings from moderators for excessive causticity...
Yes of course having a spear thrust into the abdomen can be lethal, but then so can having a steak knife. The point was about general lethality in battle of a weapon.Just FYI, but daggers were what in many contexts often actually killed the heavier armoured warriors... it's comparatively easy to shove them through visors and other gaps at grappling ranges. Obviously daggers lack reach, which as mentioned before ceases being a problem when you stick it atop several meters of stout wood...
'Course, then you'll lose the pinpoint-accuracy benefit but, well, can't have everything. (Which is why daggers or fighting-knives were a pretty universal warrior accessory, whatever the primary weapons load was. It's not like they cost or weighed much, anyway.)
In Greek "hoplite type" fighting, many, many battles resulted in tiny amounts of casualties, often less than 5% for the losing side.That's because the hoplites sucked at pursuit of broken enemies, which was ever the primary source of battle casualties - it being somewhat difficult to kill someone armed who's actively resisting, period. The aim of the actual combat was putting the enemy decisively to flight; his wholesale destruction, if it was to be achieved, had to happen through the ensuing pursuit, or trapping the enemy force so that it could not escape.
This has crap all to do with weapons - plus hoplites tended to find themselves resorting to their swords sooner or later anyway, on account of broken spear-shafts and/or formations or simply too close quarters for the doru to be effective; this did not meaningfully affect the casualty rates.
A spear can only generally be used to thrust (hoplite type spears).No, really ?
In close combat, a sword (lets say Gladius), despite being designed for thrusting at the enemy from behind the protection of the shield, all types of gladius appear to have been suitable for slashing and chopping motions. Also, a sword is more effective in parrying or deflecting blows.This is true, but rather irrelevant - as it is really just explaining why swords have been so popular overall. They're versatile, fairly agile, and - an important enough consideration - easy to carry around.
A 2m long spear is great at a distance, and in a tight formation, but the tight formation and the relative unwieldyness of the spear are telling in close combat....which is, obviously, why people switched to shorter weapons if the foeman got past the spear - or spears, since in close order at least the first two ranks could engage thanks to the sheer lenght and reach of the things.
'Course, there's nothing in particular keeping you from simply making a very short spear, in effect a poor man's stabbing sword, if you're so inclined... the Zulu iklwa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iklwa) being probably the major example. Very effective too, by all accounts.
Yes, there can be really only one form of "lethal", as a fatal car crash is only as fatal as a fatal plane crash. General versatality, in causing fatalities is what Im really referring too, and for that I still insist the sword wins out over the spear.Dead is dead. (Well, in most cases the stricken foeman would actually only be incapaciated or unconscious and die of his wounds later, but this difference is obviously irrelevant insofar as his further contribution to fighting goes...) And while the sword may well indeed be more versatile as such, OTOH it simply cannot match the sheer killing reach of a thrust from a long spear.
And getting poked with either kills you dead just the same; your organs certainly don't particularly care whether the pointy thing perforating them is mounted on a grip or a stick, they stop working anyway...
Nobles and Elites carrying spears? I won't deny that they did. Why? Can't honestly say I'm sure. Partly tradition, partly because it was easier to fight an enemy similarly equipped in a "mutually assured minimal casualties way" (see hoplites comment), partly through a lack of high quality swords (speculation on my part).
---
Spears then in general for the same reason as killing a bear. Because it can be done at greater range and more safely, plus totally agreed, they work excellently well in a close tight formation.Entering Dissonance City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), population one here...
And you had the gall to call "a lot speculation, some just plainly wrong and misinformed" on me ?
Dude, you've yourself already repeatedly admitted to the tactical usefulness of the spear particularly in close-order mass combat. It really should not require any further elaboration as to why even senior warriors who had no trouble at all affording literally cutting-edge war gear so commonly elected to carry a spear as their primary weapon... theirs just duly tended to be of extremely high quality and pimped out six ways to Sunday with whatever motifs the culture's weaponsmiths now liked to decorate spearheads with.
And as already mentioned the relatively low casualties of hoplite warfare came from their lousy pursuit abilities, not from any details of armament or for that matter any particular "gentlemanly" attempts to avoid casualties. When more mobile troops were involved, or a losing phalanx became trapped (for example, by having its flanks turned), the carnage was duly ghastly.
The warfare between the Greek city-states merely for a fair while was somewhat ritualistic in nature, more a method of sorting out the respective communities' pecking order in one issue or another, so just defeating the opposing force sufficed to meet their strategic goals. Once wars became more serious, ambitious and "total" in aims and character the troop rosters were duly diversified and the concrete destruction of the enemy became more important.
But then why should anyone attack from the front, as the Romans proved. Just go around the sides, engage in close range sword combat and negate the spear wall. Then the sword wins out.You're talking about the six-meter pikes of the phalangites here, you know. Not quite the same thing tactically as what's normally referred to as "spear". And they always were in serious trouble anyway if they got flanked, be it by shortsword-wielding Romans, spear-wielding hoplites, axe-toting Iranians or longsword-waving screaming Celts.
Not that anyone ever liked getting hit in the flank, mind you, but the pike phalangites were frontal-combat specialists through and through.
And, of course, the phalangites would then defend themselves with their sidearms (typically mid-sized or short swords)...
Moot.
THAT's why CA put the spear / light_spear penalties vs Infantry in the first place.Well, no. Not really. They put it in because they were stuck in the RTS rock-paper-scissors mentality RE unit roles. Which has crap all to do with realism or historical accuracy; if you've ever taken a look at vanilla RTW, you should know well enough they weren't terribly concerned with those...
Very thorough reply :)
Been up for far, far too long now so I'll keep mine short.
Have to agree with most of it, even though in the hunting analogy, you were mostly talking about a thrown spear (e.g. a pila type weapon from the EB period).
Hoplite casualties, well no-one even knows for sure if they fought over or underhanded.
The strength of hoplites was shock combat. The two phalanxes would smash into each other in hopes of breaking or encircling the enemy force's line. Failing that, a battle degenerated into a pushing match, with the men in the rear trying to force the front lines through those of the enemy. This maneuver was known as the othismos. Battles rarely lasted more than an hour. Once one of the lines broke, the troops would generally flee from the field, sometimes chased by peltasts or light cavalry. If a hoplite escaped, he would sometimes be forced to drop his cumbersome aspis, thereby disgracing himself to his friends and family. Casualties were slight compared to later battles, rarely amounting to more than 5% of the losing side, but the slain often included the most prominent citizens and generals who led from the front. Thus, the whole war could be decided by a single field battle; victory was enforced by ransoming the fallen back to the defeated, called the "Custom of The Greeks". A lot of casualties must have come from blood loss. I don't see all that much evidence for super armor piercing spears here, otherwise you'd see a lot more fatalities.
Hoplites also carried a short sword called a xiphos. The short sword was a secondary weapon, used if and when spears broke, or if the phalanx broke rank. When the enemy retreated, hoplites might drop their shield and spear, and pursue the enemy with their swords. A disadvantage to the xiphos though was that it was extremely heavy and did not provide as much reach as most swords from that period. In other words, it was a bit crap ;) Maybe the best money could buy in Greece, but still a bit crap..
There seems to be a disparity in quality of swords over different cultures, at that period of time. A well made sword can dismember, which will render an opponent well, lets say he's at very least no longer a factor in the battle.
While I was mainly talking about the sarissa and its counterparts, hoplitai type spearmen also relied on their formation and shield wall. And on the sarissa (which in EB also has the light_spear attribute as well as Long_pike, hence they were given 4 attack they shouldn't have had-which is kinda the point of this thread ;))
The sarissa was gradually replaced by variations of the gladius as the weapon of choice. Only Pyrrhus of Epirus was able to maintain a high standard of tactical handling with armies based around the sarissa, but with the dawn of the manipular system, even he struggled for his victories.
The spear has 2 inherent advantages- its reach, and its cheap. A good sword or axe is just more versatile in close combat (and isn't that the definition of melee?).
And the very last point, back on the topic thread, in early EB all pointy stick weapons were classed as "spear" which has -4 attack vs infantry (which to my mind is unfair) and 4 attack was added to all of these units. Then all pointy sticks were changed to classification "light_spear" to aid the units cohesiveness in formation, but even though "light_spear" doesn't get an attack penalty vs infantry (they get a -4 defence penalty), the +4 attack was left. Isn't this correct?
If you take away the phantom +4 attack, then you'll find swords/axes and spears have virtually the same attack value as each other, in relative terms for a unit's cost/level. In most cases, the corresponding spear will still have a higher attack. Maybe a +4 defence modifier (to defence skill) might be in order, but why possibly to the attack stat which isn't any longer compromised in any way?
