Riff-raff units too strong?

[Nightmare]

I'm a hardcore strategy game nut. I have all the "total war" games, as well as others. I ran across this mod and downloaded it recently, and I think it's the best by far I've ever played. Good job on developing this.

One complaint. Units of riff-raff caliber seem to be far stronger against elite units than they should be. For instance (this is just one example), I'm currently playing a Carthage campaign. Some of these Numidian cities will be held by riff-raff "joke" units - guys wearing towels and holding wooden spears. Guys with zero armor. I'll build a full stack of the best cavalry I can field, bring in a general, and attack. I'll lose the entire stack against these joke units. I just spent 100,000 on the units themselves, not counting the infrastructure it took. He spent a couple thousand on rag-tag riff-raff, and he slaughters me time and time again, kills the general, etc.

It isn't my technique - I know how to charge cavalry, to pull it out, to repeat. It isn't the difficulty settings - this particular game has battle difficulty set to medium. It isn't that he has some 10 star general and I don't have a general at all. It's that low cost riff-raff seems higher powered than it should be. This actually deters one from teching-up and getting decent units, because they aren't better than the riff-raff you can field (with the exception of greek phalanxes, which when properly deployed seem to annihilate everything else).

Anyone else notice this, or am I the only one?

[Arjos]

Did you fight in the city? Where they packed and with guard mode or something? Did you get all their javelins thrown on you?

I really don't know which units you are using though...
Also are they chevroned? Or created after a rebellion and possess armour and weapon upgrades?

[Shadowwalker]

Hello Nightmare,

First of - welcome to the forums and to EB. :)


It would be interesting to read about the detailed army composition of your and the rebels' army.
Other than that:

(1) If the rebel general has 10 stars and you don't have a general at all this makes a real and huge difference in fighting abilities.
(2) Each chevron adds one point of attack and defense skill so if the enemy units have 5 chevrons they are 5 points better in both skills (compared to a standard, freshly trained unit).
(3) If you fight in a city all your nice charge - pull out - repeat routines will be less (if at all) effective, especially if you are forced to charge head on.
(4) Please take into account that the numidian "low quality" skirmish units are some of the strongest skirmishers in the entire game since for example the archers have (armour piercing) clubs as second weapon and the javelineers have swords (if I recall correctly).
Calling those units "riff raff" is like calling their light cavalry "average skirmisher cavalry" - you underestimate them I think.
(5) You will get much (!!!) better results if you rely on libyan spearmen and liby-phoenician infantry (6 and 4 of them is what I usually use) as backbone of your army, add in a few (2-4) archers and/or slingers of your own to take advantage of the lack of armour (hire kretan archers in the eastern parts of Sicily for example), 2 carthaginian citizen cavalry and 2 generals (or 1 general and 1 liby-phoenician cavalry).
This kind of army is not only way cheaper but also much better at creating and holding a frontline. Not to mention that it is much more flexible to prevent flanking attacks or being forced into long melee with your precious cavalry units.
Use a well-balanced army, it's key in EB (regardless of the faction).

Good luck. :)

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

What the Numidian and other North African units lack in armour protection, they make up for with high defence skill and high quality weapons. They aren't riff-raff, they are good units. There's a reason why historically Carthage only managed to conquer the coastline of North Africa and not the interior.

Also, cavalry in EB, even heavy cavalry, is not the nigh-invincible steamroller it was in the stock 'vanilla' R:TW. They aren't like medieval knights (except for the some of the cataphract-like units). So don't expect cavalry in EB to have the same capability as in vanilla - cavalry has been made more historically accurate (i.e. weaker.) Cavalry need to make the enemy rout to kill them in large numbers, and that usually means hitting the enemy from two or even three sides simultaneously, and having a local superiority in numbers at the point of contact.

EB is set during the pre-Christian era, when infantry was the dominant force on the battlefield, not cavalry. (Except for the north-eastern steppe and Parthia, which is horse archer territory). Except for those areas, you will achieve much better results with a combined-arms force, not an all-cavalry force. As Shadowalker says, that's the real key to EB, combined arms, using different unit types together, and finding the right ratios to have between them. And the backbone of most successful armies, for most factions, will be infantry. Cavalry's role is to support the infantry, not vice versa as in the medieval period. The only time you should have an all-cavalry army is when the enemy have nothing except cavalry too.

As for storming cities, that's definitely an infantry job. Cavalry are weak in street fighting.

[Nightmare]

Hi, to answer everyone's questions:

No, didn't fight in city, waited them out several times and attacked on open ground.

The enemy units weren't created after rebellions, weren't upgraded.

I always had a general. The enemy general had stars, but not more than mine.

You say their skirmisher units are the strongest in the game. That's certainly my experience (also had my horses mauled by their skirmisher cavalry in another battle). My question is, why are they so strong? Are they trying to reflect historical accuracy here or something? Could the unarmored Numidian skirmishers and cavalry really thrash Liby-Phoenician and Sacred Band? Maybe I'm wrong, but something seems wrong with that.

As for the suggestion to use infantry, yeah I know I can just go in with a phalanx and win, but when I see a bunch of what seems like rag-tag archers and skirmishers, that "screams" at me to plow through them with cavalry. But that didn't work :-(

Anyway, thanks guys. I'm easily gonna win the campaign, just seems strange to me that cavalry seems so weak or basic skirmishers seem so strong. I've also got a Saka campaign I'm gonna win (VH/M), and a Pontus campaign where I've almost taken all of Turkey (VH/M).

[Lazy O]

I'm a hardcore strategy game nut. I have all the "total war" games, as well as others. I ran across this mod and downloaded it recently, and I think it's the best by far I've ever played. Good job on developing this.

One complaint. Units of riff-raff caliber seem to be far stronger against elite units than they should be. For instance (this is just one example), I'm currently playing a Carthage campaign. Some of these Numidian cities will be held by riff-raff "joke" units - guys wearing towels and holding wooden spears. Guys with zero armor. I'll build a full stack of the best cavalry I can field, bring in a general, and attack. I'll lose the entire stack against these joke units. I just spent 100,000 on the units themselves, not counting the infrastructure it took. He spent a couple thousand on rag-tag riff-raff, and he slaughters me time and time again, kills the general, etc.

It isn't my technique - I know how to charge cavalry, to pull it out, to repeat. It isn't the difficulty settings - this particular game has battle difficulty set to medium. It isn't that he has some 10 star general and I don't have a general at all. It's that low cost riff-raff seems higher powered than it should be. This actually deters one from teching-up and getting decent units, because they aren't better than the riff-raff you can field (with the exception of greek phalanxes, which when properly deployed seem to annihilate everything else).

Anyone else notice this, or am I the only one?

That is your problem.

If numidian cavalry surround yours and pepper them with javelins, which really is not that hard, they will win. But obviously give them a lance charge and they are dead.

[Kival]

Numidian skirmishers are not "riff-raff unit" or "rag-tag". They are known for their experienced skirmishers who trained skirmishing "from birth" (which might be an exageration, but you see where this leads to). Numidian skirmishers also have spears, so that a combination of numidian cav and numidian skirmishers is quite desastrous for a cav-only army. Numidians are vulnerable to sword infantry, javelins, arrows. Cavalry is nearly the thing they are the best against.

[Nightmare]

If the skirmishers are so good against cavalry, shouldn't there be something in the unit description such as "bonus against cavalry" or something like that?

I know you guys are just trying to answer my question, and I appreciate that. This is a great mod, and this is a good bunch of guys on a good forum. Still, this is basic infantry I was going against - like tier 1 level. If what you guys are saying is true, these guys could have marched on the Carthage capital and just taken it. Hell, they could have marched on Rome, with their unarmored battalions of towel-wearing, iron-skinned, stick-throwing people.

I think something represented here is inaccurate. Either make the units weaker, or keep them the strength they are, but make them more advanced, higher-tier, and expensive.

EDIT: One last thing I forgot to mention - their foot skirmishers are faster than horses. You heard me right - people running on foot are faster all day long than horses, and can kite them all day all across the map. Come on, admit that's BS. It's a great mod, just change a few numbers on a few of the units and it will be perfect.

[Kival]

All spear units have a bonus vs cavalry. So if a skirmisher uses a spear, he has boni vs cavalry. He's not necessarily good vs cavalry then though. And regarding the rest, I'd like to ask you to reread our answers, as at least nearly everything you're asking has already been covered. And your assumptions are wrong: Numidian skirmishers are good but no match for any quality infantry. You just made the mistake to use an all out cavalry army. It might be just my bad english but I already said that numidians are vulnerable to missiles and sword infantry. Numidians lacked heavy infantry and any decent infantry unit kills numidian skirmishers.

[Nightmare]

Your english is fine, we just have a difference of opinion.

I understand you say Numidians are vulnerable to missle/sword, and I agree. I'm stating that they SHOULD BE vulnerable to the best cavalry an advanced empire can field. We are talking a cheap tier-one skirmisher group with no armor. Sure, maybe they have wooden spears, but they aren't long spears, and they don't fight in a phalanx, or even in rows and columns. It just makes no sense that these guys can stand there in rags and I charge heavy cavalry into them over and over again full-force, and they don't break and get slaughtered. Now, a phalanx, ordered-up and facing my cavalry? Yeah, I expect my cavalry to get slaughtered. But low-tier, unarmored skirmishers and archers should get murdered by the best cavalry I can field.

We agree on the reality of the situation, and what can kill these Numidians - infantry, arrows, etc. I'm not talking "what is," I'm talking "what should be."

EDIT: And again, the skirmishers can outrun the cavalry. These are humans running on 2 legs outrunning horses. Who thinks this is accurate? Shouldn't the speed be reduced?

[Lazy O]

You are not charging properly then. Any cavalry murders these guys if they get a charge in. Once they get stuck the numdians will win.

[Nightmare]

Oh I'm quite practiced at charging cavalry, pulling out, rinse repeat. My carpel-tunnel syndrome will attest to that. You can't be too close or your horses won't charge. You can't be too far away or they will tire out. You should be at the minimum distance necessary to pull the charge off, facing the enemy and fully formed-up. Then you issue the charge and hover the mouse over the unit card. If it doesn't say "charging" at some point, then halt the charge and repeat the process. If it does say "charging" then wait until the charge executes, then keep the horses in until it no longer says "charging." The second it doesn't say "charging" anymore, pull the horses out, rinse, repeat.

I hope that convinces you that I know how to charge horses. Who knows, maybe it was just bad luck.

It was either 1) bad luck, or 2) these guys aren't right on their stats.

[Stark]

I don't believe anyone ever had this problem, so it's not a game balance thing - either your game files are somehow messed up or you're doing something wrong.

Why did you simply charged them and used only heavy cavalry? Some cheap spear unit to pin them down and give your cavalry time to hit them in the back and flanks would be more then enough. Low tier units will not flee upon first contact like in vanilla RTW, don't be afraid to use them.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

Nightmare, I think you need to read more history first.

You're mixing Hollywood History with real history. The idea of a "more advanced" empire or "the civilized world" are inherently a logical fallacy. The whole point behind Europa Barbarorum is to enlighten everyone that "Everyone is a Barbarian to Someone".

Everyone are all different; they are all individuals.

To tackle your questions though, the "tiers" of recruitment in the game isn't about "tech levels" (like C&C), it's about the extent of the local(or factional) military industrial complex in it's ability to leverage local resources in the utilization of armed forces. "Lower" levels simply means the troops available are relatively easier to muster. Your local Numidians are not weak warriors, they are simply 'easier to muster'.

As to answer why certain troops are easier to muster than others, you will have to put the local social economic and cultural structure into account. Using your example of local Numidians, again, you may look into how they are armed and they way Numidians lived. The Masaesyli, had their origins as a Nomadic tribe in North Africa. In fact, the term "Numidian" means "Nomad". (EBII Preview, 2009) Nomadic subsistence is less rigidly structured and harsh compared pastoral cultures, where social and cultural roles are more defined due to the differentiating roles of land owners, farmers, dedicated warriors, etc. By living on the move, every nomad would by default have a higher level of physical aptitude and combat skills than people of pastoral cultures: those who don't simply won't survive.

