View Full Version : javelin V phalanx
been playing as and against Successor States and what i really dont understand is why javelins are such useless against phalanx.
it is really frustrating to see 240 javelins fly into phalanx formation without inflicting a single casualty! how is that possible? what is the reason for such an outcome? phalanx being attack from the rear with the same, 240 javelins will only suffers somewhere between 2 and 10 loses! why?:inquisitive:
imo it is really unrealistic and unbalanced.
any explanations?
NeoSpartan
10-03-2007, 17:43
what difficutly where u playing in?????
Phalanxes are given strong defensive points for frontal attacks, while having lower defensive points for side or rear attacks.
what difficutly where u playing in?????
Phalanxes are given strong defensive points for frontal attacks, while having lower defensive points for side or rear attacks.
playing o Medium battle difficulty.
it is obvious that frontal defence should be and is better, but not to a degree when they are completely invinsible, super men.
Thats becoz of a very low javelin' atack IMO. And yes , phalanx gains very big bonus against missiles coz of "spears, which beat off missiles", in any direction, btw. From rear they only haven't shield defence.
There is also a defense bonus just for being in the phalanx formation
Neither difficulty nor defense will influence missile effectivenes, only the armour and shield values do. Phalangites generally are well-armoured have increased shield values to simulate the deflective abilities of their formation. They are somewhat lower in defense than similarly trained and equiped troops, though, but that does not influence the current situation.
Also, javelins are rather weak in EB: historically they were more an irritative weapon than a killing one. Frontal javelin attacks at phalanxes are not very effective: you have to get to their unshielded side or their back in order to do serious damage, and even then don't expect a single unit of peltasts to be able to cripple a phalanx unit,
Bootsiuv
10-03-2007, 18:19
I think the phalanx missle defense is excessive. I also agree that javelins are too weak. IIRC, most javelins have the same missle damage as arrows. Perhaps there are gameplay reasons for this, such as not wanting overpowered skirmishers.
TWFanatic
10-03-2007, 18:20
Phalanx doubles the shield value of a unit. Thus, attacking phalanxes head on or at their left (where they carry shields) with missiles is not as effective as assaults to the rear or right flank.
a single unit? i dont think even 4 units will be able to achieve that.
javelins imo way too underpowered. first 2,3 volley are of no use whatsoever.
it is just bizzare to see 240 and more javelns being completely obserbed.
would make more sense if the unit was of a smaller size with the same killng ratio. why is it so large anyway?
Bootsiuv
10-03-2007, 18:32
I think a good workaround for overpowered skirmishers would be to give them only 2-3 javelins (IIRC skirmishers have something like 5-10 right now), but increase javelins missle damage by a good margin. That way, just one volley will be fairly devestating, but they won't have the ammo to wipe out entire armies.
Phalanx doubles the shield value of a unit. Thus, attacking phalanxes head on or at their left (where they carry shields) with missiles is not as effective as assaults to the rear or right flank.
How have you tested that?
I think a good workaround for overpowered skirmishers would be to give them only 2-3 javelins (IIRC skirmishers have something like 5-10 right now), but increase javelins missle damage by a good margin. That way, just one volley will be fairly devestating, but they won't have the ammo to wipe out entire armies.
but we do not have overpowered javelineers:laugh4:
reducing ammo for skirmishers? hm. iirc infantry have something around 3,4 so skirmishers should definitely have at least twice the amount.
what seems reasonable to me is reducing unit size (is there a reason for them to big so huge? they are only secondary, supportive troops after all) for light skirmishers form 240 to 160 and for heavier types from 160 to 120 leaving current "killing" ratio the way it is. that why you wouldnt scratch your head wandering where all those hundreds of javelins flew.
Bootsiuv
10-03-2007, 19:20
You might have overpowered javelineers if you raised the missle damage for javelins....this is what I meant. Skirmishers are underpowered currently IMO.
You might have overpowered javelineers if you raised the missle damage for javelins....this is what I meant. Skirmishers are underpowered currently IMO.
i dont think raising missile damage by the smallest margin would make tehm overpowered. either that or reducing number of men (skirmishers) per unit ...
as it is now you dont have to bother to field them at all and can entirly rely on your impenetrable phalanx which is nowhere near to reality. Battle of Lechaeum is a great example of phalanx vulnerability which is forgotten...
What needs to be done : skirmisher unit size - lower, ammo - lower, attack - higher.
