Roman Soldier Mount Effect

[antisocialmunky]

I was wondering if the EBII team is thinking at all about depicting the use of the heavy pilum as a anti-horse weapon? The legionaires sometimes would keep the heavier of their two pilums and use it to ward off horses in a defensive formation atleast recorded by Arian.

[The General]

I was wondering if the EBII team is thinking at all about depicting the use of the heavy pilum as a anti-horse weapon? The legionaires sometimes would keep the heavier of their two pilums and use it to ward off horses in a defensive formation atleast recorded by Arian.

That would require legionaries to have three weapons, now wouldn't it? (Gladius, javelin-pilum and spear-pilum)

That's impossible with the game enginge iirc.

[Mediolanicus]

That would require legionaries to have three weapons, now wouldn't it? (Gladius, javelin-pilum and spear-pilum)

That's impossible with the game enginge iirc.

Not when you simulate this by just giving the Romans a bonus against cavalry.

On the other hand, this can only be done when it is almost certain the Romans would have used this every time to counter cavalry.

[The General]

Not when you simulate this by just giving the Romans a bonus against cavalry.

On the other hand, this can only be done when it is almost certain the Romans would have used this every time to counter cavalry.

Indeed, and giving the bonus at all times would be rather unfair, considering they can throw both of their pila to decimate their enemies before mêlée and still get the bonus against cavalry afterwards.

[Mediolanicus]

Indeed, and giving the bonus at all times would be rather unfair, considering they can throw both of their pila to decimate their enemies before mêlée and still get the bonus against cavalry afterwards.

Which is the best argument against what I think antisocialmunky is proposing/putting up to be considered.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I think that all types of heavy infantry should have a bonus against cavalry.
Is sword (or mace and axe) so ineffective against horses?
Yes, spear is more long for hit the knight, but the horse can easily be hit in melee.
I ve seen in EB that some time cavalry can run through enemy infantry(especially swordsmen) without died.
I think shouldn t be only for roman legionaries, but should be for all heavy infantry.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmm. I think you are forgetting that the main bonus you get from a long pointy stick is that it's long. For example long enough that the horse doesn't get too near to you; hence that it can't trample you?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Exactly. Otherwise, spears have no other inherent bonus against a cavalryman than an axe, for example.

And infantry already trounces cavalry in close melee, so there's no need to make it even more harder for them.

[antisocialmunky]

The heavy pilum formation is meant to deter charges and allow legionaires from behind to javelin heavy cav as they made mock charges and stuff. I think it should be reflected somehow either by higher mass or perhaps some sort of small mount effect.

All legionaires need is some sort of deterrent against cavalry attacking them while formed up since cav will do massive damage to anything without spears in EBI and probably will be similar in EBII barring some sort of change in the shield/missile balance. Perhaps a solution could be increasing damage from their pilum volley against horses or something. Perhaps increase mass but just something to keep legionaires in their formation and standing from taking 20% casualties from a formed charge from the front and not being able to do MAD or anything to the horses. That's a just a tad unrealistic...

They don't have any protection against horses and any decent charging cav can do massive a damage to a cohort and just withdraw with most of their units intact.

[the unique joe]

is there not already a bonus for javelin vs mounted anyway? and besides the game's engine not being able to make this an option anyway (fighting with pilla or pilum in melee, forgive me any insult to romani lovers or historians alike i love history but i was taught in a public school in the boonies.) from what i learned the pilla and pilum were made specificaly to bend after impact to hinder the enemy infantry and make using shield or paring a good throw limb unwieldy/inopperable? does not make sense to me to save my short throwing spear for a frontal charge when it is meant to bend/break so as to not be used again. it could be counter productive for all i know.

and that is my two cents

[Ca Putt]

I think it's like giveing the hoplite the ability to throw his spear(and to continue fighting with a Xiphos)
or to give any unit with a massive(not those wicker thingies) shield an alternative AP attack

afterall every javelin can be used as a shot(and weak) spear or in simple terms a pointed stick. The Pilum is one of the best javelins when used as a javelin, but afaik less usefull as a spear than most other(simpler) javelins.
the most realisic way to implement this would be a third fighting mode with a mount bonus melee and limited by number of projectiles(if you use a pilum as spear it bends aswell thus being useless afterwards). as It is neither possible nor utterly effective I think what we have in EB 1 atm is most appropriate.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Perhaps increase mass but just something to keep legionaires in their formation and standing from taking 20% casualties from a formed charge from the front and not being able to do MAD or anything to the horses. That's a just a tad unrealistic...

They don't have any protection against horses and any decent charging cav can do massive a damage to a cohort and just withdraw with most of their units intact.

Yes, this is true...:2thumbsup:
Cavalry (also without stirrups) CANNOT run through a lot of armoured men without being thrown down.
Another questions... can a long spear be effective in a close melee?
Again: against cavalry in a close melee, isn t sword better?

[antisocialmunky]

Guys, legionaires carried two types a pilum, they have a lighter one for throwing and a heavier one that could be used as a weapon as well as thrown. One of the formations recorded by Apian was one where the front couple ranks knelt behind their shields with this second heavier pilum braced into the ground. This would deter cavalry charges along with their prepared formation. However, cavalry would still make mach charges to try and unnerve the troops so whenever the cavalry would get in their face, the legionaires in the back would just pilum them.

The issue is that as of EBI, fresh legionaires in formation and guard mode get slaughtered by cataphracts from the front with the cataphracts taking very few if any casualties.

[the unique joe]

it would be good to make a formation (like spear wall but different) for elite infantry to create more mass like deeper ranks sort of like a phalanx, im watching a history channel on the phalanx and the spartan equipment and troops were so heavy when in their formation they could be hit by a full frontal charge and not move an inch because of their weight of mass. how effective is your calvalry when thrown against a rock wall? and i forget who made the comment but i agree with the swords being better against horsemen in a pitched melee, gladius should be easy to wield when you just raise your shield to the horsemen and hack at his poor mounts legs.

