View Full Version : Why are slingers so good?
antisocialmunky
02-25-2007, 14:44
Why are the slingers in EB so good? I'm wondering if they were historically that good, especially against heavily armoured units with decent sized shields? I would think intuitively that small and heavy rocks would have high lethality but low penetration against decent armour. However as it stands right now, they can badly maul even heavily armoured units. Since EB 0.81, it seems that hey have gotten even more strong(I'm not sure if its the unit size or something else). I can't get normal missile units in range before they start getting shredded by small rocks. I've almost given up on anything without long range for my missile units.
They've become the bane of my EB game and its at the point where I automatically focus all my missiles on those :furious3: slingers before they start whittling down my elite units. Even from the front, I've seen them able to inflict 10% casualities on heavy infantry before they are able to close. When I use them, I have destroy whole units of heavy phalanxes by flanking them and killing 5+ per volley. They have the ammo to do it and its really mind boggling to me. I never had this problem before...
Were they really THIS good at THAT kind of range?:dizzy2:
Slingers are not just using rocks. They generally used shaped stone or lead bullets. Many also have the 'effective against armor' trait which lowers a units armor rating by half
Domitius Ulpianus
02-25-2007, 15:13
Ummm I don"t know....I know some people were complaining about Missiles effectivenes during 0.80 but I think now they are a bit too powerful in my humble opinion...but what do I know anyway...:hide:
Your probably fighting with greek slingers, or those from the region who evolved to counter the phalanxes, because I believe eastern slingers don't have the vital 'effective against armor' trait which allows them to pound down even the best infantry. Of the missle units, slingers require the most training, and are able to crush heavy armor. The baelaric, spelling looks wrong on that, slingers were especially well known for using large stones compared to those used by other slingers. Essentially, yes. Though I'm sure someone who knows more about slingers can give you a better answer. A search might provide more information, I know slinger discussions have come up several times recently.
Watchman
02-25-2007, 15:37
These days the exact only slinger unit in the game that doesn't have the AP attribute is the Komatai Sphendonetai. Anyway, slings are in some ways surprisingly deadly things; of that native ranged weapons, they were the only ones the Conquistadors were actually wary of, because the sheer concussive blunt trauma of a head hit could cause lasting injuries or death even through good steel helmets. And those were rocks, far as I know. In the Mediterranean region lead bullets, denser, heavier, harder hitting, were favoured for serious work since quite early on.
Fondor_Yards
02-25-2007, 17:03
Taken from slinging.org
The length of the sling offers greater mechanical advantage than ones arms - projectiles can be slung over 1500 feet (450m) at speeds exceeding 250 miles per hour (400 kph).
So just think, a small, hard lead ball hitting you at 400 kph. Or several of them hitting you. Major ouch
... and yet they just bounce off the Gaesataes' naked bodies. hmmm. Perhaps, since the slingers are so danged lethal, their price should go up to dissuade mass formations like the ones I use?
Watchman
02-25-2007, 18:06
That wouldn't mesh too well with the fact the main recruitement base for slingers was shepherds and similar dirt-poor commoners - it was long a common practice in many agrarian societies for even little children to carry slings, with which they'd chase off birds from the fields etc. and hopefully every now and then bring small game home for the pot.
Ceteris paribus a good bow may give you a better combination of range and killing power than a sling, but as cost-efficiency goes the sling is hard to beat.
Domitius Ulpianus
02-25-2007, 19:48
Well actually after playing a little bit more with Cretan Archers and Greek Slingers...Im pretty sure something changed because before .81 It was very hard for me to kill with them and now they are pretty strong specially against heavy cavalry and heavy infantry other than phalanxs...As for the historic accuracy of this change I wont say a thing, because I am not nearly as informed as the EB team on these matters. Im just stating that in my opinion there was a change.
If it was up to me I would reduce a lilttle bit their effectiveness just because the Ai does not abuse this as much as we players do...I Just destroyed the Maks and my slingers played big role. I will probably house rule this if I find they are too unbalancing.
Thanks all
antisocialmunky
02-25-2007, 20:05
It used to be I'd use them to kill other skirmishers because of their range. Now I find myself using them almost exclusively.
In one battle as the KH against the Maks, I positioned my slingers on a high slope and completely obilerated the initial army of Phalangite Deu(however you spell it) and Hoplitai Haploi exclusively with three slingers and one Kretan.
When their reinforcements arrived, I cut apart half another unit of Phalangites and a unit of Thessalian Cavalry(general). The stupid thing about the Thessalian Cavalry was that they ended up charging my slingers and engaging my slingers hth. However, I ordered them to shoot the horses. 5 of the 15 surviving horses fell instantly and they ran off and were killed by my slingers. Their whole army proceeded to run off all the while being killed by my slingers.
AND they still had ammo left over at the end of the battle.
At this point, I don't even bother with the Kretans, 1 valour Spartan slingers are more than enough to repace them.
To be honest, I think its more an issue of range and accuracy than of stopping power. I don't know what the effective range of a sling is but perhaps a combination of fast moving and less range than an archer would be better for them. It wouldn't be so bad if archers could hit them before they completely destroy the archers.
Right now, its not so much that I'm trying to abuse them its that when an enemy has them you are going to take lots of casualties unless you counter with your own slingers. I'm going to try an all slinger army just for fun eventually.
I also find them unbalacing,my Saba slingers....
"It wouldn't be so bad if archers could hit them before they completely destroy the archers"
I would tend to agree. Gamewise, that is. With Balearic slingers, I don't even bother with recruiting Cretan archers any more. The slingers have longer range and greater killing power. Mind you, My merc Balearic slingers met their superior in the Celtic slingers of the Aedui. They have a longer range and the only way to deal with them is to gang up 3-4 slinger units on them. The celtic slingers become 1st priority target, since they shred my front line.
All comparisons of range and lethality apart, there must have been a reason why archers have dominated warfare over slingers for thousands of years. Anyone know why?
Probably because archers can fire indirectly whereas the sling follows a comparatively straight trajectory. Also, archers can use their weapon in a smaller space and fire while on horseback.
I am sure there are others, but those are the first three that came to mind.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
02-25-2007, 21:08
A question that I have wondered for a long time:
Why did slingers fade into unuse? Too greek for the Romans? Urbanizing of the Roman world led to less shepherds? Levy archer vs. levy slinger = slinger wins; but trained archers always better that slingers? Or was it something stupid, like all the lead was used up in making plumbing and to drive Emperors insane?
As far as exploits: You can limit the number of slingers you use (my house rule is missile units can only be 1/5 my army at most (exceptions being horse archers when going against other horse archers)) and you can do what I do and kill off enemy slingers first thing. You should be able to get a good many when they are forming ranks.
I read about it somewhere, but I'm not sure why they fell from use. I know the Romans used them extensively when they could and Legionaries often carried slings as a tertiary weapon besides the pugio.
Maybe it was the preparation of sling bullets? Arrows seem like they could be manufactured with relatively the same process every time - almost mechanically. However, if lead or clay bullets aren't available, rocks must be shaped individually in order to be used effectively. Also, if during the process a piece of the arrow breaks you can just get a new shaft or head, but if a bullet cracks... well, now you don't have anything to salvage.
I'm probably way off though.
antisocialmunky
02-25-2007, 21:21
"It wouldn't be so bad if archers could hit them before they completely destroy the archers"
I would tend to agree. Gamewise, that is. With Balearic slingers, I don't even bother with recruiting Cretan archers any more. The slingers have longer range and greater killing power. Mind you, My merc Balearic slingers met their superior in the Celtic slingers of the Aedui. They have a longer range and the only way to deal with them is to gang up 3-4 slinger units on them. The celtic slingers become 1st priority target, since they shred my front line.
