Where is the roman cavalry ??

[Torres84]

Hi mates.

The year is 172BC, playing EB 1.2 and keeping the script running and applied all of the temporary fixes, I had already received the marian reforms but I had to destroy all of the "old" training buildings because they suddenly ran 100% damaged and I was forced every turn to repair them without any success. (they kept being damaged every turn for no reason and a new type of troop training building came).

So I kept building all the new training areas to a decent level to get my new legionaries and equites but I see no cavalry available to recruit, even if the building says something like "foot trops training and horse stables"

What happened?? I know roman empire was not famous for his cavalry but I think my game is bugged because I was expecting at least some light and non-specialized cavalry like the polybian equites so I dont have to rely on mercenary cavalry:help:.

thanks in advance ;)

[vartan]

Which reform are you at now? If you have damaged barracks that are 100 percent damaged I'd recommend you destroy and rebuild your factional (assuming we're talking in Italy). Rome always has some factional cav at all stages or reforms.

[XSamatan]

If you are at the Marian stage the Romans will have only access to cavalry outside Italy, you should check the Recruitment Viewer for details. You will have to build the third level of your barracks to get the troops.

XSamatan

[Torres84]

I am at the Marian stage and I have no factional cavalry in the whole italian peninsula, I have noticed that I can recruit some mercerany cavalry via "local" recruitment (greek hippeis, tessalian cavalry etc).

I have also destroyed old recruit centers and built new ones, I can even train the "cohors evocata" in Italy... but none of the cavalry, quite weird :-/

[Rahl]

You should be able to recruit auxiliary cavalry outside of Italy in your factional MICs. You should really check the recruitment viewer.

[Torres84]

Done, you were right. I can train some auxiliar cavalry but OUTSIDE Italy and they are trained as germanic, thracian etc.

What about archers?? do I have to rely on the low cost gree toxotai?

thx

[XSamatan]

Romans just began to use own archers in the imperial period, before that you will have to rely on allied troops in this area, but they are in most times better than factional units.

XSamatan

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Done, you were right. I can train some auxiliar cavalry but OUTSIDE Italy and they are trained as germanic, thracian etc.

What about archers?? do I have to rely on the low cost gree toxotai?

thx

Never rely on Toxotai for anything lol. They are awful. I don't know what your expansion looks like but better options include Celtic Slingers, Numidian Archers/Slingers, Iberian Slingers, Balearic Slingers, or Cretan Archers. Those are probably the options available to Rome early/mid game. Even the Celtic archers are a better option than Toxotai simply because they have a spear and can be useful melee combatants.

[Torres84]

thanks

[MisterFred]

Toxotai are good for the cost! They're probably one of the more common "cheapo" units I see in MP battles.

[vartan]

Toxotai are good for the cost! They're probably one of the more common "cheapo" units I see in MP battles.
I hate to admit this, but they are pretty good units if you know your opponent is a complete noob. Gotta love the fire at will feature. Pro-friendly, enemy of the noobs.

[antisocialmunky]

Sphendontai win the most cost effective unit contest.

[athanaric]

Sphendontai win the most cost effective unit contest.
Nope - Eastern Slingers are identical stat-wise, yet are available at a MIC level 1 instead of level 2. Also they have a similarly big AoR.

[Torres84]

yes, slingers are cheaper and easier to train... and wierdly effective against troops !

[vartan]

yes, slingers are cheaper and easier to train... and wierdly effective against troops !
Not so weird once you drop dead after a super-concussive blow, innit?

[antisocialmunky]

Nope - Eastern Slingers are identical stat-wise, yet are available at a MIC level 1 instead of level 2. Also they have a similarly big AoR.

They don't have a hat.

[Torres84]

Not so weird once you drop dead after a super-concussive blow, innit?

what I mean is that most slinger are at least 2 times more effective than archers... slingers fire quick, accurate, got lots of ammo and the deliver a strong blow almost the same distance as a long bow. IMO that's quite overpowered. I remember a battle (me with Rome vs Aedui) and my 4 slingers groups were positioned on the top of a hill, not a mountain or a big wall... a simple hill, and they HARASSED the barbarians be4 they could charge :P and there were many.