Anyways, enough from me, I need sleep...:burnout:
i recall a post from CA which stated that the spear attribute was intended only for very long spears (like the sarissa). the unwieldiness of a spear like this and the standoff it allows makes the -4 attack vs infantry and the +8 vs cav understandable.
Watchman
04-24-2009, 17:57
All I know is, when I tested rather extensively the effects of both "spear" and "light_spear", the latter performed much more sanely all other things being equal. Seriously, crap levies with the "spear" attribute were pushing freakin' cataphracts and heavily armoured elite infantry all over the place...
I've no idea what the exact mechanical effects of "light_spear" actually are; what I found out is that in practice compared to their equals with "spear", the test units with it both died and killed their enemies at a slower rate.
Put short - the +4 compensation bonus on "light_spear" works. I'm not sure how or why exactly, but it does.
oh i dont deny that light_spear makes much more sense for most spear units. in the stats for RTR, i use light_spear for all spearmen except for phalanx units; those get spear (but only after reducing the unit radius to 0.3). i do, however think that CA got the modifiers for these attributes right (IMO) so i base the attack stats on unit abilty and training
Woreczko
04-25-2009, 10:01
@Watchman
If you claim, that spears are by long shot no different than other weapons, than why use spear attribute at all? My gripe with spear is not so much it`s performance vs infantry but it`s "Conan mode" vs horses, which with a +4 to attack becomes quite ridiculous.
As you said, spear is very effective in a close formation. At the same time it was very rarely used as a personal weapon, to be carried along for self-defence. First it`s too unwieldly and it`s not particularly good in 1v1 combat.
So... in the end I, too, lowered attack of spears by 4 points, while increasing their lethality. Guard mode offsets their malus to defence, while they killing power stays more or less the same, as it was. But they are no longer so effective vs. heavily armoured foes (lower attack), while somewhat better vs unarmoured ones (higher lethality). THEY NO LONGER SLAUGHTER HEAVY CAVALRY SO MUCH. Going out of guard mode carries a risk though, as their defense skill still gets -4 penalty.
Watchman
04-25-2009, 20:23
If you claim, that spears are by long shot no different than other weapons, than why use spear attribute at all?Because spears are uniquely well suited for anti-cavalry work, and the effects of the attributes reflect that ?
My gripe with spear is not so much it`s performance vs infantry but it`s "Conan mode" vs horses, which with a +4 to attack becomes quite ridiculous.*shrug* Spearmen that failed to run away were grossly dangerous to cavalry. Fact of the world, even if their spears were just bayonets atop a musket (which it should be noted was not a very optimal configuration as a spear...).
Although I think you rather exaggerate the in-game effect, it teaches players to respect that.
Also, without the compensation bonus units with either of the spear attributes grossly underperform against infantry - to recognise how grossly nonsensical this is, look no further than the Greek hoplites who for most of their history chiefly fought each other...
At the same time it was very rarely used as a personal weapon, to be carried along for self-defence.Gee, no duh. Might have something to do with the fact that the usual lenght of a fighting-spear was 2-2.5 meters, which is obviously something you're not going to lug around unless you know you're going to need it.
Which rather obviously disqualifies it as an everyday self-protection tool in most contexts, though I'd point out over here long a popular peasant version was a skiing pole with a spearhead on top (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_pole#Trivia) - I've heard such called "wolf-spears".
Worth noting, though, that foot travelers pretty universally had a fairly robust staff as a walking stick; the techniques used to fight with one are virtually identical to those used when wielding spears two-handed, and it is further worth mentioning that several accredited masters-at-arms such as George Silver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Silver) thought very highly of it as a tool of "civilian" personal combat...
...it`s not particularly good in 1v1 combat.And you base this claim on what exactly ? Pikes, perhaps ?
From what I understand for example Homer has his heroes engage in their duels primarily with their spears, only resorting to swords when those are lost. Similarly, take the diverse highly warlike inhabitants of northern Europe in Ye Olden Times; while due to economic reasons proper swords were quite rare axes and war-clubs (which some Germanic warriors around Roman times at least seem to have been rather fond of) were ubiquitous enough. Yet despite that, and the fact the heavily forested and generally uncooperative terrain and small "skirmish" scale of most engagements commonly forced the warriors fight a whirling melee in open order (essentially a series of more-or-less duels en masse), spears were the favourite primary weapons by far...
Woreczko
04-25-2009, 21:08
Because spears are uniquely well suited for anti-cavalry work, and the effects of the attributes reflect that ?
*shrug* Spearmen that failed to run away were grossly dangerous to cavalry. Fact of the world, even if their spears were just bayonets atop a musket (which it should be noted was not a very optimal configuration as a spear...).
Of course! But then, how often enemy infantry IN EB runs away BEFORE cavalry charge hits them? Not very often, eh? Such is the engine of RTW. With current state of affairs, it means, that you can stop enemy hetairoi with most feeble pantodapoi, beacause they will not run away in fear of being trampled. And in melee they have a good chance to prevail, due to spear bonuses combined with innate high attack value. The latter would be ok, if the former actually took place. Hell, in RL any stationary cavalry is as good as dead if mobbed by infantry, spears or not.
But in EB infantry won`t run before the charge and cavalry will fight it stationary. I`m just trying to do something about it :)
Also, without the compensation bonus units with either of the spear attributes grossly underperform against infantry - to recognise how grossly nonsensical this is, look no further than the Greek hoplites who for most of their history chiefly fought each other...
You are right. I`m not advocating spears to be made weaker (in fact I don`t expect EB team to work on EB I at all - better speed up the release of the second incarnation :) ). I just don`t like this attack bonus. It skewers autocalc and makes them unusually good vs units with high defense. Better increase thier lethality and, in case of hoplites, reduce radius (slightly, so they still need guard mode to fight in a "shieldwall") :)
Gee, no duh. Might have something to do with the fact that the usual lenght of a fighting-spear was 2-2.5 meters, which is obviously something you're not going to lug around unless you know you're going to need it.
Which rather obviously disqualifies it as an everyday self-protection tool in most contexts, though I'd point out over here long a popular peasant version was a skiing pole with a spearhead on top (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_pole#Trivia) - I've heard such called "wolf-spears".
Worth noting, though, that foot travelers pretty universally had a fairly robust staff as a walking stick; the techniques used to fight with one are virtually identical to those used when wielding spears two-handed, and it is further worth mentioning that several accredited masters-at-arms such as George Silver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Silver) thought very highly of it as a tool of "civilian" personal combat...
And you base this claim on what exactly ? Pikes, perhaps ?
From what I understand for example Homer has his heroes engage in their duels primarily with their spears, only resorting to swords when those are lost. Similarly, take the diverse highly warlike inhabitants of northern Europe in Ye Olden Times; while due to economic reasons proper swords were quite rare axes and war-clubs (which some Germanic warriors around Roman times at least seem to have been rather fond of) were ubiquitous enough. Yet despite that, and the fact the heavily forested and generally uncooperative terrain and small "skirmish" scale of most engagements commonly forced the warriors fight a whirling melee in open order (essentially a series of more-or-less duels en masse), spears were the favourite primary weapons by far...
But even Homer`s heroes carry swords into the duel! Because spears are to be thrown or broken or made useless by the closeness of the opponent. It`s not safe to rely on spear alone. That = malus to defense if unit is armed with spear only. Or is not really trained to use it`s secondary arm.
Howgh!
Watchman
04-25-2009, 21:18
Dude. Everybody carried backup sidearms. You can see them included in the skins of many EB units, too. Spears are very good primary weapons, but as mentioned have a bad habit of getting their shafts broken sooner or later (or getting stuck in someone's innards and/or shield more than can be dealt with in the middle of a fight) and like all weapons with good reach run into severe troubles should the combat move to "close in" distances.
Anyone who tried to use a single weapon alone as an all-purpose panacea Darwinised out of the competition right fast.
PraetorFigus
04-25-2009, 21:32
Watchman, I have an idea, what if attack rating is lowered -4 for all spearmen that are not the pseudo-phalanxes.
So that Mori Gaesum, Iphikates, Alpine, Helvetii, Dacian, thorakitai hopitai, speutagardaz and any other pseudo-phalanx would have a slight advantage in terms of having the higher attack value without having the phalanx formation.
conversely the pseudo-phalanxes could be given a higher attack rating like the high attack rating of the Carthaginian elite spearmen units (don't remember there names:wall:).