All comparisons of range and lethality apart, there must have been a reason why archers have dominated warfare over slingers for thousands of years. Anyone know why?
Dear God, that makes me want to avoid the Gauls at all cost... and I thought the normal hellenic ones were bad. :no:
I will let one of our missile experts comment, but the main reason that the bow surpassed the sling in usage was because of the incredible amount of training that it required to use the sling effectively. Individually, with two trained users, the sling will outperform the bow in most aspects. It takes years of training to use a sling well, but not so with a bow.
I hope our missile folks will drop by, but I am not even sure if they're still entirely active.
Celtic slingers are like a firing squad, especially since AI has like four of them per full stack. Made me want to scream.
I will let one of our missile experts comment, but the main reason that the bow surpassed the sling in usage was because of the incredible amount of training that it required to use the sling effectively. Individually, with two trained users, the sling will outperform the bow in most aspects. It takes years of training to use a sling well, but not so with a bow.
Well, if they required years of practice, then perhaps it'd be better to limit their amount back to 60 (like it was in 0.80), and increase number of turns they require to build.
Also I find very strange that greek slingers have 40 ammo. It is a bit too much, I suppose.
as mentioned, one of the disatvanteges of the slingers, is they cant't fire over own troops, there for killing their own comrads.
There is an idea. How about reducing number of slingers per unit and perhaps increasing number of archers per unit?
As Qart Hadast, I can't recruit regular slingers, but have to get them as mercenaries. ATM, 1/4 of my entire army consists of slingers. and since I can't recruit any archers, slingers are my only missile troops.
/Sygrod, who just can't keep his nose out of things.
O'ETAIPOS
02-25-2007, 22:15
the 80 men units of greek slingers are probably a bug. I'm 80% sure those should be 60, like other missle units.
Also I find very strange that greek slingers have 40 ammo. It is a bit too much, I suppose.
Shot takes up very little space compared with arrows. Its only logical that a slinger will be able to carry a fair quantity of shot. Not to mention that if he runs out, at a pinch he can probably pick up pebbles and sling those too...
As Qart Hadast, I can't recruit regular slingers, but have to get them as mercenaries. ATM, 1/4 of my entire army consists of slingers. and since I can't recruit any archers, slingers are my only missile troops.
Actualy you dont have to relly on mercaneries, although its diffccul to get them to the front line. As you can build a 2 or 3. level mic on the balears an have cheaper balearic slingers for use, but have to transport them to the front.
Domitius Ulpianus
02-25-2007, 23:38
There is an idea. How about reducing number of slingers per unit and perhaps increasing number of archers per unit?
As Qart Hadast, I can't recruit regular slingers, but have to get them as mercenaries. ATM, 1/4 of my entire army consists of slingers. and since I can't recruit any archers, slingers are my only missile troops.
/Sygrod, who just can't keep his nose out of things.
Umm I dont know...the problem as far as I can see is not only the slingers but archers too...I find missile troops too powerful...but I will do more tests.
In the meantime I will limit myself with the missile units...they are stealing the fun and the glory from my infantry troops hehe:clown:
or...if someone can come up with a file edit to "nerf" the missile troops...Im up for that too... Thanks!!
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
02-26-2007, 00:06
Once my army, composed of a single glorious Sphendonetai unit, was attacked by an enemy force of one unit Prodromoi, and one unit Javelin Horseman, I think Thrakians. I thought this was the end. I put my Slingers on a hill, in a quadrant formation, with skirmishing mode off, auto-fire and guard-mode on.
So the enemy approached. Already on a long distance, my brave slingers started firing, and killed about five men per volley. Soon the path of the enemy was marked with cadavers. Then the Prodromoi started to charge, and it was quite impressive seeing a handful of riders fall, while in full charge - a bit like Hollywood. When they crushed into the files of my troops, half of them were already dead.
But they didn't manage to overcome them, and returned to prepare for another charge. My Sphendonetai kept on firing on and on, killing the enemy from behind, while the javelin horsemen started volleying missiles with almost no effect on my troops. The Prodromoi returned then for a final attack, but were driven back once more - they were already reduced to about 30 each unit. That was enough - the enemy lost his courage and decided to flee, where of course another dozen was killed.
So I gained a heroic victory, while sustaining 12 losses, of whom four recovered and went back to service again. So there was nothing with :charge: I guess. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Btw, I don't really think slingers are too strong. 160 well trained lifetime slinger users firing, and 5 enemies dying per volley, that's OK. After all, there's a real reason for light cavalry now.
Watchman
02-26-2007, 00:23
'Sides, aside from taking the AP attribute off them (or twiddling with their range settings) there's not much you can do to nerf the slingers - their current base attack skill range is 1-4...
I also experienced this in my KH campaign. I really liked Cretan archers and expected to use them very much in the game, since their reputation (and the fact that my mother is Cretan), made them really good in my eyes. Still, I see that slingers are much more effective and cheap, so I started to use them exclusively :sweatdrop:
Btw, are Rhodian slingers in? I can't recruit them in Rhodos yet and I have no generals there, so I can't see if they exist as mercenaries.
PS: I lost an important number of Hippeis against a unit of sphendonitai...What the hell?
Southern Hunter
02-26-2007, 00:51
I have to agree with those posters who say missile troops, and slingers in particular, are too powerful. Very a-historically so!
Missile troops in this period of history, were afterthoughts, not the central killing mechanism. They just futted about a bit at the start before the 'real troops', ie hoplites, legionaries, etc got stuck in and had the battle.
As it is, playing to take advantage of the availability of these troops, every battle is a firefight, and most a clearly one - sided one, where my units of slingers and cretan archers destroy whole formations before they engage.
The point has already been made about Slingers that it takes a lot of skill to use them, and there would have been few people trained in their use. Certainly, herdsman trained from a young age, where culturally this occurred (Balearic Isles, Rhodes, etc). But there were not enough of them to form whole armies. Remember Alexanders army had a single unit of Cretan Archers and a single unit of slingers, maybe 500 each at most, in an army of 35,000.
To fix this ahistoricity, imho, EB should greatly reduce the AVAILABILITY of such troops, as mercenaries and largely abandon their availability as trainees. It was not the case that they COST a lot to recruit or maintain, but it was never an option to have many of them.
As it is, I can have entire 20 unit armies of Cretans. And I can train enormous numbers of slingers and maintain them cheaply.
Also, skirmishers in general should have lower morale. If charged by cavalry, or any proper formed troops, they would rout and never come back into the battle.
The Persian slingers had larger rocks than the Rhodians, but the range was correspondingly much smaller, and they were pretty much ineffective.
All praise to the team for a stable and largely enjoyable 0.81.
Hunter
Teleklos Archelaou
02-26-2007, 01:01
As long as the AI isn't spamming them, I don't see what the problem is. EB gives you the platform - use tons of slingers ahistorically if you want, or try to stick to a reasonable number included in your armies. If you choose the latter, you will get good results. Especially if you can let them loose on unarmored units like Drapanai or archers, and when you can get them around to the sides or back of other units. If they are especially deadly against those units and in those circumstances, then that seems pretty reasonable. Look for more slingers in EB in the future too btw.
russia almighty
02-26-2007, 01:05
.... maybe missle units where in second thought in 3rd century western military theory but in Eastern and Steppe military theory the missles' main purpose was to kill as many of the opposing mofo as possible then kill the remnants in whatever other way .
Domitius Ulpianus
02-26-2007, 01:57
As long as the AI isn't spamming them, I don't see what the problem is.../... Especially if you can let them loose on unarmored units like Drapanai or archers, and when you can get them around to the sides or back of other units. If they are especially deadly against those units and in those circumstances, then that seems pretty reasonable...