(of course no one will take care of it, as always) :inquisitive:
Watchman
10-03-2007, 20:21
Missile lethality is always a round 1, AFAIK. Hardcoded.
Still, IMO as well them javelins are a wee bit underpowered. Not that I particularly miss them vanilla RTW days, but I understand those things did put enough mass and momentum behind a narrow point to be a real source of worry for anyone who wasn't decked out in pretty good defensive gear.
Heck, IIRC the unit description of those axe-swinging Dahae skirmisher cav it specifically says there that the javelin was sometimes preferred over the bow because of its better armour-piercing qualities, even among the archery-crazy nomads... which IIRC the relevant stats manifestly fails to be the case, as the HAs actually had a higher base missile attack on top of way greater range and deeper quivers.
In EB they have no ap... stupid. Even good bow should have it.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
10-03-2007, 22:05
In EB they have no ap... stupid. Even good bow should have it.Tully the expert comment...
Tellos Athenaios
10-03-2007, 22:11
No they shouldn't. Consider a very simple case: one layer of plate steel (a simple modern can will do (note that the material is aproximately 0.8mm thick) and shoot an arrow at it with an iron tip. Sure when you are standing very close to your target that won't be much good armour, will it?
But now try again from some 50 metres distance. If you can hit the can, well done: look at it -- it will be bend, but not pierced. Look at your arrow tip: that too will be bend!
Finally you might argue: why, they didn't use steel back then for body armour did they? Well, most of the time no they wouldn't; but then again their armour wouldn't have been a mere 0.8mm thick and neither would they have allowed you to stand at some 50 metres distance shooting arrows at them at you leisure...
Given the lethality rate of missiles it would lead to some serious overpowered missile units if each and everyone of them had AP attribute. It would yield especially ridiculous results against heavy cataphract-style armoured units.
Actually before 0.81a people used to complain about overpowered missile troops; and even then the Phalanx was pretty much as good against missiles as it is now. - And back then many of them missiled did have AP attribute, but that is IIRC.
jhhowell
10-03-2007, 22:26
a single unit? i dont think even 4 units will be able to achieve that.
javelins imo way too underpowered. first 2,3 volley are of no use whatsoever.
it is just bizzare to see 240 and more javelns being completely obserbed.
In my experience, what you are complaining of is only true for frontal attacks. Phalanxes melt away very quickly when a skirmisher unit or two gets behind them and starts unloading. A single Numidian/Akontistai/Peltast unit won't kill a phalanx, but two will rout it as surely as a cavalry charge. If the tactical situation allows, I'd much prefer to have a javelin unit or two firing into the backs of a phalanx rather than using hastati or principes to surround the phalanx. That hard-coded lethality of 1 really racks up the kills quickly, preserving more men in the unfortunate unit facing the front of the phalanx.
To be fair, the units I've destroyed this way were almost all Klerouchikoi Phalangitai, so perhaps the really high end ones (Basilikon Agema, Epilektoi Hoplitai, Argyraspidai, etc.) have enough armor that even javelins from the rear do as little as you claim. But there's always the cavalry charge or surround-with-infantry tactic for those rare cases, if so.
A single Numidian/Akontistai/Peltast unit won't kill a phalanx, but two will rout it as surely as a cavalry charge
How then I can't route surrounded unit of medium phalanx??? Because of *many stars* general? Funny thing happened yesterday, when battle was almost won, 2 men of hippoakontistai had eager morale while fighting my ~80 peltasts...
No they shouldn't. Consider a very simple case: one layer of plate steel (a simple modern can will do (note that the material is aproximately 0.8mm thick) and shoot an arrow at it with an iron tip. Sure when you are standing very close to your target that won't be much good armour, will it?
But now try again from some 50 metres distance. If you can hit the can, well done: look at it -- it will be bend, but not pierced. Look at your arrow tip: that too will be bend! Parthian surely can. And so huns,mongols,... english longbowmen have managed this against medieval knights! And you say 50 meters...
And while javelins/archers are underpowered, slingers are extremely overpowered!
Few volleys should be enough to kill 200 unarmoured skirmishers...
Watchman
10-03-2007, 23:43
Parthian surely can. And so huns,mongols,... english longbowmen have managed this against medieval knights! And you say 50 meters...Did not. Heavily armoured cavalry developed on the steppes specifically to counter the ubiquitous archery there; the whole point was to render the elite shock cavalry as blow- and missile-proof as possible.