[DaciaJC]

iim watching a history channel on the phalanx and the spartan equipment and troops were so heavy when in their formation they could be hit by a full frontal charge and not move an inch because of their weight of mass.

Sorry, but that just sounds like more "History" Channel sensationalism. What, are the horses going to bounce back when charging into the Spartans? All of that energy has to go somewhere...

[The General]

Guys, legionaires carried two types a pilum, they have a lighter one for throwing and a heavier one that could be used as a weapon as well as thrown. One of the formations recorded by Apian was one where the front couple ranks knelt behind their shields with this second heavier pilum braced into the ground. This would deter cavalry charges along with their prepared formation. However, cavalry would still make mach charges to try and unnerve the troops so whenever the cavalry would get in their face, the legionaires in the back would just pilum them.
I do not dispute that this method was used to deter cavalry charges, what I'd like to know is how you would implement this in-game - as a constant bonus against cavalry, never mind whether there are any pila left or not, or, eh?

The issue is that as of EBI, fresh legionaires in formation and guard mode get slaughtered by cataphracts from the front with the cataphracts taking very few if any casualties.
Well, Cataphracts (and the later Clibanarii) are known to have actually made (succesful) frontal charges, thanks to the their armor, mass and use of javelins and arrow fire to disrupt enemy formations pre-charge.

[The General]

Sorry, but that just sounds like more "History" Channel sensationalism. What, are the horses going to bounce back when charging into the Spartans? All of that energy has to go somewhere...

History channel documentaries are edutainment, rather than educational, shows, indeed.

[antisocialmunky]

I do not dispute that this method was used to deter cavalry charges, what I'd like to know is how you would implement this in-game - as a constant bonus against cavalry, never mind whether there are any pila left or not, or, eh?


Its not constant if you give pilum a bonus against cavalry. A mount bonus of +2/3 to normal attack is fine too since Legionaires after they tire completely fail versus tired cataphracts in melee. Cataphracts can Melee kill 2-3x the amount of tired legionaires from the front because legionaires don't have AP or anything and completely fail versus armored cavalry.

I've actually seen this happen numerous times so I'm not going to buy arguments against this. 300 legionaires tired legionaires fight 100 Hellenic Kataphracts, 250 legionaires dead, about 30 cataphracts dead. No charge, just constant melee.



Well, Cataphracts (and the later Clibanarii) are known to have actually made (succesful) frontal charges, thanks to the their armor, mass and use of javelins and arrow fire to disrupt enemy formations pre-charge.

I like people in most other debates like this demand that you show evidence of Cataphracts charging fresh formed up heavy infantry. The only cavalry force that I know of that are known for massed frontal charges against anti-cavalry formations would be Polish Winged Hussars with their ridiculously long pikes and super dense formation.

Also don't forget that more armor != better protection. You only need to make one hole to be successful and with equal and opposite reaction, whatever the Cataphract gives in energy can easily be returned in a single point by something pointy dug into the ground.

EB Cataphracts are overpowered with regards to frontal charges. Cataphracts did not charge fresh troops from the front. They usually did mock charges to unnerve the enemy infantry. This combined with missiles and tiring eventually opened a window for the cataphracts to attack. Otherwise, cataphracts can only do a certain ratio of MAD against ready heavy infantry. EB Cataphracts can win against any sort of heavy infantry without a spear ready or not even those who historically were not rolled over in the openning minutes of battle by a massed frontal cataphract charge.

Pantodapoi and levy spearman resist Cataphracts better than legionaires for crying out loud because their spear atleast allows them to MAD the Cataphracts.

Example:
At Carrhae, the Parthian Kataphracts were covered in silk drapings and slowly walked up to the testudoed legionaires(or whatever formation you want to call it, probably had pilum sticking out from between the shields). At that point they threw them off thinking the legionaires would be surprised at the proximity of a ton of cataphracts. Despite the advantage of surprise, the cataphracts didn't attack because the legionaires didn't budge. The cataphracts withdrew until the missiles, heat, and lack of water broke down the legionaires enough that the Cataphracts broke them with a charge several hours later.


EDIT

How about something like:



ARMED CHARIOTS AND ELEPHANTS

The armed chariots used in war by Antiochus and Mithridates at first terrified the Romans, but they afterwards made a jest of them. As a chariot of this sort does not always meet with plain and level ground, the least obstruction stops it. And if one of the horses be either killed or wounded, it falls into the enemy's hands. The Roman soldiers rendered them useless chiefly by the following contrivance: at the instant the engagement began, they strewed the field of battle with caltrops, and the horses that drew the chariots, running full speed on them, were infallibly destroyed. A caltrop is a machine composed of four spikes or points arranged so that in whatever manner it is thrown on the ground, it rests on three and presents the fourth upright.


http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/dere07.php#21

Would it be possible to replace stakes with a much sparser field of multidirectional caltrops? Be a fun use of that mechanic. :)

[the unique joe]

Sorry, but that just sounds like more "History" Channel sensationalism. What, are the horses going to bounce back when charging into the Spartans? All of that energy has to go somewhere...

you tell me, ive never witnessed a calvalry charge hit a pike line much less a phalanx, i would assume it is not pretty though. my guess would be the same as what happends when an object hits a harder object at high velocity, it shatters or any other word for it.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Example:
At Carrhae, the Parthian Kataphracts were covered in silk drapings and slowly walked up to the testudoed legionaires(or whatever formation you want to call it, probably had pilum sticking out from between the shields). At that point they threw them off thinking the legionaires would be surprised at the proximity of a ton of cataphracts. Despite the advantage of surprise, the cataphracts didn't attack because the legionaires didn't budge. The cataphracts withdrew until the missiles, heat, and lack of water broke down the legionaires enough that the Cataphracts broke them with a charge several hours later.



