Spears, pikes and rank bonuses

[frogbeastegg]

Do spear and pike units still get the old MTW rank bonus? I have formed up units of both plain spearmen and phalanx using pike units and put them on guard, then let them receive a charge and fight it out in very good formation. I noticed that only phalanx units have more than the first rank fighting, they get the first two stabbing away. Unless there is a hidden bonus with no animation bulk and good formation no longer provides much of a bonus to spear and pike types. That means the only times more than three ranks will be useful is when taking a damaging charge, such as a cavalry charge. Well, ok four ranks is handy if you anticipate a lot of casualties and don't want to lose unit frontage too quickly.

The results were rather disappointing; I was expecting the first two ranks of spear units and the first three of pike phalanx units to fight. Still, the phalanx is a real meat grinder when in good order and attacked from the front. The piles of dead testing victims were quite large, and in a neat line too :gring:

[SirGrotius]

i was wondering about this too. in particular, should one perform a counter charge w/ spear units (e.g. triarii) when being charged? i've kept my men stationary to receive charges before, and it's the only time that i have taken significant battle loses. would putting the spear units in hold formation help? i'm not even sure they receive a bonus to cavalry?

[frogbeastegg]

Bump. Without basic information like this the beginner's guide is going to be very lacking. I can't research everything myself ...

Anyone from CA able to give a quick answer on spears, pikes and rank bonuses? Are there any? If so how do they work. Please? :looks hopeful:

Failing that can anyone prod around in the stat files, research in game by running a few custom battles or something? I've got enough to do pulling all the scattered information together without having to do a lot of research as well.
:help:

[Indylavi]

I've found that pike men seem to do better in bigger ranks. They still do a lot of damage even if only lined 2 deep. But if you face a strong charge your line will buckle. If you line them in groups of 4 almost nothing gets passed.

[Red Harvest]

I've been playing Brutii today on "very hard/very hard" to see if the Macedonians could put up a decent fight. Unfortunately, they can't. Their light cav did give me some trouble when I was outnumbered 2:1 in cav, but their phalanx units have been easily smashed. Equites are very effective at turning them to rout. I have been using some merc hoplites though to support my archer units when enemy cav charges. On either side (human or AI) I am often seeing heavy and light cav jumping over and into the phalanx *from frontal charges.* This disorders the phalanx and it will often rout as a result. This usually occurs in sieges. As with Carthage, I'm resorting to cav armies with a ranged unit and couple of infantry.

Anything, and I mean anything will completely disrupt a phalanx. It is the only unit moving at less than warp 5 and it gets disordered if someone farts within 100 yards of it. Once disordered or flanked it crumbles rapidly. And those cretan archers will shred most phalanx in just a few volleys at extreme range. (It is entertaining, but not historical.)

Some of what I think is needed to fix phalanx and spears is to give them stronger morale and make their formations tougher to break from the front (and slower to kill from side and rear.) The formation should be difficult to bust, right now it is fragile. Yes, if it busts it should get shredded. But right now it is made of glass... Having such a formation meant you were densely packed and supporting one another, that should not be fragile.

[econ21]

Going a little off-topic, but should a phalanx really be so slow? I mean, it is plausible if a bunch of blokes off the street were trying to do it, but I am sure I've read that Alexander and later the medieval Swiss used to attack at the run with the phalanx. Intuitively, one of those things rushing at you would be formiddable - one crawling at the rate we see in the game would be much less so.

A speed increase would help reduce the fragility of the phalanx, as it would be a little harder to flank. (Likewise toning down the run speed of other units - would-be flankers would help).

[Gith]

Just going off of my memory, what I read in "The Western Way of War" leads me to believe they did move slowly...albeit maybe not as slow as in RTW. Mostly because the Greeks, most notably the Spartans, felt it was worth the few extra casualties from ranged weapons as long as the formation held.

I'd like to see the phalanx formations not take as much damage from ranged attacks as they do. With a hoplon, helm, breastplate, and greaves, an armoured hoplite is going to be VERY hard to kill from point blank with an arrow. A javelin is a different story, but hearing of Cretan archers slaughtering a phalanx is very disappointing.

[Morindin]

. Once disordered or flanked it crumbles rapidly.

As it should do.


and slower to kill from side and rear

Absolutely not. One small Roman unit that broke off and hit the Macedonian rear in the battle of Cynoscephalae routed the entire Macedonian line.

Besides, I have no idea what you're talking about, I had a unit of Poeni infantry completely surrounded by Principes and man it took a while for them to die, over 10 minutes. Infact it got pretty boring after a while. The problem isnt they're easy to kill, the problem is 90% of the AI generals suck and their units have extremely low moral, routing quickly.
Once they rout that's it, and as you can see from the battle of Cynoscephalae, that isnt exactly unrealsitic either.



And those cretan archers will shred most phalanx in just a few volleys at extreme range. (It is entertaining, but not historical.)

Elite archers ripping up a slow moving unit of Phalanx's. Gee, how odd. I've had soooo much experiance with this, and usually the AI disrupts its line so you end up with 4 units of archers firing at one unit of Hoplites, which is no surprize.
But in a 1v1 situation one volly of arrows will kill 1-4 of them at best.
I've had one unit of Archer Auxulia pretty much waste all its ammo on one unit of Poeni Infantry (just sitting there mind you) and only killing about 10% of them - but when you gang up 4 units of elite archers onto one unit of hoplites though, literally peppering them with arrows, what do you expect?

[Red Harvest]

Going a little off-topic, but should a phalanx really be so slow? I mean, it is plausible if a bunch of blokes off the street were trying to do it, but I am sure I've read that Alexander and later the medieval Swiss used to attack at the run with the phalanx. Intuitively, one of those things rushing at you would be formiddable - one crawling at the rate we see in the game would be much less so.

A speed increase would help reduce the fragility of the phalanx, as it would be a little harder to flank. (Likewise toning down the run speed of other units - would-be flankers would help).

That's what I've read too. They are carrying too much gear to be fast but they should be able to run up and switch formation rapidly. Right now, the only way to move them effectively is to switch out of phalanx. But somehow, enemy infantry and cav units can cover the ground faster than they can get back in formation. ~:confused: They were historically slow to turn, and that is what was exploited by the Roman system. I suspect the phalanx units should be about twice as wide as they are, but to do that would take a lot of men per unit. Of course, if the formation were not so easy to disorder they would be a lot tougher as well.

[Morindin]

Just going off of my memory, what I read in "The Western Way of War" leads me to believe they did move slowly...albeit maybe not as slow as in RTW. Mostly because the Greeks, most notably the Spartans, felt it was worth the few extra casualties from ranged weapons as long as the formation held.

I'd like to see the phalanx formations not take as much damage from ranged attacks as they do. With a hoplon, helm, breastplate, and greaves, an armoured hoplite is going to be VERY hard to kill from point blank with an arrow. A javelin is a different story, but hearing of Cretan archers slaughtering a phalanx is very disappointing.

They dont slaughter them, unless you have many cretin archers (which are very elite in their own right) ganging up on a small number of Hoplites, usually while the archers defending and the hoplites labouring up a hill, im sure you get the point.
They do take one hell of a pounding from arrows before routing, but there is only so much even the most armoured unit can take.

If the AI advanced its entire line as one this would not happen often, as even one unit of Cretin archers would be hard pressed to whittle down an armoured hoplite unit before reaching your lines.