Although the concept of dedicated soldiery wasn't new by EB's timeframe, the idea of a standing army clearly was still very novel. Most EB factions still relied (even the Romans and Carthaginians) on levying from the local populace, hence going back to the concept of Local/Faction MICs. Actually, the term MIC is an acronym for (you guessed it) Military Industrial Complex. While some cities or settlements may actively maintain an armoury or a store of arms of sorts, most people that go to war provide their own equipments. These people are your shepards, farmers or traders, grabbing what weapons and armour their fathers have left them, or buying what they can afford, then banding up with their friends and neighbours into a "unit" for war. They didn't go to war because they were legally bound to (there are exceptions, of course), conscription is a very modern concept. These people went to war because they were morally bound to, or simply war was within their interest. Some do it because they need to defend their God-King, defend their homes, religious reasons or simply for loot. Often times, loot is a very important incentive to go to war for- especially if you're poor. This accounts for the reason 'lower' MIC level tend to recruit simpler troops. Simpler, being either in quality (usually the case for 'civilized' factions) or simplicity in recruitment. Easier to recruit troops may be of poorer quality, but not all are of low quality.

The opposite is true for 'higher' MICs, too. The "better" troops available in higher level are not inherently better- it just means the means to get these certain people to go to war is more difficult than 'lower' troops. Why? Because they tend to be wealthier, expensive to maintain or both. Your Sacred-Band Cavalry would fit perfectly into both instances. Horses are not cheap. Horses provide mobility for the rider, not combat strength. Being able to ride and afford a horse does not mean one is a better fighter, it just means he is from a class of people from within that culture that can afford and maintain a horse. In the case of the Carthaginians, that would be the case. A higher MIC, therefore, (roughly) translates to 'being able to get these richer toffs don their shiny stuff and go to war' or 'at least afford to hire a bunch of dedicated warriors, and arming them as well'. Their higher price means they are harder to muster, as well as more complex to arm and equip. Better gear doesn't equal a better warrior.

I'm no historian (yet, at least), but at least I've kept my end of the deal when I clicked "agree" on licence agreement during installation: "...to read and learn more history". I suggest you try to hold your end of the bargain, too.

[Nightmare]

Nightmare, I think you need to read more history first.

Whoa there. I'm a bit of a history buff.


"Lower" levels simply means the troops available are relatively easier to muster. Your local Numidians are not weak warriors, they are simply 'easier to muster'.

If this were the case, then for the most part there would be no incentive whatsoever to "tech up," or using your terms, "develop an MIC capable enough to mass up troops more difficult and/or expensive to muster." This would be the case in the game, and in real life.


The opposite is true for 'higher' MICs, too. The "better" troops available in higher level are not inherently better- it just means the means to get these certain people to go to war is more difficult than 'lower' troops. Why? Because they tend to be wealthier, expensive to maintain or both. Your Sacred-Band Cavalry would fit perfectly into both instances. Horses are not cheap. Horses provide mobility for the rider, not combat strength. Being able to ride and afford a horse does not mean one is a better fighter, it just means he is from a class of people from within that culture that can afford and maintain a horse. In the case of the Carthaginians, that would be the case. A higher MIC, therefore, (roughly) translates to 'being able to get these richer toffs don their shiny stuff and go to war' or 'at least afford to hire a bunch of dedicated warriors, and arming them as well'. Their higher price means they are harder to muster, as well as more complex to arm and equip. Better gear doesn't equal a better warrior.

Again, this is just wrong. In real life, the Carthaginians or any other power would not go through the trouble and expensive of mustering up people who were more difficult and expensive to mobilize if those people weren't better troops - there would be no reason to do that. They could just stick with their cheaper, easier to muster troops and be done with it. There was a reason people went through the massive trouble and expensive to field elephants. It wasn't because they thought the elephants were the equivalent of peasants - otherwise they'd just stick with peasants. Doesn't that make sense?

To represent what I just said, let's use a game example of phalanx for one of the Greek factions. At the lowest MIC level you can field a levy phalanx unit. At the next level, the stats get better. At the next level, the stats get better again. If what you said is true, one would expect that the stats wouldn't get better, rather the units would just get more expensive. As it stands, stats get better AND the unit gets more expensive.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. I haven't run the numbers and done experiments to find out whether an upper-echelon phalanx performs better PER COST than a lower one does. I ASSUME that it does, because that's the only thing that would make sense. But I don't KNOW that it does. If it doesn't, and if what you say is true, then there is no reason to ever climb the MIC ladder (I'll use that term vs. "tech ladder"). All you'd need to do is stick with the lower-MIC phalanx, and simply use your money to build more of those, instead of the more expensive higher-MIC phalanxes.

If it doesn't work this way, then I'd say it is an error in balancing on the part of the design team, because I can't imagine one of the designers would come here and say "No, the guy you are replying to is right. Higher MIC buildings and units are a trap we put in the game to troll people."

[Lazy O]

I think you are experiencing a bug then. When skirmishers/archers are in loose formation, cavalry does not properly charge them, and they get into a drawn out engagement, which only works for the numidians, though if you are having so much problems, why not just deal with them with light cavalry en masse and archers/other skirmishers like you are supposed to rather than waste expensive heavy cavalry on them?

[Ludens]

Now, here's where it gets interesting. I haven't run the numbers and done experiments to find out whether an upper-echelon phalanx performs better PER COST than a lower one does. I ASSUME that it does, because that's the only thing that would make sense.

Hello Nightmare, welcome to the .Org and to EB ~:wave: .

I think part of the problem lies in the way the battle engine deals with formations. Even a strung-out, light-infantry formation is solid enough to stop a cavalry charge. That's wrong, but it's not something that can be modded, unfortunately.

The other part lies in the above assumption: upper-tier units are not necessarily more cost-effective. They are more effective, but you do pay a premium for that. They are still worth it at army-level for their ability to tip the odds (by holding key positions for longer or leading a critical breakthrough), but if you're just comparing stats they're overpriced.

[Nightmare]

I think part of the problem lies in the way the battle engine deals with formations. Even a strung-out, light-infantry formation is solid enough to stop a cavalry charge. That's wrong, but it's not something that can be modded, unfortunately.

Ah, good to know. This is the type info I'm looking for.



The other part lies in the above assumption: upper-tier units are not necessarily more cost-effective. They are more effective, but you do pay a premium for that. They are still worth it at army-level for their ability to tip the odds (by holding key positions for longer or leading a critical breakthrough), but if you're just comparing stats they're overpriced.

Ah, I didn't know that either. Very good info to have. I guess if I care about playing efficiently and winning, I'll use the cost-effective, lower tier units. If I have money to burn and just want to have fun, I'll build some upper-tier ones. I'm on a VH pontic campaign fighting both the selucids and the egyptians, and I just started pumping out their elite pontic phalanx (expensive as hell) as I just got access to it. I needed something to deal with their full stacks they're throwing at me continuously - very annoying. But with this new info, I'll just start using levy phalanxes again and I should fare much better.

To answer several questions below of the type "why didn't I just use [insert infantry/archers/whatever] instead of expensive cavalry?" I'm not sure I understand the question. There's always several ways one can handle a condition. If someone throws horse archers at you, you can use foot archers against them, armored horse archers, or melee cavalry. If you pick one of those, someone can always ask why you didn't use the other option. My answer to the question is, fighting against the Romans and Greek rebels in Sicily and southern Italy, I hadn't had a chance to use any cavalry at all. Once I hit the Numidians, I saw an opportunity where cavalry should be effective, and wanted to use it. I could have stuck with infantry, sure. But I was bored with that and had no reason not to use cavalry, which I like using when I have the chance. Now I have a reason not to use it. But before, I didn't.

Thanks!

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Your english is fine, we just have a difference of opinion.

I understand you say Numidians are vulnerable to missle/sword, and I agree. I'm stating that they SHOULD BE vulnerable to the best cavalry an advanced empire can field. We are talking a cheap tier-one skirmisher group with no armor. Sure, maybe they have wooden spears, but they aren't long spears, and they don't fight in a phalanx, or even in rows and columns. It just makes no sense that these guys can stand there in rags and I charge heavy cavalry into them over and over again full-force, and they don't break and get slaughtered. Now, a phalanx, ordered-up and facing my cavalry? Yeah, I expect my cavalry to get slaughtered. But low-tier, unarmored skirmishers and archers should get murdered by the best cavalry I can field.

We agree on the reality of the situation, and what can kill these Numidians - infantry, arrows, etc. I'm not talking "what is," I'm talking "what should be."

EDIT: And again, the skirmishers can outrun the cavalry. These are humans running on 2 legs outrunning horses. Who thinks this is accurate? Shouldn't the speed be reduced?

Spear-armed light troops wouldn't stand in a phalanx to repel cavalry. They would split up into a loose formation, thus making the enemy cavalry split up too while chasing them, and try to engage the cavalrymen in a swirling melee. If a cavalryman can be split away from his comrades (which easily happens as he gets excited chasing after someone) then he's easy meat for a loose group of very agile light spearmen surrounding him on all sides.

Grounding a spear is a good way to kill a horse too, dig the butt into the ground and let the horse impale itself on the point - the horse's own momentum kills it. Finally, an agile man not weighed down by armour can hurl himself bodily at a cavalryman, jumping up and pulling him out of the saddle (easier if he doesn't have stirrups to hold him in his seat). Once on the ground, the cavalryman is as good as dead.

As for Numidian skirmishers outrunning horses - well, in the EB era, most so-called horses were what we would call ponies. Ancient horses were a lot smaller than modern Arabians. Load a pony down with a heavily armoured cavalryman, plus maybe armour for itself as well, and it won't be able to gallop, only canter. And it will get tired very quickly, after a while it can only trot, and when it's exhausted it can only walk.

So it's not really so surprising that an extremely fit young man, (almost as fit as a modern athlete although maybe a foot shorter) could outrun a heavily-laden, tired pony.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The other part lies in the above assumption: upper-tier units are not necessarily more cost-effective. They are more effective, but you do pay a premium for that. They are still worth it at army-level for their ability to tip the odds (by holding key positions for longer or leading a critical breakthrough), but if you're just comparing stats they're overpriced.

Excellent summary, Ludens. That's why whole armies of elites are a waste of money.

In a full stack of 20 units, I have a house rule than no more than 5 should be elites (and that includes the general.) For some factions, I limit myself to only 2 elites.

[Nightmare]

Spear-armed light troops wouldn't stand in a phalanx to repel cavalry. They would split up into a loose formation, thus making the enemy cavalry split up too while chasing them, and try to engage the cavalrymen in a swirling melee. If a cavalryman can be split away from his comrades (which easily happens as he gets excited chasing after someone) then he's easy meat for a loose group of very agile light spearmen surrounding him on all sides.

Grounding a spear is a good way to kill a horse too, dig the butt into the ground and let the horse impale itself on the point - the horse's own momentum kills it. Finally, an agile man not weighed down by armour can hurl himself bodily at a cavalryman, jumping up and pulling him out of the saddle (easier if he doesn't have stirrups to hold him in his seat). Once on the ground, the cavalryman is as good as dead.

As for Numidian skirmishers outrunning horses - well, in the EB era, most so-called horses were what we would call ponies. Ancient horses were a lot smaller than modern Arabians. Load a pony down with a heavily armoured cavalryman, plus maybe armour for itself as well, and it won't be able to gallop, only canter. And it will get tired very quickly, after a while it can only trot, and when it's exhausted it can only walk.

So it's not really so surprising that an extremely fit young man, (almost as fit as a modern athlete although maybe a foot shorter) could outrun a heavily-laden, tired pony.

