View Full Version : thraikioi peltastai kill off hypaspistai? and other questions...
F for Fragging
06-15-2007, 16:44
Playing as the Makedonians I already knew that Thraikioi Peltastai are quite good, but in custom battles when I let them fight against Hypaspistai (head-on charge, no spear throwing, flat terrain) they manage to rout Hypaspistai after taking 60 casualties or so. AFAIK Thraikians were famed warriors, but aren't Hypaspistai supposed to be the uber-elite with the best equipment, and considering that they cost 2756 mnai and Thraikioi Peltastai cost 1387 mnai, shouldn't they be able to win versus Thraikioi Peltastai?
In general, I have the feeling that most of the Hellenic elite units are wussies compared to most other (elite) units. I tried a custom battle of Hypaspistai versus Casse Sword Masters, it wasn't a battle anymore, it was pure genocide. Same with Baktrion Agema. And the super-expensive Elephants in EB can be quite useful, they will be mown down if they receive a single volley of javelins from Akontistai. Is it just me, or does it seem that the unit balancing for expensive units is quite disadvantageous? A lot of the expensive/elite units seem to be a waste of money to me.
Some other questions, off-topic but so miscellaneous that asking them all in separate topics wouldn't be a good idea, I think
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Issus and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela Alexander the Great was outnumbered more that 2:1 in these battles. Now he probably managed to win because he had a better army, better tactics and such, but I'm wondering, why weren't the Persians able to surround him if they outnumbered him so much?
And I wonder, why not attack a phalanx-based army on the flanks only, without attacking the phalanx frontally? If the Persians with their huge numbers solely attacked the Makedonian flanks, while their center did not attack the Macedonian phalanx in the Makedonian center (sort of double envelopment), the Makedonian phalanx would have been ineffective at defending the flanks, because a phalanx is immobile, right? Then after the Makedonian flanks would have been destroyed, the phalanx would have been vulnerable because the flanks were undefended, and they would have been destroyed.
When I read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna the phalanx lost because of gaps created in the phalanx by the terrain as the phalanx advanced. But on the drawing in that article I see the Roman and Makedonian lines were even and facing each other. Why didn't Romans just leave the center of their line empty and move everybody to the flanks (possibly forcing the phalanx to break upthe battle line, or force them to remain passive because the Romans wouldn't attack the phalanx frontally) destroy the Makedonian flanks and then destroy the phalanx?
So I don't really understand phalanx tactics? Why didn't battles happen according to the (seemingly effective) plan I suggest?
Another question, in EB all the civilized factions (Hellenic, Romans and Kart-Hadast) have soldiers which don't have pants, while Celtic factions and Persians do wear pants. Why didn't they wear pants, more specifically, why didn't their soldiers wear pants for protection in battle? Sometimes they have shin protectors, but a their upper legs are complely unprotected. Same goes for their arms, which are also bare in many cases. Seeing how it would be easy to hack off arms or injure the legs, disabling the soldier, why didn't they have armor for their arms or legs?
One more question concerning the description of the Liby-Phoenician Infantry/Dorki Leebi-Feenikim Mookdamim. In their description it says they can form a phalanx. But they do not seem to have the ability during battles. It seems to me that they have a passive ability to form a classical phalanx as decribed here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_formation - and not the Makedonian phalanx. This is confusing, because for units which are able to form a Makedonian phalanx, Phalangitai Deuteroi for example, it gives the same description "can form phalanx". Thus EB does not distinguish between the classical phalanx and the Makedonian phalanx. The first time I recruited the Dorki Leebi-Feenikim Mookdamim I expected them to be able to form a Makedonian phalanx, based on their description. Shouldn't this be fixed in the unit descriptions, giving a different description for units with a classical phalanx and units with a Makedonian phalanx?
Besides that, Libyan Spearmen/Aanatim Leebim and Liby-Phoenician Infantry/Dorki Leebi-Feenikim Mookdamim have nearly the same upkeep. The spearmen have shorter spears and have javelins, they are able to fight as skirmishers and in melee. The infantry has longer spears and slightly better stats, they are able to fight in melee only. However, in custom battles it seems to me that the melee performance of the infantry does not seem to be better than the spearmen. In short, what's the added value of the infantry versus the spearmen?
Playing as the Makedonians I already knew that Thraikioi Peltastai are quite good, but in custom battles when I let them fight against Hypaspistai (head-on charge, no spear throwing, flat terrain) they manage to rout Hypaspistai after taking 60 casualties or so. AFAIK Thraikians were famed warriors, but aren't Hypaspistai supposed to be the uber-elite with the best equipment, and considering that they cost 2756 mnai and Thraikioi Peltastai cost 1387 mnai, shouldn't they be able to win versus Thraikioi Peltastai?
In general, I have the feeling that most of the Hellenic elite units are wussies compared to most other (elite) units. I tried a custom battle of Hypaspistai versus Casse Sword Masters, it wasn't a battle anymore, it was pure genocide. Same with Baktrion Agema. And the super-expensive Elephants in EB can be quite useful, they will be mown down if they receive a single volley of javelins from Akontistai. Is it just me, or does it seem that the unit balancing for expensive units is quite disadvantageous? A lot of the expensive/elite units seem to be a waste of money to me.
I assume you have done extensive testing on even ground with all these units. I cannot really comment, but we are quite happy with our statting system, and we won't be changing things too much in the future. Also, don't the Thracians, in your first example, outnumber the Hypaspistai, and with the addition of the charge that will usually offer them the advantage. Please tell me you tested the Hypaspistai vs Thraikoi battle extensively with many different variations rather than coming to conclusions after only one!
Some other questions, off-topic but so miscellaneous that asking them all in separate topics wouldn't be a good idea, I think
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Issus and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela Alexander the Great was outnumbered more that 2:1 in these battles. Now he probably managed to win because he had a better army, better tactics and such, but I'm wondering, why weren't the Persians able to surround him if they outnumbered him so much?
And I wonder, why not attack a phalanx-based army on the flanks only, without attacking the phalanx frontally? If the Persians with their huge numbers solely attacked the Makedonian flanks, while their center did not attack the Macedonian phalanx in the Makedonian center (sort of double envelopment), the Makedonian phalanx would have been ineffective at defending the flanks, because a phalanx is immobile, right? Then after the Makedonian flanks would have been destroyed, the phalanx would have been vulnerable because the flanks were undefended, and they would have been destroyed.
When I read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna the phalanx lost because of gaps created in the phalanx by the terrain as the phalanx advanced. But on the drawing in that article I see the Roman and Makedonian lines were even and facing each other. Why didn't Romans just leave the center of their line empty and move everybody to the flanks (possibly forcing the phalanx to break upthe battle line, or force them to remain passive because the Romans wouldn't attack the phalanx frontally) destroy the Makedonian flanks and then destroy the phalanx?
So I don't really understand phalanx tactics? Why didn't battles happen according to the (seemingly effective) plan I suggest?
Reforming an army and after it had deployed, before the development of wireless communication, was next to impossible. Your theory works fine in RTW, but how the hell are you going to lead your troops when you are just a single general with no direct communication with your troops. Battle plans were drawn up before a battle begun, changing them mid-battle was either very difficult or almost impossible. There are possibly other reasons, but those are a start.Oh and the phalanx wasn't immobile.
