Some queries regarding EB's units...

[Rolling Thunder]

Alright, let me start this out by saying that I'm aware I'm a new fish here - new to both this forum and new to EB. If this issue or topic has been brought up before, I apologise - I did as much searching as seemed rational, but it's entirely possible I missed something. I'd also like to add that while this post is fundamentally critical, I do love EB. The mod is just plain fantastic - a true testament to human ingenuity and dedication - and I hope not to offend anybody with my questions/criticism.

The basics of my queries mostly consist of addressing some problems I've seen with certain units during my long-running Seleukid and Koinion Hellion campaigns, and some discrepancies with these. Again, let me please reiterate that no disrespect is meant to the mod and the mod team, I'm just trying to figure out a few issues here and there.

Phalanxes:

My main issue with the Diadoachi phalanxes is their shield bonus. In the game, Diadoachi phalangites experience a shield defensive bonus of +5. Units using the Aspis or Hoplon shield, however, experience only a +4 bonus. This does strike me as a little illogical, as the shields used by Phalangites tended to be somewhat smaller than those used by the traditional Hoplati. Also, I would presume that the cumbersome nature of the Sarissa would make the shield much less useful, especially in a melee.


Light units:

A number of units in antiquity went into battle with no armour, relying only on shields or lightly-packed formations and skirmishing to protect them. However, I have found that a number of these units, for example Parthian Spearmen and Gestatae, have a relatively high armour value for unarmoured men. While I can understand the sheer lunacy of the Wild Men would make them more resistant to damage, the same can not be said of Parthian Spearmen. It also makes otherwise poor, lightly-armoured units unnaturally resilient to damage when combined with shields.

[athanaric]

Gaesatae and Parthian Spearmen both have helmets. Helmets count for a lot of points in the EB system. Their missile resistance is mainly due to their large shields.
If you're having a problem with OP Gaesatae or Tindanotae, you can always remove the secondary hitpoint, like some others did (me included), ideally combined with a price adjustment or a stat compensation. This will reduce their resilience to missiles as well.


e: oh, and welcome to the forum. :2thumbsup:

[vartan]

Hi Rolling Thunder, and welcome to EB and the EB community. I'm not a modder (that's a word, right?), but I do know that many share your concern. Some even go to such lengths as to modify these stats, such as shield values, defence values, armour values, weapon values, and so on. You can join in by finding such threads on the Unofficial Mods section, or even start your own! I always preferred starting my own projects (yeah!) but never too late to join in!

[Atilius]

In the game, Diadoachi phalangites experience a shield defensive bonus of +5.

Phalanx units get a -2 penalty to defense and -1 to armor which is somewhat offset by a +2 to their shield value. This is intended to simulate the relative weakness of the phalanx to flank and rear attacks: the shield bonus is only applied is only applied to attacks from the left and front.



I have found that a number of these units, for example Parthian Spearmen and Gestatae, have a relatively high armour value for unarmoured men.
Gaesatae get +3 armor for their metal helmets, +1 armor for cheekguards, and a +1 armor bonus for being barbarian melee troops.

We've done our best to adjust unit stats to take into account factors which don't appear in the combat system. Some of these are non-intuitive, but I think they yield results which tend to mirror historical reality.

[Rolling Thunder]

Thanks for the warm welcome all three of you. It's good to be welcomed aboard in so friendly a fashion.

@athanaric: No, it's not a problem, merely a realism query. The game's pretty fantastic and all, and I don't find anything unbalanced, merely odd.

@Vartan: Oh, I do plan to modify my own game (been doing for ages). I just want to discuss things with this community before I change anything, see the reasons behind it and so on. Basically, I want to discuss these things

@Atilus: I can see the logic behind that, but the issue I find is that phalangites are, fundamentally, very vulnerable troops. They rely on the sheer power and reach of their pikes to keep them alive and in one piece. Would it not be more realistic for them to have relatively low defence and shields statistics to reflect that their shields are smaller, much harder to use with the Sarissa and that the Sarissa is a relatively clumsy weapon and hard to defend yourself with. Whereas in EB, I would thing they are...a tad too resilient. Hoplites, having larger shields and being able to use them more effectively, really should be more resilient all-around (and less powerful).

A solution that was found in the Medieval II mods was to actually remove pike unit's secondary weapons. Has this been considered?

[MisterFred]

I can't imagine the secondary units being removed from pike units, unless perhaps the most basic of levies are left with no more than a knife for a secondary. The main argument against this being that they did actually have secondary weapons. While I agree they're too strong from the front vs missiles and too resistant to rear charges due to the mass bonus of the phalanx formation, most of this is hardcoded and a result of the engine, not the EB team. They've hinted though, and I'm looking forward to, very different phalanxes in EBII.