[Armchair Athlete]

I agree that at the moment Phalanx units are too easily disrupted from the front, especially from cavalry charges. Cavalry should REALLY get shredded when attacking a phalanx head on, or more of the unit (like at least half) should stop immediately before the wall of spears and throw their riders off. At the moment a frontal charge by cav versus phalanx is much too effective, and often comes close to winning (the phalanx usually manages to beat them off, but their formation is disrupted and the next unit that comes along kills it).

[Indylavi]

I've had cavalry jump the front of my phalanx but have yet to see it fold from a frontal assault from the AI. I have seen and made AI fold from the front. Usually for me they jump the front and the back 2 lines cut them down and then fall back into place. They do break very easily from the side or back. I broke a Greek line as soon as my 2nd man hit it from the side. I usually never use phalanx except as somebody else said to support and protect archers or other units. They are just too slow to move into position

[Red Harvest]

Morindin,

Make up all the excuses you like. From what I've read, at Cynocephalae, 20 maniples (probably triarii) were sent to support the failing wing and broke Philip's attack because they hit his units in the rear. That is hardly a "handful." Or is ~4,000 men a handful? It was a rocky ridge not well suited for phalanx work but Philip was able to push back one wing of the Roman army. Things fell apart because his other wing didn't reach position in time and were disordered. The phalanx wing that was slaughtered had charged down the ridge to crush the romans on that side to buy time for the other wing. It is an example of the triarii doing what they were intended, saving the day. They were fresh and attacked a phalanx wing that had just been in hard fighting. It wasn't one unit flanking one other and causing a group rout. Kind of bursts that bubble doesn't it?

They shouldn't rout immediately. Continue to call the sky "pink", whatever, but the kill and rout rates don't make sense. Armed, armoured and trained men will fight a lot longer than a few seconds without dying. Naked men with blindfolds on would last longer. In real life, they would see they were in trouble, and might not be able to do much about it, but they wouldn't rout immediately, particularly the guys on the front who realize they need to hold as long as they can hoping that help can arrive, because they won't be able to get away even if they run. Also, the guys on the opposite side won't know what has happened for awhile... Historically, these units did not take many casualties at all, UNTIL they routed. That is the nature of a defensive formation.

I carry around a SINGLE cretian archer unit to mow down armoured hoplites at extreme range. Typically it will cut two or three units to 1/3rd of their original number...at max range if they stand there. If they attack I get to pick one unit apart and usually he is so depleted that he routs without making contact. I've got one unit of 41 men left that regulary wipes out 3 units per battle. The elite missile units are way overpowered. I wouldn't know about the non-elite archer units, I don't see them on the field much in SP. The "elites" are so common as to not be elite. And as always the infantry are on the short end of the stick, particularly the slowest.

Now why is it that the Persians didn't have more luck with their hordes of archers vs. those hoplites? The Greeks were able to accept the small amount of casualties they took from ranged units--and they did not appear to rate the ranged units very highly.

[Morindin]

Morindin,

Make up all the excuses you like. From what I've read, at Cynocephalae, 20 maniples (probably triarii) were sent to support the failing wing and broke Philip's attack because they hit his units in the rear. That is hardly a "handful." Or is ~4,000 men a handful? It was a rocky ridge not well suited for phalanx work but Philip was able to push back one wing of the Roman army. Things fell apart because his other wing didn't reach position in time and were disordered. The phalanx wing that was slaughtered had charged down the ridge to crush the romans on that side to buy time for the other wing. It is an example of the triarii doing what they were intended, saving the day. They were fresh and attacked a phalanx wing that had just been in hard fighting. It wasn't one unit flanking one other and causing a group rout. Kind of bursts that bubble doesn't it?

I know what happened in this battle. There was also no charging down or slaughtering of the disorganised Macedonian wing. The Romans actually WAITED for them to appear at the bottom of the hill, and seeing them not there at all still waited.
When things started to go wrong, Flaminius then ordered the waiting Roman wing up and met the disorganised Macedonian wing at the top of the hill.

That wing the Romans began to push the Macedonians back - they were only disorganised THERE. This then "fresh" wing as you call it, which I SERIOUSLY doubt was "fresh". A single military tribune on the Roman right now acted on his own. He broke away with a force of 20 maniples and swung them around into the rear of the Macedonian heavy infantry in the centre.
This decisive action caused chaos among the Macedonians. Their battle order fell apart, many fled, others simply surrendered.

Now you're proposing that we take away all that an make phalanxs stronger on all sides, not only does that fly in the face of history it would fly in the face of game balance too.



They shouldn't rout immediately. Continue to call the sky "pink", whatever, but the kill and rout rates don't make sense. Armed, armoured and trained men will fight a lot longer than a few seconds without dying. Naked men with blindfolds on would last longer. In real life, they would see they were in trouble, and might not be able to do much about it, but they wouldn't rout immediately, particularly the guys on the front who realize they need to hold as long as they can hoping that help can arrive, because they won't be able to get away even if they run. Also, the guys on the opposite side won't know what has happened for awhile... Historically, these units did not take many casualties at all, UNTIL they routed. That is the nature of a defensive formation.

Your observations of the game are about as scewered as your observations of history. I had a proper battle last night against a Human opponent. I used a Pre-Marius army and they used an early Carthage army. Using proper tactics and supporting lines we had a 30 minute melee between a very small (historically) number of units. The Roman side could have gone on for a lot longer against a more balanced force, but the carthagian infantry is much weaker.
I might add that not only did the Poeni Infantry hold its own against Triarii and Principes, even after it got COMPLETELY surrounded it still put up one hell of a fight until down to around 1/3 its original size.
It actually got pretty boring after a while, with a replay (provided its in sync) as evidence.
The problem isnt in the speed, its with the AI doing a crappy job of protectings its flanks. When a unit gets flanked, it panics. The less experiance the unit has the quicker this happens. There have been heaps of battles in history where rag tag green armies have routed even before the battle has been engaged.



I carry around a SINGLE cretian archer unit to mow down armoured hoplites at extreme range. Typically it will cut two or three units to 1/3rd of their original number...at max range if they stand there. If they attack I get to pick one unit apart and usually he is so depleted that he routs without making contact. I've got one unit of 41 men left that regulary wipes out 3 units per battle. The elite missile units are way overpowered. I wouldn't know about the non-elite archer units, I don't see them on the field much in SP. The "elites" are so common as to not be elite. And as always the infantry are on the short end of the stick, particularly the slowest.


Of course the infantry are in on the short end of the stick, and its more to do with YOU having archers and the enemy having a bunch of slow moving infantry. Its called a match-up.
Spears beat Cavalry beats Swords. Ranged beats NON ranged at range, and loses in melee. That's how the whole system works.
The matchup of an archer is cavalry, if archers mowed down cavalry as opposed to the SLOWEST INFANTRY UNIT IN THE GAME then yeah, it would be unbalanced.
So first of all cavalry is overpowered against their matchup, now archers are overpowered against theirs. What's next?
You know what? One unit of velites can usually rout an enemy unit of Hoplites too. That must mean velites are overpowered!

I regulary use FOUR units of archers in my army, including mercenary cretian archers. Ive wiped out the Macedonian, Carthagians, Spaniards, Britons, Gauls, Dacians, Thracians, Greeks, Pontus, Germans and there is NO WAY one group of archers is THAT powerful. NO way.
Hell it took me a good 5 minutes to whittle down one damn unit of Rebel Naked fanatics with my cretin archers once.