Fine points, except it makes one wonder why tightly-packed spearmen or pikemen or phalanx was ever used to defend against cavalry (classical era, or on out to medieval) when cheap, unarmored troops standing in a loose formation could achieve similar results at far less expense and risk.

[Nightmare]

Excellent summary, Ludens. That's why whole armies of elites are a waste of money.

In a full stack of 20 units, I have a house rule than no more than 5 should be elites (and that includes the general.) For some factions, I limit myself to only 2 elites.

Then I say get rid of elite units (remove them from the game), or buff them.

[Nightmare]

Creative thinking 101.

So I sent a general all around Sicily and southern Italy. He only managed to find a single unit of Cretan Archers. So as of now I'm taking a different route. Since I have no archers, but have teched to ultimate tier, I am producing a bunch of arrow projectors (never tried them before). I will defend them with cheap infantry and deploy them outside Numidian cities and see what happens.

Not very efficient by any means, but should be fun (I hope) :-)

Will report results back here.

[Lazy O]

Would be much cheaper to just recruit the Numidian archers.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Fine points, except it makes one wonder why tightly-packed spearmen or pikemen or phalanx was ever used to defend against cavalry (classical era, or on out to medieval) when cheap, unarmored troops standing in a loose formation could achieve similar results at far less expense and risk.

Because those cheap, unarmoured spearmen in loose formation might be OK defending themselves against cavalry, provided they have good morale so they don't panic, but they would be chopped down like wheat by massed enemy heavy infantry. Also, spearmen in loose formation can't prevent enemy cavalry charging through their formation, out the other side, and on into the rear where they could pose a severe threat to the rest of the army. Finally, as stated above, unarmoured troops are highly vulnerable to missiles.

So there are drawbacks to using such troops as well as advantages - whether they perform well or not depends on the makeup of the enemy force and on the tactical situation.


(Double-click behind a unit in EB to make your cavalry ride all the way through it.)

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Then I say get rid of elite units (remove them from the game), or buff them.

No need for either. Elites have their uses and have enough of a superiority over the rank and file basic units.

For example, in a phalanx or spearman army, the unit on the extreme right of the line should be an elite unit, because that is the most vulnerable position in the line. The shield is held in the left hand, meaning the unshielded right side of the rightmost men is open to enemy attack. The enemy know that, so it's the most likely place in the line to be attacked. You need a good unit there which won't break when it suffers heavy losses, since if it does rout, your whole line could be rolled up one unit at a time.

The Romans use their elite triarii or pedites extraordinairii to stem an enemy front line breakthrough or hold a collapsing flank when the battle starts going pear-shaped.

Armies of swordsmen need a elite breakthrough unit to hack a hole in the enemy front line, that's what units like the Gaesatae or Solduros are for.

An elite unit of heavy cavalry can either turn an enemy flank by driving off the enemy cavalry, or act as a reserve when enemy cavalry get round your flank.

They are for critical points on the battlefield, and the critical moments, when you absolutely cannot afford them to fail otherwise the whole battle is lost.

Or, you could manage without elite units, and just rely on superior numbers and/or superior generalship to win the day. Depends on your playing style.

[Rahl]

Fine points, except it makes one wonder why tightly-packed spearmen or pikemen or phalanx was ever used to defend against cavalry (classical era, or on out to medieval) when cheap, unarmored troops standing in a loose formation could achieve similar results at far less expense and risk.
He named the best tactic for LIGHT infantry to defend against cavalry, but hoplites or phalangitai aren't light troops and usually do a better job fighting cavalry. Light infantry with short spears trying to form a phalanx won't work against anyone.

Actually most elites are more cost-efficient. I tested several units against each other and elites usually suffer lower losses and you lose less money, though the difference is clearly smaller then in vanilla. The stats don't seem much higher but having some more attack and defence skill here and some more amour and moral there makes most elites usually clearly stronger. One unit of elite infantry against one unit of medium infantry in melee, the elites are more cost efficient even without considering the fact that the medium infantry breaks earlier. The problem about elites is that in early and mid game you usually won't have the money and infrastructure to hire many of them, because you need to defend several borders and develop your cities. It's more important and useful to have a full army that is tactical flexible then having a small pure elite army. But if you have money left over, they're worth it.

I personally use elites most of the time only for roleplaying. I don't like their small AORs and to build the biggest MICs instead of developing the towns.

[Nightmare]

He named the best tactic for LIGHT infantry to defend against cavalry, but hoplites or phalangitai aren't light troops...

I know those aren't light troops, but that really isn't the point. The point is, he said light, unarmored, low-tier troops (dudes in robes and sandals holding sharpened wooden sticks) are utterly fantastic units for taking out heavy cavalry. Just stick them in a loose formation, the cavalry charges, and these dudes will plant those sharpened wooden sticks and impale horses, or hurl themselves into the air and tackle the armored opponent off his horse. Or, they will just outrun the horses and kite them to death. He said that's a historically accurate depiction.

I said that given what he said, I don't know why you'd ever field heavy phalanxes and spearmen. I don't know how or why that evolved, either in the classical age, or the medieval age. Basically commanders must have been stupid to go through all the expense and armor and hassle when almost naked troops with sticks standing in loose formation murder cavalry. That speaks to your point. You are saying there's a difference between light infantry and heavy phalanxes. I know - I'm saying the difference is that the light infantry is apparently (according to the dude above) far superior, as they get the job done great at far less cost in time, money, mobilization, etc.

In case it's not apparent, let me spell it out. I've never in my life heard what this guy is saying. I don't believe it. My guess is, he's making this up according to how he thinks it must work and did work historically. He was presented with an example I gave (my horses were murdered by the Numidians), and since he thinks the game is working properly or depicting things accurately, he then, quite logically, came up with some way this must work. My take is what a few others have alluded to in this thread - that the engine doesn't quite work correctly for dudes standing around in loose formation. In other words, I think he's wrong. I think dudes standing around naked with sticks were murdered by heavy cavalry historically, and that tight rows of spears and a phalanx was a response to the fact that heavy cavalry murdered other stuff. But good for him in creatively trying to work out how it must have worked, given my experience.

Anyway, it's good you say that you believe elites are cost efficient. Just remember in your testing not to put a single elite against a single non-elite (reading your text, it seems that's what might have done). Rather, put the same COST of elites vs. non-elites, i.e. it might take a 2/3 ratio of elites to non-elites (you'd have to work it out).

[Tanit]

Heavy infantry evolved as a counter to light infantry. The main purpose of cavalry is mobility. Additionally it gives a powerful advantage in a charge due to your speed and weight. However, the price that is paid for speed and hitting power is that horses are ridiculously vulnerable to harm, and once your horse goes down your useless. The rider is often injured or killed in the fall, and if they aren't then they are left behind by their mounted brethren when the unit moves on.

The advent of barding, which additionally required the breeding of larger, more powerful, horses was an attempt to remove this weakness and this is seen best in Cataphracts and medieval knights, though not all. The next big thing is that the more armour you wear the faster you tire, and the more tired you are, the worse you do. RTW represents this fact. So your heavy cavalry, although fantastic for the first few minutes, will quickly tire and lose effectiveness while the light troops, having very little to carry, will remain fresh, agile and able for much longer. That is probably how the kiting you mentioned occured, your cavalry charge at full gallop across the map, fight a bit, continue running and become very tired, many of the Numidians who were not in combat at the start are entirely fresh and can run for a while before their level of exhaustion drops to the point where your exhausted cavalry can catch up again.

Last point on the effectiveness of cavalry. Its scary. One of the main reasons cavalry is effective is the fear it causes thundering toward you or appearing unexpectedly on a flank. This is calcualted in the morale counter in RTW, and thus EB, however, if a unit has the morale to survive that initial charge then they will usually hold forever unless another unit flanks them. The battle you mentioned was sally correct? Sallying armies have pretty decent morale and fight to near destruction of their units before breaking, their lives are literally on the line if they lose. In an open field battle you likely would have fared better.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I know those aren't light troops, but that really isn't the point. The point is, he said light, unarmored, low-tier troops (dudes in robes and sandals holding sharpened wooden sticks) are utterly fantastic units for taking out heavy cavalry. Just stick them in a loose formation, the cavalry charges, and these dudes will plant those sharpened wooden sticks and impale horses, or hurl themselves into the air and tackle the armored opponent off his horse.

Nightmare,
Where are you getting this 'sharpened wooden sticks' bit from? Numidian skirmishers don't have sharpened wooden sticks - they have iron-tipped javelins for throwing and an iron-tipped light spear for melee. A proper spear, not a sharpened wooden stick.

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=african%20skirmisher%20javelinmen&text=numidian&ownership=any&class=any&category=any

[athanaric]

Fine points, except it makes one wonder why tightly-packed spearmen or pikemen or phalanx was ever used to defend against cavalry (classical era, or on out to medieval) when cheap, unarmored troops standing in a loose formation could achieve similar results at far less expense and risk.
Don't forget, as was mentioned before, that there's also a bug involved, which is an engine thingy (nothing to do with the mod). I.e. skirmishers in loose formation always cause too many casualties when you attack them in melee - even if you're using infantry. Certainly not an intentional feature of the game.

[Rahl]

I think dudes standing around naked with sticks were murdered by heavy cavalry historically, and that tight rows of spears and a phalanx was a response to the fact that heavy cavalry murdered other stuff. But good for him in creatively trying to work out how it must have worked, given my experience.
Actually I believe it really would have been a bad idea using heavy cavalry against Numidians. The reason they are not wearing much is not only that armour is to expensive for them, it's also quite hot where they live. Under this conditions heavy cavalry and infantry tires very quickly and especially the cavalry becomes useless because of losing their speed advantage.
Yes you got defeated because of the bad way the engine works in this regard. I would even agree with you that cavalry vs. infantry is slightly unbalanced. I really don't know much about how that really worked, I only read The Gallic War until now, but from my feeling and understanding cavalry is to weak in a melee fight but still to strong when charging. Though that's less bad balancing by the EB-team then again weakness of the engine.
But even considering this, fighting Numidians with heavy cavalry is a bad idea. Without the fails of the engine you might have won the battle, but then only because the battle AI is dumb. Like said above, there's a reason Carthage never defeated most of the Numidians and even the Romans had big problems with them...


Anyway, it's good you say that you believe elites are cost efficient. Just remember in your testing not to put a single elite against a single non-elite (reading your text, it seems that's what might have done). Rather, put the same COST of elites vs. non-elites, i.e. it might take a 2/3 ratio of elites to non-elites (you'd have to work it out).
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. English isn't my main language and sometimes people don't even understand me when talking german...

It's not that easy. This is a Total War game and not a simple real-time-strategy game like Warcraft. You can't say a unit is only cost efficient when beeing able to win against a superior number of weaker units that have the same cost.
Every unit gets defeated when flanked or even surrounded in EB. That's how it should be. That's why I said you first need a full army and then can begin to use elites instead of rank-and-file.
Tactic and strategy come first in EB, then the power of single units. That's the reason why you can conquer the world in EB with levy units only. The elites will have far lower losses cost-efficient wise when fighting a levy or medium unit head on, but they need secured flanks and backs.
Though gaesatea are probably an exception. They can even win when sorrounded as long as no projectiles are shot at them, though they're OP and somewhat inaccurate.

[Klemens]

Let us take a lesson from the Scottish, half naked men with sticks are very successful at annihilating fully armored knights.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Let us take a lesson from the Scottish, half naked men with sticks are very successful at annihilating fully armored knights.

And let's not even talk about William Wallace. He's seven feet tall, kills men by the hundreds, he consumes the English with fireballs from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse. www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcoVxbutl8g

Sorry! I hate it when I do that....

[Klemens]

And let's not even talk about William Wallace. He's seven feet tall, kills men by the hundreds, he consumes the English with fireballs from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse. www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcoVxbutl8g

Sorry! I hate it when I do that....