Another question, in EB all the civilized factions (Hellenic, Romans and Kart-Hadast) have soldiers which don't have pants, while Celtic factions and Persians do wear pants. Why didn't they wear pants, more specifically, why didn't their soldiers wear pants for protection in battle? Sometimes they have shin protectors, but a their upper legs are complely unprotected. Same goes for their arms, which are also bare in many cases. Seeing how it would be easy to hack off arms or injure the legs, disabling the soldier, why didn't they have armor for their arms or legs?
Your saying that eastern factions aren't civilized? The prevalence of trousers amongst the celts and germans and other "barbarian" peoples was likely to have been a fashion borne out of the need for better protection against the cold. Obviously it developed beyond that, and there may have been other reasons for why it continued when other practices and fashions saw the removing of some clothes.
Also leg protection was afforded by the shields people used. There is no point weighing down the legs when a large shield held in front offers ample protection against attacks from the front.
Foot
In general, I have the feeling that most of the Hellenic elite units are wussies compared to most other (elite) units. I tried a custom battle of Hypaspistai versus Casse Sword Masters, it wasn't a battle anymore, it was pure genocide. Same with Baktrion Agema. And the super-expensive Elephants in EB can be quite useful, they will be mown down if they receive a single volley of javelins from Akontistai. Is it just me, or does it seem that the unit balancing for expensive units is quite disadvantageous? A lot of the expensive/elite units seem to be a waste of money to me.
Well, Casse Swordsmen are meant to be deadly against heavily-armoured units like the Hypaspistai, but I admit that I never was very impressed by them either. However, I do think it is historical that elite units have a comparatively lower cost-efficiency ratio. They weren't that much more powerful than normal, they were mainly more reliable, so they could do critical tasks like holding the flank or exploiting a gap.
And I wonder, why not attack a phalanx-based army on the flanks only, without attacking the phalanx frontally? If the Persians with their huge numbers solely attacked the Makedonian flanks, while their center did not attack the Macedonian phalanx in the Makedonian center (sort of double envelopment), the Makedonian phalanx would have been ineffective at defending the flanks, because a phalanx is immobile, right? Then after the Makedonian flanks would have been destroyed, the phalanx would have been vulnerable because the flanks were undefended, and they would have been destroyed.
The phalanx is hardly immobile: any formation that relies on the enemy throwing itself head-on on spearpoints, rather than walking around and attacking the flank, is not going to have that much use, does it? Alexander used his phalanx in a very aggressive, proactive way. In fact, I am under the impression that it was under his successors that the phalanx became unwieldy and relatively, presumably because they were mainly fighting identically-equiped troops (i.e. each other), so things like longer spears and heavier armour became important. But I am hardly an expert.
Incidentally, at Gaugemela the Persian army did attempt to envelop the Macedonians (at Issos they lacked the space to do that) but Alexander had anticipated that and deployed a second line of hoplites. Nonetheles the Macedonian left was hard pressed and Alexander had to abandon the pursuit in order to rescue them.
Great post Ludens. Allow me to add just this; the successors main failure in phalanx warfare was (in my opinion read it in some book and agree with it) the investment in the "exotic" part of the army (namely elephnts and chariots) and not using so well the combined arms tactics (hammer and anvil with some missile support) which was the key element to alexander success. The successors were more "each branch to his own" (take Raphia). I believe the last great master in the combined arms of the successors was Phyrrus as he adopted a strategy more in line with Alexander.
CHeers...
I could not disagree more, mAIOR. Pyrrhos was an idiot. The only reason why he beat the Romans is because their use of tactics were even worse than his in the 270s.
Antiochos used elephants successfully in every battle they were used except Magnesia - where he was outnumbered (yes, Livy altered the numbers drastically for his panegyrical account). There were other events that conspired to his failure. Granted, not all his choices were the best choices, but the discipline in all Hellenistic armies were a considerable problem in this era. We see it at Thermopylai and we saw it at Raphia. Should Antiochos have not concerned himself with killing Ptolemaios? Of course, but if his phalanx had held out as it certainly could have, he would have turned around and won the battle.
In armies the size of the major Diadochoi engagements it is hard to do anything other than what you were ordered to do before the battle began. Plus, it is incredibly difficult to stop a cavalry pursuit and turn around. Especially so if you are in the middle of a mob of 10,000 routing Romans as what happened at Magnesia.
Chariots... eh, you have a point, but Antiochos used them only once. He wanted to use them against the Roman cavalry, which probably would have worked well if it weren't for the missile fire from the Roman light troops. That would have meant that the Seleukid cavalry would be free to circumvent the Roman line and hit them from the rear. Would it have been better not to use them. Of course, but I see what Antiochos was intending.
I can't agree with Pyrrus being an idiot. I forgot about Antiochus. Ok he was a very good Comander but I prefer the 3rd by that name as he along with Baktria almost Anialated Parthia.
Well, In Gaugamella, Alexander managed to stop his cavalry and turn around to save the day. He was an expert in combined arms.
To most units in an ancient army, this was the rule. you were told to press/hold/charge/etc... and you stuck to it till the end of the battle.
That's my point he relied on the charits elephants and lowered the standards for his infantry/cavalry.
The romans managed to use combined arms better. I guess.
Cheers...
When I read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pydna the phalanx lost because of gaps created in the phalanx by the terrain as the phalanx advanced. But on the drawing in that article I see the Roman and Makedonian lines were even and facing each other. Why didn't Romans just leave the center of their line empty and move everybody to the flanks (possibly forcing the phalanx to break upthe battle line, or force them to remain passive because the Romans wouldn't attack the phalanx frontally) destroy the Makedonian flanks and then destroy the phalanx?
Macedon lost in Pydna because Perseus wasn't much of a commander. Sure, he won some small victories earlier, but in Pydna he was just idiotic.
Firstly, letting the phalanx chase the Romans onto rugged terrain? The only thing you shouldn't do with phalanxes? Not only that, but he didn't even have any reserve units behind the phalanx to stop a possible Roman breakthrough.
Then, after apparently being astonished by the phalanx's inability to fight effectively on uneven surface, he routed with the entire Macedonian cavalry force with him, without committing it once. Just brilliant :no:
DeathEmperor
06-16-2007, 00:07
@ abou: I would love to read or know about an unbiased account of Magnesia. All of the ones I've read so far have had unbelievable casualty ratios (The Romans lost only 300 while the Seleucids lost 40,000?! :furious3: ) I'm a fanatic when it comes to learning more about the Seleucids so I would be eternally grateful if you posted your sources :yes:
Alright back on-topic: The reason that the Macedonian-phalanx wasn't out maneuvered and outflanked more often really gets down to two things: one) the difficulty of communicating with the rest of the army especially if they're already in battle and two) the misunderstanding that it was a ponderous and inflexible formation.