The problem Teleklos is they seem way too powerful against heave armored units. But you are right we can control this by not spamming the recruit button hehe.
antisocialmunky
02-26-2007, 01:59
As long as the AI isn't spamming them, I don't see what the problem is. EB gives you the platform - use tons of slingers ahistorically if you want, or try to stick to a reasonable number included in your armies. If you choose the latter, you will get good results. Especially if you can let them loose on unarmored units like Drapanai or archers, and when you can get them around to the sides or back of other units. If they are especially deadly against those units and in those circumstances, then that seems pretty reasonable. Look for more slingers in EB in the future too btw.
It is a dilemma.
I always play with a max of four since the AI usually - usually - runs around with at max four. However, four is enough to completely incapacitate several units of heavy infantry or completely destroy a unit of generals cavalry. If I use less, I can't take out the enemy slingers fast enough to not take moderate numbers of casualties on my main battle infantry, elite archers, or elite cavalry.
It's not that anyone intentionally choose to abuse them when trying play a realistic game, it's that they have no counter except another unit of slingers or expensive cavalry AND even one is able to cause many casualties when firing from the front AND because it takes alot of slingers to silence one unit of slingers quickly, they end up being the only missile units we use.
I forget what principle of game theory descibes symmetrical escalation, but this is exactly what it is.
Its not even funny how badly you get maulled if they're on stone walls. :wall:
Atleast we came up with some good suggestions on what to do with them next release. :2thumbsup:
keravnos
02-26-2007, 02:03
The problem Teleklos is they seem way too powerful against heave armored units. But you are right we can control this by not spamming the recruit button hehe.
They were. In sicilia, Agathokles time, Qarthadastim used Balearic slingers to massacre a whole hoplite phallanx in minutes. And it was classic phallanx, in bronze muscle thorax, armed to the gills.
The slings' real strength wasn't its Armor penetrating ability, it was its destructive concussion. A hit would cause massive internal bleeding, leeding to death in minutes. If hit in the head, the death would be instantaneous.
Slingers were quite the horror back then. I, for one, am quite content with the way they are portrayed in EB, especially those who were the best slingers of ancient times, the Balearic slingers.
Just play the game lol people moan all the time if you don't likem dont use them..slingers where histroicly very dangeras thay where used all the way up to the battle of hastings in the norman conquest..if thay where so bad then why did thay get so far from the stone age..there cheap in the game and in real life..and thay Kill!!! ive routed whole armys in other bata versions of the game before contact was ever made..that was along time before thay where tweeked.. I persenaly use 2 to 4 units of them in every army..thay are deadly and much more useful then peltists..that are actuely slingers and javalin men..but the game limits what a single unit can use on its person..
I dont injoy being beatin up by the Ai all the time and in early campian good slingers in the citys help me survive longer..Infact the best slinger unit in the game lost a point of missle attack from 5 to 4 so lol heheheh i find them useful in cracking roman heads and carthagnian ribs..my fav stratigy is to fire at the advanceing enamy then turn off auto fire and let them run behind..let them get into battle with my inf..and then competly flank them to the rear and pour it on:laugh4: and Listen to the shreks and crys as you hear the rocks and lead shot hit and crunch and smack faces and back and arms and cheek bones..maybe im just a murder:laugh4: Thay are more painful to my eniamys then arrows or javalins right on EB!! Cant wate for a heavey slinger:skull:
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
02-26-2007, 05:08
Crazy idea:
Why not set the recruiting time of slingers to a whopping 40 turns? That would represent lifetime training, from childhood on. Directly available only as mercs.
I still think that reducing numbers to about 2/3 of what they are now may be a good way of dealing with these admittedly rare units. By reducing men in the unit, any army can only have so many and having 40 as opposed to 60 makes a difference. You still get the long range lethality, etc., but to get the same effect as now, you'd have to have half again as many units, which is just prohibitive from a tactical standpoint.
Yes, no?
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
02-26-2007, 07:04
Personally, I like slingers the way they are now.
First thay cry becouse the game is not real enough..then thay moan over bugs..then thay scream the units are not big enough or kill fast enough..the Eb team pulls its hair out trying to put everything on an even playing field..
Case and point if your not smart enough to out Smart the computer and use cav to run down light missle troops then this game isent for you and if that still isent enough you can go back to 1.0 with no patch with out EB and play the push over units inafective archers and slingers people are never happy its a Free game..and after a few years of being around the modding forums most should know how to tweek files them selfs..So go into the folders and change there states..and stop trubleing the mods about how you'd change the game to fit your needs finely got the game where i injoy it and someone wan'ts something changed again LOL So let is Progress and not Degress..I mean you act as if the game is hard or something lol i play the game to pass time lol the game it self ceased to be hard the same year it came out lol for me that is..Do you think thay stopped battles then and complaned that one sides archers or slingers where to week or powerful LOL Geez i just can't compeat with your army of peasents and slingers lol IF anything the Game has improved the armys of the AI alowing it to make more powerful units..that give a challange to the player how to combat the enamys units lol Honestly thats the point of this game lol useing your Tec to your advantage fast cav cancels out missle foot and mounted troops..
Slinger only mercs is silly and slingers i use to use them to fill up citys so i could mass produice other units..now i find them useful lol stop trying to mess with our good game..and member its Free :wall: :whip:
Geoffrey S
02-26-2007, 09:40
Sass, you say 'lol' alot, which makes me less inclined than I already was after reading your opening sentence to read your ramble.
I believe the slingers are too powerful, but that as has been said they were a threat back in the day. As has also been suggested perhaps smaller units would be an option, since they are overrepresented in enemy armies and hence in the players' armies, who wish to counter them.
I have to agree with those posters who say missile troops, and slingers in particular, are too powerful. Very a-historically so!
Missile troops in this period of history, were afterthoughts, not the central killing mechanism. They just futted about a bit at the start before the 'real troops', ie hoplites, legionaries, etc got stuck in and had the battle.
As it is, playing to take advantage of the availability of these troops, every battle is a firefight, and most a clearly one - sided one, where my units of slingers and cretan archers destroy whole formations before they engage.
The point has already been made about Slingers that it takes a lot of skill to use them, and there would have been few people trained in their use. Certainly, herdsman trained from a young age, where culturally this occurred (Balearic Isles, Rhodes, etc). But there were not enough of them to form whole armies. Remember Alexanders army had a single unit of Cretan Archers and a single unit of slingers, maybe 500 each at most, in an army of 35,000.
To fix this ahistoricity, imho, EB should greatly reduce the AVAILABILITY of such troops, as mercenaries and largely abandon their availability as trainees. It was not the case that they COST a lot to recruit or maintain, but it was never an option to have many of them.
As it is, I can have entire 20 unit armies of Cretans. And I can train enormous numbers of slingers and maintain them cheaply.
Oh, once we get to MTW2 ... it almost makes me weep with joy at the changes we will be able to make with recruitment pools and all that jazz. Wait for EB2 and you'll see the changes you want.
Foot
With M2TW, that would mean that we won't be able to exploit full Camillian Triarii armies anymore? That seems sweet to me.
I got a big shock when I attacked Corinth at the start of my 0.81 KH campaign. There was a single unit of Mak slingers on the wall at the gatehouse. My precious Spartiates rolled up with a siege tower quite some distance away (there was an intervening tower)...
Not one Spartiate made it into the siege tower!!!
Something must be wrong here. Traditional Hoplite panoply was very expensive. They had good armour and large shields, if they could be destroyed with slingers so easily then Hoplites would have fallen out of use long before the EB timeframe.
I can't object to the attack values because I am sure they are backed up by research, but slingers could be adjusted in other ways...