In the other hand, archers are better close combat stats, better armor and can use flaming arrows (that are one of the best things of the unit)

[Mulceber]

I have also destroyed old recruit centers and built new ones, I can even train the "cohors evocata" in Italy... but none of the cavalry, quite weird :-/

Not weird at all actually - you're right, the Romans continued to have cavalry right through to the end of the Empire, but by the time of the reforms of Marius, they had basically stopped training their own cavalry and had instead started using auxiliary cavalry from nations that had more talent for producing cavalry. Since none of those nations occupied Italy, cavalry can no longer be recruited in Italy. The exception that proves the rule is Praetorian Cavalry, which will become available when you reach the Augustan era, but even then can only be recruited in Latium. -M

[vartan]

what I mean is that most slinger are at least 2 times more effective than archers... slingers fire quick, accurate, got lots of ammo and the deliver a strong blow almost the same distance as a long bow. IMO that's quite overpowered. I remember a battle (me with Rome vs Aedui) and my 4 slingers groups were positioned on the top of a hill, not a mountain or a big wall... a simple hill, and they HARASSED the barbarians be4 they could charge :P and there were many.

In the other hand, archers are better close combat stats, better armor and can use flaming arrows (that are one of the best things of the unit)
Yes, slingers are great units. No, most of our players don't like flaming magical arrows. They won't complain to you either. Not too hard to get the horse to eat its food (ASM is going to attack my metaphor).

[LordHugu]

I am at 208 BC and I still haven't got a reform of Romani, I don't understand, all baracks are at their maximun upgrades? And I have Patavium and the city between Segesta and Patavium, in wich I am not able to build baracks?

Help

[anubis88]

Did you activate the script?

[vartan]

Did you activate the script?
Haha, this is a very good point. To LordHugu whose first post in these forums is post #20 in this thread, please read the EB FAQ, accessible from a sticky on the EB sub-forum. Actually, for convenience, click HERE (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?84854-Europa-Barbarorum-FAQ) to go to the FAQ.

Cheers.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

I actually like toxotai a lot, they are a cheap garrison unit for places with walls.... :)

[anubis88]

I actually like toxotai a lot, they are a cheap garrison unit for places with walls.... :)

Hey! That's my avatar!!!! I'll report you sir for trying to steal my identity!!!!

[Cute Wolf]

Hey! That's my avatar!!!! I'll report you sir for trying to steal my identity!!!!

umm.... :clown:
who gave you copyright to that avatar?

[anubis88]

umm.... :clown:
who gave you copyright to that avatar?

Chuck Norris :clown: hahaha

[Burebista]

On the toxodai issue , actually the most cost-effective archers are sotaroas. not bad spear-archers for only 392 or so mnai. toxodai are 411 but they can't melee. Sotaroas can , with their 11 spear attack and 9 armour. Sphendonetai are 569 i think , way too expensive for cannon meat.

[WinsingtonIII]

Sphendonetai are 569 i think , way too expensive for cannon meat.

It depends which faction you're facing, though. Toxotai are going to fair poorly against a faction with lots of armored units, whereas Sphendonetai will actually do some damage, and let's be honest, the cost difference is pretty marginal. If you're playing against the Sweboz, though, Toxotai will perform better.

Agreed on Sotaroas. Both they and Skudjonez are surprisinly versatile, and Sotaroas are the more cost-effective of the pair. One thing I didn't realize is that there is a special version of Sotaroas for the Casse, Aedui, and Arverni that has 1 more armor and costs less. The ones the other factions get are slightly weaker and slightly more expensive. At least that's what it says on the online unit guide.

[vartan]

On the toxodai issue , actually the most cost-effective archers are sotaroas. not bad spear-archers for only 392 or so mnai. toxodai are 411 but they can't melee. Sotaroas can , with their 11 spear attack and 9 armour. Sphendonetai are 569 i think , way too expensive for cannon meat.
Armour is lacking actually. You are thinking of the 7 defence skill value that comes in handy in a fight. It's all easy lemon-squeezy until you get a lethal opponent, then the lack of armour really shows. Great to poke horses with, though, those spears.

