Slinger Availability

[Southern Hunter]

We recently discussed some points about slingers in another thread, which turned a bit feral and got locked. There was some feedback from Tekeklos, but my reading of his words were that there was no need to change from current slinger availability.

My request is to:
- Reduce the general availability of slingers as battlefield units significantly.

The justifications is:
- Historically they were not able to be fielded in large numbers, in any army of the period. In EB, they can form entire armies.

Ways to implement:
- Reduce unit size of slingers to make them generally less deadly as a unit (and thus put 'use of unit slot' pressure on them, although this does not apply to small armies where all 20 unit slots are not being used anyway)
- Reduce their availability as mercenaries, and eliminate or substantially change their availability as trained troops

Does anyone have any problems with the justification? Can they post a counter-example where an army had 'heaps' of slingers? The best examples I can come up with show that slingers were indeed effective, but very rare and hard to find as troops, and formed only a tiny proportion of the field force in absolute numbers, around 1-5% at best.

By allowing the player to have access to enormous numbers of this cheap and effective firepower unit, it substantially changes the nature of battles, away from melee lines and into firefights, more specifically, firepower massacres.

I base my argument on trying to align the EB game with historical realities and possibilities. If I have misunderstood what EB are trying to do, forgive me.

Hunter

[Watchman]

Eh, you should be able to scrounge up poor herdsmen, farmer boys and whatnot pretty much anywhere; those are what armies mainly recruited their slingers from, no ? And they're pretty much everywhere, the rural proletariats.

Now, whether you should be making armies out of them and burying enemy armies under tides of slingshot is another issue, and really mainly up to the player's own conscience. Police Yourselves.

[sass]

If im not mistaken the hotfix reduices something about there attack..and there number..Also i dont think rtw could emplament the rest of what your asking for..

Historicly thay where everywhere, most people don't know peltests where armed with slings and javalins offten both at the same time..rtw only lets you arm a missle unit with one type and a side arm..so peltist is a genaric term.

And why limit them? I for one depend on them to make it threw the game..javlin units are just to darn weak to kill very many and most of the time the ai out numbers me..the kill rate is correct and slingers where deadly..alot of people wan't them to be the same way as the 1.0 rtw when thay where basicly worthless slot fillers..no thanks, dont likem? dont use them or use light cav to take out the ais slingers..i mean comeon? the AI sucks in RTW LOL

[antisocialmunky]

My suggestion was to make them built from the local conscripting/levy MIC in places where slingers were most plentiful. My rationale was that they were more or less locals rounded up for their skills, they weren't trained. I don't know how wide spread the non-military use of the sling was, but that's my suggestion.

[Watchman]

The nonmilitary use of sling to chase predators off domestic animals, birds off sown fields, and to bring the random rabbit or somesuch critter home for the pot was AFAIK pretty godawfully common. Well, in some regions bows or javelins were preferred for the same purposes but that's beside the point.

Slings, after all, are very, very cheap.

[antisocialmunky]

Its not that it's cheap, its whether or not people in all the places where peasant slingers can be recruited use them. I can understand them being trainable in certain areas but not the middle of the Sahara, the Steppe, or the dense forests of Central Europe.

Also, the standard 'recruit' option in RTW depicts training not levying of skilled locals. The only mechanism in RTW that could do that is the mercenary option.

I'm probably wrong but hey, please correct me.

[Watchman]

I'm pretty sure you don't recruit them in those places, at least with most factions.


Also, the standard 'recruit' option in RTW depicts training not levying of skilled locals....like steppe horse-archers, tribal mountain warriors, Arab and Numidian desert nomads and so on ? Yeah right.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, if you can't then that's good. I haven't paid attention to slingers until .81 so I never noticed if slingers could be recruited everywhere.

On your rebuttle:

Well, I should say that its dependent on the specific case, but intuitively I think of RTW's 'recruiting' as training from scratch since no matter how much you train, you never run out of people availiable to become that type of unit. Atleast in the case of slingers, unless ordinary people were trained to be military grade slingers in a relatively quick matter of time enmasse like archers, pikemen, and horsemen, then the idea of 'recruiting' in how I think of RTW recruiting doesn't make that much sense to me. But this is just me and not a very relevant subject. I just thought I'd throw it out there so people know where I am coming from with the mercenary comment.

In the case of horse archers and mountain warriors, they make sense in the RTW 'recruiting' sense as they are a product or a prerequisite of the local population's way of life. You can continuously recruit horse archers from a place where the locals were skilled mounted archers by training them for war. You can also always levy mountain warriors and desert warrios because they are a product of living in those environments. This is why I suggested recruiting regions for slingers because in many places it wasn't a requisite for a general way of life everywhere... I see them as locals levies into service and they should onyl be trainable in areas where the sling was widely used in day to day life.

[Watchman]

"Military grade slingers" ? What's that supposed to be ? The ones in EB are, basically, a bunch of peasants with slings and a degree of skill with them. Since their only job is to sling hurty things at the enemy and keep away from anything dangerous, that last bit is really the only prequisite.

And since peasants most everywhere are more or less familiar with the sling since childhood (kids were given them to chase birds off fields for example), they're fairly readily available in most settled regions that do not for one reason or another eschew the use of the weapon.

If you're going to draft peasants, might as well make them useful and not waste them as spear-fodder. Those folks are the ones who work for the tax money you collect, after all.

[sass]

Harping in the forum about the power of slingers will not make the team change there minds..shesh the whole idea of this between the lines is people dont like to be killed lol thay dont like to lose men and thay dont like to fight fair vs the AI..thats what its alllllllll about..not about history correctness or anything that falls under that catagory..However there attempting to justafy them selfs by trying anyways oh and did i forget to say Free?

The next thing will be why romans main units can be made all over the map you just can't please people even when thay get something for free there the most cost effective unit in the game and thay pack a punch thay don't kill the way most in here are going on about lol most large shild units take little pain from the frunt and to the flank of the shild hand..Its a game thy can't change everything to suit every ones persenal likes and dislikes..


whoa wipes swet from brow..now i feel better..