Phalanxes look a lot more realistic in rough terrain. While they're still tough, try charging a phalanx frontally in a forest where you have a significant slope advantage - highly armored troops can sometimes get into and break levy phalanxes and even pezhateroi without flanking support.

Edit: As Vartan pointed out below, phalanxes are also more reasonable using fair play standards (even if the AI doesn't follow them) by not switching direction without leaving combat & phalanx formation and reforming.

[vartan]

I can't imagine the secondary units being removed from pike units, unless perhaps the most basic of levies are left with no more than a knife for a secondary. The main argument against this being that they did actually have secondary weapons. While I agree they're too strong from the front vs missiles and too resistant to rear charges due to the mass bonus of the phalanx formation, most of this is hardcoded and a result of the engine, not the EB team. They've hinted though, and I'm looking forward to, very different phalanxes in EBII.
Phalanx-mode units need secondary weapons unless you want 180 degree pike-turning. How would you fight melee?

[Rolling Thunder]

@Vartan: With their pikes. Sure, they would have had their knives and falcattas, but consider this: If you remove these, they can't switch to them. If they always keep fighting with the pikes, you get a much more realistic situation with the metacombat as a whole.

[Atilius]

... Would it not be more realistic for them to have relatively low defence and shields statistics to reflect that their shields are smaller, much harder to use with the Sarissa and that the Sarissa is a relatively clumsy weapon and hard to defend yourself with. Whereas in EB, I would thing they are...a tad too resilient.
Look, any combat system has limitations. We have fiddled with unit stats to try to get around RTW's shortcomings. As for the EB phalanx being too resilient, as Polybios (18.29) says: "... so long as the phalanx retains its characteristic form and strength nothing can withstand its charge or resist it face to face."

[vartan]

@Vartan: With their pikes. Sure, they would have had their knives and falcattas, but consider this: If you remove these, they can't switch to them. If they always keep fighting with the pikes, you get a much more realistic situation with the metacombat as a whole.
For what reason? Metacombat? What metacombat? The No Secondary Weapon system is useful for the duration that the pikes are fighting frontal enemies. Once surrounded, the pikes have no way of fighting back. They can't even pull out the swords that they had with them historically. They simply stand there without pikes and wait to be slaughtered.

[Rahwana]

maybe you can experiment with lowering the lethality of their secondary weapons, instead of removing them, but then... the pike roll.....

[Rolling Thunder]

Look, any combat system has limitations. We have fiddled with unit stats to try to get around RTW's shortcomings. As for the EB phalanx being too resilient, as Polybios (18.29) says: "... so long as the phalanx retains its characteristic form and strength nothing can withstand its charge or resist it face to face."

Okay, I know the system is flawed and hardcoded. Sorry, did not mean to upset anybody.



@Vartan: So they can't use the pikes in a melee? I know that it would be impossible for them to use the pikes on the small, little combats occuring outside of the melee, but in the broad mass of a close-in fight they could still use them.

[vartan]

@Vartan: So they can't use the pikes in a melee? I know that it would be impossible for them to use the pikes on the small, little combats occuring outside of the melee, but in the broad mass of a close-in fight they could still use them.
I admire your looking at the bigger picture, but this is a real time tactics game, not an RTS. Everything matters. You need to have something to do in such close-quarter-combat situations. In fact, the current system is limited. A tertiary weapon combat system would be more preferable (and what I seek to implement in my battle engine). Look at the Armenian Late Bodyguard for instance (Hai Zoravar): You will notice that the bodyguard hold a lance, a mace, and a sword. Which one can't they use? The sword. How unfortunate.

[Rolling Thunder]

I admire your looking at the bigger picture, but this is a real time tactics game, not an RTS. Everything matters. You need to have something to do in such close-quarter-combat situations. In fact, the current system is limited. A tertiary weapon combat system would be more preferable (and what I seek to implement in my battle engine). Look at the Armenian Late Bodyguard for instance (Hai Zoravar): You will notice that the bodyguard hold a lance, a mace, and a sword. Which one can't they use? The sword. How unfortunate.

Is there any way to make the soldiers bunch together any more in the phalanx, so that they can focus on fighting 'into' the enemy rather than spreading out like they tend to (somewhat unrealistically) do in the Rome Engine?

[athanaric]

Look at the Armenian Late Bodyguard for instance (Hai Zoravar): You will notice that the bodyguard hold a lance, a mace, and a sword. Which one can't they use? The sword. How unfortunate.
This also tends to make them under-perform vs. light units, especially axemen or falxmen.