I was not talking about William Wallace, but a more obscure man named Robert Bruce. The battle of Loudoun Hill begs research for anybody still believing that armored knights were Gods on the battlefield.

[Nightmare]

Interesting discussion.

@Tanit

A somewhat related tangent - when RTW first came out (vanilla, not a mod), I noticed that cavalry was ridiculously ineffective. I mean charging cataphracts into light archers would get the cataphracts killed. After playing the game for a day or so and realizing how bad this was, I posted to the RTW forums that something was wrong with cavalry. Of course I got the usual crap from posters from such a big public site - "learn to play noob" or "horses are fine, quit whining when you lose" etc. But a developer noticed my post, tested out what I was saying, and posted in my thread that I was right, and there was an apparent bug which caused cavalry not to use their secondary attack after the charge. A patch was released, and cavalry became much better.

At any rate, I'm not trying to sit here and say that cavalry should be the "be all, end all" of any situation. I don't believe that at all. I do believe, all your points notwithstanding, that cavalry should stomp units like light archers and light skirmishers, especially if it's heavy cavalry. I just don't think those units would survive the charge. If they did they wouldn't survive subsequent ones. Also, if cavalry (esp. heavy) isn't for riding down light units like archers and skirmishers, what's it for? Sure, you can come up with other uses, like chasing off horse archers. But there isn't much else.

But hey, if everyone else thinks different than me, I respect it, and am willing to try to play with this mod's interpretation of how they see the role of cavalry - no biggie.

@Titus, perhaps I hyperbolized a bit. A lot of these light skirmishers to me look like rag-tag people with bare feet or sandals, a robe or loin cloth, and a stick. Perhaps I was thinking of those people in Arabia or some other area, but at any rate, if you say they are good spears, I accept that.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Interesting discussion.

At any rate, I'm not trying to sit here and say that cavalry should be the "be all, end all" of any situation. I don't believe that at all. I do believe, all your points notwithstanding, that cavalry should stomp units like light archers and light skirmishers, especially if it's heavy cavalry. I just don't think those units would survive the charge. If they did they wouldn't survive subsequent ones. Also, if cavalry (esp. heavy) isn't for riding down light units like archers and skirmishers, what's it for? Sure, you can come up with other uses, like chasing off horse archers. But there isn't much else.

But hey, if everyone else thinks different than me, I respect it, and am willing to try to play with this mod's interpretation of how they see the role of cavalry - no biggie.

@Titus, perhaps I hyperbolized a bit. A lot of these light skirmishers to me look like rag-tag people with bare feet or sandals, a robe or loin cloth, and a stick. Perhaps I was thinking of those people in Arabia or some other area, but at any rate, if you say they are good spears, I accept that.

On reflection, I agree, the R:TW engine is flawed when it comes to cavalry engaging troops in loose formation. What should happen is that the cavalry should ride over and kill many of the men directly in their path, and the charging cavalry unit should not stop on contact with loose formations, but continue charging straight through it, either halting out of melee range behind the attacked unit, or turning back to engage it in melee once out the other side. A loose formation of infantry has little mass, and if there's little mass, there's little to stop the progress of the charging horses - they would just keep on going as long as there would enough space in front of them. Some of the cavalrymen might get bogged down in melee though.

Heavy cavalry should, and does in EB, decimate most light infantry like skirmishers and archers. But not if they've got spears, like Numidian Skirmishers and Persian Archer-Spearmen, these are specialised units specifically created to stop cavalry. And particularly not if the heavy cavalrymen are badly outnumbered by the light spearmen, e.g. 40 Carthaginian bodyguards vs 240 Numidian Skirmishers. Being outnumbered six to one should not be something to take lightly, even for heavy cavalry.

As for the 'rag-tag' Numidians, maybe you're confusing them with the sub-Saharan African peoples who were still hunter-gatherers with no metalworking skills. The Numidians weren't like this in the EB timeline - the Numidian kingdoms with access to sea trade were relatively wealthy by 272 BC. Even quite poor warriors could afford an iron speartip. The poorest warriors were the slingers, but then the Roman Accensi were no richer.

[Lazy O]

Really no offense, but those who said L2P Nub were spot on. Vanilla cavalry massacred anything and everything, full stop. The bugs were realized after mods like EB came along with a completely different battle system.

[Grade_A_Beef]

Everyone are all different; they are all individuals.



They're not! Shh!

Sorry I couldn't resist...

Anyhow I think I know why your charges aren't working in the first place. When you charge unengaged skirmishers their first action is to run away. When that happens your cavalry instantly changes from charge to pursuing. Now you have no charge bonus and going up against a more numerous enemy armed with anti-cavalry bonus spears and AP clubs.

The Numidians have awesome skirmishers and missile troops in general, but again, they're just that. I like using the Getai, but I can tell you that even I don't expect their awesome Komatai to win a match frontally versus any sort of line infantry. That's what Drapanai are for.

[Nightmare]

Really no offense, but those who said L2P Nub were spot on. Vanilla cavalry massacred anything and everything, full stop. The bugs were realized after mods like EB came along with a completely different battle system.

You didn't read what I wrote, did you? Those saying "l2p noob" were as unthinkingly wrong then as they generally are in all other circumstances. I said a developer agreed with me, and they released a patch because of my complaint.

No, EB didn't fix this particular bug. The credit goes to me. If I'm not mistaken, it was probably fixed in the first patch released, unless there was a patch released on the first day the game was out, in which case it was the second patch.

[Nightmare]

Anyhow I think I know why your charges aren't working in the first place. When you charge unengaged skirmishers their first action is to run away. When that happens your cavalry instantly changes from charge to pursuing. Now you have no charge bonus and going up against a more numerous enemy armed with anti-cavalry bonus spears and AP clubs.


Yup, I think I remember this sort of thing happening.

I'd say the first problem is the engine, the second is something like the above. I will say that I don't remember these skirmishers toting spears. I'm not saying they don't have them, of course (they obviously do), I'm just saying I don't recollect seeing them. I just remember seeing what looked like light javelin throwers. What do they do... switch to the spear when in hand-to-hand?

[Ca Putt]

huh? Wait a second! Because of your Comment they made cavalry change to secondaries when engaged? I do belive you that you suggested something leading to an improvement in gameplay(eventho Equites are just so hideously overpowered in RTW) but afaik Cavalry does not change to secondaries in melee. Which may be a nuisance but with the AP and high lethality Spears that's seldom a reason for defeat. Please explain, incase I misunderstood you.

On cost-ratio: most elite units cannot withstand their equivalent in cheep levy, but do they have to? In EB it is a good Idea to postpone the MIC developement until your economy is up and running. By the time it is you can often afford quite a lot of Elite troops or at least a bulk of standard units(legionaries, Pezhetairoi, Hoplitai, Bataroas, Dugunthiz ...) with a few Elites for special occasions. Teching is not a valid option in EB. Depending on unit scale the number of units also adds towards the calculation: if you buy one unit of naked fanatics instead of 4 units of levy spearmen you need 840 men less, men that pay taxes while the others get wages, men that count towards your city size men that can be recruited into other units. As seperate armies(thus with a captain in the unit) the Levy may be able to just surround them and club them down. But on their way down they kill about half of them and constantly demoralize them, something that can easily be abused by a spare unit of cavalry or archers(flaming arrows). Also considering the fact, that armies are limited to 20 units and the fact that AI reinforcements suck monkey balls bug time, having some elites sometimes gives you the edge you need to defeat an enemy.
In late game Money is not an issue, population still is.

But alas, EB is not about balanced stats(neither is RTW). Just compare two units that look similar on first glance but surprise the player when tested: Polybian Principes(a) and Pontikoi Thorakitai(b) or imitation legionaries if you want to call them that way. They have a similar unit size, overall similar stats with somewhat less armor and shield for b) but also more attack for both sword and javelin. Morale is identical but training and dicipline is better with a) who also are armor piercing and have 0.3 higher lethality two quite important factors. a obliterate b easily without fancy tactics and now guess what, a) cost over 600 mnai less AND are availible at MIC level 2(!!!) while b) need a level 4 MIC. Things in EB aren't always balanced, the focus lies on historical accuracy and this means that because romans had a more efficient way to train heavy swordsmen they can do so in EB.

[Burebista]

Maybe his problem is that he's playing VH battle settings which , as we all know , gives major bonuses to the AI. Recommended setting is VH/M for campaigns of experienced players so that the AI doesn't get those ridiculous stat bonuses.
Example: on Vh battle setting , a unit of botroas will crush a unit of bataroas which would not happen on Medium setting

[Kival]

He's playing with VH for battle difficulty? I thought he said, he's using M battle difficulty. Anyway there is in fact a problem with cavalry being to weak in melee. You can especially see that with non-charger cavalry which is relatively useless in "vanilla EB". But normal heavy cavalry should not easily win in melee vs numidians, so there is no problem in this regard.

[Nightmare]

I just pulled up the unit card for the numidian javelinmen. They have NO spears. Their secondary weapon is a knife. It specifically says that they should avoid being drawn into hand-to-hand combat, as their knives are more appropriate for skinning animals than fighting soldiers.

So enough of this talk about how light skirmishers should be able to take out heavy cavalry. The game engine bug obviously got me, not the notion that light skirmishers should somehow murder cavalry.


huh? Wait a second! Because of your Comment they made cavalry change to secondaries when engaged?

Because of my comment they found and fixed a bug which caused cavalry not use secondary weapons when engaged like they should. They didn't add a new feature because of my comment. They fixed a bug that they didn't know existed. You can go and find the old threads on RTW forum, I'm guessing.


On cost-ratio: most elite units cannot withstand their equivalent in cheep levy, but do they have to?

In my opinion? Yes, they do, unless some compelling reason is explained to me why these units should not be cost-efficient. I doubt it was historically-accurate to purposefully field cost-inefficient units if there was an alternative to doing so. Why would anyone do such a thing, unless they were just dumb?


But alas, EB is not about balanced stats(neither is RTW

Any game worth it's salt that is to be taken seriously is about balanced stats. No reason not to have balanced stats, every reason in the world to have them.


He's playing with VH for battle difficulty? I thought he said, he's using M battle difficulty.

I'm using M.

[Ca Putt]

I'm pretty sure he said that it was on medium, otherwise this discussion would be long over.


Because of my comment they found and fixed a bug which caused cavalry not use secondary weapons when engaged like they should. They didn't add a new feature because of my comment. They fixed a bug that they didn't know existed. You can go and find the old threads on RTW forum, I'm guessing.You clearly did not get my point, I said that they actually do NOT change to secondaries unless you order them to(tested in vanilla 1.5)


In my opinion? Yes, they do, unless some compelling reason is explained to me why these units should not be cost-efficient. I doubt it was historically-accurate to purposefully field cost-inefficient units if there was an alternative to doing so. Why would anyone do such a thing, unless they were just dumb? Again, you missed my point. Well the equipment for a medieval knight costed about the value of a smaller village I (the king of France) could also get quite a lot of sergeants or mercenaries or even give peasants spears these troops would ALL have NO problem killing the one knight(who also costed you a fair share of land to get under your banner) and this is in an era where Cavalry was commonly known as OP. But a squad of lets say 10 knights can break through a block of 20 sergants mercenaries or peasants and thus give me (the king of France) a sigificant strategical advantage because now there is a gap in the enemy line.
On the other hand a knight and his horse may eat more than 5 peasants but with his horse he can choose to engage them one after another and whipe them out. On Campaign Food is as valuable a resource as coin.


Any game worth it's salt that is to be taken seriously is about balanced stats. No reason not to have balanced stats, every reason in the world to have them. Sorry but a) I gave examples and b) it is quite clear that RTW romans are OP.