[antisocialmunky]

And since peasants most everywhere are more or less familiar with the sling since childhood (kids were given them to chase birds off fields for example), they're fairly readily available in most settled regions that do not for one reason or another eschew the use of the weapon.

Well, like I said, I never paid attention to slingers until they got decent in .81 so I didn't know if they were already regionally limitted or not.

"Military grade slinger" was just my term for describing people who could use it effectively in war. And like I said, slingers should be only recruitted in areas where slings were widely used. Its hard to learn how to use a sling. Training people to use slings from scratch takes a long time and wasn't done to a great extent historically thus they should be regionally limitted. So if they are then really, there's no point to continuing this line of discussion because that's what I wanted to be present in the game.

Sass, the only person that actually even remotely 'harped' on the power of slings was the author of the thread. No one here has actually complained about the power of slingers in this thread so stop acting like people are going OMG!!! SLINGERS ARE SO UBER because this thread hasn't gone there yet. Stop over reacting, its annoying.

However, if you want to hear some harping, I will still say that the standard archers suck when the historical slingers are in the house. :-p Seriously, I can't justify using them with the increased power of slingers. Maybe the 60 man slinger teams will make them slightly passable again.

[Watchman]

I dunno, the Eastern ones at least are probably better for clearing "soft" un- or lightly-armoured targets off the field - leaving the slingers free to concentrate on the hard, crunchy stuff arrows just bounce off.

[antisocialmunky]

The elite and ethnic archers are good, its just that the lowest level ones like Toxatai suck.

[Watchman]

Well, Toxotai are supposed to (although I'd point out they fall under "ethnic archers" as well...). By all accounts most Greek archery was kinda bleh. The Cretans were a different story, but then they used manly Scythian composite bows and all that.

[Satan]

sass, seriously u should just shut up, you dont really get what they are trying to do, and why do u type like that, ur spelling and grammar is horrible. The forums are used for discussion and game-related issues, slingers are very overpowered, though i know this is accurate, but hey whats better:

1-. Balance of the game
or
2-. Historically accurate

The team will decide, i agree with what Southern Hunter suggested. Just reduce the numbers, like from 80 to 60 in large or increase there training times like to 4 turns (1 year), this could really balance the game quite a bit, though we can easily set up our own house rules. But the AI will abuse them and we cannot stop them from doing that, wich will give us a disadvantage. They can be easily chased off with cavalry, but this will make them vulnerable to any other missile units that are close or an enemy cavalry unit will attack your cavalry.

And sass, yes we know that this mod is free and the time spent on this mod cannot be matched. Though, im pretty sure the EB team love the suggestions they get through the forums, when we the community play EB, and we find something that is just to overpowered or anything of that sort, its best to discuss it at the forums. So ya, plz stop attacking ppl who are trying to help the mod for it to be better and well-balanced.

[Karielle]

Don't feed the troll. :no:

[sass]

Who are you to tell me what to do? and who cares about spelling or grammer i got my point across thats all that need concer the auther of the post..if you don't like what i have to say dont comment on my post..simple as that..

there are no over powerd units in the game..EB team has basicly rooted out all this in other batas..now its just bug fixing and updateing skins..

1-game is already balanced..slingers where givein more kick to keep the balance even..or other units and factions that are AI controled don't get sqoshed after 30 turns..

2- Historically accurate? Um? its a game lol go to iraq if you want historicly accurate war fair:laugh4: The only thing thats accurate is colors and units and unit skins..the rest is limited by the falts of CA's game..

And for the Record..I'm a Lawyer Representing the class action being takein out on certen members of the form for discrimination aginst my half a dozen clients poor as thay maybe from many parts of the map that have been whofuly under represented in the past, And feel sidelined by other more colorful upstarts in the game..Just when you think your moveing up in the world someone has a chip on there shoulder about your proformance:laugh4: With the money ill win for my peasnts with slings thay will be heavey slingers in the next patch..Thay made it clear to me should you chose not to use them thy already feel there sign on pay is not enough to dignafy the danger thay face and the feeling of expendablity of there hides leaves them with a feeling of inferiority :sweatdrop: and you can now well imagian why thay chose me to represent them..:book: for all legel questions from here or above please contract the head Mod..and again Thank you for your cooperation, in thease ever stressful trying times..


sass, seriously u should just shut up, you dont really get what they are trying to do, and why do u type like that, ur spelling and grammar is horrible. The forums are used for discussion and game-related issues, slingers are very overpowered, though i know this is accurate, but hey whats better:

1-. Balance of the game
or
2-. Historically accurate

The team will decide, i agree with what Southern Hunter suggested. Just reduce the numbers, like from 80 to 60 in large or increase there training times like to 4 turns (1 year), this could really balance the game quite a bit, though we can easily set up our own house rules. But the AI will abuse them and we cannot stop them from doing that, wich will give us a disadvantage. They can be easily chased off with cavalry, but this will make them vulnerable to any other missile units that are close or an enemy cavalry unit will attack your cavalry.

And sass, yes we know that this mod is free and the time spent on this mod cannot be matched. Though, im pretty sure the EB team love the suggestions they get through the forums, when we the community play EB, and we find something that is just to overpowered or anything of that sort, its best to discuss it at the forums. So ya, plz stop attacking ppl who are trying to help the mod for it to be better and well-balanced.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Slingers were 120(huge) (60-large?) in 080. Some accidentally went up to 160 (80?) for 081. The next patch ("quickfix") will have them back at 120 (60?). IIRC...

As far as good archers, I just found some. More attack then Persian archers, more armor than many infantry, and 242 men per unit. :2thumbsup:
Roman Eastern Archers Avxilia

[LordCurlyton]

Slingers were 120(huge) (60-large?) in 080. Some accidentally went up to 160 (80?) for 081. The next patch ("quickfix") will have them back at 120 (60?). IIRC...