Separately,I also think a radius of 0.3 would be good for the all spearmen. units classified as light stay as default and heavy maybe something between 0.4 and 0.3 so they do not spread out as far when engaging in melee and leaving other stats alone.
Cheers :2thumbsup:
Watchman
04-25-2009, 21:55
...and screw, say, the Classical Hoplites' ability to fight other infantry, something they were noticeably rather good at...? :inquisitive:
Though, I do intend to continue looking into the radius thingy and how it could be used, picking up from where I was before going AWOL for three months. The infantry vs. infantry tests I did back then looked quite promising (and made the individual soldiers' behaviour in the line of battle rather interesting), but I never got around to seeing what the effects would be for foot versus horse match-ups (and if it would be a good idea to shrink the horses' radii as well)...
PraetorFigus
04-26-2009, 03:27
conversely the pseudo-phalanxes could be given a higher attack rating like the high attack rating of the Carthaginian elite spearmen units (don't remember there names:wall:).
What about this option? In a KH campaign, Carthage is spamming these two units, the armies are getting lots of chevrons so the attack is unusually high on top of their default value.
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/kart-hadast/kar_elite_african_pikes.gifhttps://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/kart-hadast/kart_picked_libypho.gif :whip: :furious3:
Ekdromoi, Akontistai, Sphendonetai, Toxotai and Haploi are not enough to keep Emporion and Massalia that rebelled to me after Carthage took spain and parts of gaul! :wall:
...and screw, say, the Classical Hoplites' ability to fight other infantry, something they were noticeably rather good at...? :inquisitive:
Though, I do intend to continue looking into the radius thingy and how it could be used, picking up from where I was before going AWOL for three months. The infantry vs. infantry tests I did back then looked quite promising (and made the individual soldiers' behaviour in the line of battle rather interesting), but I never got around to seeing what the effects would be for foot versus horse match-ups (and if it would be a good idea to shrink the horses' radii as well)...
I understand the concern with lowering the attack for hoplites, I was under the impression that Classical Hoplites were on the decline through the EB period so it could have been historically feasible to have them slightly less effective, I've been playing KH and Seleukids most recently and the units still earn significant experience points.
If not then maybe for the pseudo-phalanxes with 0.3 radius and higher attack value then they would be more effective.
As for cavalry, they should also benefit from a lower radius.
When spearmen have the -4 attack, cavalry last a little longer in melee, but still need to be managed in battle, the AI seemed to better manage them because I've noticed that the cavalry stay engaged in melee until the charge bonus ends and they disengage and recharge! so with vanilla EB stats, cavalry gets chewed up faster then with the -4 attack, which was another reason I proposed a -4 for spearmen.
light_spear still gives +8 defense, so cavalry still takes losses either way, just the AI seems to do better with cavalry.
I forgot to include cavalry when I was bringing up adjusting radius in the other post.
Cheers:2thumbsup:
i'd like to suggest this simple solution:
1. keep light_spear
2. remove the +4 attack that spear units currently have
3. add the spear_bonus_4 attribute (this applies only vs cav)
4. leave all lethality values as they are
i'd like to suggest this simple solution:
1. keep light_spear
2. remove the +4 attack that spear units currently have
3. add the spear_bonus_4 attribute (this applies only vs cav)
4. leave all lethality values as they are
What do u mean with "spear_bonus_4"? I thougt there are only the attributes pike, spear and light spear. oO
I understand the concern with lowering the attack for hoplites, I was under the impression that Classical Hoplites were on the decline through the EB period so it could have been historically feasible to have them slightly less effective, I've been playing KH and Seleukids most recently and the units still earn significant experience points.
I see where you are coming from, but that is not how units are statted in EB. Unit stats are based on their equipment and training, in as far as can be determined. If you are going to include modifiers based on which units ended up popular or discarded, you throw the entire system of. I truly doubt that hoplite training decrease during EB's time-frame. Not when they suddenly found themselves having to compete with these new-fangled phalangites and legionaries.
Still, in EB they are surprisingly strong for their price/MIC level.
Of course! But then, how often enemy infantry IN EB runs away BEFORE cavalry charge hits them? Not very often, eh? Such is the engine of RTW. With current state of affairs, it means, that you can stop enemy hetairoi with most feeble pantodapoi, beacause they will not run away in fear of being trampled. And in melee they have a good chance to prevail, due to spear bonuses combined with innate high attack value. The latter would be ok, if the former actually took place. Hell, in RL any stationary cavalry is as good as dead if mobbed by infantry, spears or not.
But in EB infantry won`t run before the charge and cavalry will fight it stationary. I`m just trying to do something about it :)
I am not sure if I understand your solution. The problem is morale, not attack factor. Hetairoi are difficult enough to kill even with quality spear troops. Yes, light infantry is too strong against cavalry, but the same argument could be made for peltast in open formation. Lowering morale is not an option, and altering the combat stats of either light infantry or cavalry will affect combat performance with other units as well.
Watchman
04-26-2009, 18:52
i'd like to suggest this simple solution:
1. keep light_spear
2. remove the +4 attack that spear units currently have
3. add the spear_bonus_4 attribute (this applies only vs cav)
4. leave all lethality values as they areThat'd still screw the spearmen against other infantry, though. Which makes no sense when considering how popular primary weapons spears were with warriors who primarily fought other infantry (hoplites, the proto-Germanics...).
You'd arguably then be better off just taking "light_spear" entirely out and giving the relevant units a mount_effect bonus.
I understand the concern with lowering the attack for hoplites, I was under the impression that Classical Hoplites were on the decline through the EB period so it could have been historically feasible to have them slightly less effective, I've been playing KH and Seleukids most recently and the units still earn significant experience points.Eh. Recall that the hoplite tactics and fighting methods were, at the core, very simple - as befited their longtime primary users, the part-time "Sunday soldier" citizen-militia of the Greek city-states, who could devote only so much time and effort into practice.
For that, they were also pretty effective.
The around only thing that could "decline" about them would be not having much meaningful training *at all*, as is the case of the Hoplitai Haploi and the like - but the Hoplitai unit, as well as its mercenary version, represent reasonably competent troops, be they now citizen militia or professionals who make their living selling their spears.
Also, even if we accepted the argument in the individual case of the hoplites on those grounds, that'd help us very little with all the other spear-carrying infantry, such as "barbarian" line spearmen or the Thureophoroi-type "Hellenistic legionaries" who weren't in anything like decay in the period. Or those sword-and-spear elite troops like Hypaspistai, whose training by default is topnotch.
Why are spear units screwed with the same "normal" attack values as sword and axe units? Increase the def value by 4 to counter the negative effects of "light_spear" and everything is fine. oO I don't know why ur arguing against these changes, watchman. :inquisitive:
i'd like to suggest this simple solution:
1. keep light_spear
2. remove the +4 attack that spear units currently have
3. add the spear_bonus_4 attribute (this applies only vs cav)
4. leave all lethality values as they are
Sounds a great idea, apart from why the cavalry bonus?
That'd still screw the spearmen against other infantry, though...... No, it wouldn't. They are screwed up WITH the artificial +4 attack that was left in to compensate for something that no longer needs compensation.
Light_Spear gives -4 defence NOT attack (for the last time, sick and tired of stating this), By adding 4 to attack in EB 1.2, all spear units kill much faster than was originally intended. By reducing all spear/phalanx units by 4 attack, restores the balance, it doesn't negate it. All light_spear units already have an inherent +8 defence vs cavalry, Infantry units don't. Any old spear unit will make mincemeat of cavalry pretty quickly as it is. The better ones hardly even blink.
Here's a paste from an earlier post of mine in this thread, re a Hoplitai:-
Thats a basic 14 attack against anything and 23 Def against other "Spear", 19 Def vs Inf and 31 Def vs Cavalry, and only 1367mnai to recruit, and 342 upkeep. Compare that to any Sword or Axe, and you need an Elite to get anywhere near 14 attack, with twice the upkeep and recruitment cost. So take away the +4 attack vs everything, and you have what is a well balanced low/medium cost allround unit. Good Def, and reasonable attack.
I have play tested this simple change for over (at a quick estimate) 250+ hrs now. It works.
EDIT: As Laza points out, the only question is whether or not to give light_spear some extra defence. But then they become too strong vs Cavalry to my mind...and the thought of giving yet more defence to phalanx units is too horrible to contemplate..