The second one is really the fault of the later Successors (not really a fault more of an adaptation to warfare as they knew it). They had been fighting each other for so long and with such similar forces that the only way they could improve their 'ways of war' in their eyes was to equip their forces with heavier and what appeared to be better arms and armour. Against other pike phalanxes this did give the "improved" phalanx an edge, not only in their equipment but also giving the seemingly better equipped phalangites more of a moral and psychological raise feeling more confidant in their "new toys".
I'd like to post some more but I'm stretched for time at the moment so i'll post again later.
No problem, DE. This book (http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=10&pid=11116) is the one you want to get. As you can see it is prohibitively expensive, and so your best chance is to go through your library system. I've contemplated purchasing it, but I just don't have the cash for that... yet.
Regardless, it is a good read. But, I can go into more details about the battle if you want.
NeoSpartan
06-16-2007, 05:11
One thing that I would like to point out about Alexander is that he was at the head of the Companion Cavalry. In other words he was in control of the "Hammer" in the Hammer & Anvil tactic. That is why he was able to manouver the cavalry to were it was needed the most.
A second point... Roman armies operated in a different manner to Hellenic or other armies. In that individual Officers where able to "improvise" on the ground and manouver thier respective soldiers without direct orders from the General. As it happened in the The Battle of Cynoscephalae.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cynoscephalae.html
the key to the revisionist interpretation of magnesia is a careful reading of the earlier narration concerning the roman army in greece. livy mentions a number of contingents leading up to the battle, totaling about 10 thousand men if I remember correctly, but then conveniently leaves them out from the battle itself. There is little reason to doubt they would have gone to the field (especially if they had any idea of the size of Antiochos' army--its not like the Roman liked being outnumbered on the battlefield) based on the rest of the Livian narrative. Also, in reporting casualties, he only gives Roman casualties, thus allowing him to avoid reporting Italian casualties.
It is, however, also worth noting that most of the Roman casualties would have been on their left wing, which Antiochos routed. The rest of the Roman army either swept aside the weak Seleukid left, or surrounded the Seleukid phalanx and pummeled it with missiles until it caved. Neither of those actions would have resulted in many casualties.
Watchman
06-16-2007, 07:07
I'm under the impression it was the standard practice of Hellenic commanders in general and monarchs in particular to head the heavy "strike" cavalry wing - although given that unlike Alex they mostly fought enemies with by and large the exact same general army lineup, how the cavalry was divided between the right and left wing was anything but a foregone conclusion (Alex ended up just putting the heavies on his right, and leaving the left with lighter horse on the defensive). After all that way they had immediate control of the (hopefully) decisive "hammer blow" units, and the pike line could presumably do its primary job - holding the enemy infantry center in place - without close supervision well enough. Unlike the Romans the Hellenics tended not have staggered reserve lines of heavy infantry whose committing needed sound senior judgement, after all, although one would assume the assorted lighter infantry used for pre-contact skirmishing etc. would be retired behind the phalanxes and formed a de facto emergency reserve pool.
IMO the real major problem that plagued post-Alexander Hellenic armies was their general inability to rein in their heavy strike cavalry when the horse fight at the wings was won. The phalanx was formidable, but essentially a specialized linear attack formation and one that got into major problems in rough country and when its line got ragged (as almost invariable happened - didn't an entire darn Persian cavalry squadron slip through a gap in the line at Gaugamela ?) and generally not very good at winning a battle on its own, especially against enemy phalanxes. If the heavy horse went merrily off in pursuit of their defeated mounted opponents and did not remember to reform and come back in time, it could well happen that the phalanx might get routed by its peers, rolled up from the side if better-controlled enemy horse was victorious at the other wing, or something similarly undesirable.
Now granted, it was never easy to get cavalry to break off pursuit and reform after winning a horse fight. But if it wasn't achieved the hideously expensive heavy horse might well essentially neutralize itself from the battle simply by not being there, and more importanly would not be there to act as the "hammer" the Alexandrian combined-arms tactics pretty much required. This can only be characterized as unacceptably poor discipline that by and large defeats the entire purpose of the formations involved; Prince Rupert's heavy cavalry in the English Civil Wars, although by all accounts quite formidable as shock troops, had the same problem with ultimately disastrous effects. Comparable issues are known from other contexts as well; there was for example one Medieval battle where one side's knight smashed the militia infantry opposing them, and then duly scattered far and wide in pursuit - in the meantime the enemy's other "battles" were victorious and routed the rest of the army, leaving the knights looking mighty silly when they finally came back.
DeathEmperor
06-16-2007, 07:35
@ abou: Thank you very much! :2thumbsup: Wow that book really is expensive, even more than B. Bar-Kochva's but no price is too high for a history nut like me :beam: Will take me awhile to save up enough spare money to get that book though.
@ Watchman: Indeed stripped of its cavalry wings the phalanx was incredibly vulnerable. The scenario you described in your second paragraph did indeed happen to Antiochus the Great at Raphia in 217. While he and his victorious cavalry/elephant force on hsi right wing persued the broken Ptolemaic left, his own left flank was outmaneuvered and driven from the field by the Ptolemaic right wing. Stripped of their wings it became for lack of a better phrase a 'slugging match' between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic phalanxes, and with superior numbers and the personal leadership and urgings of Ptolemy VI the Ptolemaic phalanx defeated the Seleucid one.
Antiochus III the Great did make a lot of bad decisions in his war with Rome, but otherwise he was an incredible general and ruler. I think he just has a bad reputation because of Livy's lopsided and perhaps biased writings. Personally he's my favourite Successor king after Seleucus I Nicator :smash:
I could not disagree more, mAIOR. Pyrrhos was an idiot. The only reason why he beat the Romans is because their use of tactics were even worse than his in the 270s.
Yeah, his victories over Macedonia and Carthage were also just pure luck. :rolleyes:
F for Fragging
06-16-2007, 11:28
I assume you have done extensive testing on even ground with all these units. I cannot really comment, but we are quite happy with our statting system, and we won't be changing things too much in the future. Also, don't the Thracians, in your first example, outnumber the Hypaspistai, and with the addition of the charge that will usually offer them the advantage. Please tell me you tested the Hypaspistai vs Thraikoi battle extensively with many different variations rather than coming to conclusions after only one!
Yes, the Thraikioi Peltastai number 160 and the Hypaspistai number 120. Even without the charge the Thraikioi Peltastai still win. I used the "Samos" map for testing the custom battles, which is very flat. I tried about five times and the Thraikioi Peltastai always won, which seems extensive enough to me?
Battle plans were drawn up before a battle begun, changing them mid-battle was either very difficult or almost impossible. There are possibly other reasons, but those are a start. Oh and the phalanx wasn't immobile.
But what if such a plan I suggested was implemented before the battle begun? I probably meant that the phalanx was inflexible.
Your saying that eastern factions aren't civilized?
Also leg protection was afforded by the shields people used. There is no point weighing down the legs when a large shield held in front offers ample protection against attacks from the front.
Well, of course after the Hellenic eastern factions the Hayasdan and the Sabaeans are civilized too, but the Saka and the Sarmatians aren't if you ask me, they're just nomads.
Large shields for protecting the legs make sense, but what about phalangites? They use smaller shields to protect their torso, but wouldn't their bare legs be vulnerable to arrows or javelins?