Bloody Pavase Arbalests are *way* more powerful in MTW than RTW archers, mowing down entire rows of enemy knights or infantry on one volly.
If you took them off skirmish mode they could withstand some knight charges and send the Knights routing, how unbalanced is that!
Longbows (especially on Huge unit sizes) usually rout enemy infantry before they even get close, and have a pretty fast ROF too.

And you know what else? The Romans initially had hoplites but abadoned them because they conducted wars on hills, using terrain to their advantage, unlike the Greeks who decided wars on open planes. The Phalanx was not flexible enough and far to unwieldy and slow-moving.
A lot of what Alexander had put together in terms of military tactics were later abadonded too, I might add. The main reason he had success was due to his effective use of cavalry and phalanx, which is something the Macedonians later threw away and the Romans exploited this.

You are always going to have uneven matchups with the AI, exploiting its weakness.
You dont seem a very big fan of multiplayer from previous discussions, so you obviously have no idea on how these units perform in a multiplayer enviroment.
They're pretty well balanced actually, if you have issues with them in your single player game, how about modding it? From the tone of the posts ive read on the multiplayer forums CA are actually getting a bit tired of rants from the users in this forum - and you know what, so I am, when there is a perfectly easy way to fix all your finniky little problems in a couple of txt files.

Infact, the time taken to make these changes to the txt file and make the game the way YOU want it is probably a lot less than the time it took you to write out these posts of yours.

[Morindin]

I've decided to put many of these claims of yours Red Harvest to the test, and support my arguments with fact.

Test 1

Are Cretin Archers overpowered vs Armoured Hoplites?

Well for the hell of it, I put them against Macedonian Phalanx, which arnt the best hoplites, quite lightly armoured. Medium Difficulty, and take note that most of us play on Hard or higher which gives the AI an advantage in morale. 0 experiance all around.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh1.jpg
And off they go.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh2.jpg
50/120 left by the time they reach the infantry line. Havnt routed altho shaken. They eventually lose the melee after a boring wait. Some of the best archers in the game vs medium armoured average hoplites. No surprizes there.

No here's the doozy. Red Harvest claims his archers rip up armoured hoplites - not one, but THREE units. So this is the real test.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh3.jpg
And off they go to their supposed doom.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh4.jpg
Well after around 10 volleys, a massive 3 dead armoured hoplites. 3. Sure you didnt mean 3 men as opposed to 3 units Red Harvest?

Cavalry vs Hoplites next.

[TheDuck]

Morindin,

Make up all the excuses you like. From what I've read, at Cynocephalae, 20 maniples (probably triarii) were sent to support the failing wing and broke Philip's attack because they hit his units in the rear. That is hardly a "handful." Or is ~4,000 men a handful? It was a rocky ridge not well suited for phalanx work but Philip was able to push back one wing of the Roman army. Things fell apart because his other wing didn't reach position in time and were disordered. The phalanx wing that was slaughtered had charged down the ridge to crush the romans on that side to buy time for the other wing. It is an example of the triarii doing what they were intended, saving the day. They were fresh and attacked a phalanx wing that had just been in hard fighting. It wasn't one unit flanking one other and causing a group rout. Kind of bursts that bubble doesn't it?

They shouldn't rout immediately. Continue to call the sky "pink", whatever, but the kill and rout rates don't make sense. Armed, armoured and trained men will fight a lot longer than a few seconds without dying. Naked men with blindfolds on would last longer. In real life, they would see they were in trouble, and might not be able to do much about it, but they wouldn't rout immediately, particularly the guys on the front who realize they need to hold as long as they can hoping that help can arrive, because they won't be able to get away even if they run. Also, the guys on the opposite side won't know what has happened for awhile... Historically, these units did not take many casualties at all, UNTIL they routed. That is the nature of a defensive formation.

I carry around a SINGLE cretian archer unit to mow down armoured hoplites at extreme range. Typically it will cut two or three units to 1/3rd of their original number...at max range if they stand there. If they attack I get to pick one unit apart and usually he is so depleted that he routs without making contact. I've got one unit of 41 men left that regulary wipes out 3 units per battle. The elite missile units are way overpowered. I wouldn't know about the non-elite archer units, I don't see them on the field much in SP. The "elites" are so common as to not be elite. And as always the infantry are on the short end of the stick, particularly the slowest.

Now why is it that the Persians didn't have more luck with their hordes of archers vs. those hoplites? The Greeks were able to accept the small amount of casualties they took from ranged units--and they did not appear to rate the ranged units very highly.

I'm not sure I agree with you. Servius Galba (leader of the 12th Legion during Julius Ceasar's campaign in Gaul in 56 BC) caused a massive rout after an Gaulish force (Seduni and Veragri) assaulted his understrength legion (short by 2 cohorts, about 960 men) in its winter fort for 6 hours, by simply doing the unexpected.

The Gauls numbered in the 30,000, Galba had a legion minus two cohorts ~5000 - 960. During the assault, when the front assaulting force of Gauls would tire, they would retire from the field to be replaced by fresh troops. After 6 exhausting hours for the legion the Prima Pila and the Military Tribune convinced Galba to sally forth from the fortification (rather than defend from the walls) to try to break the attack, and when they did the Gauls routed and ran (to be trapped against a river below the fort, and some 10,000 slaughtered before it was finished). The Gauls knew that Galba was outnumbered at least 8:1, and still they routed.

Yes, training accounts for a lot.. but reputation does too. And the Romans were known as bad-asses all over the ancient world by Julius Ceasar's time. That counts for a lot.

There are many things that I could point to in RTW that are different than my understanding of Roman Military history, but easy routes against the barbarian generals is in keeping of my understanding of many of them. I for one wish that the ability to route enemy generals was more difficult (since for me, game fun trumps historical accuracy in many many respects) ...

Btw all: lovely posts. Just the fact that there are so many that understand ancient history makes me glad to be part of this wonderful community.

[Tamur]

Froggy, re: your original question... I did about a dozen battles this evening with 2v2 phalanxes. Greek Hoplites with bonuses to bring them up to an equal 9/18 rating with Cartaginian Poeni.

I tried disordering via running and rotating, charging, stretching out to two ranks versus five ranks, etc etc.

It doesn't appear that there any any bonuses for multiple ranks. In fact, in the two battles I did with my Hoplites stretched out to two ranks, they actually did better than their Poeni counterparts who were in a standard five-rank phalanx.

However, it does appear that there is an "ordered" bonus for the phalanx formation. Disordered spearmen consistently lost versus an ordered phalanx, though by small margins until the disordered phalanx was down to 20 or less men.

So I think you're right -- the depth only helps when taking cavalry charges. The formation itself is a slight bonus, though.

[Morindin]

Same settings as last time (all things being equal).

Armoured Hoplites vs Macedonian Cavalry.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh5.jpg
The cavalry just jumps right through the armoured hoplites ranks without even taking any casualties.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh6.jpg
A long fight then proceeds where the armoured hoplites win EVENTUALLY, but actually sustain MORE casualties.
This is clearly not right.