Watchman
04-26-2009, 19:38
For one thing, that's not the remedy that has been proposed here. For another, based on the practical tests I did with the two spear attributes, I'm not very convinced "light_spear" actually penalises defense against infantry - as mentioned, the test units with "spear" both killed enemies and died themselves at a clearly faster rate. Granted this could also be a side effect of the absurd "push" ability the attribute gives, but that doesn't alter the result.
On another note, *I* don't recall finding spearmen with the bonus overpowered. Generally the results of spear-vs-nonspear have been about exactly what I'd expect.
Watchman
04-26-2009, 19:41
The phalanxes, for the record, use a different scale for their pike values than other units.
PraetorFigus
04-26-2009, 20:19
Point taken with the hoplites. I'm glad we are keeping this discussion civil. :beam: (No pun or sarcasm intended)
At this point I won't argue for -4 attack, but the testing has shown me some interesting stuff I didn't really notice before.
the AI will charge cavalry into infantry and then disengage and recharge to use the charge bonus, with the vanilla stats they get chewed up and subsequent charges are thus depleted and less effective even the eastern heavy cavalry, so they'd be routing often unless they're a FM with lots of chevrons.
So I think something should be done to help cavalry a bit more so the AI can utilize them better in battle.
I'm going to be testing to see how cavalry performs with a modified radius.
Separately,
Watchman, you've mentioned before about a formula for stating units, I was wondering if you could explain a bit how attack is determined? I'm curious about the phalanx units why some are 17, 18?
I bring this up because some of the factions begin to spam elite armies (like the two units I had in the earlier post) and steam roll across the map.
Thanks:2thumbsup:
EDIT: As Laza points out, the only question is whether or not to give light_spear some extra defence. But then they become too strong vs Cavalry to my mind...and the thought of giving yet more defence to phalanx units is too horrible to contemplate..
Just reduce the shield ability by 3 points for levy/native and medium phalanx and 2 points for the elite guys and everything is fine. :yes: I cant imagine why the EB team gives phalanx units 10 shield points thanks to their ability while hoplites with their giant shields and shield wall formation have only 4 points.
Watchman
04-26-2009, 21:06
Their defskill gets penalised in return; helps screw them in the flanks. Also, that veritable forest of long pointy things they're holding makes for a really annoying thicked for missiles to get through without getting entangled, apparently.
I did say they had some special considerations going, no ?
Just reduce the shield ability by 3 points for levy/native and medium phalanx and 2 points for the elite guys and everything is fine. :yes: I cant imagine why the EB team gives phalanx units 10 shield points thanks to their ability while hoplites with their giant shields and shield wall formation have only 4 points.
By Coincidence, I already did that (see one of the posts above)...works well, whoever's idea it was :beam:
Hippocleides
06-23-2009, 10:15
In my opinion the best solution would be to remove the +4 attack and remove light_spear altogether and use anti-cav bonuses, . The problem is that light_spear gives a significant penalty against sword infantry and a significant bonus against cavalry, although the exact numbers are uncertain. So no matter what the attack and defense of a spear unit is statted to it will always have a huge difference in performance between fighting sword infantry and cavalry. If a light_spear unit is statted to fight equally with sword infantry it will absolutely destroy cavalry, and if it is statted to fight equally with cavalry it will lose miserably to sword infantry.
If anti-cav bonuses can be given in different amounts that is even better. The range of a spear is a certainly an advantage against cavalry but it isn't the only advantage. As Watchman has pointed out multiple times before, the most crucial point is that the infantry are trained and determined to stand and fight in close formation. So some trash skirmisher that just happens to use a very short spear as a melee weapon would get no bonus or only a small one. Dense spear infantry like hoplitai or triarii would get a moderate bonus. And eastern spear infantry like Sparabara that actually are specialized against cavalry would get a high bonus, which would make up in part for their abysmal stats.
The advantage of this system is that it allows spearmen to have their attack standardized with the sword infantry, which will prevent less experienced players from constantly jumping to the conclusion that spearmen are too strong against sword infantry, when in fact they are quite equal.
Watchman
06-23-2009, 10:56
And then what do you do with the units that carry *both* spear and some kind of sword, axe or w/e ?
And then what do you do with the units that carry *both* spear and some kind of sword, axe or w/e ?
what i've done with the RTR stats is to give spears the spear_bonus_x (where x is any even number from 4 to 12) attribute. this way the spear attack bonus applies only to that weapon and not to any sword/axe/javelin the unit may have. i leave the light_spear attribute for non-phalanx units, as i believe the defense penalty makes sense and i like the pushing effect
Hippocleides
06-24-2009, 08:31
At Watchman:
I think the infantry with 2 different melee weapons should get the bonus against cavalry because you would assume that they would use spears against cavalry, even though the engine often causes them to use the wrong weapon, especially if the sword is the primary weapon and the spear is secondary. Even for spear primary infantry that switch to swords after being knocked down it makes sense, since you could imagine the second and third rows of the formation stabbing at the cavalry with spears after the first row switched to swords.
At mcantu:
I'm confused about your description of spear_bonus_x. Isn't it already possible to give different attack values to primary and secondary weapons? Or is it possible to give a bonus that takes into account both the weapon being used and the enemy being attacked?
Does mount_effect also protect against charges? I am no expert on unit stats, but IIRC the spear and light_spear attributes allow the spearbearer to deflect the cavalries charge value back onto the cavalry. If you replace that with a melee-based bonus, frontal hit-and-run attacks on spearmen become a feasible strategy, which would be highly unrealistic.
Watchman
06-24-2009, 19:43
Not really, seeing as how it was pretty much the only option left for most cavalry that had to try dealing with close-order infantry frontally. Better than trying to slug it out static, after all.
Anyway, yeah, there's that part of the weapon attributes. And the push effect, for what it's worth. And the little detail that unless you go and severely modify the related bits of the statting system, the spears with the "light_spear" attribute and related modifiers stripped off end up exactly identical to the xiphos-class swords stat-wise...
Also mcantu ? Several millenias' worth of spearmen from around the world gnash their teeth at you. :stare:
Not really, seeing as how it was pretty much the only option left for most cavalry that had to try dealing with close-order infantry frontally. Better than trying to slug it out static, after all.
I am not sure if it's realistic for prodromoi to charge into formed spearmen and suffer only minor casualties (charge value is not deflected and the spearmen can only get two or three strikes at the cavalry), retreat, reform and charge again. Charging frontally into spearmen should be a highly risky enterprise.
Watchman
06-24-2009, 20:05
Realistically, they wouldn't be capable of physically pressing home anyway on account of the horses hitting the brakes before such an obstacle, and would have to content themselves with putting in a few stabs with their sharp flagpoles before wheeling off and attacking again. Far as I know such repeated charges were the universal standard for most close-combat cavalry for dealing with formed heavy infantry.
Also mcantu ? Several millenias' worth of spearmen from around the world gnash their teeth at you. :stare:
wait, what? what did i miss? :inquisitive:
i think my method is very fair to spear units while still leaving some distinction between them and sword units.
and someone mentioned the charge deflection...that only works with the spear and light_spear attributes and the spear unit has to braced for the charge (the unit status will say 'ready'). part of the cav units charge bonus will be reflected back at them...
Watchman
06-24-2009, 22:44
It also kicks common sense and historical perspective in the teeth. Put this way: if spears were that bad against other infantry, all those tribal warriors and whatnot who primarily (or solely) fought enemies on foot would not have used them, but instead made themselves good solid clubs to smash skulls and break limbs with. Even cheaper than spears actually, as you don't even need worked stone or refined metal for the business end, and quite lethal enough when applied with the appropriate gusto...
Nevermind now axes.
well light_spear doesnt affect the attack scores at all; only the parrying portion of defense skill. so if a spear and a sword unit both have the same attack score, the only penalty the spear unit will have is a -4 to his chance to parry an attack (separate from lethality/attack speed factors) which i feel is resonable seeing as how a spear wielded one-handed is less manouverable than a sword. then, giving the spear spear_bonus_4 gives it +4 vs cav only without affecting the balance vs sword units.
Watchman
06-25-2009, 02:51
See above. Also, for anyone carrying a shield, *that* is his primary means of defense.
Realistically, they wouldn't be capable of physically pressing home anyway on account of the horses hitting the brakes before such an obstacle, and would have to content themselves with putting in a few stabs with their sharp flagpoles before wheeling off and attacking again. Far as I know such repeated charges were the universal standard for most close-combat cavalry for dealing with formed heavy infantry.
I am not sure what you are getting at. You mean that charging formed heavy infantry would be equally (in)effective against spearmen and non-spearmen?
