Discussion about units that seem to conflict with their unit description

[FinnishedBarbarian]

I am guessing that most EB players have noticed that there are units that don't match their unit description completely so I made this thread to discuss possible reasons that caused these disparities.

Starting with hoplites: Classical Hoplites, Syrakousai, Indo-Hellenics and so forth are told to have swords as secondaries but none of them really possess secondaries, was this due to problems with weapon switch mechanic? If so why the the hybrids like Hypaspistai and Baktrion Agema had spears as secondaries causing them to be somewhat bugged?

Peltastai Makedonikoi: description gives reader picture that they should have very good stamina but they only have good, odd if you compare them to Antesignani or Ambakaro who both have very good stamina with similar armor rating.

Somatophylakes (Makedonian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid) and Hetaroi: bodyguards have good stamina which seems strange considering that both represent elite units with similar armor, mount and weapons.

Even though I pointed strange seeming things about certain unit stats I did not intend this thread to be one where fans could come complain that their favorite factions units are mistreated so let's keep all sorts of bashing out of here.

Also I'm kind of hoping that answers to these questions could be given by forum members who are not part of the EB team, every answer they give might delay release of EB2 (maybe not directly but every question answered is always less time to some other activity).

Hoping for instructive discussion.

:book:

[The Celtic Viking]

About the hoplites and swords thing, yes, you're right: they used to have sword secondaries, but that was removed because it didn't work correctly. The problem was probably that if they were knocked down they started using their swords and never switching back, quickly making hoplites swordunits rather than proper hoplites.

[FinnishedBarbarian]

So I'm guessing that Massalian hoplitai were designed before the decision was made to drop hoplites secondary weapon and somehow the unit was overlooked making them from a true hoplite unit to present heavy infantry with secondary spears unit.

I am kind of fishing second opinions about troubled units because I have couple of times been thinking to make some changes to my gamefiles, but have thought that how much it would affect unit balance (some factions benefiting too much) and historical/realistic identity of those units.

[Arjos]

I'm not 100% sure, but for the Massaliotai could be that living near the Keltoi, they used swords more often; not to mention the terrain...

[bobbin]

The reason the Hoplites lost their swords was that they primarily fought with their spear, the sword was only used as a backup for when the spear broke. The other units you mentioned usually fought in a wider variety of battlefield roles and so used their swords far more often.

[moonburn]

not to mention massillians fighted in a more loose formation where swords are more usefull while hoplites used very compact formations making the use of the sword more dificult to train and wield notable exceptions are for instance the spartans who thanks to their societal organisation had the hability to train everyday and therefore where proefecient in using the sword in a tight formation (if you consider a 30 centimeters blade a sword instead of a dagger ofc)

hope this explains why hoplites only used swords as last resource since most of them where not professional soldiers and thus had limited training time and since spears where easyer to use in that formation

also the primary weapon of the hoplite warfare was the clash or oychos wich consisted in gaining momento clashing at full strenght against the other phallanx and hoped it breaks (epaminondas 50 men deep phallanx should be noted as prime example of this if you believe in that ofc) then it would be fallowed by spear against shield trying to thin out the enemies like and in the case of the spartans and a few other notable exceptions it would go down to the sword wich a few historians consider the secret of the spartan sucesses (remember this all happened without ever breaking the phallanx )

there where 4 steps but i only recall these 3

also massillian hoplites used long keltik swords and not the short kopis thus their looser formation was a requirement while with the kopis you can mantain your solid shield wall and then try to stab your opponent when there´s a small breach in their shield wall

(a normal/regular hoplite batle only had in average 5 to 7% casualties and it´s believed they took breaks beteween the fights a few people infer that during a regular hour combat only 15 would be spent fighting and the rest resting to go at the shield wall again trying to break it and once the opponent had broken it´s shield wall and retired the batle would be over terms presented and that would be the end of it)

hope this as shed some light into hoplite warfare

P.S: the stuff one learns if he sticks around long enough