However, I've always harped on about how Triarii kick Cavalrys butt so I put them to the test

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh7.jpg
Deployed in three man deep formation and countercharging they basically halt the cavalry in its tracks. What surprized me is the AI withdraw and countercharged.
It did this a few times. Ive never really seen it do this in single player. This shot is of the AI withdrawing its cavalry getting ready for a new charge.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh8.jpg
In the end, a comfortable victory for the Triarii. Really these two scenarios should be the other way around. The hoplites should have a comfortable victory stopping the cavalry short, whereas the Triarii should have their formation broken up but eventually overcome the horses in melee.

[Red Harvest]

Morindin, you just get more amusing each time. 20 maniples, the triarii. They were not fighting until this, while the others were engaged. They were not needed on the other wing because it was doing well. That is what the triarii are there for, a *fresh* reserve. They were pulled off of the wing that was doing well, and attacked to help the other wing that was being hard pressed. Of course it was the center they turned, the phalanx had advanced on the other side, exposing a gap in the center.

Your talk of long melee is irrelevant. It isn't happening in the SP campaign game. I can get some melee time with one on one fights or more, if I carefully set up flat fields and control the action carefully. It doesn't work with mixed armies vs. the AI. So you might be able to create it in the lab, but it isn't happening on the SP field.

But thanks for proving the point with cavalry. No way that cav should be able to do what it did. Even the "comfortable victory" for the triarii isn't very comfortable. Losing 1/3rd of an ideal counter force is not exactly comfortable (especially since you used a charge to get the bonus.) The triarii do better because they are not so formation dependent. So again, thanks for proving my point and the original posters point. Spears are not beating cav, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose in the best case--head on. In every other case the cav is likely to administer a beating.

[frogbeastegg]

Froggy, re: your original question... I did about a dozen battles this evening with 2v2 phalanxes. Greek Hoplites with bonuses to bring them up to an equal 9/18 rating with Cartaginian Poeni.

I tried disordering via running and rotating, charging, stretching out to two ranks versus five ranks, etc etc.

It doesn't appear that there any any bonuses for multiple ranks. In fact, in the two battles I did with my Hoplites stretched out to two ranks, they actually did better than their Poeni counterparts who were in a standard five-rank phalanx.

However, it does appear that there is an "ordered" bonus for the phalanx formation. Disordered spearmen consistently lost versus an ordered phalanx, though by small margins until the disordered phalanx was down to 20 or less men.

So I think you're right -- the depth only helps when taking cavalry charges. The formation itself is a slight bonus, though.
Thank you, that is very helpful and the kind of thing I was hoping for when I posted this topic. Also thanks to Indylavi for his contribution. ~:wave:

[khelvan]

Thank you, that is very helpful and the kind of thing I was hoping for when I posted this topic. Also thanks to Indylavi for his contribution. ~:wave:

Frogbeastegg (interesting name :), unless a rank bonus is hard coded based on unit class (i.e. spearmen) or hard coded based on the formation, it does not exist. The unit stats file has nothing to that effect in it. Which is not to say it does not exist -anywhere-; there are areas of the code which are not exposed, and it could be hidden there.

Hope this helps, and let me know if I can be of further service.

Cheers,

-khel

[frogbeastegg]

Yes, thanks khelvan. That does narrow things down a litle. I think the spear rank bonus in MTW was hardcoded to the spear class units, and then a slightly different version hardcoded to the pike class. Maybe one of our MTW modders can supply an answer to that?

Ignoring the phalanx units for a minute, spears are classed as good against cavalry. Why? If we assume there is no rank bonus then there must be an attack or defence bonus. MTW gave spears both rank and attack bonuses. Can anyone find evidence of this bonus in RTW, and what exactly it is? Given that RTW works quite differently on the battlefield the effectiveness could be as simple as a naturally solid, bulky formation to stop the charge and then pick the stationary cav to bits. But ... any decent infantry can use a deep formation with a simple redrag into four or more ranks. A stat bonus of some kind when fighting cavalry does seem the most likely option, but without detail I can't really say anything in the guide.

[vodkafire]

Yes, thanks khelvan. That does narrow things down a litle. I think the spear rank bonus in MTW was hardcoded to the spear class units, and then a slightly different version hardcoded to the pike class. Maybe one of our MTW modders can supply an answer to that?

Ignoring the phalanx units for a minute, spears are classed as good against cavalry. Why? If we assume there is no rank bonus then there must be an attack or defence bonus. MTW gave spears both rank and attack bonuses. Can anyone find evidence of this bonus in RTW, and what exactly it is? Given that RTW works quite differently on the battlefield the effectiveness could be as simple as a naturally solid, bulky formation to stop the charge and then pick the stationary cav to bits. But ... any decent infantry can use a deep formation with a simple redrag into four or more ranks. A stat bonus of some kind when fighting cavalry does seem the most likely option, but without detail I can't really say anything in the guide.

Rank bonuses were NOT hardcoded in MTW. That is, they are are not hardcoded in the sense you can change them, in crusader_prod_11(or whatever), there is a column for supporting ranks, and can vary from unit to unit(not all "pike" or "spear" units have to have the same supporting ranks). I know this because in the HTW, they modded it so that the Macedonian Phalanx had 10 supporting ranks!

[Morindin]

Yes, thanks khelvan. That does narrow things down a litle. I think the spear rank bonus in MTW was hardcoded to the spear class units, and then a slightly different version hardcoded to the pike class. Maybe one of our MTW modders can supply an answer to that?

Ignoring the phalanx units for a minute, spears are classed as good against cavalry. Why? If we assume there is no rank bonus then there must be an attack or defence bonus. MTW gave spears both rank and attack bonuses. Can anyone find evidence of this bonus in RTW, and what exactly it is? Given that RTW works quite differently on the battlefield the effectiveness could be as simple as a naturally solid, bulky formation to stop the charge and then pick the stationary cav to bits. But ... any decent infantry can use a deep formation with a simple redrag into four or more ranks. A stat bonus of some kind when fighting cavalry does seem the most likely option, but without detail I can't really say anything in the guide.

I think its more a fact that cavalry suck in melee than spears getting any sort of bonus against them - as any unit tends to do well (apart from Phalanxs!) but ill do some digging.
Spears after all especially in the Roman army was more a cheap primary weapon than an actual anti-cavalry weapon, it was quite a while before the Romans developed an effective anti-cavalry formation, which ended up involving their pilum over any form of spear.

[vodkafire]

It would be a shame if there were no supporting ranks in RTW, since we finally get to see the Pike pushing animations with multiple pikes per person in the front rank. It makes little sense to take away the ACTUAL rank bonus but improve the ANIMATION, making it a "just for show" feature.

[The_Emperor]

The main problem with this Phalanx debate from what i can see is this whole Jumping Cavalry thing... A Hoplite Phalanx tends to have at least 3 rows of spears pointing forwards (and the others that are pointing at an angle), Horses would not be able to jump into that, and in reality they would flatly refuse to charge it!

Besides even if Cavalry could jump into a Phalanx wouldn't they get caught by the Spears and Pikes that are at an angle pointing forwards?

As Morindin has pointed out, a Phalanx can survive under fire. Armoured hoplites even more so. The problem comes from this Cavalry jumping ability that seems to nullify any advantage a Phalanx has by having most of the front row of a cavalry unit jump over the spear points and disrupt the formation (which can be fatal to a Phalanx), while Triarii on the other hand are more effective as they do not need to maintain their formation so if cavalry jump into them, they simply turn and stab them with their spears.

[Ulstan]

"I had a unit of Poeni infantry completely surrounded by Principes and man it took a while for them to die, over 10 minutes."