Everybody else, thank for your explanations.
But what if such a plan I suggested was implemented before the battle begun? I probably meant that the phalanx was inflexible.
In that case any decent general would have simply manouvred his army to attack one flank, while occupying the other with missile troops and cavalry. If you spread out your army, you risk part of it being isolated.
Mind you, the tactic you describe was used with great success by Hannibal and Scipio against non-phalanx based armies. In either case, however, they didn't spread out their army, but just placed their strongest units on the flanks.
Large shields for protecting the legs make sense, but what about phalangites? They use smaller shields to protect their torso, but wouldn't their bare legs be vulnerable to arrows or javelins?
True, both so would be the face and the right arm. All-body protection is prohibitively expensive.
Well, of course after the Hellenic eastern factions the Hayasdan and the Sabaeans are civilized too, but the Saka and the Sarmatians aren't if you ask me, they're just nomads.
Large shields for protecting the legs make sense, but what about phalangites? They use smaller shields to protect their torso, but wouldn't their bare legs be vulnerable to arrows or javelins?
Well phalangites would rely on their long spears to keep the enemy out of melee range. Their legs might have been somewhat vulnerable to missile fire, but phalanx spears did give some protection against arrows and after all, legs aren't huge targets. Also, the close formation of the phalanx would give extra protection for the legs of all but the front rank or two, simply by the bodies of the guys in front blocking anything that might be heading for the legs.
Well phalangites would rely on their long spears to keep the enemy out of melee range. Their legs might have been somewhat vulnerable to missile fire, but phalanx spears did give some protection against arrows and after all, legs aren't huge targets. Also, the close formation of the phalanx would give extra protection for the legs of all but the front rank or two, simply by the bodies of the guys in front blocking anything that might be heading for the legs.
Also didn't some phalangites wear greaves on their leading leg (left leg).
Foot
Yeah, but that wouldn't help their thighs. Thigh armor passed out of general use among the Greeks in the Archaic period. Why did greaves survive when the thigh armor didnt? Mobility perhaps? Shield coverage? Those are both probably pretty good reasons, especially since the pteryges of many cuirasses could cover a good bit of the thigh.
With the thraikioi peltastai v hypaspistai, I'm wondering if making any modifications to the hypaspist formation can change anything: they have two different formations you can put them in, and you can take them in and out of hold formation, and you can tell them to use their swords or to use their spears. That's a lot of variability, and it wouldn't surprise me if one or more of the variables gave them the edge. Even so, they should consistently have the edge, not vice versa, so we may need to take a look at stats.
Pharnakes
06-16-2007, 14:53
My problem with the eb stating system is the lack of differntiation from elites and leves, A unti like Hypaspistai should cut up a unit of akontistai with zero casuaties, not 10-15 (huge scale).
My problem with the eb stating system is the lack of differntiation from elites and leves, A unti like Hypaspistai should cut up a unit of akontistai with zero casuaties, not 10-15 (huge scale).
Really? Wow!
Foot
The Wicked
06-16-2007, 14:57
@ abou: All of the ones I've read so far have had unbelievable casualty ratios (The Romans lost only 300 while the Seleucids lost 40,000?! :furious3: )
Well regarding the casualty ratios i believe that the winner creates them. That goes for both Hellenes during the Persian Wars and the Macedonian campaing of Alexander and Romans during their wars with Cartage and later the with the Hellenic kingdoms. A hard fought battle without godlike-perfect win would be more ''real'' but our ancestors liked to enlarge their victories and not to mention to the effect that the losses would have to the people so a little ''BC propaganda'' took place imo...
Yeah, his victories over Macedonia and Carthage were also just pure luck. :rolleyes:
That's the thing. Makedon had recently been savaged by the Galatians and Carthage was even worse in tactics than Rome. The only exceptions were the Barcas. For being a nation with the best navy at the time, they certainly didn't know how to use their ships in the 1st Punic war, let alone their inefficiencies on land.
Yes, the Thraikioi Peltastai number 160 and the Hypaspistai number 120. Even without the charge the Thraikioi Peltastai still win. I used the "Samos" map for testing the custom battles, which is very flat. I tried about five times and the Thraikioi Peltastai always won, which seems extensive enough to me?
I just played several battles between Thracian peltasts and hypaspists on huge unit settings on Samos. The hypaspists won every time. They took significant casualties, but they should - they were largely outnumbered and the Thracian peltasts really aren't bad soldiers.
In the 0.8x edu their were many units that were mistakingly given the "spear" attribute. Open your export_descr_unit.txt, found in the EB/Data folder, find the Hypaspistai enty, and see if they have the spear attribute. If they do, replace it with the word "no". If there is no spear attribute, I'd say that there are some very weird factors at play or you are making this all up.
My problem with the eb stating system is the lack of differntiation from elites and leves, A unti like Hypaspistai should cut up a unit of akontistai with zero casuaties, not 10-15 (huge scale).
I have to disagree.
I just played several battles between Thracian peltasts and hypaspists on huge unit settings on Samos. The hypaspists won every time. They took significant casualties, but they should - they were largely outnumbered and the Thracian peltasts really aren't bad soldiers.
In the 0.8x edu their were many units that were mistakingly given the "spear" attribute. Open your export_descr_unit.txt, found in the EB/Data folder, find the Hypaspistai enty, and see if they have the spear attribute. If they do, replace it with the word "no". If there is no spear attribute, I'd say that there are some very weird factors at play or you are making this all up.
I have to disagree.
The main problem is the Thraikio peltasts secondary weapon is ap. So they have javelins and an ap sword which makes them a very lethal combination. I've never seen them go through a hypatists unit, there's probably other factors at work there.
I've found cheap galatian or other low armored infantry will cut up thriakio peltasts very quickly. They are solid troops so don't underestimate them.
NeoSpartan
06-16-2007, 17:39
Next time have your Hypaspistai (sp) in HOLD. Hoplites preform MUCH better in "Hold", the difference is like night and day.
And another thing thraikioi peltastai are NOT levy troops, they are NOT average troops, they are They are "...well trained and among the fiercest and most feared warriors in the entire world...". And that one handed falx they use is a REALLY powerful weapon. Just ask the Romans in the Dacian Wars.
So yes, they SHOULD and WILL kick a**.:whip:
Pharnakes
06-16-2007, 17:51
Rhomphia. And yes I love my Thraikoi peltastai. Best shock troops in the game. Or certinately are on a value for money basis.:smash:
@tk-421, well, ok maybe not zero casualties, but I still think that they take to many casualties.
Watchman
06-16-2007, 18:32
Yeah, but that wouldn't help their thighs. Thigh armor passed out of general use among the Greeks in the Archaic period. Why did greaves survive when the thigh armor didnt? Mobility perhaps? Shield coverage? Those are both probably pretty good reasons, especially since the pteryges of many cuirasses could cover a good bit of the thigh.I'd say the thighs are way easier to protect with a shield and weapon than the rather, shall we say, further removed lower legs. The thighs (and groin for that matter) are kind of... inside the "defended area" of a warrior's shield and weapon, if you see what I mean. conversely the knee and below of the "leading" leg tend to by default be a tad exposed to enemy attacks so...