As far as good archers, I just found some. More attack then Persian archers, more armor than many infantry, and 242 men per unit. :2thumbsup:
Roman Eastern Archers Avxilia
Maybe it only happened to those who patched from 0.80 but I did a full install and on Large size slingers are 60 men a pop. Also, I find them to be very accurately represented and even if I wanted to my style of battle doesn't include the Rain O' Rocky Doom. Also, I have not noticed the AI spamming slingers. If it spams it tends to either spam a levy type spearman (if on the defensive or just plain poor) or a high end infantry unit. I have yet to face a stack with more than 3 slingers. I find nothing wrong with skirmishers or archers, either. A good archer can hurt just as much as a good slinger, and if you use skirmishers properly they can devastate enemy infantry.

[silverster]

:yes: I am yet to see one AI fraction spams Slinger but i have seen the greeks spamming the crap out of pelasts... Like a full army out of them...

[Fondor_Yards]

Ok people we are trying to have a civil talk here, so don't go telling people to shut up because they have a different viewpoint then you.

Slings were widely used weapons. As I understand it, they were used by shepards and farmers from Iberia to Persia to help control their flocks. Hitting a lion attacking your sheep in the head isn't harder then hitting a man attacking you in the head. And since bows tech in the west was just plain garbage during this time, slingers were used a lot more. They had more range, could carry more ammo, and could do more damage, so there is not surpising they were used more.

As it has been said several times here and in the other thread the larger then normal sizes are a bug and will be fixed in the hotfix. That is the only difference between them in .81 and in .80, so I don't see what the problem is. No one complained/or thought they were too strong. Many are complaining it is easy to make a full stack of them. But that is YOUR choice to do so. It's also easy to make a full stack of Hetairoi, or Gaesatae too, but people don't complain about that. That's because we know that's a cheap thing to do, so we make balanced armies with only a few of them *well most of the time*. Just take the same attitude with slingers. Or don't, it is your choice to make your armies any way you want.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I'll say this now also: there will be even more sling units by the time we are finished. There are two totally different slots for different slinger types that we hope to have in for the final 1.0 build. I won't say anything else about them, but they differ enough to merit it we think. I can't imagine that we will turn slingers into merc only or units with very small numbers of men. There have been no reports I've seen of AI spamming them, and if it's just reports of players feeling like they use them too much, then my advice is to stop doing that.

[Kull]

I remember trying a strategy once with about 60% slingers, a cav or two and a few line units. It worked fine until the first time I went up against a celtic army will lots of jav guys, swordsmen, and cav. Ugh. The cav chased down my slingers and tore them apart while my now undefended line guys were swamped and annihilated. Oh yeah, and please send a 20 unit slinger army against 3 or 4 cataphracts. That will be fun. Cats find mice to be quite tasty! :beam:

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Oh yeah, and please send a 20 unit slinger army against 3 or 4 cataphracts. That will be fun. Cats find mice to be quite tasty! :beam:
I tried that. It was only the four slinger groups with the legion, but I thought, cataphract are really armored... slingers have AP... no problem. I killed like five before the armored horse archers completely destroyed my slingers. First time I've seen every last man in a group die without much done by them. Now I know how those armies of lugoae feel. :beam:

[Juvenal]

@Kull - I always put some Hoplites behind my slingers (usually Ekdromoi), it is then fairly safe to put them far out on the left flank (unshielded side for the enemy). When the phalanx lines close, the enemy phalanx just melts like butter. (By the way, is there a Sling-Spammers-Anonymous group I could join before I convert my general's bodyguard to slingers?)

----

I know slings are theoretically effective, but the historical reality is that they were not decisive weapons - anyone disagree with this?

Because of their flat trajectory, slingers ought to be deployed in lines, not blocks (I notice the EB formations already do this for the enemy). Unfortunately the RTW engine doesn't simulate the effect of friendly fire on the launching unit, so the player is not penalised for making tight blocks.

I suggest that slingers formations might be made looser (to represent the precautions that should be taken against friendly fire within the unit). This has several advantages:


Reduces density of fire achievable against a single target.
Makes it more difficult to protect a flanking slinger force against cavalry.
Lengthens the time to deploy slingers around an enemy flank.


Please let me know if you think this is helpful.

[Thaatu]

2- Historically accurate? Um? its a game lol go to iraq if you want historicly accurate war fair:laugh4:
Oh my god, I hate it when someone says that. I really hope that was a stupid joke to parody all those who say that without thinking it through.



There have been no reports I've seen of AI spamming them, and if it's just reports of players feeling like they use them too much, then my advice is to stop doing that.
I have seen AI spamming them, mostly Romans with their accensii (which are pretty bad, so they don't have much success with that tactic) and, when playing as Romans, Aedui and Sweboz were using celtic slingers "extensively" in Cisalpine Gaul. They were spamming them either from underdeveloped settlements or from mercenary pools. I don't see the reason for them to be in mercenary pools, and I don't think it would hurt anyone to remove them as they are recruitable in early level MICs. It's an annoyance, though not a game-breaker.

[sass]

I was in Iraq and Afganistan..

No i was not jokeing lol

Ive never seen the AI spam slingers or missle troops at all..maybe 2 units if that..usely The Ai spams skrimisher units that have javlins..that is the gods honest truth, Lots of javlin troops, Sometimes spamming units Really is not a bad thing lol roman spamming legiens? is that bad? its there main unit..Spaming celtic warband? that was basicly there back bone unit..2 units or 4 units of slingers is normal to me..to everone there own..whatever kills the Ai the fastest.

I'm starting a slingers union beware..

p.s. people need to stop getting there feelers hurt so easly shesh lol:skull:

[Thaatu]

I was in Iraq and Afganistan..

No i was not jokeing lol
First of all, I want to play a historically accurate game set in a time before imperial Rome. Second, I don't want to kill or die for another country, which has started an unlawful and unprovoked war. Do you see the logic gap in your "advice" if it indeed was not a joke?