Goodness! That's great :) Were you using any kill speed/movement mods?

Froggy: the big unit file does not appear to have rank bonuses listed for spears/pikes etc. I assume these would have to be hard coded.

What is listed is various 'mount_effect' bonuses - bonuses you get vs people riding different animals.

triarri, for example, get +4 to horse, camel, and chariot

type roman triarii
dictionary roman_triarii ; Triarii
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Medium_1
soldier roman_triarii, 40, 0, 1
officer roman_early_centurion
officer roman_early_standard
mount_effect horse +4, chariot +4, camel +4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap
formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 7, 7, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,0.73
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 7, 5, 5, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 2, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 10, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 500, 210, 50, 80, 500
ownership romans julii,romans brutii,romans scipii,romans senate

Greek armored hoplites, do not get any such bonus, which may explains morindiins results above, especially if you consider that spear rank bonuses may not be working

type greek hoplite elite
dictionary greek_hoplite_elite ; Armoured Hoplites
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier greek_armoured_hoplite, 40, 0, 1.3
officer greek_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy
formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, square, phalanx
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 9, 7, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,1
stat_pri_attr spear
stat_sec 7, 3, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 11, 6, 5, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 2, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 8, normal, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 640, 210, 70, 100, 640
ownership greek_cities

[econ21]

Do spears and pikes still negate cavalry charge bonuses? I'm guessing they still do, but has anyone tried any experiments of spears and non-spears with similar stats facing cavalry?

[Kraxis]

I guess the rankbonus is gone.
Mostly because I believe that the bonus was 'merely' a placeholder for the fact that several ranks could fight the enemy. Now the phalanxunits can do that.
If it had been because the spears got a special bonus from having guys in the back, then why don't the other units get it too? See my point.
Anyway it kind of sucks that the phalanxunits don't get a bonus against cavalry and such. But I guess it is because of their secondary weapon should get the bonus as well.

[Red Harvest]

I haven't tried stretching out long phalanx lines. It would be super silly for that to work. The formation is supposed to rely on depth...so if it indeed functions better long and thin, then the phalanx portion of the game engine is even worse than I thought. What the engine should be trying to simulate is some sort of offense stat & defense stat per frontage. A long thin line of long spears might have decent attack per man at the clash, but its defense would be lousy, and its attack would drop to zero once a sword unit reached the shields (that would be rather easy versus a very sparse field of overly long spears.) The formation should fall apart quickly when long and thin.

There appears to be a lot hidden in the engine, perhaps it is based on weapon class (spear) or formation type (phalanx.) It isn't transparent...

As for the "under fire" test. I've had no trouble killing those guys with Cretan archers. As I said, I can mow them down when stationary. When moving I deplete them enough that the unit is shot before it hits the lines, and if often routs just as my opposing infantry unit starts their charge at it. Hit the forward most, then repeat. Morindin distorted what was said (nothing new for him, he always does.) I put the archers in front of the lines too...to extend the killing range, and to avoid friendly fire, plus line of sight kills were supposed to be more likely in the TW engine. Say what you want, but I mow down the hoplites on "very hard." These guys should be hard to take down with archery. Historically they were. Those hordes of Persian archers didn't have an easy time of it.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

if archers mowed down cavalry as opposed to the SLOWEST INFANTRY UNIT IN THE GAME then yeah, it would be unbalanced.
This ignorant statement about the lack of imperviousness of the Phalanx against archer units, says it all. No need for further comments... :rolleyes:

[Dorkus]

mount effect bonuses do not seem to be working. i tested this in a previous thread. I'll bump it.

there is a separate anti cav bonus: stat_pri_attr spear

The file describes this as a bonus against cavalry but penalty against infantry. I have not tested this, but casually it does seem that hoplites in phalanx mode do do better than normal infantry, as long as you don't constantly let the cav charge and charge again.


"I had a unit of Poeni infantry completely surrounded by Principes and man it took a while for them to die, over 10 minutes."

Goodness! That's great :) Were you using any kill speed/movement mods?

Froggy: the big unit file does not appear to have rank bonuses listed for spears/pikes etc. I assume these would have to be hard coded.

What is listed is various 'mount_effect' bonuses - bonuses you get vs people riding different animals.

triarri, for example, get +4 to horse, camel, and chariot

type roman triarii
dictionary roman_triarii ; Triarii
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Medium_1
soldier roman_triarii, 40, 0, 1
officer roman_early_centurion
officer roman_early_standard
mount_effect horse +4, chariot +4, camel +4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap
formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 7, 7, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,0.73
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 7, 5, 5, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 2, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 10, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 500, 210, 50, 80, 500
ownership romans julii,romans brutii,romans scipii,romans senate

Greek armored hoplites, do not get any such bonus, which may explains morindiins results above, especially if you consider that spear rank bonuses may not be working

type greek hoplite elite
dictionary greek_hoplite_elite ; Armoured Hoplites
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier greek_armoured_hoplite, 40, 0, 1.3
officer greek_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy
formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, square, phalanx
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 9, 7, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25 ,1
stat_pri_attr spear
stat_sec 7, 3, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 11, 6, 5, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 2, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 8, normal, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 640, 210, 70, 100, 640
ownership greek_cities

[Dorkus]

you need to run a test.

This is not a test. merely an example. There's high variance in battle results, especially when units are relatively even. (snowball effects)

in my tests, units with mount_effects bonuses such as triarii and auxilia do not better than their normal counterparts (principes, hastati) against cavalry.

I have not tested phalanx units since I rarely use them.


Same settings as last time (all things being equal).

Armoured Hoplites vs Macedonian Cavalry.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh5.jpg
The cavalry just jumps right through the armoured hoplites ranks without even taking any casualties.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh6.jpg
A long fight then proceeds where the armoured hoplites win EVENTUALLY, but actually sustain MORE casualties.
This is clearly not right.

However, I've always harped on about how Triarii kick Cavalrys butt so I put them to the test

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh7.jpg
Deployed in three man deep formation and countercharging they basically halt the cavalry in its tracks. What surprized me is the AI withdraw and countercharged.
It did this a few times. Ive never really seen it do this in single player. This shot is of the AI withdrawing its cavalry getting ready for a new charge.

http://www.flyingfish.co.nz/rtw/avh8.jpg
In the end, a comfortable victory for the Triarii. Really these two scenarios should be the other way around. The hoplites should have a comfortable victory stopping the cavalry short, whereas the Triarii should have their formation broken up but eventually overcome the horses in melee.

[Morindin]

you need to run a test.

This is not a test. merely an example. There's high variance in battle results, especially when units are relatively even. (snowball effects)

in my tests, units with mount_effects bonuses such as triarii and auxilia do not better than their normal counterparts (principes, hastati) against cavalry.

I have not tested phalanx units since I rarely use them.



I think its more a fact that cavalry suck in melee than spears getting any sort of bonus against them - as any unit tends to do well (apart from Phalanxs!) but ill do some digging.

Do people read entire topics or just pick up small parts ignoring the entire context?

As for my tests being "scewerd" Red Harvest, YOUR experiances are scewered because they all FULL of external factors that can influence what happens. What you are experiacing is not nessesarily what someone else might be experiancing, which is WHY you remove all such external influences.

The 'problem' with archers in your game could be:

1. AI using Phalanx's poorly.
2. Experiance variations.
3. Terrain advantages.
4. Greek Temple Bonuses that add +3 to archers.
5. Many other things.