There are too many people who say that Carrae is proof of how the cataphract can beat the cohorts.
But from what I read this did not happen in a fight at par.
This is because the roman cohorts were totally exhausted and hungry, worn by several ambushes and never attacking from the front in the open field.
Personally i agree with EDU development of Eb team: the choice of giving high value to spear due to reduce light_spear deficit against infantry.
But this is also a problem because all infantry(except ap infantry) are so weak in melee against cavalry.

For example:
respectively value / lethality of edu / lethality of animations /bonus with cav-inf

attak of sword 11 / 0.13 / 0.51 / 0 - 0
attack of spear 15 / 0.13 / 0.41 / +8 - -4

Then spear become 23 against cavalry and become 11 against infantry: this is right in my mind.
But infantry just 11 against cavalry: too little value.
The solution would provide a bonus of +4 to infantry(against cavalry).
But some types of infantry is better against cavalry (depends from type of weapon), then we can give a +6 or +8 bonus against cavalry.
This is what i ve done in my unofficial EDU: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=119572

[Parallel Pain]

Iunno. I remember in both my Saka and Saba VH/VH campaigns of luring Ptolemy/Seleucid/Bactrian General/Cataphracts to charge a unit of foot archer or skirmisher and then proceeded to swarm those heavy cavalry with more foot archers and skirmishers in melee, who promptly chewed up these heavy cavalry in no time. But even without swarming these completely no armor foot sloggers last pretty long in melee as long as the impact from the charge isn't too great.

And this was VH/VH

It seems to me that cavalry of any type is pretty weak in melee with infantry

[Tellos Athenaios]

Guys, legionaires carried two types a pilum,

Guys... If you count you'll realize that makes for 3 weapon types. While we are at it, shouldn't we then also represent that just about all assorted reliable spear-wall type of infantry (e.g. Thureophoroi, Hoplitai) carries a side arm for close quarters and were just as proficient with them as their usual opponents? And should we then also not factor in the axe/mace/longsword side arm of lance/bow cataphracts?

Apart from the fact that the statting system will need a major reworking anyways because of how animations do affect stats and how lethality appears to be out of the game; this amounts to pretty much a stat re-write that has little to do with what is actually in the game. (In the game spearmen don't have swords, lance/bow cataphracts are limited to their lance/bow, and legionaries don't have heavier pointy sticks than throwing pila.)

[antisocialmunky]

Well obviously! I haven't advocated a addition of a weapon. I'm not saying swap out the secondary. People have been assuming that this is the only way to represent this aspect of balance - its not, it just shows a supreme lack of imagination. We can't map RL to a game 1-1 but we can adjust other factors to make it work out more accurately in the end.

What I'm saying is that a unit that wasn't historically rolled over by frontal charges should not be completely pwned by heavy cavalry in a game that claims to be as historically accurate as possible.

What is so wrong with that? Honestly the whole 'we can't represent legionaires accurately versus cavalry because we can't add a third weapon' is fallacious because you can represent it in other ways like MASS, the main factor in talking about charge casualties. I've listed like 3 more options to adjust the balance in the legionaire's favor WITHOUT even talking about weapon replacement. The 'we aren't representing secondaries on other units' argument is flawed because defense a matchup against horses is on a different scale(this is a balance issue) than depicting vicious hth combat (aesthetic issue) as the spear vs infantry was decently balanced in EB +4 Attack/-4 Defense and the game can only reasonable depict hth fighting at a distance. The cataphract archer thing oyu bring up is a valid point because its similar but in normal gameplay, you don't leave horses in melee for long periods of time and the lance is usually the better anti-cav weapon anyways so the balance change is minimal.

In Short: This is a balance and realism issue up there with hoplites not being able to do pushing and therefore completely failing on the attack. In EB1, you addressed the latter with their uberguardmodeness which was not an ideal depiction so why not make an non-ideal depiction of legionaires vs horses for balancing purposes as well if the engine limits your ability to replicate certain aspects of the game?

Besides, leaving the balance as is encourages a stereotypical depiction of heavy cavalry as being able to mount massed frontal charges effectively against fresh ordered heavy infantry since many people play Romans first. :-p

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well obviously! I haven't advocated a addition of a weapon. I'm not saying swap out the secondary. People have been assuming that this is the only way to represent this aspect of balance - its not, it just shows a supreme lack of imagination. We can't map RL to a game 1-1 but we can adjust other factors to make it work out more accurately in the end.

What I'm saying is that a unit that wasn't historically rolled over by frontal charges should not be completely pwned by heavy cavalry in a game that claims to be as historically accurate as possible.

I think you have managed to completely miss my point. My point is not that we can't represent whatever Jedi mind trick we want. We can probably do exploding squirrels if we want to. My point is that if you start doing this kind of thing for one unit then you should apply the same rationale to a ton of other units.


What is so wrong with that? Honestly the whole 'we can't represent legionaires accurately versus cavalry because we can't add a third weapon' is fallacious because you can represent it in other ways like MASS, the main factor in talking about charge casualties. I've listed like 3 more options to adjust the balance in the legionaire's favor WITHOUT even talking about weapon replacement. The 'we aren't representing secondaries on other units' argument is flawed because defense a matchup against horses is on a different scale(this is a balance issue) than depicting vicious hth combat (aesthetic issue) as the spear vs infantry was decently balanced in EB +4 Attack/-4 Defense and the game can only reasonable depict hth fighting at a distance. The cataphract archer thing oyu bring up is a valid point because its similar but in normal gameplay, you don't leave horses in melee for long periods of time and the lance is usually the better anti-cav weapon anyways so the balance change is minimal.