Watchman
06-27-2009, 19:25
Not quite. Even Roman Legionaries with their little pig-sticker swords became nearly frontally cavalry-immune by the simple expedient of closing ranks; spears add the extra fun of a long pointy thing for a careless or slow-witted horse (or rider) to get skewered on prejecting out of that solid mass, and of course their sheer lenght is quite useful for negating the "high ground" advantage a man on horseback has over a footslogger.
Twigvest
07-03-2009, 04:46
Mini Mod To Balance All Spear and Phalanx Units
All I've done is remove the erroneous +4 attack from Spears and Pikes.
Copy over the EDU in C:.....\EB\sp game edu backup to make it work for your current Campaign NOT the EDU in EB\DATA as the game reads from the backup file.
60
As i pointed out in the other thread, that link is down, can you re-up this?
As i pointed out in the other thread, that link is down, can you re-up this?
Here you go (http://www.filefront.com/13959593/undefined)
Edited original link too.
Drapezhnik
07-15-2009, 08:36
Drewski, after install yuor EDU file NO shield_wall ability and swim ability in Europa Barbarorum with Barbarian Invasion.
Sorry for my english.
Drewski, after install yuor EDU file NO shield_wall ability and swim ability in Europa Barbarorum with Barbarian Invasion.
Sorry for my english.
Oh, sorry that happened. Unfortunately, I don't have BI version of RTW myself, so can't really say why you lost those abilities. If you need the original EB EDU file, here it is 185
Watchman
07-18-2009, 20:26
Well unless your modded EDU included those abilities - and by the sounds of it, that's a no - then quite obviously units in-game aren't going to get them...
I'd recommend applying WinMerge to the issue.
Drapezhnik
07-20-2009, 20:15
O.K. I adapted this Mini Mod for Europa Barbarorum with Barbarian Invasion. Here it is http://www.filefront.com/14084091/export_descr_unit.txt
Mykingdomforanos
07-22-2009, 04:03
Hi all, nothing very useful to add to the discussion, but Ive just come back to EB (played V1.0 a bit 18 months ago as Casse and then moved to the awesome and underrated Getai) and was looking through the export_descr_unit to see whats changed in 1.2.
Well I did a melee only (no javelins, synchronised frontal charge) custom battle (grassy flatland, 1 exp, 1 blacksmith upgrade) between Kluddobro (675 mnai cost, 200 0.1 lethality swordsmen) vs Imannae (675 mnai, 200 0.13 lethality light_spear/skirmishers).
Imannae beat them comfortably, they look fantastic value units once they get some experience (fast, top stamina, 6 long-range javelins) and I still fail to see the point of swordsmen with 0.1 lethality.
Balroae (like Imannae except 2 points better) likewise owned some significantly more expensive Midlander Champions, losers again with piddly 0.1 shortswords. They had better stamina but I dont believe this was decisive.
So on my very light testing Id say 0.1 lethality swordsmen are pointless (especially without ap) but I dont yet know how light_spears stack up against others.
Sorry not much help but just glad to be back playing EB!
Edit: Tested with Drewski's minimod and it certainly balances better, a fairly subtle difference but a fair one IMO. Before Batacorii would win average victories over Botroas 0.225 swordsmen, now Botros win close or average victories.
Have only tested light_spear units though.
king of thracia
07-26-2009, 18:20
Of interest might be this passage:
Your servant has also heard that in military strategy and tactics three things are important. First there is the nature of the ground, second the training of the troops, and third the advantageous use of weapons.
According to the Ping Fa, where there are waterways fifteen feet wide, chariots cannot pass. Where rocks are piled up among the mountain forests, and rivers circulate between hills covered with woods and thickets; there the infantry arm comes into its own. Here two chariots or two horsemen do not equal one foot soldier. Where there are rolling hills, wide open spaces and flat plains, there chariots and cavalry find their use, and ten foot soldiers are not as good as one horseman. Flat places intersected with gorges, and abrupt declivities affording wide outlooks - commanding positions such as these should be held by archers and crossbowmen. Here a hundred men armed with hand-to-hand weapons are not equal to one archer. When two forces oppose one another on a plain covered with short grasses they are free to manoeuvre back and forth, and then the long halberd is the right weapon. Three men with swords and shields are not as effective as one so armed. Among reeds and rushes and thickets of bamboo, where the undergrowth is rich and abundant, short spears are needed. Two men with long halberds are not as good there as one with a spear. But among winding ways and dangerous precipices the sword and shield are to be preferred, and three archers or crossbowmen will not do as well as one swordsman...
Excerpt from a memorial by Chhao Tsho to the emperor of Han, 169 BC
A Terribly Harmful Name
07-26-2009, 20:34
Of course, you could argue that a crossbow could be worth three halberds on an open field, and indeed it was. We could also glance at how much China was better than the rest of the world at 169 BC, using halberds, crossbows and iron lamellar cuirasses - A little more and they would invent the blast furnace - While the Romani and Greeks had linen, leather and bronze combined with self bows and shortswords. The best Greek crossbow was only a toy.
Watchman
07-26-2009, 20:43
Iron mail.
Longswords.
Composite bows.
Highly advanced artillery.
And, oh, IIRC the Chinese had only rather recently gotten onto the iron bandwagon, almost a millenia or half after western Eurasia.
And the western Eurasians had *abandoned* lamellar a few centuries earlier presumably for no other reason than not having liked it and junk.
:dizzy2:
lol fail, or troll
A Terribly Harmful Name
07-26-2009, 21:08
Iron mail.
Known but not adopted by the Chinese.
Composite bows.
Do you really want to get me started into Nomadic Cavalry and styles employed by the Chinese?
Longswords.
Huh, so the Romans did not use longswords in a large scale. Either because they found to tactical application to it, or because they "didn't know it"... You know where my money is.
Highly advanced artillery.
LOLWUT?
Teh Wiki, your fastest source evah, knows it:
The Chinese also developed catapults and siege crossbows very early. The earliest documented occurrence of ancient siege artillery pieces in China was the levered principled traction catapult and an 8 feet (2.4 m) high siege crossbow from the Mozi (Mo Jing), a Mohist text written during the 3rd - 4th century B.C by followers of Mozi who founded the Mohist school of thought during the late Spring and Autumn Period and the early Warring States period. Much of what we now know of the siege technology of the time came to us from Books 14 and 15 (Chapters 52 to 71) on siege warfare from the Mo Jing. Recorded and preserved on bamboo strips, much of the text is unfortunately extremely corrupted now. However, despite the heavy fragmentation, Mohist diligence and attention to details which set Mo Jing apart from other works, ensured that highly descriptive details of the workings of mechanical devices like Cloud Ladders, Rotating Arcuballistas and Levered Catapults, records of siege techniques and usage of siege weaponry can still be found.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_China#Military_technology
Don't get me started on fortress work: Moh-Ti also wrote about highly advanced defensive fortifications.
And, oh, IIRC the Chinese had only rather recently gotten onto the iron bandwagon, almost a millenia or half after western Eurasia.
Don't know it... Where is the source?
And the western Eurasians had *abandoned* lamellar a few centuries earlier presumably for no other reason than not having liked it and junk.
Lamellar junk...? LOL I know who the troll is. The Romans adopted a fairly similar armour with the Segmentata, and it was still inferior to your average lamellar cuirass, which BTW did not reach Europe yet unless you could provide your source again.
king of thracia
07-26-2009, 21:15
Iron mail.
Longswords.
Composite bows.
Highly advanced artillery.
And, oh, IIRC the Chinese had only rather recently gotten onto the iron bandwagon, almost a millenia or half after western Eurasia.
And the western Eurasians had *abandoned* lamellar a few centuries earlier presumably for no other reason than not having liked it and junk.
:dizzy2:
lol fail, or troll
These two apply properly to China. The east and the steppe are missile dominated after all. This is probably the reason for lamellar as well, which is technically different from and superior to scale. Further down the passage, there is an interesting and revealing exposition of the merits of the Huns vs the Han armies and tactics.
In anycase, spear use is corroborated. We can see from the Romans themselves that they are unwilling to engage the phalanx in frontal assault.
A Terribly Harmful Name
07-26-2009, 21:22
These two apply properly to China. The east and the steppe are missile dominated after all.
Yep, and indeed the use of longswords and mail was a matter of taste after all. The East properly rather equipped its warriors with as much lamellar and scale they could get as late as the Middle Ages and beyond, lamellar being far more protective. And of course better forged, since we all know that Han mettallurgy was superior.