To simply make a broad sweeping claim of how overpowered they are will get us - the community - no where.
Many people play this game under many different circumstances, and your claims of overpoweredness unsupported by fact are clearly wrong for me in my games, my experiances, and even controlled tests.
Tests - removing all external influences and all things being equal - show that the elite archers are NOT overpowered. if you are finding them overpowered in your own experiances and the way YOU use them, then, why dont you MOD THE GAME THE WAY YOU LIKE IT?

[Dorkus]

Don't know if you're talking to me or not, but I'm not red harvest.

I did a few quick runs just for suggestive purposes.

Mac cav vs. armored hoplites 5 runs. Normal unit size (42 man unit including general iirc)

Armored hoplites won all 5 battles.

Average: 37 remaining (35-39)

Triarii won 2 battles (7 and 14 men remaining) and lost 3. Counting a loss as 0 remaining,

Average: 4.2 remaining

I don't know where you get the idea that triarii are better than armored hoplites against cav. Triarii are terrible units.

[Red Harvest]

Sorry to all about the sidetrack on archers...I had not intended to derail the thread, but Morindin is here and is determined to try to refute anything I write. This is the last I'll post about it in this thread.

Morindin,

I've run the tests in custom battle, with base level units. My cretan archers killed just shy of two men per volley in 4 tests. I counted 10 volleys and killed 17 to 19 armoured hoplites during that time. How you only killed a couple, I don't know. Could be poor technique since you are shooting your own men in the back and blocking the archer LOS. I tried placing the archers beside my infantry (both sides) and in front with indistinguishable results--of course the AI had a part in that.

A couple of things did pop out at me:
1. The archers did best near the end of their range? I was frequently killing three per volley at range. Since I usually advance my archers to pepper the repositioning army, I am getting a lot of kills before they start the advance. Accuracy should be terrible at extreme range, and the velocity should be lower resulting in fewer kills. However, until they switched to phalanx, they were taking about the same number of casualties per volley along the march.
2. Upping the experience of the archers to three chevrons had no impact on kill rate. (This also happened in MTW, although there, high valour missile units would tend to fire a bit quicker rather than suffering morale effects from fatigue and fear--so in some circumstances they could really shine.)
3. When the unit switches to phalanx as it closes (perhaps the last 40% of the march) it is less vulnerable to missile fire, despite the close range. There is some basis for this aspect from what Kraxis has said.
4. The phalanx always turned to face the archers rather than infantry...this seemed a bit odd, since sometimes had the archers slightly behind (but to the side) of my infantry. I intended to test left vs. right for shield effects, but was unsuccessful because they turned. I could create a test for this with multiple archer units, but have not.
5. It looks like everyone is firing on every volley even at very odd angles? MTW was superior in this regard that some could not fire (and in some cases very few fired.)
6. If you turn off skirmish, and wait to the last second to pull back, the idiots stand there and try to squeeze off a last shot, then get stuck in melee (ala their friendly fire behaviour, where you need to hit halt as well then order them to run.) You can't disengage after that unless you hit skirmish again.

Overall, first impression is that the missile model appears to be dumbed down vs. MTW. Accuracy does not diminish much at range. While I haven't tried testing this explicitly, I've noticed the same in battles, where getting closer just made my archers more vulnerable, rather than effective.

[hoom]

Quite the contrary.
The missile model is much smarter.
Too smart possibly.
In S&M, most of the time you couldn't hit a moving unit, as the missiles aimed at where the enemy were at launch, which generally meant that if they were lucky, archers would hit a few of the back of a unit but most of the arrows flew over the heads of the whole unit.
Crossbows & Arbs did better because they fire flatter trajectories meaning that they often would actually hit the front of a unit.

Rome seems to use a calculated aim point at the least.
ie the archers judge the speed/direction of the enemy unit & aim for a point of intercept with their arrows.
I'm actually suspicious that arrows may even be 'guided'.

I don't think there are ranks or anti cav bonuses in RTW, or if there are, they are borked.

[econ21]

Yes, I noticed that, Hoom - the archers are no longer shooting at where a charging unit used to be and so are appreciably better.

Red Harvest, Cretan archers killing 2 armoured hoplites per volley does not sound excessive to me. I don't know about you, but I seldom get ten volleys off at the AI. It seems more aggressive on the battlefield than in STW and MTW. An AI army usually charges me en masse rather than stand around to get shot (the plaza being the notable exception). I agree missiles are probably a little powerful compared to what I suspect was historical, but so far it does not bother me so much.

[frogbeastegg]

Well this has gotten interesting. Thanks for all the input, people. If the bonuses are indeed broken then I will be talking about theory, not practise, theory which might not even be useful. As if writing for a brand new game wasn't hard enough. :brood:

Welp, that leaves me talking vague things like deep formations being nice against cavalry, instead of stating definite facts like the old MTW "form spears into four ranks and put on hold formation to get and keep their rank bonus of..." :froggy mutters a very unenergetic sounding Gah! which is barely worthy of the exclamation mark:

Some interesting discoveries about archers … you can derail the thread and see what archers can do if you want. I need solid battlefield information on what is best for each unit type, plus those mechanics like how archers aim.

[Oleander Ardens]

BTW froggie;

I wanted to make more intensive test first, as I did most of them in the demo but a junior patron already brought this up in the EH.

The "interwoven" phalanx of Mikemyers64

http://img85.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img85&image=Phalanx.jpg


My experience:

Now this is a devastating formation and with some finetweaking it becomes outstanding and kinda cheap, and this has to do with the rankbonus system.
Due to the fact that the "phalanx" bonus of the units overlap the overlapping pikes form some sort of barrier which the enemy usually is simply unable to get through. I will soon post my testranges..


Two narrowstreched two-three ranks interwoven phalanxunits are incredibly stronger than two relativ deeper ones, standing with no gap side by side. Both cover the same ground but the interwoven one is simply outstanding.

Made some interesting test already in the Demo with the SBI. I put three SBI units in two ranks into the same space and waited for the Romans after a brigde. After melee was joined no single Roman was able to come even close to the first line, I sustained to the repeated cav hopping charges all in all 5-6 losses and maybe only 1-2 from the infantry.

After a a battle which was best described as an outright slaughter I checked the individual killing stats and what did I see? All of the Phalanxes got a very similar number of kills and losses...

A incredibly usefull tactic for lowlevel phalangite units, especially with the Levy ones...

Cheers
OA

[vodkafire]

BTW froggie;

I wanted to make more intensive test first, as I did most of them in the demo but a junior patron already brought this up in the EH.

The "interwoven" phalanx of Mikemyers64

http://img85.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img85&image=Phalanx.jpg


My experience:

Now this is a devastating formation and with some finetweaking it becomes outstanding and kinda cheap, and this has to do with the rankbonus system.
Due to the fact that the "phalanx" bonus of the units overlap the overlapping pikes form some sort of barrier which the enemy usually is simply unable to get through. I will soon post my testranges..


Two narrowstreched two-three ranks interwoven phalanxunits are incredibly stronger than two relativ deeper ones, standing with no gap side by side. Both cover the same ground but the interwoven one is simply outstanding.

Made some interesting test already in the Demo with the SBI. I put three SBI units in two ranks into the same space and waited for the Romans after a brigde. After melee was joined no single Roman was able to come even close to the first line, I sustained to the repeated cav hopping charges all in all 5-6 losses and maybe only 1-2 from the infantry.