In "normal gameplay" you make sure to have supporting troops to deal with the cataphracts too and the AP bonus of an axe + the swifter animation and higher (if not by much) attack values would come in rather more handy than a lance in close combat... Furthermore the only reason that the Thureophoroi etc. don't have a 2nd/3rd side arm is because the game either doesn't allow it or because the game can't render the effect properly: this is not so much about aesthetics as about a decision to leave out a very prominent piece of equipment... In short, as it stands our depiction of troop types like the Hoplitai and Thureophoroi is every much as, or rather a good bit more hindered by game engine limits than that of the Legionaries. And this will continue to remain so in EB 2 because pretty much the same issues with side-arm switching apply.

W.r.t suggestions such as playing around with mass; this has more effect on infantry than cavalry especially seeing that in "normal" gameplay you'd use your legionaries to break the enemy infantry first and you auxillia to hold of the cataphracts (who just so happen to be spearmen).


In Short: This is a balance and realism issue up there with hoplites not being able to do pushing and therefore completely failing on the attack. In EB1, you addressed the latter with their uberguardmodeness which was not an ideal depiction so why not make an non-ideal depiction of legionaires vs horses for balancing purposes as well if the engine limits your ability to replicate certain aspects of the game?

Besides, leaving the balance as is encourages a stereotypical depiction of heavy cavalry as being able to mount massed frontal charges effectively against fresh ordered heavy infantry since many people play Romans first. :-p

Yes: we fixed an issue of a formation not working out by default by... altering that formation? And yes, the hoplites are probably a tad stronger than that they ought to be. This goes for more units. Again, there is a fairly large overhaul required for EB 2; and w.r.t. hoplites you happen to have chosen a problem JMRC cracked for the phalanx units. I would expect that kind of model/animation/bounding-sphere witchcraft to be applied to more units to get rid of some of the older fudged solutions, btw.

If I may make myself a little clearer; for me the following 3 major points are something why I am not jumping in my chair with hands raised crying "hear, hear" when I learn about these proposals for modifications to the stat system:

There seems no consensus that infantry in general and legionaries in particular are too weak against cavalry in general and cataphracts in particular. (There have been other posters telling stories of archers beating cataphracts on VH; and generally disagreeing with the notion infantry is too weak.)
The perceived inadequacy refers to something not "visible in the unit itself". By this I mean that currently we don't have a heavy pilum for the legionaries as 3rd weapon and we don't depict one either in the skin. Yes, that is not because it is more accurate but because the engine wouldn't work with it; and "implying" such a "3rd side arm" by fudging other stats is a minefield of setting priorities. What is more important, an actually depicted but unused side arm or one that is not depicted and also not used? What is more important, a general purpose side arm or a special one-trick-pony one? More important tends to translate fairly trivially into more accurate: i.e. there is/are (a) reason(s) why a particular piece of equipment was chosen over others within units.
There is a major reworking of the stat system due for EB2. For all we know this perceived in-adequacy of legionaries may be gone completely because of re-appraisals of arms & equipment w.r.t. stats and how M2TW-K is different from RTW; even without factoring in such a 3rd heavy pilum side arm. Promising (or demanding) to do this when it may in fact be completely counterproductive simply makes no sense to me.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Besides, leaving the balance as is encourages a stereotypical depiction of heavy cavalry as being able to mount massed frontal charges effectively against fresh ordered heavy infantry since many people play Romans first. :-p

Why not remove ap attribute in cavalry charge?

Then the armored troops are more strong against cavalry... Isn t it historically right?
There is some unarmored troops which are better (against cavalry) than legionaries and other armored troops.
Without ap, I ve noted that with high lethality of charge it work well equally, but in this way we would like to avoid that armoured troops die so easily in frontal charge.

[The General]

Its not constant if you give pilum a bonus against cavalry.
You intend to give the thrown pilum bonus against cavalry?


A mount bonus of +2/3 to normal attack is fine too since Legionaires after they tire completely fail versus tired cataphracts in melee. Cataphracts can Melee kill 2-3x the amount of tired legionaires from the front because legionaires don't have AP or anything and completely fail versus armored cavalry.

I've actually seen this happen numerous times so I'm not going to buy arguments against this. 300 legionaires tired legionaires fight 100 Hellenic Kataphracts, 250 legionaires dead, about 30 cataphracts dead. No charge, just constant melee.
So tired legionaries have a problem with killing cataphracts?
a) Exhaustion makes soldiers kill less (and knockdown more) in-game
b) Armor is a constant defence not affected by state of vigorousness.

Since cavalry (here; cataphracts) can't be knocked down they can continue fighting and thanks to the defence provided by their armor they will simply outlast lesser armored units, especially if they have an AP mace or sword. It's a shame that shame that the lack of stirrups (which are not that necessary for charging but very helpful for prolonged mêlée) is rather hard to depict in-game, but lowering the defence skill of heavy cavalry could help. :juggle2:

However, the cavalry should be able to use something like the Cantabrian circle to make continues 'probes' at infantry formations and formations should be more easily disturbed by missile fire and javelins in particular.


I like people in most other debates like this demand that you show evidence of Cataphracts charging fresh formed up heavy infantry. The only cavalry force that I know of that are known for massed frontal charges against anti-cavalry formations would be Polish Winged Hussars with their ridiculously long pikes and super dense formation.
I do not think I claimed that cataphracts made frontal charges against fresh formed up heavy infantry; I specifically mentioned the use of javelins and bows to disrupt enemy formations before the charge. A horse won't charge a brick wall, and a brick wall and a shield wall are pretty much the same in a horse's eyes, I'd think.