Not to sound like a sinophile but these indeed are basic historical facts. More so the siege engines, which were being widely employed since the beginning of the Warring States period - Which also saw armies with millions of men in them, if my readings are correct.
In comparison during the V century Greek poleis lacked even decent siege engines, judging by the facts of the day. The Romans favoured ladders until very late too - That someone can argue that post-Warring States China "did not" have such technology betrays ignorance of these facts, and which a reading of Moh-Ti alone and the abundant Warring States literature on war and fortifications debunks neatly.
satalexton
08-05-2009, 04:53
You cannot compare the greeks and romans against the seres. They have wholy different circumstances thrown at them back then, and thus their development are geared towards the specific foes they face.
As a pastoral society constantly faced with raids from nomads from the west and north. They are at a disadvantage when it comes to archery. But utilizing the industrial capability of a settled society, they can mount a composite bow with a heavy draw weight onto a stock and mechanism. That way, even the average citizen farmer can rain powerful missles accuratly against a far better trained HA, with just basic drilling and training when not in the fields.
It's not a matter of 'who is better', it is simply adapting to each's scenario accordingly. Who would be stupid enough to invent heavy mail and big shields with short sword to go against a bunch of HA?
Mykingdomforanos
09-22-2009, 04:16
Anyone done any more testing and got views on wether Drewski's mod is "balancing"? I felt it was, I just cant see what the point of shortswordsmen is.
Ive just started a new campaign without it, due to lack of "peer review" support for the light_spear fix, so I guess it must be better off as it is, Im too lazy to have done any more testing lol
Does this count for units like the Celtic short swordsman? I imagine it being hard to reach a person with a spear using a tiny "dagger." Also, what about the secondary sword of phalanxes?:dizzy2:
seienchin
09-28-2009, 04:50
You cannot compare the greeks and romans against the seres. They have wholy different circumstances thrown at them back then, and thus their development are geared towards the specific foes they face.
As a pastoral society constantly faced with raids from nomads from the west and north. They are at a disadvantage when it comes to archery. But utilizing the industrial capability of a settled society, they can mount a composite bow with a heavy draw weight onto a stock and mechanism. That way, even the average citizen farmer can rain powerful missles accuratly against a far better trained HA, with just basic drilling and training when not in the fields.
It's not a matter of 'who is better', it is simply adapting to each's scenario accordingly. Who would be stupid enough to invent heavy mail and big shields with short sword to go against a bunch of HA?
Exactly.
Survival of the fittest. The one who can adopt to his surroundings the best.
The greeks and roman had no heavy artillery in the EB frame, because they didnt need them. Nobody had them and they slowed the already slow hellenic style armies down.
The siege of syracus on the other hand shows, that the greek had the knowledge to easily build siege equipment. The romans started to do so, when the circumstances were right. Like the legions around the limes, with their torsion weapons.
Intranetusa
09-30-2009, 18:57
Known but not adopted by the Chinese.
Do you really want to get me started into Nomadic Cavalry and styles employed by the Chinese?
They did have both around EB's time period.
After Kublai Khan died, the empire quickly broke up into pieces, and disintegrated shortly afterwards. Only the vast imperialist domains of various European powers can be called great empires.
Most of the empires under Mongol control kept their territory intact (abet fractured) and lasted about 200 years. Most Imperialistic European empires lasted less than 100 years.
If the Mongols were bad administrators, then whatever the Europeans were doing was far worse.
siegfriedfr
08-01-2010, 13:26
Sorry to revive such a dead thread but the downloadable files being unavalaible, i'm trying to understand what was done here to recreate my own modified EDU:
What was changed exactly? "light_spear" attribute entirely removed, or 4 attack power removed from the base AP?
Thanks.
Sorry to revive such a dead thread but the downloadable files being unavalaible, i'm trying to understand what was done here to recreate my own modified EDU:
What was changed exactly? "light_spear" attribute entirely removed, or 4 attack power removed from the base AP?
Thanks.
All I did was take 4 attack away from all units with the "light-spear" attr., which in EB includes phalanx units too.
I've personally done masses and masses of individual tweaking since, as taking 4 away, isn't that much more balanced than it was originally. (It's still better imo). For instance the low levy units (e.g. levy hoplites, levy Celt spear) are ridiculously overpowered with the default EB attack, and taking 4 off them makes them perform more realistically against mid level swordsmen, for example. However, mid and elite spearmen aren't quite as good as they should be with 4 attack taken away, and a lot need a sliding "tweak" scale.
So there you go ;)
siegfriedfr
08-02-2010, 20:50
Yes i've been editing my EDU and i tought that a flat out removal of 4 attack on medium/elite hoplite was crippling compared to other units. So i've done -4 for untrained, -2 for trained and -1 for highly trained.
What other tweaks have you been doing?
Thanks for the answer!
Yes i've been editing my EDU and i tought that a flat out removal of 4 attack on medium/elite hoplite was crippling compared to other units. So i've done -4 for untrained, -2 for trained and -1 for highly trained.
What other tweaks have you been doing?
Thanks for the answer!
That's quite similar to how I have them (even though I've taken each and every unit on individual merits, with cost also taken into consideration). I tend to forget some of the minor tweaks. The other main one, is taking the 5 shield away from Phalanx units (which gets doubled in phalanx mode, to make them almost impervious to missiles). It's a tiny little shield too if you look ! I have basic phalanx with 2 shield value, and elites 3. Works ok for me, playing as phalanx based nations, and against them.
I also remember making Balearic and Rhodian Slingers slightly better (something like 5 extra stones each, and an extra point of attack), to show their elite status, and making Spartans slightly better (36 men base and an extra point of attack)- the Spartans I just wanted to be the best hoplitai ;)
Metaluis90
08-03-2010, 00:12
hi everybody, I've just read the whole discussion between drewski and watchman about which weapong would perform the best... It was really enjoyable, let me tell you both :)
anyway I wanted to know if the shieldwall ability (additioned by the BI.exe) compensates this lack of defense, or I-don't-know-what-it-is that everybody is praising-complaining about...
As far as I know, this attack bonus to the spearmen was given due the fact that a proper phalanx (or hoplitic) formation couldn't be properly represented in the RTW engine, then, in my humble opinion, the reduction of this base attack would be legitimated
Another thing, the other day I was making 1v1 units fight just out of fun, myself always using the praetorian cohort... anyway, what make me astonished was that the elite heavy spearmen for the seleukids BEAT THE SH1T OUT OF my pretorians... is it that normal? I mean is used them in a flat, desertic map, with no advantages for any sides apart form the numbers (pretorians' got 83 soldiers, against 63 of the spearmen, if I remember correctly) another thing, my praetorians were on guard mode! is it normal?
hi everybody, I've just read the whole discussion between drewski and watchman about which weapong would perform the best... It was really enjoyable, let me tell you both :)
anyway I wanted to know if the shieldwall ability (additioned by the BI.exe) compensates this lack of defense, or I-don't-know-what-it-is that everybody is praising-complaining about...
As far as I know, this attack bonus to the spearmen was given due the fact that a proper phalanx (or hoplitic) formation couldn't be properly represented in the RTW engine, then, in my humble opinion, the reduction of this base attack would be legitimated
Another thing, the other day I was making 1v1 units fight just out of fun, myself always using the praetorian cohort... anyway, what make me astonished was that the elite heavy spearmen for the seleukids BEAT THE SH1T OUT OF my pretorians... is it that normal? I mean is used them in a flat, desertic map, with no advantages for any sides apart form the numbers (pretorians' got 83 soldiers, against 63 of the spearmen, if I remember correctly) another thing, my praetorians were on guard mode! is it normal? Glad you found it of interest :)
Those Elite Selec Spearmen (I'm guessing you mean the Basilikou) have full mail body armour (19 armour in game) and 34 total defence (ouch). They have a much better attack too than the Praets, who don't have an AP weapon, and only .13 lethality. Those Basilikou will beat the stuffing out of just about anything. So no real suprise there..