Smaller units (to represent scarcity)
Shorter range (to represent effective aimed rather than maximum range)
Larger spacing (more room to swing that lead)
Lower morale (except for elites)
Lower rate of fire (except for elites)
Is there any support for any of this?
Teleklos Archelaou
02-26-2007, 15:58
I can't see how a single unit of slingers could take out a full unit of spartans from head on. Could it not be that many spartans were taken out by the gate towers? Or that the defenders get an automatic bonus of some sort (I have heard something about that) that made them too strong? Or that they were some multi-chevroned slingers in combination with the other factors?
I did the same thing against unexperianced slingers and lost slightly over 1/3 of my Spartans. The extra range and power from being on the wall is nasty.
Geoffrey S
02-26-2007, 16:52
Assaulting a wall ain't meant to be pretty. Best approach is sending missile units ahead to weaken the enemy on the walls and soak up damage intended for whatever stronger unit you've got pushing siege towers.
Mr Sass, Sir
I humbly and respectfully disagree with your statement that we should just get on with it. Isn't feedback exactly what this forum is for? The Modders are swamped with requests and bug reports, for sure, but for all the suggestions we make, the decision is still theirs. It would be folly to think that the mod team can come up with solutions to every aspect, which is why we make suggestions to them. We are not arguing with their work, we are asking questions and discussing observations and ideas to come up with different solutions to perceived problems that the mod team can then select the most reasonable from.
This is not meant as a personal flame, just a difference of opinion. ALL opinions are valid, but we can still disagree.
Most repsectfully and with a friendly tone that is difficult to translate into text,
/Sygrod
Mr Sass, Sir
I humbly and respectfully disagree with your statement that we should just get on with it. Isn't feedback exactly what this forum is for? The Modders are swamped with requests and bug reports, for sure, but for all the suggestions we make, the decision is still theirs. It would be folly to think that the mod team can come up with solutions to every aspect, which is why we make suggestions to them. We are not arguing with their work, we are asking questions and discussing observations and ideas to come up with different solutions to percieved problems that the mod team can then select the most reasonable from.
This is not meant as a personal flame, just a difference of opinion. ALL opinions are valid, but we can still disagree.
Most repsectfully and with a friendly tone that is difficult to translate into text,
/Sygrod
Amen :2thumbsup:
Teleklos Archelaou
02-26-2007, 17:21
I just let a unit of sphendonetai unleash every rock they had in their pouches against a unit of my Spartans. Three out of 33 died, leaving me with 29. When they finally used up their stones, they charged and a melee ensued where I lost four more. End result: 0 spendonetai, 25 spartans remaining. Terrain, pinning them with other units and hitting them from the side or back, extra bonuses from elevation on top of walls and such, all of that can give different results, but from the front on a level plain, when the armor and shields are at their best, they don't do a tremendous amount of damage.
Slingers on walls get huge benefits in attack. It must be that they are on a higher ground... I've noticed units with high shield bonuses such as phalanx hoplites, are very hard to kill from the front when slingers are on the same elevation, but when they are on a higher altitude they can kill 5,6 in a volley. Perhaps that was the case with the spartans?
Could the accuracy be reduced for missile troops? I suppose slingers could have a lower accuracy at greater distances, compared to archers. That would make the use of missile troops more diverse, where archers could be more accurate and powerful at longer range, due to arrows coming from 'above', where shields would not protect them. Slingers on the other hand could be less accurate at longer range, the bullets not travelling in a valved movement, thus would be more often blocked by shields, and the bullits would 'spread out' more, not the same concentrated fire that archers would have...
I my last battle, Aedui attacked one of my forts with a full stack of levy spearmen (122 per unit) and gaesatae (60 per unit) and a couple of gallic swordsmen (100) per unit?)
I have a balanced full stack army in that fort, with four 60man Balearic slingers and 5 Iberian skirmishers (120 men. I just love these), some heavy infantry and a mix of cavalry. As I said - balanced.
First thing I did was send two slingers out to each front corner so they would have support from the two missile towers if needed. I then sent a full unit of skirmishers to the same corner to really give any attacking enemy unit a shock. I hit the enemy formation, which was a triangular shape with tightly packed ubits from both sides and each villey killed men in up to 3 units simultaneously, because of the spread. Once the slingers were out of ammo, I looked at the enemy units. Some of the 122 man levies were down to as low as 86, but than may be because they attacked and were repelled.
I now found a new use for slingers without ammo. Diversion. I sent all 4 to the left edge of the battle map with a covering force of light cavalry, which caused the Aedui to split their line and send 3-4 units to a second formation at a 80 degree agle and away from the main formation. I lined up my heavier troops in front of the fort, and the enemy attacked. They were soundly beaten off and began to rout, followed by my faster skirmishers and heavy cavalry. Point is, I personally love these slingers, as they can decimate an enemy army, but if the Aedui come with one or two units of slingers, I have to prepare for heavier losses.
@Teleklos Archelaou
My Spartans really were all killed by a single unit of slingers.
I was playing 0.81 KH on Hard/Hard. I waited a couple of turns for the initial Mak army outside Athens to move north (to play with the Epirotes). My assault force was mostly the starting KH Spartan field army with some extra peltasts. The Mak slingers were I presume part of the original Corinth garrison.
My Spartans went for the left-most section of wall. The Maks were partly on the gatehouse. There was at least one intervening Mak tower.
The Spartans began dying even before they started moving. They were being attacked from above from the right. The last few Spartans died just after docking and didn't make it into the tower.
Luckily the Peltasts who had ladders were already up, and extacted suitable vengence.
The important factors were (I think):
Siege towers are slow
Slingers have very long range (even longer from walls?)
Slingers have armour-piercing (plus bonus for height?)
Spartans were attacked on unshielded side
This should be easily repeatable as it happened at start of campaign.
Geoffrey S
02-26-2007, 18:11
You're also not playing on the recommended settings; the enemy gets stat bonuses on Hard.
The slingers are more deadly on walls. The reason why you got it so bad was the difficulty level. What extra attack does the AI get on hard? +3 isn't it? Slingers have 3 attack already I think, that's double the fire power.
Ah, so spamming slingers as Pontos is an abuse
:oops:
Oh well, I can't be bothered to try to restart my campaign again.
As long as the AI isn't spamming them, I don't see what the problem is.
What is considered spamming? I use one slinger unit per army at most, but AI won't play by my rules. I was attacked by an Aedui army with five celtic slingers in it and I wept. ~:mecry:
man, you guys are wimps, use some light cav
Fondor_Yards
02-26-2007, 21:16
Really. I use 4 Balearic slingers in my Carthage army, they kill maybe 6% of a full stack roman army before they close and enter meele. And they have 1 attack up and at least 3 chevrons, they are hardly overpowered.
Personally I like slingers. I generally have 2-4 with each legion. They are entirely neccessary counters for enemy skirmisher/missile troops, and are also handy for picking off enemy cavalry that wont close with my heavy infantry.
Are Balearic slingers the strongest in the game? Will we see any stronger than them in future releases? I thought iosatae (or whatever the gallic slingers are called) were pretty tough. When I first met them, they managed some pretty gruesome casualties. In fact often the only ones in a battle, as when the armies closed, my heavies tore the gauls' luogae and iosatae armies to shreds... I certainly learnt the hard way that accenci are not up to much.
antisocialmunky
02-26-2007, 21:52
I got a big shock when I attacked Corinth at the start of my 0.81 KH campaign. There was a single unit of Mak slingers on the wall at the gatehouse. My precious Spartiates rolled up with a siege tower quite some distance away (there was an intervening tower)...
Not one Spartiate made it into the siege tower!!!