[vartan]

Is there any way to make the soldiers bunch together any more in the phalanx, so that they can focus on fighting 'into' the enemy rather than spreading out like they tend to (somewhat unrealistically) do in the Rome Engine?
Yes. Understand that what you are experiencing is the infamous phalanx bug, wherein you have a phalanx (usually guard off, sometimes with guard on) whose one half is attacking, and whose rear half is lagging. Or any variation of this breakage. Alexander update of the engine (1.5 to 1.9) did a lot to rectify this. Keeping guard on whilst attacking also does the trick for the most part.

This also tends to make them under-perform vs. light units, especially axemen or falxmen.
And quite unfairly so indeed.

[Intranetusa]

check out my post where I tweaked some of the unit values:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129007-EB-Unit-Stats-Tweaking-phalangites-hoplites-chariots-gaestae-etc-suggestions

For sarissa phalangites, I reduced the shield value by two (from 5 to 3) and added 1 defense point value.

[Rolling Thunder]

check out my post where I tweaked some of the unit values:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?129007-EB-Unit-Stats-Tweaking-phalangites-hoplites-chariots-gaestae-etc-suggestions

For sarissa phalangites, I reduced the shield value by two (from 5 to 3) and added 1 defense point value.


Why add the defence point value? I mean, they're meant to be vulnerable to attack. They're pikemen.


Armour Values Problems:

While playing EB, I've found what appear to my untrained eyes to be serious discrepancies with the armour values of most 'heavy' units on the battlefield.

Firstly, let us examine the Hoplati. These men wear a linenthorax, bronze greaves and a Corinthian helm. Solid, reasonable armour that stands at '11' armour value.

However, if we examine a Cohors Reformata (Post-MarianLegionary Cohort), we see something truly wrong with the armour value. Clad in a shirt of heavy chainmail and a bronze helmet, and he only has an armour value of 10!?

This becomes even more strange when examining or Polybian Triarii, who wear a bronze helm, heavy chain armour and a single bronze greave, and yet for some reason only have a mere armour value of '10', compared to the Hoplite's 11, despite the fact that the Hoplite's linen armour is vastly inferior to the chain armour of the Triarii!

Even comparing the Cohors Reformata with the Triarii, we see that the Cohors, despite lacking the single bronze greave of the Triarii, has the same armour value as the more heavily-armoured Triarii.

This becomes even more strange when we compare the Babylonian Heavy Spearmen, armoured in iron scale mail curiasses and bronze helmets. 9 armour. 9 armour for a heavy scale cuirass and a bronze helmet? A levy phalangite has 8, for a bronze helm and a linen cuirass?

It almost seems like the more armour a unit wears on the model, the less protection it offers!

[Rolling Thunder]

Bump, could someone answer my questions?

[Apázlinemjó]

Bump, could someone answer my questions?

To answer your question with a short sentence: balancing the units was more important than giving armour values by skins. I agree this unit stat modding policy of EB team.

[vartan]

To answer your question with a short sentence: balancing the units was more important than giving armour values by skins. I agree this unit stat modding policy of EB team.
Can you translate that into everyday American English please? :help: As far as I know, the EB team uses the WYSWIG system where they give each type of armour a certain value (albeit rarely inconsistently :laugh4:). What does 'giving armour values by skins' mean?

[Apázlinemjó]

Can you translate that into everyday American English please? :help: As far as I know, the EB team uses the WYSWIG system where they give each type of armour a certain value (albeit rarely inconsistently :laugh4:). What does 'giving armour values by skins' mean?

I thought they gave certain values, but they "overwrote" that because of unit balancing.

[vartan]

I thought they gave certain values, but they "overwrote" that because of unit balancing.
Sure. Why not? :laugh4:

EDIT: Didn't you read what I wrote? At times, inconsistently. :laugh4:

[Ludens]

I thought they gave certain values, but they "overwrote" that because of unit balancing.

There are a few balancing adjustments to my knowledge (barbarian units get +1 armour, phalangites get reduced armour and increased shield), but beyond that armour and shield stats are consistently based on equipment. In this particular case: the EB team considers linothorax to be almost as good chainmail, and the standard hoplite wears leather or a linothorax reinforced with metal plates.

[Rolling Thunder]

To answer your question with a short sentence: balancing the units was more important than giving armour values by skins. I agree this unit stat modding policy of EB team.

And thus realism (and thus historical accuracy) was not so much discarded as it was kicked down a giant well by the king of Sparta.