Ive never seen the AI spam slingers or missle troops at all..maybe 2 units if that..usely
The problem may be my definition of "spam", as I use a maximum of one slinger unit per army, so an AI army with four slingers is spam to me. ~:wacko:
But it's something that one can easily live with, so the AI "spam" is not a big deal.


p.s. people need to stop getting there feelers hurt so easly shesh lol
You might want to tone down that arrogance a little and maybe no feelers will be harmed. Sorry if I have insulted you in any way, I'm in a spicy mood today.

[sass]

First of all, I want to play a historically accurate game set in a time before imperial Rome. Second, I don't want to kill or die for another country, which has started an unlawful and unprovoked war. Do you see the logic gap in your "advice" if it indeed was not a joke?


The problem may be my definition of "spam", as I use a maximum of one slinger unit per army, so an AI army with four slingers is spam to me. ~:wacko:
But it's something that one can easily live with, so the AI "spam" is not a big deal.


You might want to tone down that arrogance a little and maybe no feelers will be harmed. Sorry if I have insulted you in any way, I'm in a spicy mood today.


No insults takein i can respect someone with the backbone to stand up to me.

I really was not trying to be arrogent..harrsh times make people harsh..im sure you understand..do i come off as a hardass?

Serisly though..I don't play historically accurate games coz there just isent any..real war spoils all the fun of being an arm chair genreal..So is it only natruel for me to by Nature to use the best tec units to wipe the field of the cowardly AI? i took out a full stack of romans with only 4 units of spartins and 2 slingers and thay where all those elite guard with yellow shilds and some cav and something ealse..gave me a big head..

Ask the avrage spartan then about the natrue of war and you'd meet true war mongers lol..men and weman..from the lowest level to the high goverment to the king..not just our goverment lol so its hard to critazie me or any other military when the game emulates warmongering factions:laugh4: The spartans would scare Mr bush and his dick cheney into an early grave..Just think i don't want iran..but if macadonia was to go with us again? how ironic is that? Macadonia back in P:egypt: Persia And who can say? Maybe, Maybe Macadonia shall be great again:egypt: ~:eek:

[The Errant]

Don't complain about slinger until you tried playing the Sabyn against the Seleucids.

Javeliners and skirmisher cavalry does very little damage against the armor bonus of the phalanx. Slingers do. They're the only unit thats cheap enough to mass produce that puts a dent in their armies.
You can use a balanced stack that will take between 30-60 % casualties. But can you afford to retrain them? Nope.
And how does your one underpowered stack fare up against the three other Seleucid stacks coming towards you? Not well I'll tell you.

If someone dosen't like slingers and feel their overpowered there is no compulsion to use them. As long as the AI dosen't spam them, I'm very happy to keep them as they are.

[Rilder]

-cut-

Ok, I'm usually the one against those who insult peoples grammar, and I'm not that great on my own grammar but, PLEASE use the integrated spell check.

As for your comments about historically accurate gameplay, It just seemed like you were giving the impression that people shouldn't play that way, after all this is a historically accurate mod. Personally I don't play totally accurate either, but I still limit myself to give challenge... if at least to give an illusion of historical accuracy. :sweatdrop:

As for slingers, they are quite nice and powerful but I personally prefer archers/skirmishers.(peltasi rule).

[Domitius Ulpianus]

Thaatu, I'll give you a piece of advise I know you are not asking for: don't waste your time, it's not worth it. Some people just will not listen or learn. :wall:

[Southern Hunter]

OK, so basically I made some points about the historical availability of slingers, and their relative availability in EB, which I think should change.

There are several useful suggestions made in the thread about alternative ways this could be done. Good ideas.

There are also 3 counter points made, so far as I can tell:

1. I like using them; They are good value and I can fight the AI with them

These lines of arguments seem to be counter productive? Indeed, this is the point I am complaining about...it is way too easy to use this as an exploit to wipe out the enemy.

2. Well this is a general problem, not just with slingers, i.e.



Many are complaining it is easy to make a full stack of them. But that is YOUR choice to do so. It's also easy to make a full stack of Hetairoi, or Gaesatae too, but people don't complain about that. That's because we know that's a cheap thing to do, so we make balanced armies with only a few of them *well most of the time*. Just take the same attitude with slingers. Or don't, it is your choice to make your armies any way you want.

No, it isn't so easy to make a full stack of Gaesati or Hetaroi, because they cost a LOT to buy and maintain, and require advanced MICs, and aren't essentially worth all that expense.

If there are other troops that allow totally ahistorical armies to be built, then I am opposed to them being available. By a-historical here, I mean not only that it didn't happen, but fundamentally, that it couldn't.

If I had been a general of this period, and saw how effective they were, and how cheap, I would indeed have hired tens of thousands of them. BUT NOBODY DID! WHY?

My belief is because they were not available. The alternative explanation would be that they actually weren't this effective, in which case, other factors can be changed.

3. No, slings were used widely and were common. E.g.


Slings were widely used weapons. As I understand it, they were used by shepards and farmers from Iberia to Persia to help control their flocks. Hitting a lion attacking your sheep in the head isn't harder then hitting a man attacking you in the head. And since bows tech in the west was just plain garbage during this time, slingers were used a lot more. They had more range, could carry more ammo, and could do more damage, so there is not surpising they were used more.


This is a fundamental difference in understanding between our positions. I do not believe they were 'used widely' in at least a military sense of them being important. What battles were won by slingers? Any at all?

Historical Examples:

a. Retreat of the 10,000. Were harried by slingers and took many casualties. Were helped greatly by some Rhodian slingers being converted from their army, some 200 of them. 200 is not a large number in comparison to the size of ancient armies, some 2% of the size of this army. If scaled at 1:6 or so as most other units seem to be (at huge scale), this would be 35 or so, not 120 or 160.

b. Live mentions the Aegean slingers as being quite good. Mentions nothing about Spartan slingers or Athenian slingers. Everybody says the Balearic slingers are the best, better than Rhodians or anyone else. In fact they were named after it.

c. Alexander's army in Persia. No slingers, none.

d. Why did the Romans, great acquirers of appropriate military technology, not adopt the sling? Well, actually they did. Legionaries were supplied with slings and presumably trained in their use. Their actual use in other than sieges is not recorded I think?

e. Magnesia, a classic battle during the period. How many slingers, nil.