Something must be wrong here. Traditional Hoplite panoply was very expensive. They had good armour and large shields, if they could be destroyed with slingers so easily then Hoplites would have fallen out of use long before the EB timeframe.
I can't object to the attack values because I am sure they are backed up by research, but slingers could be adjusted in other ways...
Smaller units (to represent scarcity)
Shorter range (to represent effective aimed rather than maximum range)
Larger spacing (more room to swing that lead)
Lower morale (except for elites)
Lower rate of fire (except for elites)
Is there any support for any of this?
Yeah, I remembered that happening to me too... I restarted my campaign after my 42 Spartans made it to the wall only be be hit by the slingers again while in the tower(which was odd). When they got to the wall, they were reduced to 30. This was on VH/M too. I have never lost a WHOLE unit of men to a group of slingers but yeah - I can believe that a whole unit of spartans got killed by slingers in a worse case scenario. After all, I've killed whole groups of phalanxes with them.
My attack on Demetrias made me post this topic because in the field battle that ensued, 4 slingers killed my cretans before they were in range, my archers before they got in range, and then both generals.
And @Elthore, I've beat off Macedonian Bodyguard Cavalry in hth with slingers after slaughtering half of them. Light cavalry will get cut apart just as easily...:sweatdrop:
Are there Rhodian slingers in the game? I asked before but didn't get an answer...:idea2:
man, you guys are wimps, use some light cav
Yes, you just have to kindly ask the rest of their army to step out of the way so you could go and attack the slingers. I'm sure they don't mind :yes:
Now getting your cavalry up to city walls, for example, might seem difficult at first, but you just have to get over your wimpiness and force those damn horses up the ladders. :whip:
Yes, you just have to kindly ask the rest of their army to step out of the way so you could go and attack the slingers. I'm sure they don't mind :yes:
Now getting your cavalry up to city walls, for example, might seem difficult at first, but you just have to get over your wimpiness and force those damn horses up the ladders. :whip:
Don't be a fool. Everybody knows that Hippeis get flying horses of you upgrade to MIC level 4. You just fly to the walls.
Don't be a fool. Everybody knows that Hippeis get flying horses of you upgrade to MIC level 4. You just fly to the walls.
nah, that hippies, after they have been taking acid... :hippie: :trytofly: :flybye:
man, I cant believe they have these smilies!
Domitius Ulpianus
02-26-2007, 22:09
I just let a unit of sphendonetai unleash every rock they had in their pouches against a unit of my Spartans. Three out of 33 died, leaving me with 29. When they finally used up their stones, they charged and a melee ensued where I lost four more. End result: 0 spendonetai, 25 spartans remaining. Terrain, pinning them with other units and hitting them from the side or back, extra bonuses from elevation on top of walls and such, all of that can give different results, but from the front on a level plain, when the armor and shields are at their best, they don't do a tremendous amount of damage.
Ummm I will reproduce this test, as soon as I get home...from my experience...playing vh/m they are far more effective than that...as I said before the only units I have noticed thye are not so effective against is Phalanx...but against hoplites, heavy cavalry, heavy spearmen etc...they are fearsome. Ill post the results later.
Umm just a thought could unit sizes affect the results? I mean in terms of %...not the actual number of "victims".
The larger the unit size, the more effective are missile units. Less of the missiles miss their mark. Then again, on tiny size, losing 1 man out of 10 hurts quite a lot when it eventually happens.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
02-26-2007, 22:14
I just want to restate:
Personally, I like slingers the way they are now.
If the enemy has slingers, attack them with cavalry. If they are behind the enemy line, be happy, the AI is being smart for once. You have to flank the enemy with your cavalry.
If you get wiped out when assulting a city, then congratulations EB, another historically accurate event reproduced.
On what MIC level are slingers at the moment? They could be moved a little upper to represent they were hard to train (though they probably weren't trained at all, just recruited from native peasants who had the know-how) and to avoid AI spamming them from underdeveloped settlements. In my game Epirus is bringing up an army against Pella with the 1st Thermonian slinger corps (7 hellenic slingers).
antisocialmunky
02-26-2007, 23:30
They are on MIC levels two or three.
I think an alternative solution to recruiting slingers is to make all slingers local levy units present in only areas where the sling was widely used to reflect that they weren't trained but recruited from a local population that was familiar with slings..
I have actually done a few tests with slingers against the main infantry units of a few of the factions. They've consistantly taken out about 10%-20% of most main battle infantry(Legionaries and Phalanxes) units before they close. They can also take out a units that archers can't take out like Thorakitai Agrysipidai and Kataphracts before they close.
Units Fireing on units on the ground from above is alot differnt from fireing head on lol or from the back or flank..Notice the units dont hold there shilds over there heads..So you fail to relize that the stones and lead shot are hititng there wittle heads lol and not the faces of there shilds lol I guess you had dreams of this tiny unit of spartins lasting the whole game send them back to sparta to be retrained end of story lol Do you think the spartens would be in a forum whine about loss in battle hehe your spartins would rather die in battle then any other fate:laugh4:
I dont mean to rant..But i see the same issues all over the boards people get mad coz the AI isent playing fair lol You wan't Iron man Rules? then stop acting like a wimp lol send in a cheap unit and use them as cannon fodder or asult from anouther wall the AI dos not usely walk around the walls to meet towerss. So you have a brain over the Ais predictable behaveur..
I'm greatful for tougher slingers..Thy have saved many early campains for me i got tired of being trashed with little or no hope of holding off hords of romans and macs..finely the slingers are up to par with the game..Be happy when there in the field and run them down and crush there wittle heads under the hoofs of your horses..but fear them on walls, after all whats the point of a good war game with out a challange:laugh4:
Domitius Ulpianus
02-27-2007, 00:20
Don't get me wrong..my problem is not that the AI is slaughtering my armies...its the other way around...thats why Im house ruling this one. No more than 20% of missile troops in any given army... when I starting to notice this change I was using 5 units of Hoplites and 6 slingers units and I pretty much destroyed the maks with that. So Im nerfing myself to make it a lil bit harder for me. After my Mak campaing my weakest slinger unit has 3 chevrons...so as a reward I retired them to city guard duty hehe. ~:cheers:
antisocialmunky
02-27-2007, 00:57
Units Fireing on units on the ground from above is alot differnt from fireing head on lol or from the back or flank..Notice the units dont hold there shilds over there heads..So you fail to relize that the stones and lead shot are hititng there wittle heads lol and not the faces of there shilds lol I guess you had dreams of this tiny unit of spartins lasting the whole game send them back to sparta to be retrained end of story lol Do you think the spartens would be in a forum whine about loss in battle hehe your spartins would rather die in battle then any other fate:laugh4:
I dont mean to rant..But i see the same issues all over the boards people get mad coz the AI isent playing fair lol You wan't Iron man Rules? then stop acting like a wimp lol send in a cheap unit and use them as cannon fodder or asult from anouther wall the AI dos not usely walk around the walls to meet towerss. So you have a brain over the Ais predictable behaveur..
I'm greatful for tougher slingers..Thy have saved many early campains for me i got tired of being trashed with little or no hope of holding off hords of romans and macs..finely the slingers are up to par with the game..Be happy when there in the field and run them down and crush there wittle heads under the hoofs of your horses..but fear them on walls, after all whats the point of a good war game with out a challange:laugh4:
Dude, stop acting like a jerk. Its fine to add to the conversation but stop treating people poorly. Try to be civil, please.
While I don't hate the idea of good slingers - they being useless in .80. I think thier power, cheapness, and ease of recruiting detracts as a whole from the game because it makes archers and many other units obsolete.