Also, interesting you should mention Winged Hussars' dense formation and long pikes since those are trademarks of cataphract cavalry. Cataphracts (and Clibanarii) used (kontos) lances which are roughly four meters long and Persian cataphracts are said to have been capable to pierce two men with their lances. Cataphracts/Clibanarii were the elite of their respective armies and usually very disciplined warriors.


Also don't forget that more armor != better protection. You only need to make one hole to be successful and with equal and opposite reaction, whatever the Cataphract gives in energy can easily be returned in a single point by something pointy dug into the ground.
In general, more armor does provide better protection, hence the Romans' massproduced armors for their professional soldiers. It's true, though, that the armor and its mass and weight can become a detriment in certain situations, but in general, more armor was preferred to less armor by professional/elite/noble warriors during ancient/medieval times.


Pantodapoi and levy spearman resist Cataphracts better than legionaires for crying out loud because their spear atleast allows them to MAD the Cataphracts.
In my current Aedui game, I've seen Bataroas taking a charge or a few from Equites Consulares and defeating them in the ensuing melee (in guard mode). Sure, Equites Consulares are not cataphracts, but then again, early barely armored Celtic swordsmen are hardly legionaries either.

(And, in a game back in 1.0 or 1.1 as Lusotani, I charged a unit of Sotaroas from the behind with two units of Iberi Lanceari, who while not technicallly cataphracts, are pretty heavy cavalry, and my Lanceary had their asses handed over to them. In the charge, I lost 7 cavalrymen against 4 casualties caused, and in the ensuing melee lost 10-15 cavalrymen while causing three casualties - on huge settings! :wall: I then retired my cavalry and used them to chace routers for the rest of the battle...)


What I'm saying is that a unit that wasn't historically rolled over by frontal charges should not be completely pwned by heavy cavalry in a game that claims to be as historically accurate as possible.
This should apply to all heavy infantry, then, and not just legionaries.

Also, cavalry should be able to make probing attacks, phalanxes should be more susceptible to flanking/rear attacks, missile fire should be able to disturb formations, javelins (and pila especially) should be able make shields useless... Et cetera. It's a game, and modders need to work within that framework, and while the EB team aims for a realistic feel, there's only so much they can do without tipping the balance to the benefit of some.


The cataphract archer thing oyu bring up is a valid point because its similar but in normal gameplay, you don't leave horses in melee for long periods of time and the lance is usually the better anti-cav weapon anyways so the balance change is minimal.
Those AP maces/axes/swords come (and thus, would come) very handy against armored infantry/cavalry - not only due to the AP but the faster attack speed, and perhaps this is silly, but I personally like having my cavalry use their secondary weapons in melee whether it'd be better or not - I just can't see how it would've been possible to fight effectively with a four-meter-long kontos in mêlée, especially if you just charged with it... Seems a tad unrealistic, now don't it? ;P

I agree, that frontal charges are too effective in some instances, but I think EB team has improved the situation greatly from vanilla R:TW where you could insta-rout an enemy army with a frontal charge by cheap lancers (say, Equites against Gauls). In EB, cavalry does sometimes make succesful frontal charges, but oftentimes they are butchered, too. The (hardcoded) game mechanics limit the way the game can be affected without making the situation worse other situations.

[antisocialmunky]

Tellos


Cool. I think I was abit annoyed by other responses previously that suggested I was asking for an impossible third weapon. At the end of the day, I'm just glad I got some feedback from the EB TEam.

Here is the full situation:

I can't say too much about "beating Cataphracts with Archers on VH" as my experience with these problems come from onlines play. I can say that there is a general consensus that Rome is extremely weak versus cataphracts and the matchup is nearly unplayable post Polybian.

The problem with Rome vs Cataphracts is that you need a combination of decent cavalry and infantry to defeat Catanks. AP units wouldn't hurt either but Rome doesn't have those and spears + 8 attack against cav is usually good enough. The problem with Rome is that any cavalry without the AP lance is completely worthless. Rome has nothing like that post Polybian so their counter is incomplete and their infantry will take hits because of it. The best they can do is ward cataphracts off as the cataphract player looks for a angle to attack which eventually they will get.

Now, if you can buy enough time against the cataphracts to kill the rest of his army, it would be fine but Legionaires as a rules of thumb completely fail as assault infantry due to the 'jack of all trades' mentality that seemed to go into their design. They are indeed decent against everything but good at nothing so pretty much enough units in guard mode will hold them off unlike their polybian counterparts who are actual decent assault infantry.

The Roman won't be able to flank to get an advantage because they are using more untis to counter the cataphracts than there are cataphracts and it would put a chunk of the army in an exposed position. Unlike Greeks, Romans can't offer a high theat level against cavalry unless 2/3rds of your army is spear mercs or aux.

So the Roman army is a giant sitting duck. It can't break through the front due to guard mode and it can't maneuver due to the cataphracts. Its an unwinnable situation if you're playing against a human. You can't use Rome trademark flexibility to outflank the opponent and you can't break through the front. Eventually your army will be tired out and won down and your anti-cavalry combined arms operation will fail or be out maneuvered.



The General


1) I misunderstood your statement on frontal charges.
2) In an engagement of fresh Legionaires vs Cataphracts, Cataphracts lost 30 and legionaires lost a large amount. I came in from a large frontal assault and left the cataphracts there for about 10 minutes and htey were completely fine at wading through fresh legionaires.
3) You don't leave cavalry in melee with infantry as a rule of thumb.... Especially with anything with a spear. Sotaroas are archers with spears. Cavalry-Infantry relationships are still a little RPS.
4) It should apply to all infantry.
5) No they don't, the best anti-cav weapon in the game is that ridiculously fast attacking AP lance. On units with AP secondaires the lance os usually slightly better but only slightly and not much so its not balance breaking.