There are a few balancing adjustments to my knowledge (barbarian units get +1 armour, phalangites get reduced armour and increased shield), but beyond that armour and shield stats are consistently based on equipment. In this particular case: the EB team considers linothorax to be almost as good chainmail, and the standard hoplite wears leather or a linothorax reinforced with metal plates.

I must politely disagree with the EB team. The linenthorax is excellent armour - equal or superior to the bronze muscle cuirass that is replaced - but it is neither as covering nor as effective as chainmail. Unless it is literally immune to sword slashes as chainmail is, highly resistant to thrusts and blunt trauma as well, then it is, put simply, not as good as chainmail. Leather armour isn't even as effective as padded armour (unless reinforced with plates).

[abou]

Linothorax has been tested by reenactment and found to be quite resilient to thrusts and blunt trauma. Furthermore, chain mail would actually be weak against a thrust since the rings could split, but it is generally better against a slash - quite good, in fact. Reinforced linothorax is quite excellent armor as well due to the iron banding or scale. As such, reinforced linothorax is equal to chain mail.

The hoplites have helmets (which are Attic, not Corinthian) with cheek-guards, plus two greaves, plus reinforced linothorax and hence the higher value. If anything, it seems we may have made a mistake and that the hoplites armor value should be 12, the triarii 11, and the cohors reformata 10 since they lack greaves.

[Apázlinemjó]

I feel enlightened.

[vartan]

I must politely disagree with the EB team. The linenthorax is excellent armour - equal or superior to the bronze muscle cuirass that is replaced - but it is neither as covering nor as effective as chainmail. Unless it is literally immune to sword slashes as chainmail is, highly resistant to thrusts and blunt trauma as well, then it is, put simply, not as good as chainmail. Leather armour isn't even as effective as padded armour (unless reinforced with plates).
Chain mail is highly vulnerable to blunt trauma. Internal bleeding is a big issue.

[Rolling Thunder]

Chain mail is highly vulnerable to blunt trauma. Internal bleeding is a big issue.

Not so much if you consider chain is always worn with padded armour underneath it.



Linothorax has been tested by reenactment and found to be quite resilient to thrusts and blunt trauma. Furthermore, chain mail would actually be weak against a thrust since the rings could split, but it is generally better against a slash - quite good, in fact. Reinforced linothorax is quite excellent armor as well due to the iron banding or scale. As such, reinforced linothorax is equal to chain mail.

The hoplites have helmets (which are Attic, not Corinthian) with cheek-guards, plus two greaves, plus reinforced linothorax and hence the higher value. If anything, it seems we may have made a mistake and that the hoplites armor value should be 12, the triarii 11, and the cohors reformata 10 since they lack greaves.

The linenthorax is excellent armour, no doubt. It's light, cheap to make and resilient, like you said, to thrusts and blunt damage. But the thing is, so is chainmail. Not to the degree it is against slashes, which it's pretty much invincible against, but I would be fairly confident in saying it's generally superior armour by a more significant factor than 1 or 2 AV. The iron or scale banding on reinforced linen armour is only around the belly region in EB, which would offer less protection still than a full haubergon or hauberk. That said, I would agree that it's equal-ish to chainmail armour.

[vartan]

Not so much if you consider chain is always worn with padded armour underneath it.
Whoops. You said always. :laugh4:

[Rolling Thunder]

Whoops. You said always. :laugh4:


Always unless you're a idiot peasant, in which case I'd like to know who gave you expensive, valuable armour before taking it away from said peasant and giving it to someone vaguely qualified and in possession of some padded cloth armour. So, yeah, it's invariably used with padding. Else it doesn't stop shite.

[paullus]

"Padding" may be a strong word. Most likely it's worn with a simple leather hauberk, if that's what we agree the subarmalis was. I'd be willing to consider either a light linen garment (thicker than a tunic though) or a pliable leather. There are several depictions of garments that could fit either material.

[Randal]

I admit I don't know much about practical testing, but from an economics PoV it doesn't really seem logical if mail armour is equal to linthorax.

Surely creating a mail hauberk would cost many, many times the price of a linthorax? Not only does it use far more expensive material, the skilled labour cost for making all those rings and putting them together must have been several times that of the linen armour.

Would anyone, and specifically any empire like Rome have equipped all its soldiers with mail armour if linthorax had been (almost?) equally effective?

I imagine cultural factors and the issue of prestige would sometimes explain the use of poor value-for-money armour (A Gallic chieftain would impress his men more with mail armour than with linen, a Roman aquilifer might wear scale instead of the superior mail because scale can be polished to a wonderful gleam on the parade ground) but when we're talking about outfitting literally hundreds of thousands of legionaries...