Before, archers and javelin throwers gave slingers a smallish role of taking out light armour units, now its the other way around. I mean, archers can't even attack them when the slingers can and they don't have the armour to take those hits like heavy infantry does. Elite archers have a similiar range to slingers and get killed very easily by them as well. I mean, you're losing 50-100% of a whole $1800 unit fighting against a $500 unit of slingers.
That is my main issue.
After the initial shock of how powerful they are in .81 compared to .80 they aren't too bad as you have mentioned and are a great help, but they're too much of a help.
Boyar Son
02-27-2007, 01:12
Any cavalry will do, slingers are kept in skirmish mode so you can run them down without a fight, use this for now.
the slingers are up to the EB team, convince them to change or maybe theres a way to fix it by just messing with the game.
Sorry i was not trying to sound like a jerk..But people complain alot and it gets on my tits, every Unit in this game has an equelizer to it..light cav takes out all light units and most horse archers and so forth..
Persenaly I dont play even field games..nore do i like to or any genreal in history i like the advantage on my side..If the eniamy gets it every so offten then so be it..But i dont pull any punches with the AI..I Rather injoy watching the pain and missery of the Ai suffer and rout just a kicking distance from my lines..My reaction is most likely due to the fact of suffering under the AI for half the campian..So Do you blame me? slingers are my WMD if there ever was such.
I usely come off as rather agressive parden me:shame:
Teleklos Archelaou
02-27-2007, 03:45
Ummm I will reproduce this test, as soon as I get home...from my experience...playing vh/m they are far more effective than that...as I said before the only units I have noticed thye are not so effective against is Phalanx...but against hoplites, heavy cavalry, heavy spearmen etc...they are fearsome. Ill post the results later.
Umm just a thought could unit sizes affect the results? I mean in terms of %...not the actual number of "victims".
I had it on medium battles and that was on 0.81. Spartans aren't phalanx units in EB either. Anyway...
Fondor_Yards
02-27-2007, 04:55
Don't get me wrong..my problem is not that the AI is slaughtering my armies...its the other way around...thats why Im house ruling this one. No more than 20% of missile troops in any given army... when I starting to notice this change I was using 5 units of Hoplites and 6 slingers units and I pretty much destroyed the maks with that. So Im nerfing myself to make it a lil bit harder for me. After my Mak campaing my weakest slinger unit has 3 chevrons...so as a reward I retired them to city guard duty hehe. ~:cheers:
:dizzy2: Well why were you having more slingers then infantry in your army in the first place? Thats not well balanced at all. As the greeks you shouldn't have that many in the first place. If you spam a good unit of course it's going to do good. That's like saying your Drapani destory everything in their path way too easily, but you only have 10 of them. Of course they are going to, that's their job.
antisocialmunky
02-27-2007, 05:42
No offense taken Sass and I hope you take no offense from my post, I know I sounded a harsh.
Does anyone have statistics showing the actual number of slingers in Hellenic and Roman armies of the time? Just as guidelines for those making their own house rules.
Domitius Ulpianus
02-27-2007, 06:13
I had it on medium battles and that was on 0.81. Spartans aren't phalanx units in EB either. Anyway...
I never said Spartans are phalanx...or did I? ...:dizzy2: anyway what I wanted to say is that the only units I have noticed they weren't so effective was phalanx units but againts all other kinds of medium/heavy units they were strong (hoplites spartiates and regular-, heavy cavalry ...etc)
Domitius Ulpianus
02-27-2007, 06:44
:dizzy2: Well why were you having more slingers then infantry in your army in the first place? Thats not well balanced at all. As the greeks you shouldn't have that many in the first place. If you spam a good unit of course it's going to do good. That's like saying your Drapani destory everything in their path way too easily, but you only have 10 of them. Of course they are going to, that's their job.
LOL ...probably the problem with my last post was my english because this is the second time I have to explain what I wanted to say:
Ok, here we go again...I was using slingers...because they are cheap and at the time was all I could afford I had no cavalry whatsever Fondor. As Im sure you know the economic situation of KH at the beggining does not allow you too many luxuries...so I used what I could muster 4 units of infantry (2 generals, and 2 classic hoplites and 5 or 6 slingers...I wasnt trying to exploit anything ...I recruited whatever I could...THEN as a result of this "army mix" I started noticing how effective they were...
Soooo I hope you understand Im not trying to exploit anything and then complaining about it...All there is to it really is: I used some troops selection which pretty much was the only thing available, I noticed some results I gave my opinion about it and then I "fixed" it myself with a house rule. Hope that clear things up.
Now the good part: This is the result of my testing and observation: **drumrolls**
As Teleklos reported the death ratio on a one vs. one encounter is very reasonable I did several tests using different kinds of units and in flat terrain it all looks right, As it would be expected walls and slopes give advantage to the missile troops but thats perfectly logical....now off course there is a BUT hehehe
I think I found the reason why some of us thought the slingers and/or other missile units were overpowered.
I noticed that when you use several missile units (5, 6) as you would expect the casualties increase on the target unit and usually it breaks or simply runs away to escape the range of the missiles and as soon as they turn their back they expose their weaker side or flank and that is when the "out of proportion" killing really starts (please note the " " :beam: ). Hope Im explaining myself:juggle2:
So, first thing is the missiles per se are not unbalanced or anything they are working in a very reasonable way IMHO...is just that when you concentrate all your missile firepower on a single unit it can cause them to run and then they really get obliterated. What I would propose is: Don't spam/recruit missile troops or don't concentrate all your firepower against a single unit...unless you really hate em and you just want to make em suffer hahaha:clown:
Hope this clears the issue a little bit. Thanks all for reading such a long and probably boring post :tomato:
As part of the Hotfix, we did find that a number of slinger units had inexplicably increased from 30 to 40 (base levels in EDU), and all these were brought back down to 30. That should address most of the issues you guys have mentioned.
Just one comment on the effect from walls. Assualts on city walls should cause very heavy casualties. There's a reason why most sieges in this era involved starving out the enemy. Attacks on fortified positions are risky, costly, and very dangerous. So to the extent that slingers on walls make your attacking lives a misery? Excellent! I just wish we could drop more of them into a besieged AI city in order to add even more pain and suffering to your EB lives! :whip:
Thanks for the info Kull.:2thumbsup:
Smaller unit size combined with me using the correct settings (Very Hard/Medium instead of Hard/Hard?) should restore the balance somewhat. I suppose I should also use Large instead of Huge - but there are limits (Sharpe's Waterloo instead of de Laurentis's Waterloo anyone?).
I'm afraid I have a bit of trouble getting used to Spartiates being mortal after their glory days of being 2 hitpoint monsters (even 3 in some mods).
As Sass mentioned earlier, there have been times when your initial unit of Spartans could go through the whole campaign with you, carefully cossetted and, like Napoleon's Old Guard, only ever brought out for the coup-de-grace.
Oh - the feeling of triumph when you had finally gotten Sparta to the top of the tech tree so that the remnant of your favourite boys could be retrained! :sweatdrop:
I must also admit that I use missiles ahistorically - i.e. as a single mass. Lacking the funds for decent cavalry, my KH dinosaurs otherwise tend to go down rather quickly under a wave of new-fangled Phalangites and Heteroi.
Oh, by the way, EB is the greatest (but I'm sure you all knew that).
Excellent! I just wish we could drop more of them into a besieged AI city in order to add even more pain and suffering to your EB lives! :whip:
Oh Lord, he has unlimited power.....letting slingers rain down into cities me & my Getai friends wanted to conquer...:shrug: throwing projectiles made of lead at my half-naked shock infantry....:skull:
...but we will climb those walls of Pella, Byzantion and all those other fine towns we wanna have.....:smash: ...one day...maybe........