[GenosseGeneral]

Did i get right that you were using cavalry in a city? Cav is of very little use in cities. They simply dont charge there properly. And EB's cav is not made for prolonging fights against infantry which in my opinion makes sense just imagine sitting on a horseback fighting someone who is on foot. That guy on foot will have a huge advantage, as he can easily wound your horse while you have barely a chance to defend against his blows. Deploying cav in city battles is simply misusing them as they can seldomly charge, and if they can they usually dont do so because of bugs. For assaulting cities you need infantry, no chance. In EB you can't rely purely on cav in the open field, too since you need something to pin the enemy down. Charges headon will only work against very light troops such as skirmishers or medium troops in broken formation/who are moving, but even then only with very heavy cav such as hetairoi or catanks.

[teoman10]

In my opinion? Yes, they do, unless some compelling reason is explained to me why these units should not be cost-efficient. I doubt it was historically-accurate to purposefully field cost-inefficient units if there was an alternative to doing so. Why would anyone do such a thing, unless they were just dumb?

You must however have to remember that much of the elite units are actually rich people who wear better armour because they can afford it, not because its that cost effective. Not every general looked at armies with only "how much damage can this group of people deal compared to how much it costs to field them?". (roman eqvites, :D)

I also think that EB is a game that at least in the campaign should not worry to much about excactly balanced stats so they can represent the historical situation better.

For instance, not saying that this is the real case at all, but say that if the romans had far better and much more troops than every other people in the ancient times, then i think that should be represented better in the game than "balance".

The point is that not everything was cost effective in ancient times, and thats how i personally think a game with such a focus on historical accuracy should be (at least in the single player part)

[LusitanianWolf]

I just pulled up the unit card for the numidian javelinmen. They have NO spears. Their secondary weapon is a knife. It specifically says that they should avoid being drawn into hand-to-hand combat, as their knives are more appropriate for skinning animals than fighting soldiers.

They do have spears ingame, not all unit descriptions are right

;219
type african skirmisher javelinmen
dictionary african_skirmisher_javelinmen ; Numidian Javelinmen
category infantry
class missile
voice_type Medium_1
soldier african_missile_numidianjavelinman, 55, 0, 0.8
mount_effect elephant +2, chariot +4, horse -2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, can_sap, very_hardy, hide_long_grass
formation 1.6, 2, 3.2, 4, 6, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 6, 4, javelin_h, 60.5, 6, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.14
stat_sec_attr light_spear
stat_pri_armour 1, 9, 3, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -1
stat_mental 9, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 880, 247, 20, 30, 880
ownership egypt, seleucid, slave

The status may not be the same as in your game as I do use submods but more or less the same.

[Shadowwalker]

Thanks LusitanianWolf, was just about to quote this myself.

@Nightmare:


I doubt it was historically-accurate to purposefully field cost-inefficient units if there was an alternative to doing so. Why would anyone do such a thing, unless they were just dumb?

Ever heard of a thing called "prestige"?
Or in other words - why would anyone build a ship large enough to host a small town? Yet they were built.
Not to mention other factors like "intimidating the enemy"...


Any game worth it's salt that is to be taken seriously is about balanced stats. No reason not to have balanced stats, every reason in the world to have them.

I think it is worth to point this out again, since your replies seem to hint (correct me if I'm wrong) that you still believe EB was a pure "technical" strategy game that has to be all about balance.
It is not.
Play Saba, fight ptolemaic and seleucid armies with what you get in arabia ... and talk again about "balance" then.
EB is first and foremost a platform to teach history.
The fact that it is a superb game with a lot of potential to become addicted to it is a close second. But second.

And then, once again: going for a pure cavalry army because you're bored of infantry is not EB's (or even RTW's) fault.
You would easily win every battle against the Numidians if you brought an army as it was used by the Phoenicians/Carthaginians back then.
If you neglect the strengths and weaknesses of units and expect to be successful with the most expensive units .... that is not anyone's but your fault too.


So enough of this talk about how light skirmishers should be able to take out heavy cavalry. The game engine bug obviously got me, not the notion that light skirmishers should somehow murder cavalry.

I don't neglect the bug you mention, mind you - but it wouldn't matter that much if you'd stop using carthaginian cavalry like high-medieval knights.


I'm back in game now - have to use some Saba skirmishers to defend Arabia. ;)

[antisocialmunky]

There were friggin idiots that went into battle in silver plated armor so yeah.

Also, TW doesn't give a good representation of combat. If something costs twice as much and gives you 10% chance more of winning, you'd take it because the winner takes like less than 5% casualties and the loser can take up to 90% IRL so yeah...

There has been passing talk among the MPers that kill rates should be reduced to next to nothing so units can just grind each other down until one side breaks.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

In my opinion? Yes, they do, unless some compelling reason is explained to me why these units should not be cost-efficient. I doubt it was historically-accurate to purposefully field cost-inefficient units if there was an alternative to doing so. Why would anyone do such a thing, unless they were just dumb?

A good answer to this already posted above, but just to add to it:

The Persians fielded scythed chariots at Gaugamela. At huge cost, and to very little effect. So it's not that rare for 'dumb' things to happen in history, since humans are good at being dumb. The Persians did it because they were so rich that money was not a problem, and because they were desperate to find a way to break up the Macedonian phalanx, their own spearmen weren't up to the task despite having a huge numerical advantage.

Fielding a mob of untrained peasants can be a bad idea, as the Persians found out against Alexander's Macedonians. The peasants were deployed in huge units, each having about 10,000 men. A unit this size is not a formation, but a mob. And panic is communicated in a flash in a mob - if the front rank panics when faced with an enemy charge, the panic spreads rapidly through the ranks, and it's very likely that everyone in the unit will panic, and all 10,000 of them could rout at the first contact. 10,000 peasants armed with spears could easily kill 500 Macedonian Companion cavalry in a melee, provided that they didn't panic. But being untrained peasants, they did panic, and thus cost Darius the battle.

So even if 10,000 peasants can be fielded for the same cost as 1,000 trained soldiers, it's probably better to have the soldiers than the peasants, simply because a general can rely on the soldiers, but can't rely on the peasants.

Another reason to have elite units is because of shortage of available manpower. The Greeks (and later the Macedonians too) suffered acutely from this problem, due to small populations and incessant wars. If your polis has enough money to raise an army of 10,000 'pantodapoi' light spearmen, but you've only got 2,000 men of fighting age and fitness, then you might as well spend the money on better equipment and training and make them into hoplites, since you've got to compensate for lack of quantity with high quality. Even if 10,000 pantodapoi would be more cost-effective than 2,000 hoplites, you haven't got 10,000 men available.

[Ludens]

In my opinion? Yes, they do, unless some compelling reason is explained to me why these units should not be cost-efficient. I doubt it was historically-accurate to purposefully field cost-inefficient units if there was an alternative to doing so. Why would anyone do such a thing, unless they were just dumb?

Let me start by complimenting you on holding your own in this discussion, despite being the one only defending your position. I agree that warfare tends to weed out cost-inefficient approaches (though this can be countered by cultural preconceptions combined with large amounts of money). However, I too am going to disagree about the cost-efficiency of elites, because I feel your definition of cost-efficient is too narrow. If you look just at the stats, elites are definitely overpriced. But you shouldn't treat elites as replacements of ordinary units.

In fact, if you look purely at stats vs. costs I am pretty sure that low-grade levy/militia units offer the best deal. Yes, you'll suffer disproportionate casualties, but they're easy to replace. However, the obvious problem is that these units aren't reliable. They lack killing power so they cannot force a quick decision, and poor morale means that you cannot afford many setbacks. The professional rank-and-file cost considerably more per soldier, but they'll hold even if things don't go your way.

Does that mean it's cost-efficient to replace all levies with professionals? Probably not: it's cheaper (and often more historical) to use a core of pro-units supported by levies. The pro's do offensive duties and guard the flanks, while the levies bulk up the battle line. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to treat elites as replacements for rank-and-file troops: the stat-increase is not worth the money in most cases. Elites are for those situations where a moderate stat-increase can make big difference. Holding a critical flank against enemy elites, for example. An ordinary unit might be able to do this, but an elite unit will hold for longer. Once the flank-guard routs, your entire flank will start to waver. Similarly, when leading a breakthrough the higher stats of an elite unit can help you achieve victory a minute or so earlier, which will keep the casualties down for the rest of the army.

The real problem is that in most cases the A.I. opponent isn't good enough for you need this. It will fall to clever tactics rather than fighting-power, so rank-and-file units will do just as well. But under the right circumstances, elites are definitely worth their money.

[athanaric]

It's not that easy. This is a Total War game and not a simple real-time-strategy game like Warcraft. You can't say a unit is only cost efficient when beeing able to win against a superior number of weaker units that have the same cost.
Warcraft isn't an RTS game if you take the "strategy" part seriously though. It's a small scale tactics game heavily geared towards attack. Just wanted to point this out.



He's playing with VH for battle difficulty? I thought he said, he's using M battle difficulty. Anyway there is in fact a problem with cavalry being to weak in melee. You can especially see that with non-charger cavalry which is relatively useless in "vanilla EB".
In melee vs infantry. Vs cavalry they can be quite decent, although the quirks of the engine combined with the peculiarities of the unit stats still favour lancers.



But normal heavy cavalry should not easily win in melee vs numidians, so there is no problem in this regard.Depends. Parthian superheavies, for instance, have "longswords" with high lethality, which means that if they enter the engagement in a fresh state, they should be able to carve quite a hole into the Numidians. Theoretically speaking.

[Principe Alessandro]

Interesting discussion.
At any rate, I'm not trying to sit here and say that cavalry should be the "be all, end all" of any situation. I don't believe that at all. I do believe, all your points notwithstanding, that cavalry should stomp units like light archers and light skirmishers, especially if it's heavy cavalry. I just don't think those units would survive the charge. If they did they wouldn't survive subsequent ones. Also, if cavalry (esp. heavy) isn't for riding down light units like archers and skirmishers, what's it for? Sure, you can come up with other uses, like chasing off horse archers. But there isn't much else.

But hey, if everyone else thinks different than me, I respect it, and am willing to try to play with this mod's interpretation of how they see the role of cavalry - no biggie.

@Titus, perhaps I hyperbolized a bit. A lot of these light skirmishers to me look like rag-tag people with bare feet or sandals, a robe or loin cloth, and a stick. Perhaps I was thinking of those people in Arabia or some other area, but at any rate, if you say they are good spears, I accept that.


I think that you are considering the matter from a wrong perspective because probably you are considering too much the "paper, scissor, stone" mechanic which generally is used in every strategic video-game.

In reality under the right circumstances heavy cavalry can rout easily even heavy infantry armed with long pikes or be slaughtered by a bunch of untrained and poorly armed peasants.

Anyway considering the cavalry of the EB's timeframe it isn't only a matter of circumstances, the cavalry was generally used to strike the flanks or the rear of the enemy formation in order to achieve an assured blow because it hadn't the capabilities nor the means to perform a frontal charge and a prolonged melee fest.

The horses were too small to "punch" the enemy line, too weak to wear a complete heavy armor so in essence they weren't really fit for frontal charges nor they could sustain a prolonged melee fest because the horse was an easy target especially from the side and the cavalryman hadn't a saddle like the Parthian one that can keep him from falling due to the collisions.

The only cavalry capable of frontal charges and that can sustain a prolonged melee fest were the cataphracts, the kind of breed was stronger, the Nisean horse which was fully armored but they were supported by superb archers armed with composite bows that softened and disrupted the enemy formation with volleys of arrows before the cavalry can deal the final blow.

Those rules can be applied both to the low level quality cavalry and to top elites like the Makedonian Hetairois which were solely used for flanking and attacking from the rear the enemy formations.

Probably in your game you tried to charge the skirmishers, they retreated a bit then when your cavalry reached them the charge lost its maximum power and the cavalry ended swallowed by spears and AP weapons.


In melee vs infantry. Vs cavalry they can be quite decent, although the quirks of the engine combined with the peculiarities of the unit stats still favour lancers.