Then there's the fact that, as I learned from EB, the Hellenistic kingdoms started to switch to mail armour in their latter days, perhaps in part because they came into contact with the Romans. Thorakitai, reformed Macedonian phalangites... why make this effort unless mail was considered to provide a very significant advantage?

[MisterFred]

Although its easy to make the assumption that mail armor was more expensive than linen armor, I'd caution against relying on this without sources. A linothorax, if made the way modern re-creationists have modeled, is not necessarily very cheap. Cloth requires a lot of work in the ancient world, and a good linothorax requires quite a bit of it, glue, and possibly some specialist knowledge.

Even if mail remained more expensive than leather or linen armor, if it was slightly (or significantly) more effective than other armor types, the cost differential was probably narrowing in our time period as iron-mining, casting, and smithing became more common.

From another perspective, I expect (but this is yet another assumption) that mail armor lent itself more easily to a centralized production model than linen armor, as casting and smithing industries tended to be concentrated near iron deposits. So that even IF mail armor was more expensive than linen or leather armor it would still be (from an organizational stand-point) easier to procure for professional armies whose equipment is procured by the state in bulk (Marian armies, possibly some later Hellenistic elements, possibly some of the Carthaginian armories). There were probably some situations where cost and effectiveness were lesser concerns than the sheer ability to procure sufficient equipment.

[Apázlinemjó]

Although its easy to make the assumption that mail armor was more expensive than linen armor, I'd caution against relying on this without sources. A linothorax, if made the way modern re-creationists have modeled, is not necessarily very cheap. Cloth requires a lot of work in the ancient world, and a good linothorax requires quite a bit of it, glue, and possibly some specialist knowledge.

Even if mail remained more expensive than leather or linen armor, if it was slightly (or significantly) more effective than other armor types, the cost differential was probably narrowing in our time period as iron-mining, casting, and smithing became more common.

From another perspective, I expect (but this is yet another assumption) that mail armor lent itself more easily to a centralized production model than linen armor, as casting and smithing industries tended to be concentrated near iron deposits. So that even IF mail armor was more expensive than linen or leather armor it would still be (from an organizational stand-point) easier to procure for professional armies whose equipment is procured by the state in bulk (Marian armies, possibly some later Hellenistic elements, possibly some of the Carthaginian armories). There were probably some situations where cost and effectiveness were lesser concerns than the sheer ability to procure sufficient equipment.

I agree, also I would like to add to your post, that while the chainmail armour was quite "weatherproof", the Linothorax wasn't. And it's a quite big difference, when you want to equip a whole army.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm sure people as wiley as the Greeks would have thought up ways to do some sort of water proofing on linothorax(atleast to keep the glue from failing). A linen torso would be hard to transport around because of the space it would take up let alone to keep dry on campaign. Didn't the Macedonians fight in India through the mud and rain?

[Randal]

Still, whole armies were equipped with linthorax too, so it was possible.

Is there any information on how Phillip I of Macedon managed?

[Apázlinemjó]

@ASM: Sadly we don't know anything about those Makedonians' armours and what happened to them in the Indian mud and rain. Also I think the dry weather didn't do any good to Linothorax either.

Edit: Though these are just assumptions.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Chain mail is not weatherproof, actually. And maybe a lineothorax would in fact be much more weatherproof (than chain mail): as it is made from dried organic material all you really need is a good coating (dye) and it should last quite a while. Coating can be trivially updated (simply scrub & repaint), on the other hand rust in chain mail tends to means that if one ring is bad so are few others.

Now the real test of resilience is of course the Indian monsoon, and we know the lineothorax didn't survive such weather. But also consider the example of much more advanced metal working of Medieval ages and look at what happened to the crusaders trapped on a river island when the Nile started flooding.

[Apázlinemjó]

Chain mail is not weatherproof, actually. And maybe a lineothorax would in fact be much more weatherproof (than chain mail): as it is made from dried organic material all you really need is a good coating (dye) and it should last quite a while. Coating can be trivially updated (simply scrub & repaint), on the other hand rust in chain mail tends to means that if one ring is bad so are few others.

Now the real test of resilience is of course the Indian monsoon, and we know the lineothorax didn't survive such weather. But also consider the example of much more advanced metal working of Medieval ages and look at what happened to the crusaders trapped on a river island when the Nile started flooding.

Interesting points, I think I'm convinced with the crusaders' example.

[antisocialmunky]

You probably didn't want to get stuck in much armor in India at any rate during the Rainy Season. Too hot.