Moreover the thighs were, as mentioned, fairly easy to partially protect with various extensions of whatever body armour was worn.
As for the phalangites and missiles, there's the fact that unless they're fired virtually point blank most missiles will hit in a descending arc - and in the case of a pike-brandishing phalangite, it's more than likely that the little shield and/or pike-shaft get in the way on the route to the upper leg.
I would imagine they tended to suffer a fair few arm wounds though.
QwertyMIDX
06-17-2007, 06:09
The main problem is the Thraikio peltasts secondary weapon is ap.
This is the key factor here, though its not a problem. The Thracians are armed to take out heavy infantry, and they excel at that role. Don't throw your heavy infantry against them, while you might still win it will be costly and that's because your not fighting smart. Use a unit that nullifies the ap advantage of the Thracians.
The beauty of the EB stats system in my mind is that it doesn't create a strict hierarchy of unit a is better than b which is better than c. Its more of a rock,paper,scissors thing and you have use the troops that are good for the particular role you need rather than just loading on one super unit.
@tk-421, well, ok maybe not zero casualties, but I still think that they take to many casualties.Well, that's the thing, Pharnakes. A unit that is twice the size of an elite unit can basically swarm and overwhelm them. A unit of Prodromoi would work much better for the task.
It's funny because one of my friends told me about a book or article or something where a man basically reasoned out how many 9 year-olds he could take on before loosing the fight. I think it was somewhere around twelve, because after the first three little kids had gone down in a straight one-on-one the rest would start to think tactically. The tactic would be to just swarm all at once, which is just how Akontistai would fight Hypaspistai.
Personally, I think I could take out at least fifteen 9 year-olds. I might have to try this experiment myself.
Watchman
06-17-2007, 06:45
You'd think that after the first few had bitten the dust the rest would suddenly start remembering all kinds of things they had to attend to elsewhere though... Psychology is important you know.
Seriously, what amount to knife-wielding untrained levies shouldn't really have a prayer against very well-armed, highly trained elite heavies in hand-to-hand in normal circumstances. After the Hypas had mown down the first few foolhardy glory merchants, what are the odds any of the remaining levy skirmishers had any stomach for meeting the same end - or any more realistic chance to get meaningful damage past the Hypas' heavy body armour, large shield and massive superiority in skill and confidence, especially when the latter are fighting as a proper cohesive close-order unit ?
Just for the perspective, I suggest you look at how things went between Conquistador swordsmen and Aztec soldiers - where there was by far less disparity in respective fighting qualities.
Yeah, you do have a point. If I wasn't wearing anything besides rags and the guy in front of me was wearing really shiny armor I would be apprehensive. We are kind of stuck with the morale system though. Any less would mean that lighter units would be worthless in a melee when there is at least some use to be had. Of course, we can't really plan around stuff like the traits of generals because not every army will have one.
There is a sense of damned if you do, but damned if you don't. We don't have a lot of room in morale stats for tinkering with numbers so we're stuck. I do agree with you for the most part, but if it comes down to being caught in a melee, running, and getting stabbed in the back or fighting for the chance to live... well, swarming doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
Watchman
06-17-2007, 07:34
Fair enough, just pointing out that IRL virtually zero casualties for the heavies would be perfectly credible, even should the skirmishers try to stand and fight. But the logic of the game places its limitations.
NeoSpartan
06-17-2007, 09:26
May I remind you fellas that Hernan Cortez had a lot of ALLIED indian tribes that hated the Aztecs.
Also in the battle in which Francisco Pizarro and his conquistadors captured the Inca emperor and killed many Incas. The Incas were unarmed and many gave thier lives just trying block the way to the emperor, since they were ambushed inside a small plaza.
Now... should elite units be all uber and take 0 casualties when fighting levies.... It will depend on the terrain they are fighting in, and the formation. Other than that, they are not god-units, deployed wrongly they will die easely. :duel:
Ex: using heavy infantry Vs falx/axe/hammer/etc units. The heavy infantry WILL take major casualties.
Ex: if heavy infantry is hit by slingers, they will take major casualties too.
Ex: allowing heavy infantry to be outflacked or enveloped, they will most likely die.
Ex: heavy infantry fighting uphill, they will take major casualties too.
Elite units are great to have. BUT just because they have all that armor, or battle expirience, doesn't mean that they will take few casualties. Deploy them wrongly and they will rout, the only difference is that they will FIGHT LONGER than any other levy, or medium unit in that same situation.
keep things in perspective fellas.. This ain't 9y.o kids fighting Bruce Lee. :stupido:
Pharnakes
06-17-2007, 11:27
Yeah, you do have a point. If I wasn't wearing anything besides rags and the guy in front of me was wearing really shiny armor I would be apprehensive. We are kind of stuck with the morale system though. Any less would mean that lighter units would be worthless in a melee when there is at least some use to be had. Of course, we can't really plan around stuff like the traits of generals because not every army will have one.
There is a sense of damned if you do, but damned if you don't. We don't have a lot of room in morale stats for tinkering with numbers so we're stuck. I do agree with you for the most part, but if it comes down to being caught in a melee, running, and getting stabbed in the back or fighting for the chance to live... well, swarming doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
Well, this is just my opinon but think that the attack and defensive skill of all untis should be increased, elites obviously more than others, so you end up with a situation where leves will hold agianst elites for a while (without routing) they just won't kill anyone. I mean imagine akontistai with that little (probably poor quality knife) against hypaspistai, even if they stabed a hypaspiste, the knife would be more likely to break then penentrate, even assuming the hypaspiste made no effort to defend himself or couter attack.
LorDBulA
06-17-2007, 12:27
Well, this is just my opinon but think that the attack and defensive skill of all untis should be increased, elites obviously more than others, so you end up with a situation where leves will hold agianst elites for a while (without routing) they just won't kill anyone. I mean imagine akontistai with that little (probably poor quality knife) against hypaspistai, even if they stabed a hypaspiste, the knife would be more likely to break then penentrate, even assuming the hypaspiste made no effort to defend himself or couter attack.
But then we get in different trouble. Single unit of Elites surrounded by hundreds of light infantry guys wont go down.
And in real life they would be doomed. Ofcource they would inflict heavy casualties on light inf but they would go down eventually.
Pharnakes
06-17-2007, 13:53
I know.... Still it is my opinion that it would be less of a problem than the current setup. (which isn't really a problem at all and generaly works very smothly):2thumbsup:
Prehaps I'll sumon the energy at some point to do an edu on these priciples and see what happens....but I probably can't be bothered.:laugh4:
Well people are complaining about Gaesatae being "to powerfull".
If you increase defensive abilities of other units ,they will not rout , and we will see complaints about that soon.
On the other side with present lethality and increased defensive values , there will be more casualties on both sides , before anyone routs and then we will have same type of complaint.I played mods like that in RTW/BI and that was the result of increased defence/morale.
Example "my elite lost most the men before i got enemy to rout, game is unbalanced !", or one that is very common in games with high defence units : "battles lasts to long and there is to many casualties on my side!"
I am not saying present defensive abilities are good or bad , but it would require major overhaul of all units to balanced them if you change any stats drasticaly.