The English archers had major issues inflicting actual damage on knights even at Grecy, and back then most knights didn't wear much more than mail which isn't even particularly arrow-proof as armour goes. They could wound the unprotected horses, sure, and savage lighter-equipped support troops, but the knights themselves were quite well able to repeatedly charge home against the English heavy troops - what now the archers caused enough confusion and disorder in their ranks the impact was greatly lessened.
Once true plate came about - partly in response to the longbow actually - the bow was well on its way out. Top-grade full plate tended to bounce musket balls at reasonable distances, and already in the early 1500s or so military writers began lamenting the fact even the heavy, fully developed lance had great difficulties killing anyone when two forces of knights met at full tilt...
Few volleys should be enough to kill 200 unarmoured skirmishers...Open-order skirmishers hava actually had a tendency to be annoyingly hard to kill with missiles; too much empty space for the projectiles to fall into, and the nimble fellows tended to have a habit of simply dodging the slower ones like javelins.
How have you tested that?
Try it at siege, for example. When the enemy has a phalanx, or anything else with a good shield, behind the wall, place your slingers in range: they won't do any damage frontal or when the enemy is turning right (presenting you his shield arm) - but as soon as he is turning left or about face you will very well see the difference.
Therefore: Do not place your archers, slingers etc. behind the enemy, because you will hit your men as well; place them on your left wing and let them rip through the unproteced right side of the enemy.
Watchman
10-04-2007, 00:08
That's something I've been doing a long time whether the enemy is phalanxes or not - why batter at the shield when you can go around it ?
Try it at siege, for example. When the enemy has a phalanx, or anything else with a good shield, behind the wall, place your slingers in range: they won't do any damage frontal or when the enemy is turning right (presenting you his shield arm) - but as soon as he is turning left or about face you will very well see the difference.
Therefore: Do not place your archers, slingers etc. behind the enemy, because you will hit your men as well; place them on your left wing and let them rip through the unproteced right side of the enemy.
no, I think he meant how did he know that it have them 2x as much protection with phalanx mode.
imo eastern archers, horse archers too should be slightly stronger. volley after volley with no effect whatsoever is a bit over the top.
i didnt mention them and only highlighted javelineers exclusively because the later's quantity versus quality issue (240 skirmishers to 160 archers) is more puzzling...
gents, remember, we are not talking about actuall killing ratio, but merely ability to inflict casualties that would cause disability to carry on fighting. this soldiers might be easily healed in the after battle scroll hence imo, improving missile attack just one slight bit will make it good and improve over all balance.
[QUOTE=Tellos Athenaios]No they shouldn't. Consider a very simple case: one layer of plate steel (a simple modern can will do (note that the material is aproximately 0.8mm thick) and shoot an arrow at it with an iron tip. Sure when you are standing very close to your target that won't be much good armour, will it?
But now try again from some 50 metres distance. If you can hit the can, well done: look at it -- it will be bend, but not pierced. Look at your arrow tip: that too will be bend!
[QUOTE]
there is nothing similar that protectes Macedonian style phalangit from the shield up. espacially those in the first few lines. any direct shot in the face, neck whether it is 50 or 100 metres could be deadly.
no, I think he meant how did he know that it have them 2x as much protection with phalanx mode.
OK. In that case please forget my answer. I have read of the phalanx bonus somewhere myself, but cannot say that I had wittnessed any difference in survivabilty against missle fire depending on the selected formation.
IIRC, the "240-man" skirmisher units are nearly all low-class peasant scum equipped with whatever crap they could get their grubby hands on. Now if you imagine those units in battle, they would just want to quickly get rid of their javelins and then retreat back to safety - i doubt they would even aim their shots, they'd just throw randomly and then run. Also their javelins would be crap - rough sticks with low-quality tips.
The better javelin units tend to be 160-man size, and some do have the AP attribute i think
i never understand these sort of complaints. i have always found ranged units, especially peltasts and slingers, to be very powerful when used properly. foot archers not so much.... they are rather lacklustre.
i remember as the romans I used some merc sarmatian horse archers in my armies against the selucids, who where pumping out elite silver shields and hypaspistai left and right, and even the horse archers with no AP or exp where killing at least 10 men per volley from behind, on large unit size (120 silver shield phalanx per unit). Usually when the phalanx was at 120 men they would kill 15 in the first volley, this was with 2 units of horse archers.
peltasts are very nasty against exposed sides. when playing as a barbarian faction im always careful to have eneough cav to deal with the peltasts, as even from the front they can kill alot of unarmoured men. with armoured infantry it isnt as big a deal, but you still have to deal with them before or during the time your lines meet, otherwise they do attack the flanks, and they ARE deadly even agianst armoured units, as long as they attack from the rear or non-shield side.
i have never encounted a unit that hasnt taken significant losses when attacked from the appropriate direction.