Depends. Parthian superheavies, for instance, have "longswords" with high lethality, which means that if they enter the engagement in a fresh state, they should be able to carve quite a hole into the Numidians. Theoretically speaking.

Well I don't see anything wrong here because the cavalry of this time-frame wasn't really suited for a prolonged melee but for decisive strikes against troops already engaged.

Well the Parthians and other nomadic heavy cavalry were a different matter.

[Ca Putt]

Oh by the way, which settlement did you attack? And what troops did they have? I ask because I just started a Carthagian campaign and right away attacked K... ehm the one west of carthage(i should really remember these names) with most units in carthage and atiqua, the field army and the Sophet and was attacked by a bystanding cavalry detachment that joined the rather large garrison.

[Nightmare]

I'm pretty sure he said that it was on medium, otherwise this discussion would be long over.

Yes you are right, for the 10th time MEDIUM.


You clearly did not get my point, I said that they actually do NOT change to secondaries unless you order them to(tested in vanilla 1.5)

If that's true, that's big news to me. I played the game for years and thought the bug was fixed.

From The Shogun (RTW developer) posting in my thread:

What can we say? Strange things happen in software development. That's no excuse, but we are now clearing up the problem.

Firstly, we'd like to thank players for finding this issue in Rome: Total War. We've calculated that the community has now spent 17,000+ man years in playing RTW. Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to match the dedication of our players so we hope you can forgive us for the lapse in not spotting this bug, which was introduced late in the project. We're less than happy that we missed it. Even if we'd put everyone involved on the project into testing (and stopped putting any cool stuff in the game) it would have taken about 300 years to match your efforts, and we're pretty sure that most people wouldn't have wanted to wait for 300 years for the game to be published. happy

We've now addressed the problem. In the current build units now use their secondary weapon values where appropriate. Archers and skirmishers, for example, now 'know' to use their knife or shortsword combat values instead of their missile values. The main results of the fix is that some missile troops won't be as effective in hand to hand combat, and lance armed cavalry will be more effective than is currently the case after their initial charge. We're now playtesting to make sure that unit balancing hasn't been affected in any overtly strange ways and that combat results are what we'd exect them to be. You'll be happy to know that so far, so good...

This late change does mean that other patch elements have to be retested. As a result, the patch has been slightly delayed and won't be available when we expected. But, having monitored the forums, we know that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. We also know that you're eager for the patch. We are too, but we want to do the job *properly*. That's going to take slightly longer than we thought it would.

So thanks for your continued patience. In the meantime, the game still works and is extremely playable. Once the patch is out you'll find that is even better.


Again, you missed my point. Well the equipment for a medieval knight costed about the value of a smaller village I (the king of France) could also get quite a lot of sergeants or mercenaries or even give peasants spears these troops would ALL have NO problem killing the one knight(who also costed you a fair share of land to get under your banner) and this is in an era where Cavalry was commonly known as OP. But a squad of lets say 10 knights can break through a block of 20 sergants mercenaries or peasants and thus give me (the king of France) a sigificant strategical advantage because now there is a gap in the enemy line.

This isn't the same discussion because you are comparing different types of units. Here you are comparing a knight to a peasant to try to evaluate cost-effectiveness. What we should be doing is comparing peasants to super-peasants, or generic knights to super-knights. Then we will know if it is worth it to use upgraded peasants or upgraded knights.

Either way, I'd say your knights in the above example may not be cost-effective in a general sense, but they are buying you a capability you didn't have. It's like spending money by the tonnage to get large stone projectors. May not be cost-effective but you now have a capability you didn't have.

My complaint isn't about an overpriced unit giving you a capability you didn't have - I think that's fine. My complaint was about (if true) elite units not being cost-effective vs. generic units (elite phalanx vs. generic phalanx, etc).


Did i get right that you were using cavalry in a city?

No. I don't do that.


I also think that EB is a game that at least in the campaign should not worry to much about excactly balanced stats so they can represent the historical situation better.

For instance, not saying that this is the real case at all, but say that if the romans had far better and much more troops than every other people in the ancient times, then i think that should be represented better in the game than "balance".

We are equivocating on the meaning of "balance" here. I agree with you. To me, it's "balanced" if the romans in the game represent the romans in reality.


The point is that not everything was cost effective in ancient times, and thats how i personally think a game with such a focus on historical accuracy should be (at least in the single player part)

Well my point is someone with intelligence would eliminate or not use cost-ineffective units if they had an alternative to use cost-effective ones.

I can see two potential scenarios here: 1) The game has cost-ineffective units which represented the real historical situation as it existed, or 2) There is a developer bias towards overpriced elites (stats/prices are incorrect).

In the case of 1, I say keep the units to model history accurately, but put a warning at the top of the unit card that says this unit is overpriced and cost-inefficient. This keeps the player from having to spend months play testing units to find out which ones he should use because the developer is hiding information. In case of 2, I say adjust stats.


They do have spears ingame, not all unit descriptions are right

Well, I guess I can't be held responsible for incorrect unit descriptions.


And then, once again: going for a pure cavalry army because you're bored of infantry is not EB's (or even RTW's) fault.

Pure cavalry vs. some other army composition is a totally irrelevant question in and of itself. What's relevant is whether it can be considered "correct" or "viable" to do so for a particular circumstance. Going pure cavalry against pure spearmen could in most circumstances be considered incorrect, and I wouldn't do it. The question is whether it is correct against light skirmishers, light archers, etc. I say yes, others in this forum say no.


Also, TW doesn't give a good representation of combat. If something costs twice as much and gives you 10% chance more of winning, you'd take it because the winner takes like less than 5% casualties and the loser can take up to 90% IRL so yeah.

I'd take it if it could beat 2 of the cheaper units. I wouldn't if it couldn't.


Another reason to have [cost-inefficient] elite units is because of shortage of available manpower. The Greeks (and later the Macedonians too) suffered acutely from this problem, due to small populations and incessant wars. If your polis has enough money to raise an army of 10,000 'pantodapoi' light spearmen, but you've only got 2,000 men of fighting age and fitness, then you might as well spend the money on better equipment and training and make them into hoplites, since you've got to compensate for lack of quantity with high quality. Even if 10,000 pantodapoi would be more cost-effective than 2,000 hoplites, you haven't got 10,000 men available.

Cost-inefficient elites doesn't model the above situation at all, because you can still train cost-efficient soldiers in-game instead of elites, while in the situation above you cannot. To model this you'd need some other mechanic, possibly soldiers sucking up more population from cities than they currently do, so that as cities are drained your alternative is to field cost-inefficient elite troops or cost-efficient generic ones ones for the same amount of population loss.


However, I too am going to disagree about the cost-efficiency of elites, because I feel your definition of cost-efficient is too narrow. If you look just at the stats, elites are definitely overpriced. But you shouldn't treat elites as replacements of ordinary units.

In fact, if you look purely at stats vs. costs I am pretty sure that low-grade levy/militia units offer the best deal. Yes, you'll suffer disproportionate casualties, but they're easy to replace. However, the obvious problem is that these units aren't reliable. They lack killing power so they cannot force a quick decision, and poor morale means that you cannot afford many setbacks. The professional rank-and-file cost considerably more per soldier, but they'll hold even if things don't go your way.

Does that mean it's cost-efficient to replace all levies with professionals? Probably not: it's cheaper (and often more historical) to use a core of pro-units supported by levies. The pro's do offensive duties and guard the flanks, while the levies bulk up the battle line. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to treat elites as replacements for rank-and-file troops: the stat-increase is not worth the money in most cases. Elites are for those situations where a moderate stat-increase can make big difference.

Fair enough. If this was the developer's intent, rather than a developer balance oversight, I can't argue against it.


Oh by the way, which settlement did you attack? And what troops did they have? I ask because I just started a Carthagian campaign and right away attacked K... ehm the one west of carthage(i should really remember these names) with most units in carthage and atiqua, the field army and the Sophet and was attacked by a bystanding cavalry detachment that joined the rather large garrison.

Yes, that city and one underneath it were the cities I attacked. But I did it late game, not early game, because I was bogged down with greeks and romans in italy.

What was the unit composition you were hit with? What were the results?

[Ca Putt]

From The Shogun (RTW developer) posting in my thread:Well as I read it it reffers to Archers and skirms switching to (crappy)melee weapons when engaged which makes it easier for cavalry to beat them in prolonged melee as Arrow>Knife in RTW. maybe it also means that lancers change to swords when they are engaged but from my tests, they certainly do not change their weapon after they're done with their charge, you have to alt-click to get this effect. At least that's for me, feel free to try for yourself.


This isn't the same discussion because you are comparing different types of units. not entirely but it perfectly fitts the example you thought up, I could have also used mounted peasants vs Knights or foot knights vs peasants but I did not have universally accepted outcomes for either encounter^^
As for super-knights and super peasants: I'm not terribly experienced with Elite Phalangites but they are a particulary good example for elites being ... rather... inefficient, mainly as Phalanx units gain their strengh from their formation and all have a shield value of 5. But it also shows, the advatages of elite units: better morale, dicipline and training. Your ordinary levy phalanx has two main weakspots: it's unshielded side and it's morale. With a bunch of scary units or the like they may even turn tail before they got a real beating. Agyraspidai(Pontic elite phalangites are not elite statwise they are actually quite close to the regular pezos which isn't soo bad btw) are rather tough guys, they can withstand the toughest beating and even quite some strikes on the backside, you can't just run around some nakid dudes to make them run.
Same goes for most other elite versions.

Generally tho It is highly advisable to stick to rank and file troops most of the time and just take 1-2 really elite guys with you.

It's not like in RTW where you just spam Urban cohorts.



In the case of 1, I say keep the units to model history accurately, but put a warning at the top of the unit card that says this unit is overpriced and cost-inefficient. This keeps the player from having to spend months play testing units to find out which ones he should use because the developer is hiding information. In case of 2, I say adjust stats. Well IF you can afford a level the highest level barracks and can afford training an army of elites then It's not like you're in real trouble. Afterall, you don't have to pay their upkeep the next round :D


To model this you'd need some other mechanic, possibly soldiers sucking up more population from cities than they currently do, so that as cities are drained your alternative is to field cost-inefficient elite troops or cost-efficient generic ones ones for the same amount of population loss.do say, what size do you play on? I(and many others here) play on huge, and YES 240 men more or less make a difference in cities with 2000 inhabitants.



What was the unit composition you were hit with? What were the results? well let's see, I think it was
Me:
FM
4 Iberian light cav
2 Iberian militia
2 lybian spearmen
2 Poeni militia
1 Libophonecian medium inf

Army 1:
"FM" Numidian nobles
6 Numidian cav

army 2:
"FM" Numidian nobles
1 numidian nobles
2 numidian cav
3 n. Archers
3 n. skirmishers
3 Hellenic levy spearmen

I think the AI troops were somewhat experienced but generally most units had 1 xp some of his 3.

It was rather close as most of the time all troops were exhausted and I had to use the Generals ability quite often to get back my line troops. I think in the end I lost 60 % of my army but killed all enemies(and thus could take K..., ah you know) But quite some fun.

so you have yet to list your setting :P

[Nightmare]

Well as I read it it reffers to Archers and skirms switching to (crappy)melee weapons when engaged which makes it easier for cavalry to beat them in prolonged melee as Arrow>Knife in RTW. maybe it also means that lancers change to swords...

Yes, it means that too.


do say, what size do you play on? I(and many others here) play on huge, and YES 240 men more or less make a difference in cities with 2000 inhabitants.

Actually, I play on 2nd setting from the bottom or smallest (might be normal, not sure).

[Principe Alessandro]

Well you are playing on normal unit size mode, try huge; it is an entirely different matter because every units cost you a lot of manpower and knowing how much costs to fully develop a town it isn't very nice to lose many soldiers in the battlefield.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Well you are playing on normal unit size mode, try huge; it is an entirely different matter because every units cost you a lot of manpower and knowing how much costs to fully develop a town it isn't very nice to lose many soldiers in the battlefield.