Metaluis90
08-03-2010, 02:01
I slightly read something about that in their unit description... they are stated as the best assault unit of the world (or something like that) but is the difference between units that different? I mean you are not talking about a standard legionary, we are talking about the pretorians, the elite of the elite of the roman empire. I mean, I really dont want to look like a roman fanboy, altough i do love the history of this civilization... but has the difference must be that overwhelming? When I stopped that battle the basilikou got 40 of their men, while the pretorians only 20 or less, in big unit scale
out of topic, I got a problem downloading both your mod and BI.exe mod made by Drapezhnik!
when i want to download yours, it says that there's a missing file, or the file cannot be find (in the mozilla browser, translated to English "File not found") and in Drapezhnik's one, Filefront says there is a unexpected error, or something like that... If only you could reupload the file, i would really appreciate it :)
siegfriedfr
08-03-2010, 07:42
In other words drewski, can you post your current Edu please? :)
In other words drewski, can you post your current Edu please? :)
I can do that no problem, but make a copy of yours before overwriting, as {see above posts} : loads of little tweaks here and there. I don't have the basic original "-4 off all light_spear" anymore, it was on my old PC, and I had a dedicated gaming machine custom made in April (which is still very nice ;))
Uploaded my current EDU to filefront here (http://www.filefront.com/17169166/export_descr_unit.zip)
Metaluis90
08-04-2010, 00:00
hey, thanks a lot man! I'll now install it using the suggestion of Watchman for winmerge
siegfriedfr
08-04-2010, 19:27
I can do that no problem, but make a copy of yours before overwriting, as {see above posts} : loads of little tweaks here and there. I don't have the basic original "-4 off all light_spear" anymore, it was on my old PC, and I had a dedicated gaming machine custom made in April (which is still very nice ;))
Uploaded my current EDU to filefront here (http://www.filefront.com/17169166/export_descr_unit.zip)
Thanks!
Whay did you remove 1 attack to horse archers units tho? Too powerful?
Thanks!
Whay did you remove 1 attack to horse archers units tho? Too powerful?
My way of thinking was this:- the horse archers and geographically local troops had basically the same weapon. I know that the HAs were extremely good at firing while moving, but you won't ever convince me that they were just as accurate, as a well trained man firing from a stationary base, i.e. foot archers. Missile attack in RTW really means accuracy, as all missiles have a lethality of 100% if they strike their target. Therefore I made HA have 1 less missile attack.
They are still completely nasty to use or face ;)
Oh btw , I just remembered I replaced Casse Bodyguards with Rycalawre instead, just found the Chariots too frustrating/annoying.
I did warn you of quite a few odd changes here and there....:laugh4:
Metaluis90
08-05-2010, 03:59
would you mind to enlist those changes, Drewski? :)
Brave Brave Sir Robin
08-05-2010, 06:22
I slightly read something about that in their unit description... they are stated as the best assault unit of the world (or something like that) but is the difference between units that different? I mean you are not talking about a standard legionary, we are talking about the pretorians, the elite of the elite of the roman empire. I mean, I really dont want to look like a roman fanboy, altough i do love the history of this civilization... but has the difference must be that overwhelming? When I stopped that battle the basilikou got 40 of their men, while the pretorians only 20 or less, in big unit scale
Praetorians are far from the elite soldiers in this game. TAB's should slaughter them. I would think Carthage has at least 3 units capable of beating them (Elite Liby Phonecians, Iberian Assault, Sacred Band), Arche 3 as well (TAB's, Hypaspistai, Peltastai Makedonikai), I would think Solduros, Carnutes, and Gaesatae would beat them, maybe even Neitos. In fact there are probably about 20 better units, maybe more.
would you mind to enlist those changes, Drewski? :)
I'm sorry, I didn't keep a list (since ithe edu is just for me)....I think I've metioned most of them. There may be some other very minor tweaks I've forgotten.
siegfriedfr
08-05-2010, 14:08
I'm sorry, I didn't keep a list (since ithe edu is just for me)....I think I've metioned most of them. There may be some other very minor tweaks I've forgotten.
Drewski, After this fix most spear/swords have similar atk value but most sword have twice the lethality (0.13 vs 0.225) making swords clearly superior. Whats your opinion on this?
Drewski, After this fix most spear/swords have similar atk value but most sword have twice the lethality (0.13 vs 0.225) making swords clearly superior. Whats your opinion on this?
It's only the Celtic longsword that has that lethality, all the Spanish/Roman/Hellenic/Punic/Various shortswords are somewhere around .13 lethality. Plus all the spears get a big boost vs mounted. I didn't change anything to do with lethality....
Metaluis90
08-06-2010, 17:54
Praetorians are far from the elite soldiers in this game. TAB's should slaughter them. I would think Carthage has at least 3 units capable of beating them (Elite Liby Phonecians, Iberian Assault, Sacred Band), Arche 3 as well (TAB's, Hypaspistai, Peltastai Makedonikai), I would think Solduros, Carnutes, and Gaesatae would beat them, maybe even Neitos. In fact there are probably about 20 better units, maybe more.
yes, I also tried pretorians vs gaesatae, and the celts would have beaten them, if I hadn't use guard mode.
So if pretorians are far from the elite of the elite of the game, where does their strenght lies? in their stamina?
Suraknar
09-12-2010, 01:38
Hello all, this is a great discussion to say the least.
Well I am making a Mod based on EB (customizing my experience mainly), and I run in to this issue as well while trying to balance units to my liking so I run a search to see and found many threads about this Spear issue.
Anyhow my final solution as of now is to give
"Spear, Light_Spear" attributes to units with Phalanx and Long Pikes, this way they get both defense +8 and attack +8 against cavalry , while they get Attack and defense -4 against infantry.
Non phalanx and units I left to "Light_spear" and added "Spear_bonus_4", this way they get +8 defense bonus against cavalry, -4 defense against infanrty, and +4 attack against cavalry, and since they have short spears compared to the Phalanx units, but still get some bonus compared to non spear infantry vs cavalry.
The idea being that "Cavalry > Infantry > Spearmen > Cavalry".
Run some tests so far it looks good and thus I did not have to fiddle with attack and defense ratings. And accoding to EDU definitions there does not seem to be any conflicts with combining "Spear, Long_Pike, Light_spear" attributes.
Just thought to share this in case its useful to anyone.
Jackaloboulos
04-21-2011, 20:27
I've read through the thread, but I still don't understand--have we confirmed whether or not the modifier is intended from a Team Member?
Im really not sure about this. Looking at it some levy greek hoplites have better attack and defence than some mercenary Galatian shortswordsmen which doesnt seem quite right. Im just on the fence about nerfing spearmen unless they were really intended to have this nerf. I dont want them to become too ineffective, but I want that elite groop of swordsman in good armour to be better than my levy phalanx in actual battle skill if they get past the spearwall
Im really not sure about this. Looking at it some levy greek hoplites have better attack and defence than some mercenary Galatian shortswordsmen which doesnt seem quite right. Im just on the fence about nerfing spearmen unless they were really intended to have this nerf. I dont want them to become too ineffective, but I want that elite groop of swordsman in good armour to be better than my levy phalanx in actual battle skill if they get past the spearwall
I'd argue it's shortswordmen in general which should be buffed, rather than spearmen nerfed. Most longsword infantry will do very well against spearmen.
Jackaloboulos
04-28-2011, 00:22
I dont want them to become too ineffective, but I want that elite groop of swordsman in good armour to be better than my levy phalanx in actual battle skill if they get past the spearwall
I agree absolutely, and that makes me wonder: should spearmen get a bonus, even against cavalry, after the charge, once battle is joined and more or less a stationary affair?
Im just looking for someone to say yes or no about this. Are spear units incorrectly too powerfull? I dont want them to be unnecissarily too weak but I do want swordsmen to be actual contenders not the bums that they are. I suppose it doesnt matter though, threads a year old the files uploaded are gone, and I doubt ill get a real answer
vollorix
04-29-2011, 21:23
I, too, reduced the attack value of all spearmen ( -4 ).
From all the games i´ve played since then i can say the following:
- The Phalangitai units aren´t really concerned, except their ability to fight AI FM, which are rediculously strong anyway ( last time a FM of Epirotes just cut his way through my Deuteroi phalanx, routing 2 units with a little support from Thureophoroi ).
- The Hoplitai Haploi perform now as they should, imo; but the Classical Hoplites suck a lot against sword infantry, especially against "ap" units. I think, one should give them at least 2 attack back ( though, they are still quite cool against horsemen ). On the other hand i use BI.exe and therefore "shieldwall" - if you do, let them as they are, because otherwise they are simply unbreakable/unstopable.
- I haven´t tried the elite units like Agema Ordeton etc. - but since this guys are quite tought anyway, and they can make shieldwall, too, they might be ok.
- Ippikrates Hoplites are normaly underpowered, so to compensate the loss of attack value, and also to make them usefull, i´ve improved their stamina to "very hardy" - now they are quite ok.
That would be all for now, i´ll post some more observations when i have something usefull to say again.
I, too, reduced the attack value of all spearmen ( -4 ).