[The General]

1) I misunderstood your statement on frontal charges.
2) In an engagement of fresh Legionaires vs Cataphracts, Cataphracts lost 30 and legionaires lost a large amount. I came in from a large frontal assault and left the cataphracts there for about 10 minutes and htey were completely fine at wading through fresh legionaires.
3) You don't leave cavalry in melee with infantry as a rule of thumb.... Especially with anything with a spear. Sotaroas are archers with spears. Cavalry-Infantry relationships are still a little RPS.
4) It should apply to all infantry.
5) No they don't, the best anti-cav weapon in the game is that ridiculously fast attacking AP lance. On units with AP secondaires the lance os usually slightly better but only slightly and not much so its not balance breaking.

1) Glad to have that corrected.

2) Can't say anything here (not being there, duh), but could provide you with examples of cavalry failing at charge and/or getting butchered in melee.

3) The "melee" lasted maybe 5 seconds, counting from the point units made contact, before I pulled out my cavalry. I was just flabbergasted 200 ultra heavy cavalry were losing so clearly (7 casualties vs ~20) to 120 unarmored Sotaroas who got charged into the back, spears or not.

4) Now we're talking, however, thread title/original post talk specifically about Romans... And I don't like it when people appear to be whining about one faction's ability to defeat a specific unit or other such minuscule game balance "issue". If you're worried about the overall performance of heavy infantry against cavalry, you should've introduced it as such, as I too am curious as to how the EBII team intends to balance this aspect of the game, as vanilla M2:TW's cavalry charges can decimate enemy units even better than vanilla R:TW cavalry charges did. (Though, they do have my confidence in that they intend to prevent such.)

5) I specifically mentioned AP maces/axes/swords as secondary melee weapons, and also mentioned as a reason why I use them that I found it unrealistic to have cavalrymen playing Duel from American Gladiator with those barge-poles of theirs. Personal preference, just like I don't like to have 10 FMs in my armies or whatnot.

[antisocialmunky]

1) Good we have that cleared up.
2) Yes, just not against legionaires, 10 attack swords don't cut it against that much defense. Its too late tonight but I can dig up some replays if you really care so much...
3) Yeah, its even worse against Numidian Archers. Baktria found out about their AP clubs the hard way... This only highlights the MASSIVE difference between ANYTHING with a spear or AP and something without... Infact one of most annoying things for Cataphracts is just a wall of crap units in loose with AP or spears. They might be crap but if oyu charge it its not going to be work it.
4) Most factions, even Gauls or Saba can deal with cataphracts to some extent with combinations of tactics. No other faction is in the unique position of being so disadvantaged against Cataphracts as Post Marian Rome is. Partially because the infantry is numerous but not great at much and their cavalry is obscenely overpriced.
5)No problem, I'm jsut saying that gameplay wise it doesn't make much of a difference though the unit using the secondary tends to lose...

[Dunadd]

On heavy pila used against cavalry i'm sure they'd be better than a short-sword, but i doubt they'd be nearly as good as a spear - both light and heavy pila were primarily throwing weapons and i don't know of any account of heavy pila being used as spears against cavalry before Caesar's invasion of Gaul, which is fairly far into the EB period, which starts in 272 BC (?), so maybed you could give it to Marian and Imperial legionaries, but not Camillan or Polybian (who had Triarii with spears to hold off cavalry and were mainly scared of being outflanked or hit by cavalry javelins with longer range than their pila - though most of their generals didnt use Triarii against cavalry - strangely even Scipio Africanus (one of their best generals) used light infantry mixed with cavalry (maybe two men to a horse till they got into melee, as triarii were maybe too slow and too easily avoidable - though i'd have thought having them on the flanks would have scuppered Carthaginian cavalry attacks on the flanks a fair bit)

(On cataphracts - they shouldnt be that great in melee anyway. According to WRG Palmyran cataphracts got exhausted very quickly in hot climates, couldnt deliver a particularly devastating charge as their armour weighed the horses down too much (ancient horses weren't medieval warhorses) and were beaten in melee by unarmoured Palestinians armed with clubs.

That might only have been Palmyran ones though - maybed Parthian and nomad ones were better, though it was probably the combination of horse archers and cataphracts that was deadly with them.)

[Cybvep]

This is gonna be an endless moot point if some things aren't clarified. Firstly, we (or, more precisely, the EB team) should decide what we expect from particular unit(s) on the battlefield, given the limitations of MTW2 engine.

Then, however, it must be decided what we want from the game in terms of overall balance in the singleplayer mode, which accounts for the greatest part of average player's gaming experience. And singleplayer mode means facing AI opponents. In such case, those are bad opponents, even if better than RTW ones.

If we introduce impenetrable heavy infantry from the front (I'm not saying that it should be the case, as it's just an example), human player would be smart enough not to use his/her cavalry in a suicidal manner. AI, however, cannot be taught this. Handling the cavalry would be one of the trickiest things to do on the battlefield, as they could only be used to flanking manuevers, something which on MTW2 engine will always be much easier to perform for a player than for the AI. Therefore, if we want some challenge from sp game, we must make a compromise of sorts and such compromises are present in EB1 (some are better than others).

A good example would be the balance of primary and secondary weapons of "lancers" in EB1. They are full of compromises. Their primary weapon is perfect for charging, but it should be really effective only when charging from the flank or rear and it shouldn't be that great in prolonged melee. However, in EB1 AI can't switch to secondary weapon, so the lancers must be able to fight with their primary weapons with at least average efficiency, as they do in EB1. Also, the lancers should retain their ability to cripple enemy with flanking charges, as they do in EB1. Switching to secondary weapons should also be possible and at least useful in some situations, e.g. when fighting lightly armed opponents with swords (so that players can utilise this) and that's the case in EB.