I just wish we could drop more of them into a besieged AI city in order to add even more pain and suffering to your EB lives! :whip:
That would actually be a nice addition to sieges. That's why I never use elite units as the first wave to storm the walls. My problem with slingers, especially if they are in the province's mercenary pool which AI depletes, is the random AI "spamming" (ie. over two units per stack... I know, I'm a wimp). It gets really annoying and when it gets that it's not fun, except for the people around me. But it's not a big deal and it's relatively easy to counter. I just wish AI would use them more as a garrison unit (which would be awesome)...
Domitius Ulpianus
02-27-2007, 14:25
As part of the Hotfix, we did find that a number of slinger units had inexplicably increased from 30 to 40 (base levels in EDU), and all these were brought back down to 30. That should address most of the issues you guys have mentioned.
Just one comment on the effect from walls. Assualts on city walls should cause very heavy casualties. There's a reason why most sieges in this era involved starving out the enemy. Attacks on fortified positions are risky, costly, and very dangerous. So to the extent that slingers on walls make your attacking lives a misery? Excellent! I just wish we could drop more of them into a besieged AI city in order to add even more pain and suffering to your EB lives! :whip:
Oh sweet, Thanks for the news Kull!! you guys rock.
Personally I don't have problem with slingers.
If anything I think they are represented as how they supposed to be. If someone throw lead bolt at you with very high speed, you will suffer for sure.
Cheers EB team
Oleander Ardens
02-27-2007, 19:25
I think I'm among those who helped to shape EB's view on slingers, as a former founding member which could not give the support this great project deserved. I also know all the files concerning missiles quite well.
Firstly the game mechanics don't allow missile fire to affect the combat factors other than moral. Determined men were never stopped by hails of missiles. However even determined men would suffer injuries of all kinds and loss of moral. The De Bello Civico and many other episodes in history show just how badly even well armored men with big shields can get mauled by missile troops if the cannot retaliate. Ceasar writes of a cohort which got shot up by slingers and archers for hours - not a single men escaped unharmed, even if they used additonal padded armor (of straw?) - but no casualities are mentioned. So missiles really softened up hard soldiersRTW doesn't allow us to model the heavy drop of combat value and not just the one of moral. To give the missile units some place in this EB world this drop in combat value has to be reflected in casualities.
It is also very difficult to portray the differences between the various missile types, given that we just have a limitated set of options to do so. The AP ability reflects the fact that the sling is the king of momentum in the long range game, especially when lead shots are used. It is on the other side far less deadly than a sharp arrowhead - somehow the low attack should show that...
Cheers
OA
Proud Ex-Member
Why are slingers so good?
Goliath´s last words.
~:)
Shigawire
02-27-2007, 20:46
Aymar and me were some of the guilty ones who lobbied inside EB for the sling to be given back its "dignity" as a deadly weapon, and not some farmer's toy. Compared to the times they lived in, slings were considered particularly deadly and important to know to handle.
In the year 311 B.C., The Greeks under the generalship of Agathocles of Syracuse, was at war with Hamilcar of Carthage. At Eknomos, Sicily, the battle at one point was going badly for the Carthaginans until Hamilcar brought forth 1000 Balearic slingers. Diodorus, the Sicilian-born historian writes:
The Battle of Eknomos 311 B.C.
But when Hamilcar saw that his men were being overpowered and that the Greeks in constantly increasing number were making their way into the camp, he brought up his slingers, who came from the Baliaric Islands and numbered at least a thousand. By hurling a shower of great stones, they wounded many and even killed not a few of those who were attacking, and they shattered the defensive armour of most of them. For these men, who are accustomed to sling stones weighing a mina, contribute a great deal toward victory in battle, since from childhood they practise constantly with the sling. In this way they drove the Greeks from the camp and defeated them.
Their equipment for fighting consists of three slings, and of these they keep one around the head, another around the belly, and the third in the hands. In the business of war they hurl much larger stones than do any other slingers, and with such force that the missile seems to have been shot, as it were, from a catapult; consequently, in their assaults upon walled cities, they strike the defenders on the battlements and disable them, and in pitched battles they crush both shields and helmets and every kind of protective armour. And they are so accurate in their aim that in the majority of cases they never miss the target before them. The reason for this is the continual practice which they get from childhood, in that their mothers compel them, while still young boys, to use the sling continually; for there is set up before them as a target a piece of bread fastened to a stake, and the novice is not permitted to eat until he has hit the bread, whereupon he takes it from his mother with her permission and devours it.
Uegetius Renatus wrote a fine book "on military matters" - De Res Militarii - wherein he dedicates one chapter to slinging and throwing.
Latin:
Ad lapides uero uel manibus uel fundis iaciendos exerceri diligenter conuenit iuniores. Fundarum usum primi Balearium insularum habitatores et inuenisse et ita perite exercuisse dicuntur, ut matres paruos filios nullum cibum contingere sinerent, nisi quem ex funda destinato lapide percussissent. Saepe enim aduersum bellatores cassidibus catafractis (loricis) que munitos teretes lapides de funda uel fustibalo destinati sagittis sunt omnibus grauiores, cum membris integris letale tamen uulnus importent et sine inuidia sanguinis hostis lapidis ictu intereat. In omnibus autem ueterum proeliis funditores militasse nullus ignorat. Quae res ideo ab uniuersis tironibus frequenti exercitio discenda est, quia fundam portare nullus est labor. Et interdum euenit, ut in lapidosis locis conflictus habeatur, ut mons sit aliquis defendendus aut collis, ut ab obpugnatione castellorum siue ciuitatum lapidibus barbari fundisque pellendi sint.
English:
Recruits are to be taught the art of throwing stones both with the hand and sling. The inhabitants of the Balearic Islands are said to have been the inventors of slings, and to have managed them with surprising dexterity, owing to the manner of bringing up their children. The children were not allowed to have their food by their mothers till they had first struck it with their sling. Soldiers, notwithstanding their defensive armor, are often more annoyed by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. There is the greater reason for instructing all troops, without exception, in this exercise, as the sling cannot be reckoned any incumbrance, and often is of the greatest service, especially when they are obliged to engage in stony places, to defend a mountain or an eminence, or to repulse an enemy at the attack of a castle or city.
I think it's clear that slingers were considered a valuable asset in an army.
Penetration:
The fact is that not all slung projectiles necessarily penetrate equally. The very large stones (1 libra = 250gram) thrown by Balearic slingers simply crushed armour, or if not simply caused massive internal hemmorhaging and concussion. Since a lot of people were wearing various types of leather armour, it was considered major firepower.
They also used some projectiles made of dried clay, some of ceramic type. These had slightly less mass-size ratio, but thanks to being moldable they could be made more penetrative, and more aerodynamic. Thus increasing the coefficiency, increasing the range of the trajectory. Another projectile was the lead-bullets which were also shaped like tiny rugby-balls (as the clay/ceramic bullets), these did often penetrate both armor and flesh and necessitated the development of the surgical clamp-tool, the "forceps".
One benefit of archery over slingers was in the orderly fashion they could move in contiguous tightly packed units. Try to sling in a tight formation, and you'll most likely kill your neighbor with a stone into the head. The archers don't have to worry about this, and can operate in a tight formation, thus making them more manageable. You will notice that the slingers in EB have a looser formation, but in my opinion it should be even looser.
Another benefit of archery is of course the amount of practice required in comparison with slinging. Archery is hard, but slinging is considerably harder.
Which leads me to one of my pet peeve theories, and should allow me to answer a question posed:
A question that I have wondered for a long time:
Why did slingers fade into unuse? Too greek for the Romans? Urbanizing of the Roman world led to less shepherds? Levy archer vs. levy slinger = slinger wins; but trained archers always better that slingers? Or was it something stupid, like all the lead was used up in making plumbing and to drive Emperors insane?