Digby Tatham Warter
10-04-2007, 12:59
You might have overpowered javelineers if you raised the missle damage for javelins....this is what I meant. Skirmishers are underpowered currently IMO.
Except when it comes to shooting at Nellies, where IMO they are far to deadly far to quickly, I prefer the balance in the SPQR mod where Jav's are still the answer but it takes alittle while, enough to perphaps make you sweat a little.
The low level skirmishers - akonkistai, toxotai etc. - and their damage are about right, imho. They´re able to cause tremendous loses among other poor quality troops but anyone who´s armoured with more than a linen cloth just cant be bothered with them.
As far as my (limited) historical knowledge goes, they never had any significant role in winning a battle if the other side had some of them, too. They were just a nuisance and the prelude to the actual battle.
And medium/elite skirmishers (balearic slingers, thacian peltastai, syrian archers etc.) DO hurt a phalanx from a frontal arc (i´m an avid mak/baktria player and lost tons of men to them at beginning of my EB career ~D).
just my two cents
Oleander Ardens
10-04-2007, 17:35
It is the big picture which is important here. This means to get historical combat right. Ideas such as to give most javelins ap means that even heavily armored units will get cut down in scores by lowly peletasts. Slingers are already a huge danger with their ap, I suffered quite a bit even against the Roman accensi when they out outflanked one of my Phalangites and started pooring in bullets.
Sadly EB can't finetune the AP attribute like modders could in MTW. Ideal of course would be to be able to tweak both the armor (pierce, blade , blunt) and the missiles potential ap factor. So AP is a watershed attribute, give it to an unit and it will be capable to wreak havoc to armored units with little shielddefense.
IMHO javelins are fine, even if I wonder how many javelins a typical skirmisher on horseback had back than in Greece.
OA
IIRC, the "240-man" skirmisher units are nearly all low-class peasant scum equipped with whatever crap they could get their grubby hands on. Now if you imagine those units in battle, they would just want to quickly get rid of their javelins and then retreat back to safety - i doubt they would even aim their shots, they'd just throw randomly and then run. Also their javelins would be crap - rough sticks with low-quality tips.
The better javelin units tend to be 160-man size, and some do have the AP attribute i think
wouldnt adding a point or two to javelin attack WITHOUT giving them AP improve the balance?
as for aiming the javelins it is partially true but only when in skirmish with other similar troops. they would dodge rather than aim. i recommend "Cannae" by A. Goldsworthy, he describes skirmishing very lively and has good points there. however, why would they rash into safety when in front of them just a slow moving very densely packed formation that doesnt shoot back? they'd probably lavish the moment. heck, they could probably even afford to take their time aiming until the moment when phalanx breaks free in pursuit. good example is above mentioned Spartan defeat.
i do not argue that attacks from the rear are useless, but that they should imo be more damaging. and seeing hundreds of javelins fly in with no injuries at all is rather surprising to say the least.
Javelin attacks from the rear are definately not useless. I have make the most elite phalanx units rout with well timed javelins fromthe rear. You just have to wait until they are a little tired or their morale has dropped a little first.
One other reason that missile fire from the front against phalanx units does so little is that EB has the shield value off all phalanx units at 5 no matter the actual size of their shield. IIRC, shield values are doubled against missile attacks from the front/left front.
Tellos Athenaios
10-04-2007, 20:15
there is nothing similar that protectes Macedonian style phalangit from the shield up. espacially those in the first few lines. any direct shot in the face, neck whether it is 50 or 100 metres could be deadly.
Those targets would have been practically impossible to reach: you are talking about areas smaller than the can!
Even hitting anything but his spear & shield already takes quite some bit of luck: it's a tricky thing to shoot the arrow around all those spears; and make sure it doesn't hit the shield...
Six metres of sticks as an obstacle; from well over 50 metres distance; area's only some square centimetres...?
(Oh and for the record: the Mak Pezhetairoi phalangitai wear the ancient equivalent of a bullet proof jacket, called: lineothorax. The way such body armour is made now is stikingly similar to the process of making a lineothorax.)