I second that, if your PC is up to the task. Very worthwhile to have more men on the battlefield, they are more realistic since larger units are harder to maneuver, and the gaps between units are smaller and harder to exploit.

With huge unit size, I often do the historical thing and disband my cheap levy units in peacetime when I don't need them, thus putting manpower back into the towns and into wealth creation. Elites become my small standing army, enough to handle local rebellions without levy assistance.

I rely very heavily on mercenaries too to bulk out my armies, since although they are expensive, they don't reduce my town population, which on huge unit size is important.

[Ludens]

We are equivocating on the meaning of "balance" here. I agree with you. To me, it's "balanced" if the romans in the game represent the romans in reality.

The EB team does try. That said, the player has it considerably easier than a Roman general would have had. We have better overview and control, and our opponent is not that smart. In reality, there was a real chance that a general's best laid plans would go awry. Under such situations, a moderate increase in fighting capacity at a critical position is worth a lot. So even if unit prices are "historical" (as far as that is possible), EB still isn't a perfect simulation.

[Ca Putt]

Yes, it means that too. well they don't change to swords after the charge so.... TEST IT!!!


so you have yet to list your setting :P

Indeed, try huge(or at least large) phalangites are just so hideously silly on smaller settings. It's closer to history: there were aproximately 50.000 romans soldiers fighting for rome, with normal unit size you will have problems to field armies of more than 1000 soldiers on huge this increaces to 4000 which may still be less than a tenth of that number but atleast you get close to the battle of thge Ice :D .
And in the end it's also more fun to watch two armies of several thousand men clashing than watching some hundred guys running around and killing each other.^^

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The EB team does try. That said, the player has it considerably easier than a Roman general would have had. We have better overview and control, and our opponent is not that smart. In reality, there was a real chance that a general's best laid plans would go awry. Under such situations, a moderate increase in fighting capacity at a critical position is worth a lot. So even if unit prices are "historical" (as far as that is possible), EB still isn't a perfect simulation.

No, EB isn't a perfect simulation due to the serious limitations of the AI. But the EB team has done a good job IMO, and it's possible to 'mod the mod' even further to make it exactly how you want it.

For example, I wanted the Romans to have an advantage in autocalc battles, because I think the only faction that should be able to beat Rome should be the faction the human player is controlling - not an AI-controlled faction. So I've modded my game files to give Roman legionary units an extra secondary hitpoint, and that helps the Roman AI faction stand up a bit better to the powerful Lusotann and Carthaginian AI factions in autocalc battles. Increasing the secondary hitpoints doesn't affect how the Roman units perform in manual battles, only in autocalc battles.

[athanaric]

For example, I wanted the Romans to have an advantage in autocalc battles, because I think the only faction that should be able to beat Rome should be the faction the human player is controlling - not an AI-controlled faction. So I've modded my game files to give Roman legionary units an extra secondary hitpoint, and that helps the Roman AI faction stand up a bit better to the powerful Lusotann and Carthaginian AI factions in autocalc battles. Increasing the secondary hitpoints doesn't affect how the Roman units perform in manual battles, only in autocalc battles.
That's not very historical though. They were beaten in battle quite a few times, even at the height of their power.

[Nightmare]

Ah, huge sizes is recommended eh? I'm running this on a notebook which isn't so powerful (in fact, the cursor on the campaign map lags - don't know what to do about that) so it will probably have to be small sizes until I upgrade.

At any rate, I look forward to more discussions here!

[Shadowwalker]

Ah, huge sizes is recommended eh?

I'm not sure if huge size is really recommended by the team - I play on normal size though although my computer could handle huge (except in fast forward mode which becomes a series of pictures then ...).
In my experience normal unit size and BI.exe causes much better AI behaviour in battles.
I am constantly flanked for example, something that rarely happened when I played on huge.
A unit of Iberi Lanceari crashing into the right flank of your first battle line (polybian romans, therefore Hastati) just because your own cavalry wasn't able to withstand them is terrifying.
And turns Iberia into the highly dangerous and deadly battlefield it historically was for the romans.
I think I lost about 3 full stacks (= 6 legions) there by now while on huge settings the factions there (both Karth-Hadast and Lusotannan) where more or less a cakewalk because the AI apparently wasn't able to handle it's own units appropriatly.

The fact that I try to use historical armies (as good as possible with the given limitations, that is) instead of Principes/Triarii/Pedites E./Equites E. fullstacks adds a lot to the difficulty too of course, but the army size has had significant impact on the performance of the AI.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

That's not very historical though. They were beaten in battle quite a few times, even at the height of their power.

Yes, but historically the Romans won wars because they were VERY good at replacing each defeated army with a new one, very quickly. The Roman AI isn't very good in EB - it doesn't spam legionaries as fast as it should. Hence why when the human player doesn't intervene, the Roman AI nearly always gets crushed by the Lusotann and Carthaginian AI.

[Ca Putt]

But it does often enough gain the upper hand and in 272 bc the supermacy of rome was long from carved in stone. You could argue Pahlava need a little boost on the strat map but this is equally silly. The ability to spam units over and over again is better coverd(not represented as that would mean the purpose of the feature would be to represent this) by the extremely low cost of roman troops compared to... ALL OTHERS afterall the romans are the first that start spamming elites. With their economy and their effective troops it's wonderous that you seem so experience a lot of weak roman republics. In my games they usually become quite powerfull, well until I burn down their cities and kill all of them. The Lusos are alarmingly dangerous tho, I agree that a campaign map nerf for them is prudent.


Ah, huge sizes is recommended eh? nah they did not suggest anything, It's just the general gusto towards large armies and thus a set of opinions based on armies that actually drain the workforce of your cities.

[moonburn]

and by draining gives you another sub game to play with wich is population management where you find yourself recruiting the cheapest units around to send them to another city and disband them or where you find yourself choosing to hire mercenaries and trying to figure out what´s a leucos epos for when you´re a greek or whats the use of a phallanx if you´r a keltoi just because you prefer to spend 6.000 mnai instead of 1 single more turn to get the city to upgrade

one of my favourites is to actually have 2 cheap levy´s as garrison and when a city hits the almsot there bar i disband one of those units buy the upgrade and rehire that unit

as for the numinidoi if they where so useless as you say they wouldn´t have beaten the roman cavalry time and time again to return and crush the roman back at cannae or the romans would have never have used them to cut down the throkitai hoplitai at korinthos

there´s a diference beteween the valour of men and the valour of equipment just check most of the best keltik units they only have 1 sword and 1 shield and thats all they need (crap the gaesatae are so damm poor they can´t even afford a pair of socks ... ) or check the german units clubman are amazing against armoured units so not the teams fault you pick a bunch of sissi´s straped to horses with feathered healmets and crazy coloured cloaks and expect them to win a war for you

combined arms or prepared to be rapped even the stupid ai wins

not ditching on the sissi´s who are to cowardly to fight on foot like real men but those guys can win batles for you aslong as you use them properly to suport the real men those doing the upclose and personal brutal bussiness of the day

[Nightmare]

as for the numinidoi if they where so useless as you say they wouldn´t have beaten the roman cavalry time and time again to return and crush the roman back at cannae or the romans would have never have used them to cut down the throkitai hoplitai at korinthos

Never said they were useless. But they weren't supermen. Period. Paragraph. Tier 1 dudes standing there in robes did not and could not stand up to elite heavy cavalry charges. If they were historically the supermen you and others claim, the EB design team would have given them the stats of supermen. They didn't. They gave them the stats of tier 1 dudes standing there in robes. What got me was an engine bug, not some secret buff the EB design team stuck in there to "properly represent supermen Numidians."

As for the Romans vs. Numidians, I haven't read up on that history. But it's quite easy to think about it logically. The Romans most certainly weren't beaten with dudes standing there in loincloths and sandals (or if they were, there was certainly some other factors at work). I'd say one or more of the following apply: 1) The Romans were beaten by some other unit, not light skirmishers in loin cloths and sandals, 2) the romans were severely outnumbered, 3) the romans were cutoff from supplies, 4) the romans were ambushed, 5) the romans did something dumb like get stranded in the desert wearing heavy armor, didn't have water for a few days, etc. then got attacked by Numidians.


there´s a diference beteween the valour of men and the valour of equipment just check most of the best keltik units they only have 1 sword and 1 shield and thats all they need

I had valorious men and valorious equipment. The Numidians had neither. Who should win?

If the Numidians are supermen, then make the stats properly reflect it. As it stands, the stats don't reflect it, which means something else got me (a bug), no?


combined arms or prepared to be rapped even the stupid ai wins

I hear this line of BS time and time again on strategy forums. It's wrong. Often, combined arms works just fine. But it's not the only approach, it's not always the best approach, and it's not the natural law that some think it is. Bottom line, you go straight light archer I should be able to mow you down with straight heavy cavalry, not some combined force.

I've won countless battles with non-combined arms forces playing EB. There's a bug others have spoken about, and a general glitch with javelin-armed troops. Usually, javelin-armed troops suck no matter the circumstance. Occasionally, they are super-strong. Just the other day, for instance, I was playing my Saka campaign. My elite heavily-armored cataphract got murdered by some light javelin-throwing horsemen, and in a split second too. Sure, I expect a legion of posters here explaining to me that this is how it's supposed to work, that light javelin-throwing horsemen were quite the supermen back in the day, blah blah. Me? I think it was a glitch.

The other day I also had a single, lone enemy general on a horse (not a unit of horses, a single guy on a horse) murder a couple hundred of my troops, a ton of elephants, and finally my general. All my troops were surrounding him so that you couldn't even see him. For 30 minutes he fought as elephants were stomping on him, swordsmen were hacking away at him, and spears and phalanxes were sticking him. For 30 minutes my troops continued to drop before I finally got the message that my general had been killed, and the enemy general was still fighting. My solution? Stop the battle, reload the auto-save, then "auto_win attacker" the engagement. Cheating? No- righting a wrong that should never ever occur, no matter the circumstance. But I'll be sure to check back here to read the legion of posts telling me why this should have happened, LOL.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Invincible enemy generals is a problem in EB. Positive traits in the script can give enemy generals more hitpoints, so it becomes near-impossible to kill them. The Parthian and Macedonian generals can become almost godlike, to the point that you just have to avoid contact with them or be satisfied with defeating their army and then letting the general run away.

[Lazy O]

Now you think Romans were supermen :laugh4: .

But really dude, this game is bugged, you should realize it by now.

[Ca Putt]

As for the Romans vs. Numidians,not quite, the numidiansreally used these lightlyunarmored(in EB 0 armor compared to 1 for skirms) cavalrymen against the romans, and later the romans used these unarmored cavalrymen themselves, the romans were outnumbered(somewhat 2:1) at Cannae and the Roman cavalry used somewhat heavy equipment. BUT the Romans simply sucked at riding. They Did not spent their lives on horses, In a infantry battle they would have beaten the numidians 1 on 1 but they had a severe disadvantage in the Human Resources Department when It came to cavalry.

The lesson of every proper RTS game IS to use combined forces, If you can easily win with just one unit the Game is not balanced. period.

On javelin horsemen: they actually are not supermen, they ARE quite Crappy they get countered from nearly all units(as they only have few javelins they don't counter heavy infantry) but they DO counter: Elephants and Cataphracts and are quite versetile. Many of them(like the Dahae skirmishers you most probably faced) actually carry AP weapons - do significant damage to cataphracts, plus they tire slower than cataphracts(for obvious reasons) and thus get to fight them when they are fresh but the cantanks are exhausted. You got countered there bro.

And yeah the thing with the General sucks I hate it to see those roman generals dodgeing my Cataphracts, spearmen and axemen who surrounded his unit and killed ALL his BGs and he gets away :wall: but that's to counter the AI stupidity which would otherwise chare the poor fellows into your Pike formations and well....