As far as exploits: You can limit the number of slingers you use (my house rule is missile units can only be 1/5 my army at most (exceptions being horse archers when going against other horse archers)) and you can do what I do and kill off enemy slingers first thing. You should be able to get a good many when they are forming ranks.
I have a theory about that. The theory is pretty dumb, but here it is in its glory:
All of human development is driven by laziness.
Just think about it.
Or you could call it by its more appealing epithet: "mind over matter"
We basically want things to be as easy and available as possible. Now, it's not hard to find examples of this in our own rich 1st world (20% of the earth's population), but even among the 80% poorest nations you can find the evidence of this constant human drive. Most of the time, the survival-benefit is overwhelmingly on the side of the more advanced technology. But sometimes there are instances where the survival-benefits of the more demanding method outweigh the survival-benefits of the easy method, yet we choose the easy method because we can. You can find examples of this mostly in our 1st world, but even in the 3rd.
With the development from slinging to archery, the lazy-factor was that of less training-time required. The brain-factor was in the application of material technology and engineering.
This development wasn't necessarily about killing power, though the benefits of archery undoubtedly became evident with the advent of the compound bow. The superior range of the sling was untouched until the increased presence of the Scythian compound bow in Europe. Despite the increased range of a compound bow, the arrow still doesn't have nearly the kinetic energy and coefficiency that a slung stone or bullet has. With the sling, you get some kind of injury whether the projectile penetrates or not. Quite often fatal. With the arrow, you depend on a penetration to get injury at all. With an arrow, if there's no penetration, there's no injury.
From archery to guns, the development was similar. The tech initially came in a lacklustre form of arquebusiers and handgunners. By this time the archery was superior in all ways. Though the armor-penetration was still great on guns, but the killing power of the longbow per volley was not yet disputed. When proper musketeers became common, the armor was no longer having any effect. Longbowmen would probably still be just as deadly as guns, especially as armor was being discarded, and longbows having a much shorter reload-time than muskets. But why bother with all the fuss and hard exercise when you can go with something much simpler?
Again, the lazy-factor was that of less exercise required, while the brain-factor was in the advanced materials and engineering.
The same happened with machineguns, and continues to this day with more modern forms of munitions. Modern combatants are becoming more and more integrated with the entire army, the digital battlefield.
Why was slinging discarded? Because I think the strategic benefits of archery appealed to the Elite. Remember, that the vast population didn't really have any say in these matters. It was always the governing elite of the state. They view things differently from the population, more pragmatic. The time it takes to train a unit of musketeers versus the time it takes to train a unit of archers was a highly strategic consideration. It was never a choice of the common man of "oh I want to go to battle with this gun instead!"
This was entirely a strategic consideration which had a bearing on what weapons would be appearing on the battlefield. The fact that it was more convenient for the common man also had strategic consequences, since it meant their combat morale would likely be high, and their rate of fatigue lower.
By the way, in ancient Ashur (Assyria), slingers were considered long-range artillery, and were placed at the rear, while archers were in front of the slingers due to a lower range. They didn't have the compound bow yet.
Thanks for this....very educational :)...and i like your hypothisys.
I would also like to add in the long box - xbow analogy.
Though equivalent in many ways kinetically, the amount of training required was a lot smaller and a competentcy level attained much quicker with a xbow.
Also the physical limitations of long bow use, even drawing a 20lb longbow is a feat imho let alone then aiming it....are not encountered.
antisocialmunky
02-27-2007, 22:09
Nice info.
The return to the 60 man slinger groups should greatly balance them. A great alternative to Kretans.. sadly.
LordCurlyton
02-27-2007, 22:25
I haven't seen anyone else mention this but in my experience with slingers so far it seems that casualties you suffer on the battlefield have a much better chance of surviving from a sling hit. I distinctly recall pitting my 2 Merc Creatan Archers against similar numbers of Celtic Slingers and recovering more than 90% of my losses on a regular basis. Though my general did have a Chirugeon, it was easily the best success rate of any type of attack. I found that archer and skirmisher fire tended to make my guys "stay down" more often then slingers. Which makes sense, since getting knocked in the chest and most likely having a few ribs broken or a leg shattered or somesuch is probably a good way to take you out of the current fight, even if you get back up later. As it seems to me, slingers can cause more casualties than archers in battle, but archer kills are much more likely to remain that way. And my Cretan Archers were able to go toe to toe with the Celtic Slingers, as long as I kept them in loose formation, so archers should not be fully discounted. However, Toxotai just suck, much like Ancesi(sp?), but then that was the way it was supposed to be, no?
60 men how disappointing EB has been held hostage to whiners, and now not only will thay be alot less affetcive but take up needed space in the stack 60 men? jokeing right. 160 was great maybe 120 but 60?? the most elite unitsin the game get far more men then this and there just Slingers for christ sake and then you cut there stats again? and knock down there numbers, It would be better to just remove them from the game alltogather..
To be fair..You should tell people when doing the hotfix how to edit it so the unit size and power is not changed..and still get the benfits of the other fixes..thanks..what a joke..
Sass, seriously, stop. We're not capitulating to whiners, these are mistakes that crept in somewhere, and we are correcting them. In addition, WTF?? Where the hell did you get those sizes from, were reducing them from 40 to 30 (normal size), not from 160 to 60 (which I assume is huge size)! Get your facts straight before you go off on one, we're just not going to listen to you otherwise.
And if you want to change their stats, be our guest, but we're not going to release instructions on how to do so, when there are already so many guides on how to do it out there.
Foot
Fondor_Yards
02-28-2007, 02:35
60 men how disappointing EB has been held hostage to whiners, and now not only will thay be alot less affetcive but take up needed space in the stack 60 men? jokeing right. 160 was great maybe 120 but 60?? the most elite unitsin the game get far more men then this and there just Slingers for christ sake and then you cut there stats again? and knock down there numbers, It would be better to just remove them from the game alltogather..
To be fair..You should tell people when doing the hotfix how to edit it so the unit size and power is not changed..and still get the benfits of the other fixes..thanks..what a joke..
:laugh4: lol calm down mate. Thing here are normally based on large, so that's 60 on large not huge. So that would be 120 for you.
Domitius Ulpianus
02-28-2007, 03:27
60 men how disappointing EB has been held hostage to whiners, and now not only will thay be alot less affetcive but take up needed space in the stack 60 men? jokeing right. 160 was great maybe 120 but 60?? the most elite unitsin the game get far more men then this and there just Slingers for christ sake and then you cut there stats again? and knock down there numbers, It would be better to just remove them from the game alltogather..
To be fair..You should tell people when doing the hotfix how to edit it so the unit size and power is not changed..and still get the benfits of the other fixes..thanks..what a joke..
I was going to give you the answer you deserve, but then I realized you must be like 13 years old, if not physically for sure mentally...altough my 13 year old brother is way more mature, educated and considerate than you will ever be....so not gonna bother with you ever again.
/emote ignore sass ~:wave:
Teleklos Archelaou
02-28-2007, 03:30
Are you guys gonna play nice or am I going to have to close this thread?
I Only ever play on huge..I don't think since the game came out that i tryed any other..So igernice or not..I never considerd it, plus any pike unit would be worse off with anything under 240 men:skull: so i was unaware of the numbers lower then huge..sorry..
And as far as being inmature well this whole thread was started with whineing..so you can bugger off my man unless you intend on giveing hell to everyone ealse whos bitching take your own bloody advise:laugh4:
Teleklos Archelaou
02-28-2007, 04:22
Enough of this mess. No need for any lectures - this thread is closed. I wish we had yellow and red cards to dish out here.
On a side note after seeing many posts in this thread: Adding smilies to insults doesn't mean it's you didn't insult someone.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.