This impressive balance is achieved by utilising weapon delay attribute (so lancers are not overpowered in melee), low attack value (see above), very high charge (so the lancers are much more powerful when charging) and lethality values (so they are not underpowered in charges from the flank or rear and in melee in general, for the AI's sake) and armour-piercing attribue (so units with high armour value are not immune to flanking attacks). Secondary weapon, in case of swords, have much higher attack value, no weapon delay and lower lethality, so they are perfect when fighting opponents with high defence and low armour rating. Of course, the balance is not perfect, even because of existance of experience stat (which can throw the balance of in many parts of EB1 combat system). Also, as pointed out, sometimes lancers are too good versus armoured opponents in melee and it's not practical to change to secondary weapons. Personally, I would give "area" stat to swords and decrease number of soldiers in an unit to remedy this problem, but that's another topic.

Long story short - there are many things to consider when balancing the statistics and things that look realistic on paper aren't always the best ones in practice.

[antisocialmunky]

If you read my posts, they are about makign a compromise to not make Legionaires suck unrealistically and considering that the AI has a pretty bad habit of frontal charges, you're probably going to run into that problem if you actually get to Marian, haven't conquered the world, and Parthia has taken over everything in the East.

If you're going to balance for singleplayer, you should take Phalanx out completely because the AI cannot handle it at all. :-p Lets just make units balance realistically and leave it at that.

[Cybvep]

If you read my posts, they are about makign a compromise to not make Legionaires suck unrealistically and considering that the AI has a pretty bad habit of frontal charges, you're probably going to run into that problem if you actually get to Marian, haven't conquered the world, and Parthia has taken over everything in the East.

If you're going to balance for singleplayer, you should take Phalanx out completely because the AI cannot handle it at all. :-p Lets just make units balance realistically and leave it at that.

Concerning phalanx - that's why they are not as susceptible to attacks from the flank or rear as they should be.

Besides, when I was talking about a compromise, I didn't mention "totally screwing history and going for gameplay fun"...

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Does anybody have every played Med2 online ? Cavalry is totaly overpowerd, it doesn't matter wether in vanilla or mods which even changed the unit states significantly. Even light cavalry is able to defeat heavy infantery from the front with some charges and retreats. Heavy cavalry is almost unstoppable, except against pikes but even spears are kinda useless for some reason.

I really hope that there is some way to change this. Heavy cavalry is also strong in Eb but a joke if compared to Med2.

[antisocialmunky]

Concerning phalanx - that's why they are not as susceptible to attacks from the flank or rear as they should be.


The AI is incapable of utilizing that though. They also can't do bridge battles or fight up hills.



Besides, when I was talking about a compromise, I didn't mention "totally screwing history and going for gameplay fun"...

I didn't mention "totally screwing history" either, just figuring out how ot represent it better.


@FB - Actually from what I've seen from most mods, the mechanics are quite moddable, also cavalry STOPS after it runs into any unit so its not possible to charge through your own mans. As long as cavalry does MAD onto spears, you're winning the cav fight.

[Cybvep]

The AI is incapable of utilizing that though. They also can't do bridge battles or fight up hills.
I don't get your point. Phalanx should be very susceptible from the rear or the flank (much more than it currently is in EB1) and they don't always collapse because it helps the AI tremendously, especially if it's not outnumbered.

AFAIK nothing could be done about the bridge battles in EB1. Small fords were much better, but unfortunately when roads improved, so did the fords and they became the bridges...

N/c about fighting uphill.


We must see what the EB team will achieve in MTW2, with new combat system being developed. However, I don't think that heavy cavalry will be made completely useless when attacking heavy infantry from the front and giving bonuses to single units (e.g. legionnaries) are not justified unless they are really needed because of limitations of the engine. As pointed out by some people in this thread, when you give a bonus to one unit, you must consider other untis, too. Otherwise, one must state why legionnaries should be better or worse at repelling heavy cavalry than other heavy infantry in the first place. Why not give skirmishers bonuses against cavalry? They have pointy sticks, too.

I think that a much more interesting topic is the one of giving all units which should have "third weapon" or working secondary weapon certain bonuses in order to better depict them, e.g. hoplites or cataphracts. That would be an interesting topic, indeed.

[antisocialmunky]

Oh wait, nvm. I misread your post as I often do...

But at the rest, what are trying to get at? Its very confusing.

Anyways, I think that it would be a reasonable policy to give ALL heavy infantry should have some sort of minimum ability to resist cavalry via mass to account for their denser formation..

[The General]

Oh wait, nvm. I misread your post as I often do...

But at the rest, what are trying to get at? Its very confusing.

Anyways, I think that it would be a reasonable policy to give ALL heavy infantry should have some sort of minimum ability to resist cavalry via mass to account for their denser formation..

I'm curious how that would affect charges to the flanks and rear, though. If the mass is simply greater, won't they resists charges from all sides?

[Cybvep]

If the EB team wants it, then it will be possible to design stat system in such way that charges from the flank or rear will be devastating. We have, after all, three types of defence + mass + weapon attributes + horse mass etc.

[Ludens]

If the EB team wants it, then it will be possible to design stat system in such way that charges from the flank or rear will be devastating. We have, after all, three types of defence + mass + weapon attributes + horse mass etc.

It's certainly possible, but I am afraid that it would mess up something else. Also, you need to take into account how the A.I. will deal with these changes. It probably will ignore them, thus giving the player a major advantage.

[Cybvep]

Yep, just as I've said... But it's hard to add anything without knowing what the team wants to do.