Pharnakes
06-17-2007, 14:40
I know... thats why I probably can't be bothered:beam:
NeoSpartan
06-17-2007, 23:03
Well, this is just my opinon but think that the attack and defensive skill of all untis should be increased, elites obviously more than others, so you end up with a situation where leves will hold agianst elites for a while (without routing) they just won't kill anyone. I mean imagine akontistai with that little (probably poor quality knife) against hypaspistai, even if they stabed a hypaspiste, the knife would be more likely to break then penentrate, even assuming the hypaspiste made no effort to defend himself or couter attack.
Dude, really.... It doesn't workout that way, a man with a knife can HUG the hypaspiste and stab him in the neck, thighs, under the arm, any open areas. Why do you think Romans also carried a very small dagger??? Hand to hand fighting is NASTY man, NASTY.
Moral is bigger issue here, if the hypaspiste fight akontistai that don't want to fight. Then yes the akontistai will break after loosing a few man... BUT if the akontistai HATE thier enemies and are willing to die while trying to kill a hypaspiste... then... thats another story.
in my opinion... the moral of levys and other units shouldn't be affected so much by the death of a general in battle. I hate, seeing 1/2 of the enemy flee because I just killed thier general.
Pharnakes
06-17-2007, 23:05
Hardcoded.
And, hug him to stab him in the back of the neck? you don't think maybe the hypaspiste might have something to say on the matter? Ok, yes the hypaspiste has vulnerable areas, but an akontistai is just one big vulnerability, and as we can't have the enemy routing realisticly due to the fact that they won't rally, Isat compenstion is neesecary by reducing the stats of the leves.
P.S. are you up for M.P. atm, cause I never see you on X-fire.
NeoSpartan
06-17-2007, 23:39
Hardcoded.
And, hug him to stab him in the back of the neck? you don't think maybe the hypaspiste might have something to say on the matter? Ok, yes the hypaspiste has vulnerable areas, but an akontistai is just one big vulnerability, and as we can't have the enemy routing realisticly due to the fact that they won't rally, Isat compenstion is neesecary by reducing the stats of the leves.
P.S. are you up for M.P. atm, cause I never see you on X-fire.
Facing a determined enemy is a b*cht, no matter how low tech the enemy is. Sure a unit of hypaspiste will win the day, but they will take casualties... MORE than 3 or 4. And IF the hypaspiste are surrounded, have to fight up hill, or are tired, they will take even more casualties.
p.s yep i have an MP account on X-fire, but I am using the old .81 so I can finish my Great Aedui Campain. Plus, I have 2 jobs this summer and free time is a leasure... like now is a leasure, I have to go back to work in a little bit. :no:
Watchman
06-18-2007, 12:40
Or the Hypas just form a proper 360-degree defensive shieldwall and simply butcher any Akontistai that come too close. Seriously, the difference in war gear and training of the two is such that as long as the Hypas stick together they might as well be completely invulnerable. It's not just that the Akontistai don't really have a prayer of getting through the shield, armour and defensive employement of the weapons; most of them will just be cut down before they even get to try...
What all that does to the moral fibre of the Akontistai, including the willingness to close in to hand-to-hand combat in the first place or stand and fight if the Hypas go onto the offense, ought to be pretty darn obvious.
May I remind you fellas that Hernan Cortez had a lot of ALLIED indian tribes that hated the Aztecs.Not all the time, such as when he first led his guys into Aztec territory. They had to at least once fight off an entire army all by themselves.
Which they did with casualties close to zero. And this despite the fact the fighters of the two sides were more or less matched in terms of skill and experience - leaving aside the handful of armoured lancers Cortez's bunch had (who could charge back and forth through the Indian lines with virtual impunity), the only real difference between the infantries was body armour (solid steel cuirasses and helmets vs. thick cotton) and weapons (long cut-and-thrust steel swords vs. obsidian-edged sword-clubs).
It was just such demonstrations of their fighting capabilitites that earned them the support of the Aztecs' various subject peoples.
The circle shield wall didn't work that well at thermophiles, did it?
If hypas stays like this then the akontistai can just shower them with javelins/rocks/arrows/wathever, resulting in a quite bad loss for the elites...
Watchman
06-18-2007, 12:54
We're talking about the melee aspect here.
F for Fragging
06-18-2007, 13:32
Thanks for your answers everybody.
I just played several battles between Thracian peltasts and hypaspists on huge unit settings on Samos. The hypaspists won every time. They took significant casualties, but they should - they were largely outnumbered and the Thracian peltasts really aren't bad soldiers.
In the 0.8x edu their were many units that were mistakingly given the "spear" attribute. Open your export_descr_unit.txt, found in the EB/Data folder, find the Hypaspistai enty, and see if they have the spear attribute. If they do, replace it with the word "no". If there is no spear attribute, I'd say that there are some very weird factors at play or you are making this all up.
I checked that text file, apparantly they did have the "spear" attribute. I changed it as you said, tried another custom battle. Now the thraikioi peltastai lost, but the Hypaspistai suffered 80+ casualties, so it was a close victory, maybe because the Thraikioi killed the officer of the Hypaspistai halfway during the battle.
You say that in the 0.8x edu "there were many units that were mistakingly given the "spear" attribute", so this is going to be fixed in a future release?
LorDBulA
06-18-2007, 13:33
We're talking about the melee aspect here.
2-3 akonistai can still drag one guy down and slit his throat.
Beefing up Elite unit stats will just cause one unit to go against whole army of akonistai and win the day. And in reality they would be just dead at the end.
If we have to choose - Make elites a little worse then they where or made them invincible i choose the former.
Geoffrey S
06-18-2007, 13:41
No problem, DE. This book (http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=10&pid=11116) is the one you want to get. As you can see it is prohibitively expensive, and so your best chance is to go through your library system. I've contemplated purchasing it, but I just don't have the cash for that... yet.
Regardless, it is a good read. But, I can go into more details about the battle if you want.
Is a good one, they have got it in my university library; I'd imagine others would have it, too.
Watchman
06-18-2007, 14:54
2-3 akonistai can still drag one guy down and slit his throat.If he was isolated, maybe (and I know enough of the workings of hand-to-hand combat to rank that as very maybe - skilled and confident fighters are pure murder to lesser ones, even with equal gear). When he's part of a close-order battleline ?
So not. Mutual support, remember ?
And in reality they would be just dead at the end.Maybe of javelins. Definitely not of knives though, unless they did something truly appallingly stupid like broke formation and thus allowed themselves to get mobbed individually.
As for the Hypas' "spear" secondary weapon attribute, aren't they supposed to have it ? I was always under the impression it was intented that the primary-sword-secondary-spear heavy infantry units fought infantry with the former and cavalry with the latter... Certainly the difference between the two (in the Hypas' case, sword attack 11 lethality 0.225 spear attack 12 lethality 0.13) would seem to hardly justify the latter ever being used otherwise...
Incidentally, is it just me or is the Hypas' and many comparable units' formation line still screwed ? "0.76, 2.4, 1.6, 1.2" is a pretty absurd setting far as I can tell, and looks a lot more like it's supposed to be something like "0.76, 1.2, 1.6, 2.4"...