From all the games i´ve played since then i can say the following:
- The Phalangitai units aren´t really concerned, except their ability to fight AI FM, which are rediculously strong anyway ( last time a FM of Epirotes just cut his way through my Deuteroi phalanx, routing 2 units with a little support from Thureophoroi ).
- The Hoplitai Haploi perform now as they should, imo; but the Classical Hoplites suck a lot against sword infantry, especially against "ap" units. I think, one should give them at least 2 attack back ( though, they are still quite cool against horsemen ). On the other hand i use BI.exe and therefore "shieldwall" - if you do, let them as they are, because otherwise they are simply unbreakable/unstopable.
- I haven´t tried the elite units like Agema Ordeton etc. - but since this guys are quite tought anyway, and they can make shieldwall, too, they might be ok.
- Ippikrates Hoplites are normaly underpowered, so to compensate the loss of attack value, and also to make them usefull, i´ve improved their stamina to "very hardy" - now they are quite ok.
That would be all for now, i´ll post some more observations when i have something usefull to say again.
Been awhile since this thread goto started, but since I was one of the primary plantiffs, here's my most recent take on things.....
-4 across the board is imbalanced. So what I did some time back, was introduce a sliding scale, dependant on the units cost, training and supposed abilities.
Levy spearman -4 attack in virtually everycase (same with almost all Archers that have spears as secondary).E.g. Levy Hoplites should be a garrison/peacekeeping force. They should not be line infantry ever. Look at any "suprisingly good unit" thread and Levy Hoplites are right up there. Well take away the 4 attack and they perform very normally, as should be.
The middle spear units, -3 attack, the better ones -2 attack. Phalanx units have double shield value when in phalax mode, so giving them 5 shield (when its a tiny little thing as well) is ridiculous. Normal Phalanx therefore have a "2" shield and Elite Phalanx have "3" shield, in addition to the above modifiers. This makes them slightly susceptible to missile file (instead of impervious as before), but still tough as nails from the front. Autocalc is seemingly unaffected.
These honestly work very well in SP mode (never tried) MP. My last huge campaign was as KH (all spear), current is Mak, having some superb proper mixed full stack action vs a strong AS atm.
I changed my EDU a lot over the last years to improve balance. I don't really like the idea of reducing the spear attack, at least not in EB on rtw.exe where you don't have the spear_bonus attributes. Heavy cavalry can already beat spearmen cost effective-wise with repeated charges, reducing their attack makes them even weaker. The problem aren't to strong spearmen but too weak shortsword units. Longsword wielding warriors perform relative good against spearmen only shortswords suck against both of the others. So what I did was to give more lethality to the shortswords (1.0->1.3 and 1.3->1.5) and sometimes extra attack or defence points to single units who were completely underpowered, like pontic thorakitai. Falcata and kopis now have 1.4 lethality instead of 1.1 but one attack reduced (similar to clubs I think), it's hard to balance them because of the overpowered ap-attribute but I think they work better now.
I did some other changes too, longswordmen got +1 defence skills, cavalry +1 or +2 defence and heavily improved secondary weapons (+20% lethality mostly in additions to the changed swordsword lethality). Phalangitai got reduced shield defence (3 for levies, 4 for the others) and -1 armor (the team said they already did this but as far as I understand the armor system I couldn't see difference to non-phalanx-units) and lowered secondary attack but gave some more defence skill.
I tested a lot in costum battles and played several months with different factions and the balance is way better but far from perfect since that's not possible in the RTW engine especially not without the extra attributes of BI.
Jackaloboulos
05-08-2011, 05:25
I changed my EDU a lot over the last years to improve balance. I don't really like the idea of reducing the spear attack, at least not in EB on rtw.exe where you don't have the spear_bonus attributes. Heavy cavalry can already beat spearmen cost effective-wise with repeated charges, reducing their attack makes them even weaker. The problem aren't to strong spearmen but too weak shortsword units. Longsword wielding warriors perform relative good against spearmen only shortswords suck against both of the others. So what I did was to give more lethality to the shortswords (1.0->1.3 and 1.3->1.5) and sometimes extra attack or defence points to single units who were completely underpowered, like pontic thorakitai. Falcata and kopis now have 1.4 lethality instead of 1.1 but one attack reduced (similar to clubs I think), it's hard to balance them because of the overpowered ap-attribute but I think they work better now.
I did some other changes too, longswordmen got +1 defence skills, cavalry +1 or +2 defence and heavily improved secondary weapons (+20% lethality mostly in additions to the changed swordsword lethality). Phalangitai got reduced shield defence (3 for levies, 4 for the others) and -1 armor (the team said they already did this but as far as I understand the armor system I couldn't see difference to non-phalanx-units) and lowered secondary attack but gave some more defence skill.
I tested a lot in costum battles and played several months with different factions and the balance is way better but far from perfect since that's not possible in the RTW engine especially not without the extra attributes of BI.
Glad to hear that you found a formula that works! But when you said "without the extra attributes of BI," did you mean that you're not running Europa Barbarorum on the BI engine? I'm eager to try out your setup, but I use BI, so I'm thinking that I should look before I leap; I imagine it does make a significant difference.
I changed my EDU a lot over the last years to improve balance. I don't really like the idea of reducing the spear attack, at least not in EB on rtw.exe where you don't have the spear_bonus attributes. Heavy cavalry can already beat spearmen cost effective-wise with repeated charges, reducing their attack makes them even weaker. The problem aren't to strong spearmen but too weak shortsword units. Longsword wielding warriors perform relative good against spearmen only shortswords suck against both of the others. So what I did was to give more lethality to the shortswords (1.0->1.3 and 1.3->1.5) and sometimes extra attack or defence points to single units who were completely underpowered, like pontic thorakitai. Falcata and kopis now have 1.4 lethality instead of 1.1 but one attack reduced (similar to clubs I think), it's hard to balance them because of the overpowered ap-attribute but I think they work better now.
I did some other changes too, longswordmen got +1 defence skills, cavalry +1 or +2 defence and heavily improved secondary weapons (+20% lethality mostly in additions to the changed swordsword lethality). Phalangitai got reduced shield defence (3 for levies, 4 for the others) and -1 armor (the team said they already did this but as far as I understand the armor system I couldn't see difference to non-phalanx-units) and lowered secondary attack but gave some more defence skill.
I tested a lot in costum battles and played several months with different factions and the balance is way better but far from perfect since that's not possible in the RTW engine especially not without the extra attributes of BI.
actually, the spear_bonus_x attribute was added with the RTW 1.3 patch. iirc, the EB team made the +4 across the board addition to spear units when the spear attribute was being used (back in EB 0.8x) because it gives -4 attack to spear units. when they switched to light_spear though (which gives -4 defense skill), they did not remove the +4 attack or move the +4 to defense skill. so, IMO an across the board reduction of -4 to the attack of spear units makes total sense.
Jackaloboulos
11-22-2011, 21:57
Been awhile since this thread goto started, but since I was one of the primary plantiffs, here's my most recent take on things.....
-4 across the board is imbalanced. So what I did some time back, was introduce a sliding scale, dependant on the units cost, training and supposed abilities.
Levy spearman -4 attack in virtually everycase (same with almost all Archers that have spears as secondary).E.g. Levy Hoplites should be a garrison/peacekeeping force. They should not be line infantry ever. Look at any "suprisingly good unit" thread and Levy Hoplites are right up there. Well take away the 4 attack and they perform very normally, as should be.
The middle spear units, -3 attack, the better ones -2 attack. Phalanx units have double shield value when in phalax mode, so giving them 5 shield (when its a tiny little thing as well) is ridiculous. Normal Phalanx therefore have a "2" shield and Elite Phalanx have "3" shield, in addition to the above modifiers. This makes them slightly susceptible to missile file (instead of impervious as before), but still tough as nails from the front. Autocalc is seemingly unaffected.
These honestly work very well in SP mode (never tried) MP. My last huge campaign was as KH (all spear), current is Mak, having some superb proper mixed full stack action vs a strong AS atm.
Drewski, this sounds like a pretty well-thought-out fix. Do you think you could please upload it? I'd love to take it for a spin. Plus, all of the other uploaded fixes in this thread give me the Game Front "File not found, you will be redirected to..." message.
Jackaloboulos
01-08-2012, 04:02
Drewski, this sounds like a pretty well-thought-out fix. Do you think you could please upload it? I'd love to take it for a spin. Plus, all of the other uploaded fixes in this thread give me the Game Front "File not found, you will be redirected to..." message.
Maybe too soon...but...bump? I'd really love to try your current solution, Drewski.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.