I'm tired now so I won't go on.

I do not wish to be seen as 'complaining'. I am trying to be helpful in suggesting better historical balance. If their isn't time to fix it, thats just dandy.

Hunter

[antisocialmunky]

I've been wondering ever since I started the old slinger topic how long the levy slinger could actually be in the army and how this owuld have limited slinger numbers.

I mean, if the basic slinger guy is drawn from the labor intensive agriarian classes - especially the semi-nomadic shepards or transhumancing peoples- then how long could they actually be in the army and be able to farm and have a living, provide food/raw materials for the non-farming classes? Agriculture is the basis of the economy and civilization after all. If there were not enough farmers farming, then there would be fewer specialists (blacksmiths, merchants, politicians).

I mean, even for the trained army, many of the middle and upper-class soldiers would go home in the fall/winter to supervise harvest and the spring sewing. Offensive warfare has always been limitted by above all else: food and water. Men have to eat and drink. So why would they make farmers stop farming and start fighting? Long term levying from the agricultural classes would be detrimental to society and it would be like undercutting the ground you're standing on. Alot of the long term levy/militia troops of the 'civilized' world depicted in EB come from the city classes of comercial residents and comsopolitan citizens rather than farmer peasant stock. I'm wondering if those peasant guys were drafted in times of need of civil defense rather than for standing armies or offensive campaigns.

It would be interesting to see a difference depicted between the slinger trained for a standing army like the Romans you mentioned above and the levy peasant slinger. For example, levy slingers come in smaller groups and take one turn to levy and the formally trained ones take two turns and are larger.

[Orb]

I think the team have already mentioned that the current units of 40 slingers should be 30.

Go through EDU with the search function (search 'stone' to find the slinger units) and reduce 40s to 30s and then they are, imo, reasonably balanced and accurate.
As Pontos, I now have a motivation to add plenty of Eastern skirmishers instead, because the slingers aren't so effective or numerous anymore.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I've been wondering ever since I started the old slinger topic how long the levy slinger could actually be in the army and how this owuld have limited slinger numbers.

I mean, if the basic slinger guy is drawn from the labor intensive agriarian classes - especially the semi-nomadic shepards or transhumancing peoples- then how long could they actually be in the army and be able to farm and have a living, provide food/raw materials for the non-farming classes? Agriculture is the basis of the economy and civilization after all. If there were not enough farmers farming, then there would be fewer specialists (blacksmiths, merchants, politicians).

I mean, even for the trained army, many of the middle and upper-class soldiers would go home in the fall/winter to supervise harvest and the spring sewing. Offensive warfare has always been limitted by above all else: food and water. Men have to eat and drink. So why would they make farmers stop farming and start fighting? Long term levying from the agricultural classes would be detrimental to society and it would be like undercutting the ground you're standing on. Alot of the long term levy/militia troops of the 'civilized' world depicted in EB come from the city classes of comercial residents and comsopolitan citizens rather than farmer peasant stock. I'm wondering if those peasant guys were drafted in times of need of civil defense rather than for standing armies or offensive campaigns.

It would be interesting to see a difference depicted between the slinger trained for a standing army like the Romans you mentioned above and the levy peasant slinger. For example, levy slingers come in smaller groups and take one turn to levy and the formally trained ones take two turns and are larger.

Soldiers went to war and couldn't farm... government took over farms and consolidated them into 'industrial plantations' (latifundias)... soldiers came home, "Sorry, your land is now owned by the government."... ex-soldiers became drunks, theives, and mercenaries... civil unrest insued...
At least that's what happened when Roman farmers were off to war for long periods.

[Fondor_Yards]

OK, so basically I made some points about the historical availability of slingers, and their relative availability in EB, which I think should change.

There are several useful suggestions made in the thread about alternative ways this could be done. Good ideas.

There are also 3 counter points made, so far as I can tell:

1. I like using them; They are good value and I can fight the AI with them

These lines of arguments seem to be counter productive? Indeed, this is the point I am complaining about...it is way too easy to use this as an exploit to wipe out the enemy.

2. Well this is a general problem, not just with slingers, i.e.


So are you complaining that's it's too easy to exploit? Then don't exploit it, it's that simple. The AI doesn't, so it only the player that can.




No, it isn't so easy to make a full stack of Gaesati or Hetaroi, because they cost a LOT to buy and maintain, and require advanced MICs, and aren't essentially worth all that expense.

Depends on faction and location. I could easily afford 5 full stacks of gaesatae in addition to my normal units in my carthage campain.



If there are other troops that allow totally ahistorical armies to be built, then I am opposed to them being available. By a-historical here, I mean not only that it didn't happen, but fundamentally, that it couldn't.

If I had been a general of this period, and saw how effective they were, and how cheap, I would indeed have hired tens of thousands of them. BUT NOBODY DID! WHY?

Why couldn't it happen? If a general wanted to, they could make their army out of any troop types they wanted, even if it wasn't the norm. Would you call an all greek peltast army unhistorical? Well tell that to Iphikrates when he defeated a spartan army with only peltasts. The greeks and romans others didn't use a lot of them because that's not how their armys were based. Most armies were either centered around heavy infantry or cavalry, missiles were only supporting elements and thus were not used more then the army's core. The people who did use mainly missiles used either javaliens *because they do heavier damage, like with the numidians, germans, iberians,* or archers *eastern nations had better bow tech, and their archers were better then slingers, so slingers were pushed to the side.*



My belief is because they were not available. The alternative explanation would be that they actually weren't this effective, in which case, other factors can be changed.

3. No, slings were used widely and were common. E.g.


Slings, ammo, and depictions of slingers have been found in Egypt, Syria, Rome, Greece, Rhodes, Balearic Islands, Persia, Iberia, England, most Iron Age Hill Forts, Etruria, Macedonia, and even in Nevada. So you can't say they weren't common or wide spread or not available.