Pharnakes
06-18-2007, 16:13
What does the spear attribute acctualy do, does anybody know?
Watchman
06-18-2007, 16:18
Outside the phalanx formation, gives bonuses when fighting cavalry and penalties when fighting infantry far as I know. Plus when "ready" reflects part of (mounted) charge back on the assailant, but that rarely comes into play with the secondary "spear" weapons for obvious reasons (AFAIK at the moment the only "double armed" units with spears as the primary are the Babylonians and the Armenian royal guards).
Attribute spear gives +8 attack vs cavalry and -4 attack vs other infantry. It also gives the unit a nice boost to its pushing power, like adding more mass (so for defensive units always use with cohesive formations, or else the units will spread out and ruin their formations). Spear also does the little reflection thingy Watchman mentioned.
NeoSpartan
06-18-2007, 17:56
WOW!!!! $200 bucks for that bood :dizzy2: Man... I'll see if I can find it in the libraries near by.
On the subject of elites vs. levys....
I have one question.... Do any of you remember RTW????? U guys remember when whole units dropped like flies just after an initial clash???? IF the stats of elites are increased we will get closer to that. And one of the good things about this mod is that units actually fight for a little bit before dieing.
Also, one of the reasons why levys and other seemingly weaker units hold out long is because sometimes the AI puts them in HOLD. Which makes a battle last longer and it ties up your good units in one place.
One thing I would like to point out. I am NOT saying that Akontistae will win the battle. I am saying that Akontistai will cause more than 3 or 4 casualties to hypaspistai. And another thing, as I stated before, terrain and formation will be a major factor in deciding how many casualties will occur. And moral too (although this is hard to duplicate in the game, having a good general which keeps the akontistai from fleeing sort of duplicates this to an extent).
Pharnakes
06-18-2007, 17:58
I am not proprosing a return to vanila battle system, just and increase in the defensive stats of elites.
NeoSpartan
06-18-2007, 18:04
I am not proprosing a return to vanila battle system, just and increase in the defensive stats of elites.
oh ok... but...
1. How much of an increase are we talking about???
2. How will that translate into the game???
Pharnakes
06-18-2007, 18:10
I don't realy know, but not more than 6 or 7, I don't have any major problem with the current system, I just think that elites go down a touch too easily.
NeoSpartan
06-18-2007, 18:36
I don't realy know, but not more than 6 or 7, I don't have any major problem with the current system, I just think that elites go down a touch too easily.
Well... would that be for shield value, armor, etc??? u know defence stats are broken down, and each othe them have instances where they don't count.
Wheather or not elites die too soon... U know there are too many variables, and also not all elites are equal. However, in my expirience, elites do one fine.
Watchman
06-18-2007, 18:51
Logically skill, as the two others are primarily dependent on the specific equipement carried.
Pharnakes
06-18-2007, 22:21
Yes, skill obviously. I have no problem with eb's current method of breaking down amour points.
6 or 7 is far too much. 3 tops and I don't think it's needed...
Cheers...
Big problem is that the AI mainly use two types of armies. One is the all levies one, meaning your elites would slaughter them with very few casualties All you have to do is line your men up and stand there. The other type of army is the all elite one, which would mean that your lighter troops have absolutely no value if they don't have a missile weapon, and if they do they arn't hugely usefull unless you use cheap back shooting tactics.
Where you guys ever been in war (real one)?
I have seen, personally , numerous times bunch of "rag-tag" units inflicting big casualties to fully dressed up and trained units,one on one.
And in this day and age , difference between "levies" and "elites " is even bigger , when it comes to training and equipment. So i don't think that it's that unrealistic.
Sorry :2thumbsup:
Pharnakes
06-19-2007, 16:35
On the other hand, a gun is a gun, whereas a little bronze knife compared to a high quality iron broadswordsword...
But as you say, I at least have never been involved in a war.
On the other hand, a gun is a gun, whereas a little bronze knife compared to a high quality iron broadswordsword...
But as you say, I at least have never been involved in a war.
Well, sadly for me , and not by my choice ,i was.Sad story for different place though. I have seen people with mostly knives not guns, winning against guns though...Guy in the armor is less mobile then guy without armor when it comes to brawl, and never underestimate human instinct for survival.
++++ EDIT: and it happened thru history and time alot...and in brawl (not melee), i'll would choose that little bronze knife over high quality, slow , bulky, iron broadswordsword anytime...
NeoSpartan
06-19-2007, 17:33
Exactly...
The thing is, the weapons and people involved may be different, but the nature of war itself has not changed.
p.s I have not been in combat, altough I was gonna (after ARMY ROTC)... life/family happened and I won't be joinning the Army.
Watchman
06-19-2007, 20:19
Pre gunpowder, elites usually slaughtered levies. Easily. Hell, they tended to rout normal-grade troops easily enough. If you wanted to win against troops of superior training, equipement and motivation with the low-quality light stuff, you had damn better have some really clever tactics up your sleeve and hopefully an idiot commanding the other side...
In hand-to-hand combat superior equipement and skill was so decisive it's not even funny, and that's just in one on one. Nevermind confidence. In mass combat you can add the effects of formation, cohesion, mutual support and discipline to that, and have an easy time figuring out why low-class troops that were attacked by their betters were more likely than not to break and run already before contact...
The nature of war has changed a great deal; modern day examples are not fully likely to be applicable to the past. Two brief examples:
1) Conscription
2) Morale due to weapons. A soldier facing some naked psycho who is charging at him after ripping his own spear from his leg is going to be terrified about fighting. On the other hand, the soldiers in the U.S Civil War at Fredericksburg or in Virginia 64-65 or in nearly every western front battle in WWI had no qualms about charging suicidally into an impregnable defensive position. Guns versus melee combat is a completely different situation regarding both morale and skill/training.
My only problem with the current system is that units simply won't rout at times. A unit surrounded or clearly in an outstretched position that isn't elite should not be able to hold on for nearly as long as they do now. Maybe if the general is right next to them, but even then it's questionable (i,e Dyrrachium, where Caesar himself tried to stop a rout and nearly got killed by his own men). Armies in the ancient world generally broke long before the last men were killed. In EB entire armies will never break until the general dies even if they are completely encircled.
As for the topic, levee units versus disciplined, picked men are not going to be able to do very much before they would want to run. Not quite the best nor most relevant example, but at Issus Alexander routed the left wing of Darius instantly, with the infantry there scarcely putting up any resistance before taking off in terror from the companions. The circumstances are obviously an issue, as fighting in a city is different from in a formation on a plain, but in general the levee unit should inflict very few casualties, if any, before wanting to flee if it comes down to melee with a top of the line unit.
NeoSpartan
06-19-2007, 23:56
The nature of war has changed a great deal; modern day examples are not fully likely to be applicable to the past. Two brief examples:
1) Conscription
2) Morale due to weapons. A soldier facing some naked psycho who is charging at him after ripping his own spear from his leg is going to be terrified about fighting. On the other hand, the soldiers in the U.S Civil War at Fredericksburg or in Virginia 64-65 or in nearly every western front battle in WWI had no qualms about charging suicidally into an impregnable defensive position. Guns versus melee combat is a completely different situation regarding both morale and skill/training.