Watchman
10-04-2007, 20:22
And in any case, when the guy sees a javelin heading for his face he'll try to duck his head or at least angle it so his helmet gets in the way. I've read people, regardless of the period or place, actually react curiously similarly when under fire; they always sort of crouch or lean forwards, like they were facing against a stiff wind.
In any case, I rather doubt the phalangites were quite drilled to stand ramrod straight under fire.
Bootsiuv
10-04-2007, 20:25
While I do agree, I still think a volley of thousands (translated to hundreds for RTW battles) of arrows would likely see some of those arrows finding their mark. The fact that 1-2 phalangites die in a volley of 240+ arrows seems a tad unrealistic....
Was armor in this era really that formidable? I always thought an arrow could still pierce solid armor, given a good shot from a reasonable distance. I must admit that I have never shot a bow and arrow, so I'm not familiar with the level of power that an arrow actually has.
Did not. Heavily armoured cavalry developed on the steppes specifically to counter the ubiquitous archery there; the whole point was to render the elite shock cavalry as blow- and missile-proof as possible.
I think you misunderstood me. At Carrae (sp?) Roman armor wasn't enough to counter parthian arrows. I don't say that 1 arrow = 1 dead roman, but this is a question of accuracy. Distance was 150+ meters...
And roman armour was amongst finest in that time.
While I do agree, I still think a volley of thousands (translated to hundreds for RTW battles) of arrows would likely see some of those arrows finding their mark. The fact that 1-2 phalangites die in a volley of 240+ arrows seems a tad unrealistic....
Was armor in this era really that formidable? I always thought an arrow could still pierce solid armor, given a good shot from a reasonable distance. I must admit that I have never shot a bow and arrow, so I'm not familiar with the level of power that an arrow actually has.
Answer - no.
I think that 99,9999% of us hasn't shoot from a bow...:bow:
Watchman
10-04-2007, 21:58
I think you misunderstood me. At Carrae (sp?) Roman armor wasn't enough to counter parthian arrows. I don't say that 1 arrow = 1 dead roman, but this is a question of accuracy. Distance was 150+ meters...
And roman armour was amongst finest in that time.Roman armour in that time was long mail shirts and scale cuirasses, of which the former pretty much holds the record of being the worst against anything pointy as metal armour now goes.
And since the Romans at Carrhae were acutely short of missile troops of their own and their cavalry had been eaten by cataphracts, there was no reason for the Parthian horse-archers to not close in to virtual point-blank range. Arrows can't be relied on to penetrate even the sort of thick padding worn under metal armour at over hundred meters after all.
But between their body armour, big shields and good helmets the Romans were apparently able to hold out well enough that they could try to retreat in decent order during the night, even if it now went bust later on.
Fact is, it tends to be pretty difficult to take down a decently protected fellow with any missile weapon at any distance, save for the particularly powerful ones which then pay for it with either limited range (eg. heavy javelins) or problematic reloading processes (eg. crossbows and firearms). You can punch through even very good armour at point-blank ranges with a decent composite bow and suitable arrows, but the circumstances allowing for such activity were rare outside naval engagements and sieges.
Oleander Ardens
10-06-2007, 14:51
You can punch through even very good armour at point-blank ranges with a decent composite bow and suitable arrows, but the circumstances allowing for such activity were rare outside naval engagements and sieges.
First of all most of your points are perfectly fine. But from what I have read even an arrow from pointblank range from a heavy warbow has little chance to do any harm to the protected areas of mail-armored soldier. The difficulties are mainly in getting a wellmade and historical piece of armor shot under the right conditions.
I personally find it most interesting that Plutarch in the Life of Crassus first says (24, P389):
4 And when Crassus ordered his light-armed troops to make a charge, they did not advance far, but encountering a multitude of arrows, abandoned their undertaking and ran back for shelter among the men-at‑arms, among whom they caused the beginning of disorder and fear, for these now saw the velocity and force of the arrows, which fractured armour, and tore their way through every covering alike, whether hard or soft.
5 But the Parthians now stood at long intervals from one another and began to shoot their arrows from all sides at once, not with any accurate aim (for the dense formation of the Romans would not suffer an archer to miss even if he wished it), but making vigorous and powerful shots from bows which were large and mighty and curved so as to discharge their missiles with great force.