This is a fundamental difference in understanding between our positions. I do not believe they were 'used widely' in at least a military sense of them being important. What battles were won by slingers? Any at all?

Historical Examples:

a. Retreat of the 10,000. Were harried by slingers and took many casualties. Were helped greatly by some Rhodian slingers being converted from their army, some 200 of them. 200 is not a large number in comparison to the size of ancient armies, some 2% of the size of this army. If scaled at 1:6 or so as most other units seem to be (at huge scale), this would be 35 or so, not 120 or 160.


As you/Xenophon said, the greeks, despite their large shields and heavy armour, suffered severely from the archers, and a meer 200 Rhodians using lead rounds *persians used stones*, were able to hold off the pesian slingers. So how does this help your arguement more then mine?



b. Live mentions the Aegean slingers as being quite good. Mentions nothing about Spartan slingers or Athenian slingers. Everybody says the Balearic slingers are the best, better than Rhodians or anyone else. In fact they were named after it.

~:confused: What does that have to do with anything?



c. Alexander's army in Persia. No slingers, none.

Sorry, but no. He had 500 with him at Granicus. At Gaugamela he used his slingers to harass the Persian heavy cavalry until they decided to give fight, and then promptly cut them off from the rest of the Persian army, allowing the Hetairoi to cut them to shreds.



d. Why did the Romans, great acquirers of appropriate military technology, not adopt the sling? Well, actually they did. Legionaries were supplied with slings and presumably trained in their use. Their actual use in other than sieges is not recorded I think?

Again, how does this prove they weren't widely used, stating that every roman legionary carried them.



e. Magnesia, a classic battle during the period. How many slingers, nil.

At Magnesia, they had 8,000 Elymaean archers and Cyrtian slingers, among others that used the sling. Read Appian's Description in this thread about the battle, you will see numrous references to slings and slingers.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=68400




I do not wish to be seen as 'complaining'. I am trying to be helpful in suggesting better historical balance. If their isn't time to fix it, thats just dandy.

Hunter
If you don't want to be seen as complaining, post some historical text or evidence supporting your posts. Many fans and team members have been extremely jumpy lately about this*people stating things as fact, without backing it up with anything that is.*

[Watchman]

Herdsmen were usually at the bottom of the agrarian socioeconomic ladder, far as I know. I'm rather willing to bet they were commonly willing indeed to quit their old "day job" and turn soldiering into a in comparision quite lucrative career if given the opportunity, for the exact same reasons the harsh and impoverished mountain regions forever provided a ready supply of willing mercenaries to any army.

See the world, meet interesting people, kill them and loot their stuff. Sufficient enough motivation to enlist for many many poor people over the millenia.

As for the issues with part-time soldiers, come on. The armies of the Sweboz for example would by a considerable majority consist of peasant soldiers, common tribesmen on a war footing. Probably the Getai too. The Republican Roman armies are per definition militia outfits for another. The feudal kingdoms - Pahlava and Hayasdan for two - have armies mainly consisting of noblemen and their retainers plus commoner levies fulfilling their feudal obligations, and such have always been notoriously intractable and fickle nevermind prone to going home once their service quota is full.

I'd say it's really just a good thing RTW doesn't go into the actual intricacies of raising, organizing, maintaining and doing war with such diverse and often hideously complicated and inconvenient military systems, and those instead get abstracted into the recruitement buildings, training and upkeep costs and similar "background" details.

[Watchman]

As you/Xenophon said, the greeks, despite their large shields and heavy armour, suffered severely from the archers, and a meer 200 Rhodians using lead rounds *persians used stones*, were able to hold off the pesian slingers.I've incidentally read that the Satrap of western Asia Minor, whatever his name now was, who was charged with harrying the Greek mercenaries was so impressed by the lead slingshot that once he got home he made them standard issue for his own forces as well.


If I had been a general of this period, and saw how effective they were, and how cheap, I would indeed have hired tens of thousands of them. BUT NOBODY DID! WHY?

My belief is because they were not available. The alternative explanation would be that they actually weren't this effective, in which case, other factors can be changed.For a comparision, why did the steppe nomads with their formidable composite bows and light cavalry par excellence develop heavily armoured shock cavalry ?

The answer is much the same. Enough firepower can virtually cripple the enemy army right fine, but it is actually rather difficult to destroy it that way; shock action concludes the matter much quicker and more decisively, and when it comes to that doesn't expose you to counterfire as much.

Nevermind now if the opponent is occupying some nice defensible piece of cover, where your missiles cannot really even reach him...

And, of course, by their lonesome infantry skirmishers had a bad habit of getting shredded by any cavalry that came along. Horses are so fast even the best missile troops are going to have a very hard time turning back a charge by firepower alone, especially if the hostile horsemen are well armoured and/or have been able to close part of the distance by some means (such as making use of terrain, being screened by friendly troops, whatever). Heck, even heavy infantry can do that if they can afford to break ranks and run or the skirmishers don't have enough maneuvering space; the Persians at Marathon could tell you a lot about this.

All of which goes a long way to explain why missile troops tended to be a support arm, and when they formed a major part of the offensive punch were accompanied and defended by considerable contingents of heavy infantry and horsemen.

[Southern Hunter]

"So are you complaining that's it's too easy to exploit? Then don't exploit it, it's that simple. The AI doesn't, so it only the player that can."

I don't understand this attitude? Yes, I am pointing out that it is easy to exploit.

In general, one plays the game to do as well as possible (presumably?). In doing so, one explores the options available, and tries to maximise their effect, that is, figure out what works and what does not. If in doing so, one finds a 'killer combination' that seems to work really well, but completely contradicts history, then I feel obliged to point it out so that it can be corrected, not just for me, but for everybody.

Except you are saying to me, no, don't use these troops, or don't get too many, or something. Kind of like people's 'house rules' for obvious exploits. Am i then to do this with everything that seems to work well? In effect, am I to, having identified what works, not use anything that does work, and play as badly as possible?