......
hum... I think you and I don't quite have the same definition of "nature of war". By saying that I did not mean a manner in which an organized state (whith a non-rebellious citizenry) collects young men to fight. Nor do I mean how brave or not men were due to the weapons they carried, enemies they fought, etc (or in the case of WWI and the Civil War, the only way nearly everyone knew how to engage the enemy and take thier position).
By stating "nature of war" I meant the more universal aspects of waging a succesful campain.
-ex: having logistics, well maintained supply lines. As Napoleon said, "An army marches on its stomach".
-ex: knowing ur enemies capabilities and yours too will ensure that u are victorious. If you don't.... the outcome might not be favorable.
-ex: Managing a large force comes down to how organized the force is.
-ex: Is easier to conquer a state/territory/whatever, when u divide your enemies forces (or alliances, tribes, ethnic groups, etc)
.... If ur still having difficulty understanding were I am getting at, I would HIGHLY recommend you read The Art Of War by Sun Tzu.
NeoSpartan
06-20-2007, 00:12
....
My only problem with the current system is that units simply won't rout at times. A unit surrounded or clearly in an outstretched position that isn't elite should not be able to hold on for nearly as long as they do now. Maybe if the general is right next to them, but even then it's questionable (i,e Dyrrachium, where Caesar himself tried to stop a rout and nearly got killed by his own men). Armies in the ancient world generally broke long before the last men were killed. In EB entire armies will never break until the general dies even if they are completely encircled.
As for the topic, levee units versus disciplined, picked men are not going to be able to do very much before they would want to run. Not quite the best nor most relevant example, but at Issus Alexander routed the left wing of Darius instantly, with the infantry there scarcely putting up any resistance before taking off in terror from the companions. The circumstances are obviously an issue, as fighting in a city is different from in a formation on a plain, but in general the levee unit should inflict very few casualties, if any, before wanting to flee if it comes down to melee with a top of the line unit.
lol..... the problem I have is that the enemy flees to early :wall: and thats why I am NEVER playing in M battle difficulty agian :yes:
anywho... back on topic....
Sure levies should flee, sure they shouldn't hold up the advance of elite soldiers, and sure levies shouldn't kill 40% (that is 24 dead out of 60men) or more of elites in a hand-to-hand fight. (All this in level terrain, no upgrades, no battle expirience, no outflanking, M battle difficulty). And you know what.... LEVIES DON'T DO THAT! (Hell, they rarely kill 12 out of 60 elites)
So, sirously fellas...... I don't know what the issue here is.
Oh and another thing... DEPENDING on how you set the size of units to be in the Options menu, that will affect the number of troops that dies.
EX: if u have ur setting to HUGE unit size, then more men will die than if you have ur unit setting in LARGE.
And don't forget the OP was about Thraikioi Peltastai doing too much a** kicking, who by the way, are not levies.
Watchman
06-20-2007, 00:38
Frankly, IRL low-class levy skirmishers like the Akontistai normally broke and ran well before contact if they were charged by an unit of virtually anything equipped and trained for close combat, and for very good reasons. It's not like more was expected of them anyway - their job was just to chuck javelins and then get out of the way. Of course, most infantry would not be able to catch them so they could reform and come back to harass them again after the chase was off. As for cavalry, well... I think that one boardgame about Napoleonic wars I once took a look at summed it pretty well; "any skirmishers caught in the path of a cavalry charge are automatically removed from play as destroyed".
It obviously hardly needs to be said that throwing functionally untrained and all but unarmed loose-order skirmishers against close-order combat troops (nevermind now elite ones) in melee is a good way to achieve absolutely nothing, except maybe waste lives - and that if you can actually somehow force the hapless spear-chuckers to engage in the first place, a feat which would probably have to include prodding them in the buttocks with spears...
But the RTW engine has its limitations when it comes to actually simulating ancient battles, and certain corners must duly be cut. :shame:
Digby Tatham Warter
06-20-2007, 13:49
My only problem with the current system is that units simply won't rout at times. A unit surrounded or clearly in an outstretched position that isn't elite should not be able to hold on for nearly as long as they do now.
I also found routing to easy and common on medium settings.
I am playing on hard battle settings, I find routing is well balanced.
Sometimes a little slow, and sometimes they break without much of a fight.
Some of the elite units like the elite pikes can take alot of punishment, but generally if you put enough pressure on one part of the battle line, then roll the line up through the knock on effect, routing is easy.
Concerning elites and stats:
I find that elite units on hard battle, in a long term campaign seem better balanced through accumalated veterancy(that's if you retrain troops). My Thoratikai Agyraspidai are on 2 silver cheverons and generally suffer few casualties in most engagements.
Considering the distances and the time it takes to travel them in EB, I like my forces to still be useful after a good scrap.
Maybe it's not realstic what my Seleukid veteran combined arms army, is doing to the Romans, in that my force is still intact after many battles, but neither is it realistic concerning the sheer amount of armies they throw at me. So all in all, my silver and gold veterans seem ok to me!
Pharnakes
06-20-2007, 14:59
yeah the main problem with al this is that it takes ten men less time to kill tne men than it take a thousand men to kill thousand, so if relaistic kill rates are included, then we go back to the vannila five second battle model.
It all comes down to the general. You'll find that generaless battles that you hit the levies, they run and then a bit of effort causes a chain rout. If the AI has a solid general then even slingers are willing to take a real beating in hand to hand before they run.
Usually I find enemy units, including levies, have to go below 50% strength before routing. And it's not uncommon for units to fight almost to the last man. That's on medium battle difficulty. So I definitely don't think units rout too easily, if anything it's the other way around.
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
06-20-2007, 21:16
Usually I find enemy units, including levies, have to go below 50% strength before routing. And it's not uncommon for units to fight almost to the last man. That's on medium battle difficulty. So I definitely don't think units rout too easily, if anything it's the other way around.
Just my impressions. Just yesterday I let my Thraikioi Prodromoi chase down Toxotai and Sphendonetai, and they sustained 12 losses, on huge scale. Tough bastards.
Just my impressions. Just yesterday I let my Thraikioi Prodromoi chase down Toxotai and Sphendonetai, and they sustained 12 losses, on huge scale. Tough bastards.
Perhaps the unit scale changes things. AFAIK EB is meant to be played on large unit scale, which is what I use.
The scale is not important, play anything you like (and your computer can handle). There are some small differences between the scales though, such as on huge missile troops are more efficient, units take longer to beat so stamina plays a bigger role, cavalry charges are less effective and populations are depleted quicker. I play large myself as I like the pace of the battles.
NeoSpartan
06-20-2007, 22:54
The scale is not important, play anything you like (and your computer can handle). There are some small differences between the scales though, such as on huge missile troops are more efficient, units take longer to beat so stamina plays a bigger role, cavalry charges are less effective and populations are depleted quicker. I play large myself as I like the pace of the battles.
true that... also unit cost is higher. And due to the population of towns going down fast is a little harder to start up the economy (especially for barbarian and steppes factions).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.