One thing I didn't realize is that there is a special version of Sotaroas for the Casse, Aedui, and Arverni that has 1 more armor and costs less. The ones the other factions get are slightly weaker and slightly more expensive. At least that's what it says on the online unit guide.
This is a common occurrence in EB and I expect EB II to be similar. Mercenaries are always their own unit, separate from the proper unit. But no matter if mercenary or not, if one unit has any differential in any stat value, such as the one-point higher value in armour, such changes are always reflected in the cost of the unit. Case in point: the 19 extra mnai for a factional Celtic Archer as opposed to the mercenary version.

[SlickNicaG69]

The Roman Cavalry of the age is represented by the Consular Bodyguards. The only real Roman cavalry of the time were those of the high officers, tribunes, and commanding officers. The cavalry arm was merely a screen for the army, the infantry. What you should be asking is... where is the Post-Marian Infantry Auxilia?! I mean, it's even in Vanilla... :skull:

[vartan]

What you should be asking is... where is the Post-Marian Infantry Auxilia?! I mean, it's even in Vanilla... :skull:
Auxiliary Legions are represented in EB, both the warriors as well as the archers.

[Moros]

you mean these guys?

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/romani/roman_western_auxilia.gif
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/romani/roman_eastern_auxilia.gif

Well as you know the auxiliae weren't introduced by my Marius but quite a bit later. Hence they come avaible with the imperial reform, not the Marian reform.

[SlickNicaG69]

you mean these guys?

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/romani/roman_western_auxilia.gif
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/romani/roman_eastern_auxilia.gif
Well as you know the auxiliae weren't introduced by my Marius but quite a bit later. Hence they come avaible with the imperial reform, not the Marian reform.

Yea, about the auxilia though, why, if the legionnaries are given a .13 lethality with the same gladius, why are the auxilias given a .11 lethality?

[Moros]

Are they? (can't check as I don't have EB installed on this computer)

[SlickNicaG69]

I don't lie man...

[Moros]

No but you might have had an outdated version, looked at a different weapon stat,... The thing is I seem to remember them to fight with spears, not swords.

[SlickNicaG69]

I am using the stats in the updated EB Units list @
http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/. (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/) All the units are there without the need for an install.

[anubis88]

They have both weapons, a spear and a gladius.

[Moros]

Well if that is so, I guess it's just either an oversight during statting or an error in that database. If they don't have it in the edu, you can change it to 1.3 as that should indeed be the correct value according to our stat system.

[bobbin]

It's a small bug, they fight with a Kopis so should have AP ability for their swords, no change to lethality is needed as all Kopis swords get 0.11.

[Moros]

Both fight with a kopis? Are you sure of that? description says gladius btw. Eitherway whateverthe reason, it's probably some small error.

[vartan]

Well if that is so, I guess it's just either an oversight during statting or an error in that database. If they don't have it in the edu, you can change it to 1.3 as that should indeed be the correct value according to our stat system.
Well Moros there are two auxiliary infantry units in the game. One has a spear only, whilst the other has both a spear as well as a sword of some sorts. The question must be asked: Does the unit hold a kopis or a gladius?

It's a small bug, they fight with a Kopis so should have AP ability for their swords, no change to lethality is needed as all Kopis swords get 0.11.
This falls back on the query above, and I presume that your post is the answer I needed. So if they do indeed use a Kopis as you say, that Kopis needs the AP attribute. That is the missing factor, as the lethality is there (@ 0.11) whilst the secondary weapon (kopis) armour-piercing attribute is missing. Do you suppose it would make a great deal of a difference in the multiplayer scene for those using Imperial Roman armies? (No offence to single-player fans, I'm just concerned about whether there is a possible significant on the MP scene.)

EDIT: If they do fight with a gladius, then one would leave the lack of AP in place whilst changing the lethality to 0.13. Assuming this simply means more kills against lesser armoured enemies.