6 At once, then, the plight of the Romans was a grievous one; for if they kept their ranks, they were wounded in great numbers, and if they tried to come to close quarters with the enemy, they were just as far from effecting anything and suffered just as much. For the Parthians shot as they fled, and next to the Scythians, they do this most effectively; and it is a very clever thing to seek safety while still fighting, and to take away the shame of flight.
An interesting part about the Parthian tactic:
25 Now as long as they had hopes that the enemy would exhaust their missiles and desist from battle or fight at close quarters, the Romans held out; but when they perceived that many camels laden with arrows were at hand, from which the Parthians who first encircled them took a fresh supply, then Crassus, seeing no end to this, began to lose heart, and sent messengers to his son with orders to force an engagement with the enemy before he was surrounded; for it was his wing especially which the enemy were attacking and surrounding with their cavalry, in the hope of getting in his rear.
2 Accordingly, the young man took thirteen hundred horsemen, of whom a thousand had come from Caesar, five hundred archers, and eight cohorts of the men-at‑arms who were nearest him, and led them all to the charge. But the Parthians who were trying to envelop him, either because, as some say, they encountered marshes, or because they were manoeuvring to attack Publius as far as possible from his father, wheeled about and made off.
3 Then Publius, shouting that the men did not stand their ground, rode after them, and with him Censorinus and Megabacchus, the latter distinguished for his courage and strength, Censorinus a man of senatorial dignity and a powerful speaker, and both of them comrades of Publius and nearly of the same age. The cavalry followed after Publius, and even the infantry kept pace with them in the zeal and joy which their hopes inspired; for they thought they were victorious and in pursuit of the enemy, until, after they had gone forward a long distance, they perceived the ruse. For the seeming fugitives wheeled about and were joined at the same time by others more numerous still.
4 Then the Romans halted, supposing that the enemy would come to close quarters with them, since they were so few in number. But the Parthians stationed their mail-clad horsemen in front of the Romans, and then with the rest of their cavalry in loose array rode round them, tearing up the surface of the ground, and raising from the depths great heaps of sand which fell in limitless showers of dust, so that the Romans could neither see clearly nor speak plainly,
Now it gets very interesting,
5 but, being crowded into a narrow compass and falling upon one another, were shot, and died no easy nor even speedy death. For, in the agonies of convulsive pain, and writhing about the arrows, they would break them off in their wounds, and then in trying to pull out by force the barbed heads which had pierced their veins and sinews, they tore and disfigured themselves the more.
The barbed heads were usually larger, with three blades (triloblate?), and not well suited to pierce mail. It seems from the description that the large mass was wounded through shots in the arms and legs - or in the case of the lightly armored troops in the body.
Thus many died, and the survivors also were incapacitated for fighting. And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence.
The survivors - the majority were mostly wounded in the extremities.
9 But the Gauls were distressed above all things by the heat and their thirst, to both of which they were unused; and most of their horses had perished by being driven against the long spears. They were therefore compelled to retire upon the men-at‑arms, taking with them Publius, who was severely wounded. And seeing a sandy hillock near by, they all retired to it, and fastened their horses in the centre; then locking their shields together on the outside, they thought they could more easily defend themselves against the Barbarians. 10 But it turned out just the other way. For on level ground, the front ranks do, to some extent, afford relief to those who are behind them. But here, where the inequality of the ground raised one man above another, and lifted every man who was behind another into greater prominence, there was no such thing as escape, but they were all alike hit with arrows, bewailing their inglorious and ineffectual death.
11 Now there were with Publius two Greeks, of those who dwelt near by in Carrhae, Hieronymus and Nicomachus. These joined in trying to persuade him to slip away with them and make their escape to Ichnae, a city which had espoused the Roman cause and was not far off. But Publius, declaring that no death could have such terrors for him as to make him desert those who were perishing on his account, ordered them to save their own lives, bade them farewell, and p397dismissed them. Then he himself, being unable to use his hand, which had been pierced through with an arrow, presented his side to his shield-bearer and ordered him to strike home with his sword.
Once again an important - and well armored person is wounded where the armor doesn't protect him. Usually it is the eye but here the hand of him is pierced.
27 Even as he spoke such words of encouragement, Crassus saw that not many of his men listened with any eagerness, but when he also bade them raise the battle cry, he discovered how despondent his army was, so weak, feeble, and uneven was the shout they made, while that which came from the Barbarians was clear and bold. Then, as the enemy got to work, their light cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space, except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. 2 These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once. After fighting in this manner till night came on, the Parthians withdrew, saying that they would grant Crassus one night in which to bewail his son, unless, with a better regard for his own interests, he should consent to go to Arsaces instead of being carried there.
