Is this atribute (spear_bonus x) working for RTW: EB? Becose I saw it in the vanilla RTW.
Printable View
Is this atribute (spear_bonus x) working for RTW: EB? Becose I saw it in the vanilla RTW.
EB doesnt use spear_bonus x...
What is it anyway? Don't think I saw it in the EB EDU. I know its not being used, but usually in the beginning of EDU, all of the attributes are listed and described.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcantu
it determines the amount of the spear bonus vs cavalry. it is stackable with other attack bonuses
Oh, that? Well, I believe the Klerouchoi Phalangitai (Hellenic Medium Phalanx) do have that attribute. They are the only EB unit that has a bonus vs mounted troops. Check if you do not believe. Their description even says they have a bonus vs cavalry. Odd too, since how are they different from any other phalangites?
thats a mount bonus; its separate from spear_bonus xQuote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Hmmm. But the KP are the only unit with that bonus, is that not true? Why so?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcantu
might have been left in from 0.8. IIRC mount bonuses were removed because they are applied to any of a units weapons, not just spears
So RTW had other weapons bonuses? Like what? I only remember the spear bonuses. Or did the falxes of the Thracian mercenaries have a bonus vs cavalry too?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcantu
well if you use the mount bonus it can be specified to be vs cavalry or elephants and maybe chariots also. so if it said 'bonus against elephants' that would apply to any attack made against elephants regardless of the weapon used
Meh, guys, just look in the EDU. Kleruchoi falangitai have "bonus vs cavalry" listed because their pikes have "spear" attribute. All other spear-armed soldiers have a "light_spear".
And no, mount bonuses weren`t removed. You can see them on archers - they usually have a -2 vs cavalry. Which makes them perform surprisingly poor vs horse archers, who have higher ranged attack and no penalties towards infantry. There are also a lot units, who have bonuses vs elephants and chariots.
I don't know if they are performing "surprisingly bad". Cavalry dies surprisingly fast, in EB and RTW unless it is very heavily armoured, with more than 27 defence. Overall, an infantry unit with the same stats will last MUCH longer than identical mounted unit. HAs have small or no shields, which makes the vulnerable to missiles. Also, in all of my EB experience, cavalry always dies quicker than infantry when in the face of missile fire. Foot archers also have more range, but yes, as you said, it is not uncommon for a HA to have 6 base missile attack - something you only find on Cretans and Caucasians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woreczko
BTW, does anyone know why Caucasian archers have 6 attack? Their bows were definitely inferior to their nomadic counterparts, but yet they have 6 attack. While at the same time Syrian archers have 4 attack and Cretans, the ones with the worst bows, have 6? Cretans supposedly had more skill, but shouldn't the nomadic foot archers have 6 attack as well? Nomads used the bow and arrow almost every day of their life, even without the drills. Not all were as professional as Cretans, but surely some veteran units were created?
Final Note: Does Cantabrian Circle really prevent missile casualties? I had a couple extremely experienced players (PrinceofMacedon) tell me so, but that seems a bit strange.
The Caucasians were well-known for firing meter-long arrows during Xenophon's Anabasis. They were big enough that the Greeks would recover the spent arrows and use them as javelins. That's probably why Caucasian archers have such a high attack. It's not the bows, but the projectiles.
What about the low Syrian Archer attack? Balancing would be an odd reason for this since EB almost never compromises historical accuracy for gameplay. Syrian Archers were supposed to be one of the most renowned archers of the Mediterranean, comparable with Cretans, albeit being slightly less professional but having better bows.