[Burebista]

I do not think it will make a big difference in MP. With 9 attack , if you change the lethality to 0.13 , it will be less than using the spear ( 14 attk- penalty vs infantry) . And if they get the AP attribute , a 9 AP attack unit for 1650+ cost with 11 morale is not something you might dream at . Teceitos do better with only 1k cost.

IMHO , they are good as spearmen , the secondary attack is just ...there. Money would be better spent on other units , such as Appea gaedutos which are better Cost effective

[vartan]

I do not think it will make a big difference in MP. With 9 attack , if you change the lethality to 0.13 , it will be less than using the spear ( 14 attk- penalty vs infantry) . And if they get the AP attribute , a 9 AP attack unit for 1650+ cost with 11 morale is not something you might dream at . Teceitos do better with only 1k cost.

IMHO , they are good as spearmen , the secondary attack is just ...there. Money would be better spent on other units , such as Appea gaedutos which are better Cost effective
In that case I'd recommend all Imperial SPQR army players to use the aux with the red shield. It costs less as it has not a sword.

[bobbin]

This falls back on the query above, and I presume that your post is the answer I needed. So if they do indeed use a Kopis as you say, that Kopis needs the AP attribute. That is the missing factor, as the lethality is there (@ 0.11) whilst the secondary weapon (kopis) armour-piercing attribute is missing. Do you suppose it would make a great deal of a difference in the multiplayer scene for those using Imperial Roman armies? (No offence to single-player fans, I'm just concerned about whether there is a possible significant on the MP scene.)

EDIT: If they do fight with a gladius, then one would leave the lack of AP in place whilst changing the lethality to 0.13. Assuming this simply means more kills against lesser armoured enemies.

They definintely fight with a kopis, I checked in the game.

[vartan]

They definintely fight with a kopis, I checked in the game.
Moros was right, at least when it came to the description. Perhaps the unit does in fact use the kopis weapon model, but check the description: "Other than the hasta they are equipped with the gladius, long flat mostly oval shields and old style bronze montefortino helmets, often phased out from the legions."

So...can you two clear this up? Assuming that the visual model used in-game is that of a kopis, there are two scenarios:

Scenario #1:
If they did use a gladius as mentioned in the description, then the Plan of Action includes changing the weapon model from the kopis to the gladius and changing lethality from 0.11 to 0.13.

Scenario #2:
If they used a kopis, the description would need rewriting and the Armour-piercing attribute must be added to the secondary weapon (sword).

[SlickNicaG69]

Here is something that may help:


Cohortes

These all-infantry units were modelled on the cohorts of the legions, with the same officers and sub-units. It is a common misconception that auxiliary cohortes contained light infantry. Their defensive equipment was very similar to that of legionaries, consisting of metal helmet and metal cuirass (chain-mail or scale). There is no evidence that auxiliaries were equipped with the lorica segmentata, the elaborate and expensive laminated-strip body-armour that was issued to legionaries. However, legionaries often wore chain-mail ans scalar cuirasses also. a[›] In addition, it appears that auxiliaries carried a round shield (clipeus) instead of the curved rectangular shield (scutum) of legionaries. As regards weapons, auxiliaries were equipped in the same way as legionaries: a javelin (although not the sophisticated pilum type provided to legionaries), a gladius (short stabbing-sword) and pugio (dagger).[114] It has been estimated that the total weight of auxiliary infantry equipment was similar to that of legionaries', so that cohortes may also be classified as heavy infantry, which fought in the battle-line alongside legionaries.[16]

There is no evidence that auxiliary infantry fought in a looser order than legionaries.[16] It appears that in a set-piece battle-line, auxiliary infantry would normally be stationed on the flanks, with legionary infantry holding the centre e.g. as in the Battle of Watling Street (60 CE), the final defeat of the rebel Britons under queen Boudicca.[115] This was a tradition inherited from the Republic, when the precursors of auxiliary cohortes, the Latin alae, occupied the same position in the line.[116] The flanks of the line required equal, if not greater, skill to hold as the centre.

Generic, but in a world of sticks and stones, not much more is needed.