After a a battle which was best described as an outright slaughter I checked the individual killing stats and what did I see? All of the Phalanxes got a very similar number of kills and losses...

A incredibly usefull tactic for lowlevel phalangite units, especially with the Levy ones...

Cheers
OA

HAHA that looks hilarious. You know the game's got a problem when overlapping units work better than single units in deep formation.

[Longasc]

Here a test of Long Shield Cavalry (Carthage) vs. Standard Greek Hoplites.

http://www.longasc.de/Stuff/0000a.jpg

http://www.longasc.de/Stuff/0001a.jpg

http://www.longasc.de/Stuff/0002a.jpg

http://www.longasc.de/Stuff/0003a.jpg

http://www.longasc.de/Stuff/0004a.jpg

http://www.longasc.de/Stuff/0005a.jpg

http://www.longasc.de/Stuff/0006a.jpg

Might have turned out otherwise as the Cavalry had height advantage, sorry for that.

I want to add: I only charged FRONTALLY.

If I would have hit the sides of the slow turning turtles called Hoplites, they would have been butchered even more.

[Spino]

Sorry to all about the sidetrack on archers...I had not intended to derail the thread, but Morindin is here and is determined to try to refute anything I write. This is the last I'll post about it in this thread.

Morindin,

I've run the tests in custom battle, with base level units. My cretan archers killed just shy of two men per volley in 4 tests. I counted 10 volleys and killed 17 to 19 armoured hoplites during that time. How you only killed a couple, I don't know. Could be poor technique since you are shooting your own men in the back and blocking the archer LOS. I tried placing the archers beside my infantry (both sides) and in front with indistinguishable results--of course the AI had a part in that.

A couple of things did pop out at me:
1. The archers did best near the end of their range? I was frequently killing three per volley at range. Since I usually advance my archers to pepper the repositioning army, I am getting a lot of kills before they start the advance. Accuracy should be terrible at extreme range, and the velocity should be lower resulting in fewer kills. However, until they switched to phalanx, they were taking about the same number of casualties per volley along the march.
2. Upping the experience of the archers to three chevrons had no impact on kill rate. (This also happened in MTW, although there, high valour missile units would tend to fire a bit quicker rather than suffering morale effects from fatigue and fear--so in some circumstances they could really shine.)
3. When the unit switches to phalanx as it closes (perhaps the last 40% of the march) it is less vulnerable to missile fire, despite the close range. There is some basis for this aspect from what Kraxis has said.
4. The phalanx always turned to face the archers rather than infantry...this seemed a bit odd, since sometimes had the archers slightly behind (but to the side) of my infantry. I intended to test left vs. right for shield effects, but was unsuccessful because they turned. I could create a test for this with multiple archer units, but have not.
5. It looks like everyone is firing on every volley even at very odd angles? MTW was superior in this regard that some could not fire (and in some cases very few fired.)
6. If you turn off skirmish, and wait to the last second to pull back, the idiots stand there and try to squeeze off a last shot, then get stuck in melee (ala their friendly fire behaviour, where you need to hit halt as well then order them to run.) You can't disengage after that unless you hit skirmish again.

Overall, first impression is that the missile model appears to be dumbed down vs. MTW. Accuracy does not diminish much at range. While I haven't tried testing this explicitly, I've noticed the same in battles, where getting closer just made my archers more vulnerable, rather than effective.

Up the experience of those Cretan Archers to three silver or three gold chevrons and their kills should increase dramatically. In my tests with various missile units vs. elephants (pre-patch variety) I found that 4 units of Egyptian Pharoah Bowmen couldn't put a dent in a single unit of War Elephants after a ridiculous number of volleys. I repeated the test but jacked up the PB's experience to the maximum, three gold chevrons. Then I saw elephants dropping in the second volley!

Oops, I hit post instead of preview!

Regarding number 4 this is such a serious problem and such a silly thing for the AI to do. I've seen phalanx units turn to chase my Horse archers! How ridiculous! They never catch them and will often route after awhile because of their distance from their general and the lack of friendly units in the area. Quirks like this completely ruin the AI's battleline cohesiveness, especially when attacking.

I think number 6 has to do with the time it takes for a unit to switch from it's primary to its secondary weapon and vice versa. For some reason it seems that infantry units have to be at a standstill for this to happen which is why you get that teeth gritting pause when you order legionary units to charge and they don't do it right away.

[Ulstan]

"1. The archers did best near the end of their range? "

I noticed this too. I had a fully valored up unit of roman archers start firing at a spartan hoplite phalanx. They left a trail of bodies behind them until they got close (steadily narrowing) at which point the arrows were coming at them pretty much level, and they just blocked everything with their shields.

When the arrows seemed to arc up into the sky, they killed a lot more.
It could have been them going into phalanx.

Anyway it was amusing to watch the phalanx fight the archers. They were stabbing away with their pikes the whole time, and half the archers meleeing and half firing. Eventually the phalanx drifted off completely to their left (I do n't know why) and had to execute a big wheel to come back and finish off the rest of the archers.

I ran a couple tests yesterday with triarri vs long shield cav.

I formed them up in a dense square and put them on hold.

I could see no difference when the cavalry charged frontally (where the presumed spear bonus would be in effect) or from the sides.

Either way, the density of the formation kept any horsemen from plowing straight through - they'd go half way through, get stuck, then killed, then the AI would pull away for another charge (which is good).

[RedKnight]

Best of wishes on your guidebook, FBE! The MTW one is famous, but it looks like the RTW picture is not (yet) as clear. In any event, I'm sure it'll be great! ~:cheers:

[Red Harvest]

OK, since frogbeastegg says it is OK to talk about archers I'll add what I can at this point.

Spino, I think the reason they don't withdraw is that delay to fire the last volley--despite being told to run instead. This is a nasty part of the friendly fire effect, and very deadly. It could be related to getting units to throw pila and such, rather than running away in skirmish mode.

hoom, I agree about the lead effect being smart, but the friendly fire aspect (as mentioned above) is much dumber. And the lead effect is too often being used to shoot my pursuing units in the back! The ballistic effects really appear to have been greatly simplified and dumbed down. It can be tough to set up good static tests of this, so it could be masked by other things. I'm just not seeing the depth that we had in MTW with respect to archers. The effects might be present, but need some adjustment. It is still early.

One reason I find the Cretan archers so deadly is that they will draw in the cav. I will advance them to pepper hoplites or Roman infantry, and the AI will try to send its cav at me. (Hey, I do the same, so I can't blame it!) I lose some archers this way at times, but destroy the cav by charging my own numerous cav at it from different directions. After the cav is gone I can pepper the infantry again.

In my experience, a hoplite based infantry army will face at least 10 volleys before my Cretan archers withdraw (assuming they are not rushed by cav, etc.) Usually it takes more because they have to turn to match my line, etc. And I usually take higher ground, because my army is faster, so that slows them and should contribute to archery effectiveness (something I need to test as well.) The most effective volleys are the ones at range. Perhaps they don't get their shield bonus because of the angle of the arrows? If so, that seems a bit unlikely. They would raise their shields for protection. The AI usually has to do a bit of redressing of its lines preparing for march (as do I, but out of archery range), so the kills pile up. When depleted units get near my lines, and I start a counter charge, they often run. If the AI line is contiguous this is less likely. There are a lot of morale effects happening...things that don't show up with single units in custom battle.