This is an important passus about the power of their spears - seemingly a topos to explain the defeat of the Romans, like the power of the "unknown" parthian composite bow.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Crassus*.html#23
Cheers
OA
In Carrhae's Roman defeat spears take last place.
QwertyMIDX
10-07-2007, 02:05
It's also worth noting that the 'battle' of Carrhae wasn't a pitched battle. It was more a march under fire and then a retreat under fire with the Parthian horse archers being resupplied with arrows regularly. It took quite awhile for the Parthians to whittle down the roman troops with missile fire and even then wounds seem to have been concentrated in the un- or under-protected extremities rather than killing wounds through armor. Since of the 20,000 or so roman troops killed at battle a large percentage seem to have been killed either during the retreat or as a fact of being cut off from the main army (this includes Publius' force, presumably 4-6,000 men, 4 cohorts cut off from the main army, 4,000 wounded who were killed rather than taken prisoner by the Parthians immediately following the battle proper, and thousands more killed during the retreat) it would seem that arrow fire during the battle proper killed at most a couple thousand roman soldiers. With about 9,000 archers presumably exhausting multiple quivers (hence the aforementioned camels) a ratio of 1 kill for 100 arrows seems a bit generous.
Watchman
10-07-2007, 10:59
Yup. Mail-clad shield-toting Medieval infantry too seems to generally have weathered the intense and extended attentions of archers quite fine generally. For example I've read there was one phase in the Battle of Yarmuk where armoured Arab infantry was for an extended period subjected to Byzantine horse-archery; Muslim sources apparently know the episode as "the Day of Lost Eyes", succintly illustrating the most consipicious type of injuries sustained.
On the same vein the Crusader States used mail-clad heavy spearmen as a living wall to protect the cavalry horses from arrows.
On the other hand, in naval boarding actions for example archers could be a murder. Ottoman Janissary archers for example seem to have been able to cause real damage to even plate-clad Europeans at the distances involved.
Well, we in RTW doesn't have unprotected areas, armor covers whole all sides and shield front and left. So it will be fairly to say that missiles are reduced heavily in damage..
Tellos Athenaios
10-07-2007, 13:47
Not quite: there is a clear difference between hitting someone in the back; hitting someone at the shielded side; hitting someone in the unprotected side... Anyone who's been using missiles a lot will have noticed this.
Yes, but I mean face, arms, legs... They all covered by armor from all sides, + from left and twice from front... If arrow hits armor there is no problem, but it cannot hit in face, which is instant death, or arms, legs, so he cannot continue fighting. Currently it seems that all men are like cataphracts, just packed in armour ))
Tellos Athenaios
10-07-2007, 15:00
No not really. Perhaps you should experiment a bit with different difficulty settings (if you didn't use M battles that is) and perhaps experimenting with multiple missile troops; slingers would yield better results?
All I can say is that on M battle difficulty the archers + slingers combination can be really devastating.
QwertyMIDX
10-07-2007, 18:36
Charge, everytime a man is goes down it means he was most likely hit in an unprotected spot. The way the stats work (roll to hit, roll attack against armor, roll for leathlity) are just abstractions but even in the abstract what do you think it means when the armor roll yields a success for the attacker? The vast majority should be thought to represent a hit on an unprotected spot rather than the penetration of armor. The fact that more lightly armored troops have lower armor values is a result of more unprotected areas as well as armor thats easier to penetrate (in fact linothorax was harder to penetrate with an arrow than chain mail, although the padding under the chain mail might have evened the odds so what).
Oleander Ardens
10-08-2007, 10:43
In fact linothorax was harder to penetrate with an arrow than chain mail, although the padding under the chain mail might have evened the odds so what).
Depends what type of arrowhead gets used :beam:
But anyway EB has found a good compromise considering all the game restrictions. Large area coverage is most important for armor to be of use against massed archery as the Kataphraktoi and other steppe warriors have shown us.
Javelins should be well suited to penetrate thanks to their momentum, but there are of course various types of spearheads and various sizes so it is hard to generalize. On could argue for example that the framae a dual-use spear, being long, heavy and fitted with a slender spearhead would fall into the same class as the pilum as far as penetratin is concerned. But EB balances this by given the germanic warriors a markedly higher attack.
Cheers
OA
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.