If I had identified that Spartan Hoplites could be purchased for 100 points and maintained for 10 points, and posted about it, would you say the same thing? No problem, just don't buy them. Sure, there is a game balance problem, fix it up yourself by playing sub-optimally. I mean either we are trying to balance the game using points for troops relating to their effectiveness, or we are not?

"Why couldn't it happen? If a general wanted to, they could make their army out of any troop types they wanted, even if it wasn't the norm."

No, they could not. A general does not control a society, and could not, in the short term, recruit tens of thousands of slingers where they simply did not exist. It took a lifetime to become a good slinger, which is what limited their availability.

A sling, well wielded, was better than a bow. But people used archers because you could train them quicker and easier. Even then, a longbow was more accurate than a musket, but any idiot can be trained to use a musket, whereas a longbow requires extensive practice and training.

The reason that there were not masses of slingers everywhere is that it is a tricky weapon to learn, as well as a number of tactical limitations of the weapon which are not well modelled by the game (need lots of space, etc).

" Would you call an all greek peltast army unhistorical?"

No, certainly not.

"As you/Xenophon said, the greeks, despite their large shields and heavy armour, suffered severely from the archers, and a meer 200 Rhodians using lead rounds *persians used stones*, were able to hold off the pesian slingers. So how does this help your arguement more then mine?"

Because we are talking about availability, not effect. I am certainly not arguing that slingers were crap. I am saying that they were hard to come by. Xenophon shows that even when they really needed them, the most they could come up with was 2% of their force.

Fondor_Yards then posted some corrections to my examples.

I stand completely corrected about the details.

However, you have highlighted the point that, in game terms, there was 1 unit of slingers in each of these 'full stack' battles. This reinforces my general contention that there availability was much more constrained than in our current version of EB.

Thanks for helping with the discussion in an informed way. Cheers,

Hunter

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

In general, one plays the game to do as well as possible (presumably?). In doing so, one explores the options available, and tries to maximise their effect, that is, figure out what works and what does not. If in doing so, one finds a 'killer combination' that seems to work really well, but completely contradicts history, then I feel obliged to point it out so that it can be corrected, not just for me, but for everybody.
Most people don't play to do well and exploit all the little things, they play to have fun in a historical setting. Cheat codes are available, if you really want to do well, you could just use them. There is nothing stopping you from making a whole army of those huge elephants either.

The AI doesn't spam them, you don't have to, removing areas of recruitment would be ahistoric, and drastically reducing numbers would be stupid. In M2TW there is the ability to add numbers of guys recruitable in settlements. For EB2 slingers would be a good unit to make use of that feature.

[LordCurlyton]

But the thing is, and I believe this has been mentioned already, is that trying to make recruitment absolutely, 100% historically accurate is quite impossible given the constraints of the engine within which this mod must function. As I understand it, during that time frame (and in fact for most of history) most armies were raised on demand in some form of levy system, whether it be feudal or what-have-you. So if you were to be "accurate" in a game like RTW then either a settlement or, most likely, a family member would have to have a strategic map ability to call up a levy on demand, which would be composed of a block of troops that would be typical of the region and how developed its gotten in the game. I.E., if you had a general hanging around Roma during the Polybian Era, say, and suddenly some Big Bad Enemy comes knocking you'd need to levy the troops. Depending on how high you've build the factional MIC up you could end up with a really crappy army of nothing more than barely-above-peasant quality troops (if for some reason you had torn down the MIC and only built it back up to L1) to some of the best units Roma could field (for L5 MIC). You COULD simulate that by using the merc recruitment, if you could make faction-specific recruitment from the merc list, AND somehow tie it in to the amount of MIC you've built up (and possibly to town size as well). Then it would just be a matter of adjusting the respawn rate to fit whatever is deemed "historical". And if I EVER saw a completely (or even mostly) slinger stack come my way I would just lick my chops and prepare to lay down a total dose of butt-kicking, since I have found that in EB at least making an ahistorical type of stack is an invitation to lose or at least take far more losses than is necessary. Got a full stack of Gaesatae? Better destroy the AI very quickly because you WILL start to see more skirmishers and cavalry and eventually you will face an army with just enough infantry to tie you down while skirmishers and cav rain holy hell upon those lovely Gaesatae. Flanking bonuses are awesome.
My end point is that in the end this really is a case of you just having to restrain yourself. They have done the best they can in the system they've got and frankly, I find this whole "slingers are way too powerful" argument lacking. On even ground, facing the front of heavy infantry, only top end slingers will manage to incapacitate more than 6-10% of the heavy inf unit, which seems perfectly reasonable. But to each their own.
EDIT: Curses someone posted while I was typing!

[Thaatu]

A question about slinger stats. If my interpretation of export_descr_unit.txt is correct (a fascinating piece of literature), Celtic slingers have attack of 3, range of 200 and 40 projectiles per man. Balearic slingers have attack 4, range 175 and 21 projectiles. Doesn't that actually make Celtic slingers better than Balearics? Isn't fourty shots a bit too much?

[sass]

A question about slinger stats. If my interpretation of export_descr_unit.txt is correct (a fascinating piece of literature), Celtic slingers have attack of 3, range of 200 and 40 projectiles per man. Balearic slingers have attack 4, range 175 and 21 projectiles. Doesn't that actually make Celtic slingers better than Balearics? Isn't fourty shots a bit too much?

Balearic slingers have Used larger stones..so thay get fewer to cast...well histricly speaking thy did, and thay also have 4 points for missile..use to be 5..celtic slingers inturn get more range..and more rocks and one less hit point:book:

[Shigawire]

My request is to:
- Reduce the general availability of slingers as battlefield units significantly.

The justifications is:
- Historically they were not able to be fielded in large numbers, in any army of the period. In EB, they can form entire armies.


My wish also.