I haven't tried the really high levels of experience yet (or weapons upgrades.) My cretan archers were killing well at one or two red chevrons so I tested at three. My half strength unit is at two silver chevrons now, though.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

HAHA that looks hilarious. You know the game's got a problem when overlapping units work better than single units in deep formation.
Indeed it does. There are somethings really amiss in the battle engine. The Hoplite/Phalanx/Spear lack of bonus against cav, is just the most obvious one.

But there are balancing problems too. Look at the Egyptian Chariots (faster and invincible in melee against cav) or the Desert Axemen - with 11 ARMOUR!!!, although they are barechested and without greaves or braces... :rolleyes:

Fortunatelly, I'm moding the Egyptians to become the Ptolemaic Kingdom, so I won't have to deal with that ridiculous factors... :grin2:

[Colovion]

One interesting thing:

Triarii < Hastati

Try a custom battle with everyone on base/vanilla. be the Triarii and attept to win against the Hastati. Every battle out of 10 or so I lost. IT was a close loss but a loss nonetheless. At first I was surprised but I guess the Swords > Spears thing comes up here, I just thought that the Triarii were a much more formidable force than that - it didn't matter how I arranged/charged/gaurded, I still lost.

[Dorkus]

triarii are terrible units. not worth the cost of the building. stick with principes and hastati until you're about to get the m reforms.

[Colovion]

I never got Triarii in my short campaign - but if I did I'd only have two in each army just to take Cav charges - especially after that test.

[Dorkus]

they're not better against cav, though. test it.

[Colovion]

Yeah I just did - Triarii even beat Cav when arranged 2 deep. Hastatii did beat cav - but they didn't have near the ratio of kills as the Triarii when in the same formation depth/charge and tactics of attack/defending. One of the best ways for both to take on cav is having a deep formation and taking the charge before signalling the attack. However, if you can catch the cav at a walk and you're charging you will take down a load of horses. All tests vs Equites.

[frogbeastegg]

Ok, quick note on spears, ranks and how many can fight. So far this is the rule:
Spear: front rank only.
Phalanx: front two ranks only.
Sarissa phalanx: first four ranks.

Not only do the longer weapons have more ranks fighting, they also engage from further away, thus keeping their formation better. So, when it comes to weaponry size does matter :tongueg:

[econ21]

I was shocked to find a Gaulish warband defeated my Equites on medium. I even think I even had a better general. Even when I charged a Gaulish skirmisher warband, I lost 20 Equites. They are clearly not cavalry to be used head-on if at all possible (I still love them, though).

BTW, I never got Triari either - the Marian reforms kicked in a year before. I fear they are to RTW what crossbowmen were to MTW. The one unit I started with was appreciated, but I suspect it was too slow to really serve much use as against the odd unit of cavalry. I kept it as a reserve and the only time I used it, it got flanked and butchered by swordsman as it tried raced to intercept enemy cav. I find a wall of Hastati with "fire at will" is probably the best thing the early Romans have against cav - it is not pretty, but it gets the job done and also serves against enemy infantry.

[Dorkus]

hastati have inferior base stats. compare 1 armor principes to triarii and you'll see no difference at all.

Triarii are not anti cav units.

btw, in my tests (and others'), it's far better to charge the horses as they charge you.

triarii have high charge so theoretically should do better than principes. But inf seem to get stalled when charging cav, so i don't think the cahrge bonus matters that much.

[Red Harvest]

I asked about spear/pike effects vs. cav in a mod thread Jerome was answering.

***

Spears/pikes vs. cav. We are seeing some odd effects where spear units don't seem to do that well vs. cav. (compared to sword infantry), and horses jump over phalangites, etc. Where should this be adjusted (file and stat), and is it working as intended by CA?

Jerome answered:
The default spear vs cavalry bonusses are hardcoded. It may be a balancing issue - I'll ask someone to investigate. Alternatively, you could use the 'mount_effect' entries in the unit database to boost the combat performance of specific units against mount categories or individual mount types. These are applied on top of the default bonus.

***
End of quote

Here is what I see in stats:
Triarii get a +4 vs. cav as do some other spear units. When I charge triarii, they hold up better than hastati. Phalanx units don't seem to get a "mount_effect" vs. cav. Now the phalanx formation might...but it seems very inconsistent in that regard.

Some or all of the following should be changed:
1. Spears usually have weak offense, the +4 mount_effect just starts to get them back to other infantry attack strength...obviously this makes NO sense vs. cav! Heavy infantry are often more effective than spears.
2. Supporting ranks do nothing for most units, cav or infantry. That sucks and is non-historical. Needs patched based on spear/pike unit type. Even base infantry should dislike long thin lines because they have no support.
3. Cav should not get charge bonuses vs. spears unless it is in the rear 180 degrees or so (not within the front 180--could be 240/120 etc. but the concept is the same.)
4. Phalanx units should not disorder so easily.
5. Phalanx units should be able to overlap to form long continuous lines (as they were used!) This would only apply when in phalanx formation. It would make them very, very difficult to turn, but harder to flank at unit scale. This would negate some of the rightward drift and make them difficult to puncture when properly handled. Of course if a section was depleted by a unit getting thin or routing, a gap would form and the formation would be cut in two--this could be exploited. Something like this would give us a taste of phalanx warfare as intended.
6. The overlapping unit effects are a severe bug. Too many men can share the same space, and they are not being penalized for it. Instead they are rewarded.

[hoom]

7. The tendency for cavalry to jump needs to be toned down a bit.
Head to head cav vs phalanx its not uncommon for almost the entire front row of the cavalry to jump the spears & land in the 2nd/3rd row, resulting in the switch to swords.
Tone it down a bit so that maybe 5 or less out of 20 horses would jump & all of a sudden I think cav will get mashed head on.

[Colovion]

I really like the way Horses jump - but I think that only 2 or three at most would actually land in the middle - the rest of the front row that jumps would probably be skewered by the pikes.

[Red Harvest]

I really like the way Horses jump - but I think that only 2 or three at most would actually land in the middle - the rest of the front row that jumps would probably be skewered by the pikes.

And would you really want to be that poor soul in the middle? Chances of getting out don't seem very good.

[Marshal Murat]

I hate horses jumping into the phalanx. Anyway.
With non-spears, the greatest way to whip cavalry is to bog them down with troops.
2 hastati can bog down a longshield for a while, and while the horsemen are standing, the foot troops kill them.

Anyway, with Phalanx the best way to use them is (the Ace Tacticus thing at .Com gave this out) to have them march though the enemy to a point beyond them, no attack, just march to the space behind the enemy. I may whittle the ranks with some arrows and cavalry charges, but when said and done, its effective. The phalanx works only when you can use it as the anvil.
Poeni Infantry are like super spear phalanx guys, because, they can hold thier footing. Damned good.

However, my experiance is to lure the phalanx against the my troops. Then take cavalry (Equites may work) and have them charge straight at the phalanx flank.
Shaving them off like a field of wheat and a laser that can cut the wheat at the stalk. It murders them. But you need to pull them away, because the rue of all cavalry is to be stuck. Then thier just killed.

[Marshal Murat]

My photo taking ability is hapered by a faulty camera control. However.
When i attacked, and picked a spot beyond them from my men to walk to and they naturally slid to the side, and had to turn them, and then it went to hell. But i won.