[Olaf The Great]

what I mean is that most slinger are at least 2 times more effective than archers... slingers fire quick, accurate, got lots of ammo and the deliver a strong blow almost the same distance as a long bow. IMO that's quite overpowered. I remember a battle (me with Rome vs Aedui) and my 4 slingers groups were positioned on the top of a hill, not a mountain or a big wall... a simple hill, and they HARASSED the barbarians be4 they could charge :P and there were many.

In the other hand, archers are better close combat stats, better armor and can use flaming arrows (that are one of the best things of the unit)It can be quite hard to position the slingers once the battle starts completely, especially in sallies where you have to avoid the machine guns.

[bobbin]

Moros was right, at least when it came to the description. Perhaps the unit does in fact use the kopis weapon model, but check the description: "Other than the hasta they are equipped with the gladius, long flat mostly oval shields and old style bronze montefortino helmets, often phased out from the legions."

So...can you two clear this up? Assuming that the visual model used in-game is that of a kopis, there are two scenarios:

Scenario #1:
If they did use a gladius as mentioned in the description, then the Plan of Action includes changing the weapon model from the kopis to the gladius and changing lethality from 0.11 to 0.13.

Scenario #2:
If they used a kopis, the description would need rewriting and the Armour-piercing attribute must be added to the secondary weapon (sword).

I believe they are supposed to have a gladius, the only thing you can really do is to change the lethality vaule though. The unit shares its model with two others and uses a different animation, so you would just be causing more problems.

Personally I'd go for option 2 and just role play that the auxillia were using their traditional weapons.

[SlickNicaG69]

Bobbin why would you not say the Gladius, when noticing that the Kopis has AP in the game, also deserves to be AP??

[Moros]

Because bobbin is keeping to our statsystem which says the gladius isn't ap. The discussion wether you agree with it or not is entirely off topic.

[bobbin]

I'm not sure of the orginal reason but, as I understand it, the nature of the Kopis meant it was good at defeating armour.

Now I know you could say that the gladius with its sharp point was similarly designed, but if we were to give it AP then we would have to do the same for the celtic short sword, greek xiphos and all the other types that also have this feature. Somewhere you have to draw the line.

Also please respect Moros request, lets not dreail the tread with off topic posts. You won't hear a peep more from me unless it concerns where the roman cavalry are:book:.

[SlickNicaG69]

Even though our discussion shifted to the auxilia cohorts? I have no idea for his reproach, nor your reasoning for agreeing with him...

[antisocialmunky]

I'm not sure of the orginal reason but, as I understand it, the nature of the Kopis meant it was good at defeating armour.

Now I know you could say that the gladius with its sharp point was similarly designed, but if we were to give it AP then we would have to do the same for the celtic short sword, greek xiphos and all the other types that also have this feature. Somewhere you have to draw the line.

Also please respect Moros request, lets not dreail the tread with off topic posts. You won't hear a peep more from me unless it concerns where the roman cavalry are:book:.

For MP balance reasons, AP would be much more helpful than .13 to kill Cataphracts with. That would make for a really weird anti-cav unit online though. +8 and charge reflect on impact -> AP swords in melee...

[Olaf The Great]

Roman cavalry can be found everywhere except Rome.

[Cute Wolf]

Roman cavalry can be found everywhere except Rome.

Cammilan = Rome and 3 nearby italian cities
Polybian = Entire Italy
Marian = Anywhere but Italy
Augustusan = Anywhere but Italy that was not Roma (Equites Praetoriani)

[SlickNicaG69]

For MP balance reasons, AP would be much more helpful than .13 to kill Cataphracts with. That would make for a really weird anti-cav unit online though. +8 and charge reflect on impact -> AP swords in melee...

It's not weird at all. Legionnaries often used their pila as a defensive maneouver against cavalry opponents. That is why, historically, Roman infantry was almost always defeated by being enveloped or flanked. Succumbing to a cavalry charge was usually only accomplished on them after their strength had been sapped, and their morale extinguished. They were just as lethal as the Macedonian phalanx, only at close range and with much greater mobility.

[WinsingtonIII]

It's not weird at all. Legionnaries often used their pila as a defensive maneouver against cavalry opponents.