Ways to implement:
- Reduce unit size of slingers to make them generally less deadly as a unit (and thus put 'use of unit slot' pressure on them, although this does not apply to small armies where all 20 unit slots are not being used anyway)


I don't agree. Reducing unit capacity is a shortchanged and disingenuous way to emulate the rarity of the troops. I think they should be simply very rare. Not the psiloi/peltast slingers, but the really professional ones.



- Reduce their availability as mercenaries, and eliminate or substantially change their availability as trained troops


My sentiments precisely.



No, they could not. A general does not control a society, and could not, in the short term, recruit tens of thousands of slingers where they simply did not exist. It took a lifetime to become a good slinger, which is what limited their availability.

I think we agree 100% here.



A sling, well wielded, was better than a bow. But people used archers because you could train them quicker and easier. Even then, a longbow was more accurate than a musket, but any idiot can be trained to use a musket, whereas a longbow requires extensive practice and training.

The reason that there were not masses of slingers everywhere is that it is a tricky weapon to learn, as well as a number of tactical limitations of the weapon which are not well modelled by the game (need lots of space, etc).


Glad you read my posts on the previous slinger-thread. :clown:
But we can actually model the need for space. You can set the formation-density in the export_descr_units.txt file. We have already set it to be somewhat wide, perhaps not enough.



"As you/Xenophon said, the greeks, despite their large shields and heavy armour, suffered severely from the archers, and a meer 200 Rhodians using lead rounds *persians used stones*, were able to hold off the pesian slingers. So how does this help your arguement more then mine?"

Because we are talking about availability, not effect. I am certainly not arguing that slingers were crap. I am saying that they were hard to come by. Xenophon shows that even when they really needed them, the most they could come up with was 2% of their force.


The example of Day 13 of the Anabasis shows that although slinging is a slightly common practice, the efficiency-differential between professionals and amateurs is astronomical. Thus the difference between a sloppy haphazard slinger and a Balearic slinger should be enormous, if not only due to the enormous size of their stones (nono not THOSE stones, you know what I mean ;)



However, you have highlighted the point that, in game terms, there was 1 unit of slingers in each of these 'full stack' battles. This reinforces my general contention that there availability was much more constrained than in our current version of EB.


I also agree they should have a low recruitment limit. However, the only way this can be achieved is by having them be mercenaries (which they were anyhow). If we had M2TW engine, we could take advantage of the more fancy recruitment system. But in RTW, the only way to limit is the mercenaries. There is a global recruitment-pool. I don't know the reasons for them not being mercenaries in EB, but maybe there were some technical reasons. I'm not knowledgable about this.



I know slings are theoretically effective, but the historical reality is that they were not decisive weapons - anyone disagree with this?


Me, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, Vegetius Renatus etc.
Though seriously, there are no "decisive weapons" - they are all parts of an intricate machinery. A toolbox. The only truly decisive weapon I know of is the Thermonuclear Bomb :smash:
Decisiveness is dependent on a relative differential. So an argument could be made for, say the relative differential between muskets wielded by Conquistadors in America vs the sticks and stones wielded by the Native Americans.. decisive.

It's a matter of relativity. Certainly, the Phalangites of Alexander were not "decisive", they were a very important component, but it was the intricate tactics wielded USING these phalangites.. and all other components, not the weapon itself.



Because of their flat trajectory, slingers ought to be deployed in lines, not blocks (I notice the EB formations already do this for the enemy). Unfortunately the RTW engine doesn't simulate the effect of friendly fire on the launching unit, so the player is not penalised for making tight blocks.


Slingers would only use a flat trajectory in very close range (50 meters). Otherwise, their trajectory was quite high and parabolic. You have to think of them as human trebuchets. You know the trajectory of a trebuchet.
Having slingers in clusters isn't a big problem. But they will be unwieldy due to loose formation.



I suggest that slingers formations might be made looser (to represent the precautions that should be taken against friendly fire within the unit). This has several advantages:

* Reduces density of fire achievable against a single target.
* Makes it more difficult to protect a flanking slinger force against cavalry.
* Lengthens the time to deploy slingers around an enemy flank.


This has already been done in EB, long ago back in v 0.65 or 0.7 - one of my own changes. But it could be said that it's not enough, and perhaps it hasn't been done for ALL slinger units. In any case, you can check formation density in export_descr_units.txt

About the density of fire, it wouldn't reduce that at all, as each slinger will aim at the homogenous mass of forces independently. It's not like a longbowman barrage.

[antisocialmunky]

Herdsmen were usually at the bottom of the agrarian socioeconomic ladder, far as I know. I'm rather willing to bet they were commonly willing indeed to quit their old "day job" and turn soldiering into a in comparision quite lucrative career if given the opportunity, for the exact same reasons the harsh and impoverished mountain regions forever provided a ready supply of willing mercenaries to any army.

See the world, meet interesting people, kill them and loot their stuff. Sufficient enough motivation to enlist for many many poor people over the millenia.

As for the issues with part-time soldiers, come on. The armies of the Sweboz for example would by a considerable majority consist of peasant soldiers, common tribesmen on a war footing. Probably the Getai too. The Republican Roman armies are per definition militia outfits for another. The feudal kingdoms - Pahlava and Hayasdan for two - have armies mainly consisting of noblemen and their retainers plus commoner levies fulfilling their feudal obligations, and such have always been notoriously intractable and fickle nevermind prone to going home once their service quota is full.

I'd say it's really just a good thing RTW doesn't go into the actual intricacies of raising, organizing, maintaining and doing war with such diverse and often hideously complicated and inconvenient military systems, and those instead get abstracted into the recruitement buildings, training and upkeep costs and similar "background" details.

Well, just because its a better alternative exists doesn't mean that most of them will take it. A small amount might (usually the younger ones). I mean there are still decent sized populations of semi-nomadic herdsman in N-Africa, Arabia, and Iran who are born, live, and die as they have for 4000-6000 years.

[Rilder]

Just FYI, heres a good slinger info site, including how to make your own sling: http://www.slinging.org/ (dunno)