AND FOR TANITS SAKE POST YOUR ARMY SETUP :D

[antisocialmunky]

Roman cavalry wasn't really bad tho.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Roman cavalry wasn't really bad tho.

Roman cavalry was bad. Italic cavalry wasn't bad. Important distinction. Depending on the battle or time-frame, a lot of "Roman" cavalry would have been supplied by more equine friendly Italic peoples.

[athanaric]

Invincible enemy generals is a problem in EB. Positive traits in the script can give enemy generals more hitpoints, so it becomes near-impossible to kill them. The Parthian and Macedonian generals can become almost godlike, to the point that you just have to avoid contact with them or be satisfied with defeating their army and then letting the general run away.
Or targeting his bodyguard unit with arrow projectors right from the start of the battle. There's a fair chance he'll be one of the first casualties. Generally, I'd recommend using javelins or other "heavy duty" projectiles to deal with this kind of annoying situation.



On javelin horsemen: they actually are not supermen, they ARE quite Crappy they get countered from nearly all units(as they only have few javelins they don't counter heavy infantry) but they DO counter: Elephants and Cataphracts and are quite versetile. Many of them(like the Dahae skirmishers you most probably faced) actually carry AP weapons - do significant damage to cataphracts, plus they tire slower than cataphracts(for obvious reasons) and thus get to fight them when they are fresh but the cantanks are exhausted. You got countered there bro.Dahae (and Arachosian and Cantabrian) mounted skirmishers are also different in that they carry an ungodly amount of javelins (fourteen of them per individual) and thus can keep up quite a barrage. They'll lose in a "fair" fight one on one against cataphracts though. It's better to have them as a support unit to a heavy infantry or cavalry unit that ties up the enemy cataphracts in the first place, and then send the Dahae to come from behind. Or use at least two units of Dahae Skirmishers to zerg rush the cataphract unit. Also works with Arab light cavalry or Curepos, although those units rely more on getting a proper charge done as opposed to swinging axes in melee.


@Nightmare: These were probably the ones giving you headaches (read the stats, not the unit description, which is outdated concerning the melee weapon):
3310
http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=steppe%20skirmisher%20cavalry%20daha%20rog%20baexdzhyn%20aefsad&text=&ownership=any&class=any&category=any

[Shadowwalker]

@Nightmare: These were probably the ones giving you headaches (read the stats, not the unit description, which is outdated concerning the melee weapon):


If I'm not completely mistaken we are still talking about numidian cavalry here. ;-)

[athanaric]

If I'm not completely mistaken we are still talking about numidian cavalry here. ;-)
No no, he said something about a Saka campaign in that particular post.

[Ca Putt]

Roman cavalry was about as bad as nobles with good equipment on horses would get. Italic cavalry had it's upsides Tarentines come to mind, I've heard other more italic tribes actually had quite capable cavalrymen(represented by EquEx) comparable to the Tessalians in Greece. There is a reason the Italic allies supplied the most cavalry, there is a reason the Roman("factional") army mostly consisted of swordsmen, who are a good answer to spearmen but a bad one to cavalry.


Or targeting his bodyguard unit with arrow projectors right from the start of the battle. There's a fair chance he'll be one of the first casualties. Generally, I'd recommend using javelins or other "heavy duty" projectiles to deal with this kind of annoying situation.yeah that works most of the time I often turn off the autofire of one of my slingers/archers/mountedskirms for 1-2 salvos to get a fair chance of killing that bugger.


Dahae (and Arachosian and Cantabrian) mounted skirmishers are also different in that they carry an ungodly amount of javelins (fourteen of them per individual) and thus can keep up quite a barrage. They'll lose in a "fair" fight one on one against cataphracts though. It's better to have them as a support unit to a heavy infantry or cavalry unit that ties up the enemy cataphracts in the first place, and then send the Dahae to come from behind. Or use at least two units of Dahae Skirmishers to zerg rush the cataphract unit. Also works with Arab light cavalry or Curepos, although those units rely more on getting a proper charge done as opposed to swinging axes in melee. Ah yes, I think I overlooked that as I mostly used Hippakontistai(who really are quite crappy yet immensly usefull) in the past. I remember attacking units of spearmen with them killing a sizable amount, retreating and repeating the procedure.
But I think it still stands that eventho not immensly stong units they are amung the most usefull units when used correctly.
I't usually these guys(the dahae) that kill enemy catas, unless you managed to catch them with spear/axe men that is. They will die when the Catas manage to charge and are still fresh or warmed up but with support exaution or momentum on their side the Dahae counter the Big boys.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

I think, barring arguments about the quality of various troops, there is an engine issue here, as you cannot charge skirmishing troops effectively unless they are already engaged - they run, and the engine cannot deal with it, so your charging horsemen do not contact, so you lose the charge which is the main advantage of heavy cavalry. In reality, the HC would run down the skirmishers and run them through.

But I agree with other posters - you shouldn't field an all HC army and expect to win (although tbh, HC are still vastly overpowered when used intelligently with infantry - but that's unfortunately a mechanic of being able to use hammer and anvil tactics with impunity and the AI failing to stop you).

[Nightmare]

But I agree with other posters - you shouldn't field an all HC army and expect to win

You have to qualify the statement more, otherwise it's meaningless because it comes off as a blanket statement.

Shouldn't field an all HC army against heavy spearmen or phalanx and expect to win? I agree.

Shouldn't field an all HC army against light archers or light skirmishers and expect to win? I disagree.

[Arjos]

Shouldn't field an all HC army against light archers or light skirmishers and expect to win? I disagree.

Oh you'd make a fine reenactor for Agincourt ^^

[antisocialmunky]

Or you can glitch out the charge AI by skirmishing infinitely.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

You have to qualify the statement more, otherwise it's meaningless because it comes off as a blanket statement.

Shouldn't field an all HC army against heavy spearmen or phalanx and expect to win? I agree.

Shouldn't field an all HC army against light archers or light skirmishers and expect to win? I disagree.

Well maybe, although the whole point of this thread is that a load of numidian skirmishers kicked the man's HC arses. Even if you won, you would still likely lose an awful lot of very expensive elite cavalry.

I think if everyone qualified every statement they made, our posts may get a bit long and boring :)

[Nightmare]

Well maybe, although the whole point of this thread is that a load of numidian skirmishers kicked the man's HC arses. Even if you won, you would still likely lose an awful lot of very expensive elite cavalry.

Yes, but the point was, I didn't think I should have lost them.

The point is whether or not dudes in robes and sandals holding javelins and standing in loose formation should murder expensive elite cavalry. Some say yes. I say no.

[Arjos]

The point is whether or not dudes in robes and sandals holding javelins and standing in loose formation should murder expensive elite cavalry. Some say yes. I say no.

From Lechaeum to Magnesia (two coming to my mind in ancient times) unsupported heavy troops, whether infantry or cavalry, got duly annihilated by the fast moving light counterparts...

[Ca Putt]

Custer comes to mind^^



The point is whether or not dudes in robes and sandals holding javelins and standing in loose formation should murder expensive elite cavalry. Some say yes. I say no. everyone here already pointed out that it's mainly a engine bug and that in this particular engagement the guys in towels also had pointed anti-cav sticks and anti-armor clubs and the environment on their side.
Fight against Freed slaves or greek levy troops and you know the real riff-raff units.

[Nightmare]

everyone here already pointed out that it's mainly a engine bug and that in this particular engagement the guys in towels also had pointed anti-cav sticks and anti-armor clubs and the environment on their side.

Yup I know. I'm just responding to people's comments. I agree it's probably an engine bug vs. imbalanced/incorrect stats... or at least I hope it is.

[Ca Putt]

Well Spears are somewhat usefull against cavalry and the numidians used spears. The numidians also used clubs and in RTW this means Armor piercing - armor*0.5 the rest of the stats also seem realistic, atleast when you read their discription ;)

[moonburn]

i hope you do not include haploi in the riff raffs aslong as they´re in guard mode they will last and last and last and last one of the best units for you to tie up other units while your koinon general goes around with akontistai and sphonedai flanking and beating up dudes to cause a general rout (best cost effective unit in the game if you use them well imho)

as for roman cavalry it´s the romans own fault they had a wierd competition where they bragged on how many public horses their entire family had lost in combat wich where horses being payed by the average joe so if they had to use their own horses they probably would have been better

[Nightmare]

Not sure which units are haploi? Can you describe them? Are they Numidian?

[Lazy O]

They are hoplites with a tunic, cheap large shield and a spear.

[Ca Putt]

Tho facing them is significantly different from facing Numidians, as your reaction will not be "WTF why did they Kill all my dudes!?!?!?" but "WTF why are they not dead yet!?!?!?" they are really tough in their formation and can withstand quite some pressure(unless this pressure is applied by large naked Gauls with swords) but as soon as they do something else than holding a line/point You really wish you had bought Proper Hoplitai instead^^

Tbh when I first faced them without having them myself with the Sweboz(the romans had a few of them) I made them a priority target for my archers, for once because they are lightly armored and close packed thus the ideal thing for archers to shoot at from behind(and they have low morale are thus vunerable to burning arrows) but I also was more "afraid" of them then Triarii or Pedexes, I suppose mainly because it's just sooo much fun too kill Superduper units like Triarii and Pedexes with Sweboz/Chatti clubmen :D

[athanaric]

Not sure which units are haploi? Can you describe them? Are they Numidian?
They're identical to Poeni citizen militia in terms of stats (and use the same model IIRC). What makes them more popular is that they can be recruited in any province that has some Greek influence, and by almost all factions. They make great garrison and/or auxiliary troops for non-Greek factions such as Saka or SPQR.

[Nightmare]

They're identical to Poeni citizen militia in terms of stats (and use the same model IIRC). What makes them more popular is that they can be recruited in any province that has some Greek influence, and by almost all factions. They make great garrison and/or auxiliary troops for non-Greek factions such as Saka or SPQR.

Ah, I didn't fight them. I fought Numidian dudes in sandals and light clothing with no armor, throwing sticks.

At any rate, being a royal member of the Kart-Hadasti, I can tell you that we are not so impressed by our Poeni citizen militia for garrison duty. Sure, they can hold a garrison, but they are too expensive for this task. We generally like to hire cheap greek skirmishers or the like.

[Ca Putt]

true they are actually mainly usefull for garrison duties if you expect that settlement to be attacked. Which probably is what athanaric meant, with KH I generally have one of these and a ranged unit(preferably archers most of the time Skirmishers) in every border town.

[antisocialmunky]

Militia hoplites are the best heavy infantry levy in the game.

[Lazy O]

Proven time and time again . When you need a line costing 900 denarii each Lugoae is your best bet :D , seriously those guys are awesome.

[Ca Putt]

apart from the AoR:
Gaisofulxo Frijod > Lugoae

And Haploi may be sweet when holding a line but when attacking GFs are better.

[antisocialmunky]

Pelt them to death with stones.

[Principe Alessandro]

Shouldn't field an all HC army against light archers or light skirmishers and expect to win? I disagree.
Well if those light archers or skirmishers has spears and AP clubs as secondary weapons instead of simple knifes maybe it is really worth to try another tactic instead of the heavy cavalry frontal charge.

[Sylon]

Ah, I didn't fight them. I fought Numidian dudes in sandals and light clothing with no armor, throwing sticks.

At any rate, being a royal member of the Kart-Hadasti, I can tell you that we are not so impressed by our Poeni citizen militia for garrison duty. Sure, they can hold a garrison, but they are too expensive for this task. We generally like to hire cheap greek skirmishers or the like.

Looking it up in the recruitment viewer, it seems Poeni Citizen Militia, despite having near-identical stats to Levy Hoplites, cost 100 mnai per turn more in upkeep. (200 vs 304). Hoplitai Haploi cost as much as Akontistai, which makes them the superior garrison troop.

[Arjos]

If a plague asks you for a coin, give it two and make it go away

Real Karthadastim don't go cheap :P