Then their pila should be effective against cavalry, not the gladius. A short sword is not the sort of weapon you want to be armed with when getting charged by heavy cavalry. Sure, if cavalry get bogged down in the legionnaires formation, they should not last long, but the legions should not be as resilient against cavalry charges as the Macedonian phalanx. Eighteen foot pikes are going to hold back a cavalry charge better than interlocking shields.

[SlickNicaG69]

Then their pila should be effective against cavalry, not the gladius. A short sword is not the sort of weapon you want to be armed with when getting charged by heavy cavalry. Sure, if cavalry get bogged down in the legionnaires formation, they should not last long, but the legions should not be as resilient against cavalry charges as the Macedonian phalanx. Eighteen foot pikes are going to hold back a cavalry charge better than interlocking shields.

There is no way to make them have 3 weapons. Thus, it is reasonable to compromise with the game's engine by giving the gladius the ap attribute. Giving it the attribute wouldn't even be inconsistent with the item description of the weapon in the game, and would compensate for the games inablitity to portray legionnaries using the pila in melee form. Not only that, but it would eliminate the ability of super-armored cavalry from simply walking through infantry ranks without penalty, something which I must admit even Vanilla is better able to portray than EB.

[WinsingtonIII]

There is no way to make them have 3 weapons. Thus, it is reasonable to compromise with the game's engine by giving the gladius the ap attribute. Giving it the attribute wouldn't even be inconsistent with the item description of the weapon in the game, and would compensate for the games inablitity to portray legionnaries using the pila in melee form. Not only that, but it would eliminate the ability of super-armored cavalry from simply walking through infantry ranks without penalty, something which I must admit even Vanilla is better able to portray than EB.

Well, the ability of cataphracts to wander through infantry isn't just a problem experienced by legionnaires, it's experienced by most sword armed infantry. It's due to the extremely high armor values of the catas, as you say, but we can't exactly just give every sword unit the AP ability simply to balance that out, and giving only the legions AP to balance out this issue for them would be unfair to the rest of the sword infantry.


Giving the legions AP due to the gladius from a historical perspective is debatable. Maybe for the later Mainz gladius used by the Imperial troops (as it was developed to counter heavier armor), but I don't think the basic gladius used by the Marian troops was really armor-piercing (otherwise, why would they change it to make it armor-piercing...). Plus, the gladius was often (but I know not always) used in a stabbing motion instead of a slashing motion, and there's no way it would have been armor-piercing when used as a stabbing weapon. As such, it's debatable whether or not they should get AP, because there's no way it should be AP when used as a stabbing weapon.

[SlickNicaG69]

The Gladius was made to pierce armor.

-Aristotle & EB Description

I think that is debatable enough no?

[WinsingtonIII]

I found the reference in the description that you are talking about.

I don't understand why it would say that in the description but not in the stats, but I'm pretty sure it's not an oversight in this case as I remember this issue coming up before and the team saying that they did not stat the gladius as AP.

My theory is that since they often used the gladius as a stabbing weapon, and stabbing is not a very effective way of piercing armor (they tried to stab where the armor was weak/non-existant), the EB team decided it would not be fully accurate to give them the AP attribute as it would only apply when they used the blade in a certain way. Who knows though.

[Ca Putt]

Aristotle, although beeing a rather smart chap, got a lot of things wrong that others already "guessed/divised" right. ^^
he was already used to muddle up the middle ages, he would be unconsolable when EB got the same treatment on his account.

[antisocialmunky]

Legionaires aren't particularly great against cav and when fighting exhausted vs exhausted lose. So while they are okay with their pila and their stamina, once thsoe are gone, heavy cav>>>them in melee.

I suggested this for EB2, there needs to be some sort of AP for Marian and Imperial Rome. If the auxillaries were carrying AP swords, that would be a pretty good compromise for gameplay.

Why do they have Greek swords anyway? That just seems odd.

[bobbin]

Why do they have Greek swords anyway? That just seems odd.

Model restrictions, they share one with the Basilikon Agema and Thorakitai Hoplitai therefore have to use the same weapon.