[Parallel Pain]

I still say in EB1 at least if my tiny little bowmen armed with knifes, no shields and no armor can kill cataphracts of any kind in a VH game vs the AI, your legionaries in any era can do the same and better

[antisocialmunky]

I'm curious how that would affect charges to the flanks and rear, though. If the mass is simply greater, won't they resists charges from all sides?

To a certain degree: yes but its the difference between massive damage and slightly less massive damage. You can still attack the weakspot for massive damage(relatively).

@Parallel Pain, you want to see the replays?:laugh4:

@Ludens, you know... after playing TATW for the past week, I have no faith in the AI department at all. Its such a terrible mess.:no: I hope they have some ideas on how to fix BAI.

[Parallel Pain]

@Parallel Pain, you want to see the replays?:laugh4:

Well if you have a replay of a campaign battle (taken with xfire or something i guess) in which the AI somehow overruns your legionaires headlong with a cataphract charge sure.

[antisocialmunky]

Why is everyone wanting singleplayer 'balance'? If you're playing the AI, its already imbalanced and if you try to balance, it would overpower the AI to make it reasonably challenging. People are going to be playing both sides so what people have been advocating: this so called 'Campaign Balance' is confusing.

Have you guys been playing Kingdoms? The AI is terriiiiiiiiiiiible and would completely fail.

And yeah, I just ran some tests against the AI. Its not particularly fair since they have a bad habit of running away.... also learned that me as the cataphracts makes legionaires about as effective as pantos... :-\ Also lost 60 pantos or 100 legionaires playing against the cataphracts without using any super cheesy tactics.

[Parallel Pain]

Why is everyone wanting singleplayer 'balance'? If you're playing the AI, its already imbalanced and if you try to balance, it would overpower the AI to make it reasonably challenging. People are going to be playing both sides so what people have been advocating: this so called 'Campaign Balance' is confusing.

Because both unit cost and upkeep and stats and recruitment turns and stuff have been balanced with history and single player in mind and because only a small percentage of EB players regularly play multiplayer or play multiplayer more than singleplayer

[antisocialmunky]

Balanced with history is fine, balanced versus each other is fine. Just don't throw 'balanced using the single player AI' into it and its fine.

[tarem]

making the pike traps available for all/most factions (modified to look like something less anachronistic) seamed like a good idea to me. say most heavy infantry could deploy some sort of hedge (with variable success) to ward off front cavalry charges.

i've been playing EB1 1.2 for several months now but since most of my campaigns were in the east i did not experience the sword equipped infantry being an easy target for cavalry charges. true as a helenistic power, my infantry usually consists of 4-5 phalanx units and 4-5 spearmen/hoplite units, while the helenistic cavalry is very good on its own on the flanks and i never really faced cataphracts as opposition in significant numbers. also i did not went to war with the romans untill 8-9 turns ago, although i did win suprisingly easy against 4-5 full roman stacks of mixed composition, mostly because the AI's unwillingness to recruit any cavalry and because i was on the defensive and fought them on my own terms/favorable ground. still i did not win by charging them (camilian and polibian cohorts) but rather by ambushes and flanking. still, they just got their first marian cohorts, so i'll see how they perform against against heavy armored phalanx and helenic heavy cavalry.

[Prussian to the Iron]

now im by no means a historian but:

I thought that Pila were meant to bend once they hit a target, so as to be un-usable? wouldnt that mean that trying to spear a galloping horse with it would definitely either break it or bend the lead?

which would mean that it would simply be better for the pila to get an anti-cavalry bonus, rather than the actual soldiers themselves, and then once thrown they're on their own.

I'm not questioning whether or not Romans used the Pila as a spear sometimes, but I am questioning whether it would have been effective after a stab or 2.

[A Very Super Market]

That isn't the point of using polearms to ward off cavalry. The key term is "ward off" here, as horses simply won't dash headfirst into a bunch of pointy things. In an actual melee, having a spear against a horse doesn't give much of an advantage.

[Prussian to the Iron]

well....isnt a bunch of shiny gladius' pointing out being thrusted back and forth to scare them enough to keep them away?

and if it is only for scare, then why should they have the bonus?

[A Very Super Market]

A gladius is too short to intimidate a horse. Besides, even if they don't charge into you, they could hang around and lop off your arm or something.

Units need the bonus because the game engine allows you to throw cavalry straight into pike phalanes without them simply turning around and trotting back to your lines.

[Julianus]

is there not already a bonus for javelin vs mounted anyway? and besides the game's engine not being able to make this an option anyway (fighting with pilla or pilum in melee, forgive me any insult to romani lovers or historians alike i love history but i was taught in a public school in the boonies.) from what i learned the pilla and pilum were made specificaly to bend after impact to hinder the enemy infantry and make using shield or paring a good throw limb unwieldy/inopperable? does not make sense to me to save my short throwing spear for a frontal charge when it is meant to bend/break so as to not be used again. it could be counter productive for all i know.

and that is my two cents

Pilum could be used as short spears against cavalry, at least Caesar taught his soldiers to point their pilum against the beautiful faces of Pompey's horsemen and successfully scared and routed all 7,000 of them.

But I think it's a little despicable.:laugh4:

[Ludens]

Pilum could be used as short spears against cavalry, at least Caesar taught his soldiers to point their pilum against the beautiful faces of Pompey's horsemen and successfully scared and routed all 7,000 of them.

That sounds like Roman prejudice against easterners to me. Unless they were completely green it is unlikely that Pompey's horsemen had never faced spearmen. They came from cultures that would have had ample experience with cavalry vs. spearmen combat, too. Also, the version of events that I have read said that Caesar equipped his troops with proper spears, which makes more sense when it was a planned action. A normal spear is better suited for anti-cavalry work.