Printable View
Hi,
We know that in the EB are some "Rock-Paper-Scissors"-Rules:
- Swords beat Spears
- Spears beat Cavalry
- Maces beat Armor
But what about Axes? Do Axe-Units have a advantage when they fight against Spear Units? Or against Units with high amor?
And are there any other of this basic rules?
Thanks for your answers.
Axes are mostly armour peircing and have fairly high lethality values, they're pretty much the same as maces in most respects.
Actually, EB got rid of the swords-beat-spears mechanism of vanilla R:TW (although some argue they created overpowered spear units in the process). Units are balanced based on their equipment, with reference to their historical performance, not to create an artificial balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcAurel
Axes, like maces, are armour-piercing.
Thats very interesting. Thanksa lot for the fast answers.
Obviously there is also a "Javelins beat elephants and chariots" - Rule.
Are there any other of this mechanisms in the game?
I red somewhere that slingers should be very effective against armored units, but I never made that experience. In my opinion sling-bullets and arrows are both very uneffective against highly armored units. Does anybody know whats the difference between these two kinds of projectiles? Is it only the ballistic trajectory?
Thanks.
There are quite a few differences between archers and slingers actually. The most obvious and important ones are:
-slingers are armor piercing, contrary to arrows. They can thus be valuable to take out some heavy cavalry (who often have small or no shields, and heavy armor). Archers on the other hand can be used to fire flaming arrows, which can be fairly important in a battle. Most archers, and (all?) slingers have bonusses against elephants and chariots. I guess slingers are slightly more effective against them though.
-most slingers have less soldiers than archer-units, and they often have a slightly or not so slightly looser formation. Combined with the shields slingers carry more often than archers, slingers are excellent to take missile fire.
-the ballistics of slingers makes them less attractive to put behind your own line, contrary to archers. On the other hand, when firing an opponent, some slings miss their target and kill an enemy standing behind or in front of the initial target. If an arrow misses her target, it hits the ground far more often.
-slingers have almost always more missiles than archers, which makes up for their lower attack value. This makes them especially useful when sallying, and attacking in general. You don't really need that many missiles when defending against an army that doesn't consists for the better part of skirmishers.
About slingers and archers being effective against heavily armoured units: slingers can make up for it if they don't need to cope with the enemies shields. Try to use them from a non-shield-side, and they're more effective. Archers are, imo, far weaker against heavily armoured units.
Stat-wise axes and maces are actually identical. And yeah, what Ludens said about dumping that idiotic "swords beat spears" thingy.
Well, units armed with swords still tend to beat spear units of a similar tier. Mostly because of the difference in lethality and attack values. Phalanxes don't count.
"Tier" ? You mean, MIC level ? That's not much of an indicator of anything, you know.
Tier? Not MIC, simply as a general quality indicator. Southern Gallic Swordsmen and Celtic Spearmen would be around the same tier, and guess who tends to win?
Oh, those. Well given that the Gaeroas have smaller shields and the longsword guys boast like twice the weapon lethality it's really to be expected...
Well yeah. Swords tend to have higher lethality than spearmen, and the spearmen already get the infantry penalty. So Swordsmen do tend to beat spearmen, just not because of some arbitrary system of rules.
Longswordsmen. The shortsword and kopis/falcata dudes are on a way more equal footing in that regard. And the longswords are so expensive that for the roughly same cost-per-man the spear guys can get decked out in quite a bit of armour, rather evening the odds - compare, say, Keltohellenikoi Hoplitai.
I've found that axemen, in general, tend to chew on anything reasonable well, as units with AP weapons have nice defensive stats, and reasonable attacking stats. Teceitos (Celtic Axemen) for example, can maul Hoplitai Haploi, Celtic Swordsmen Roster and all Roman infantryman fairly well because of their AP axes. On top of that, they have a nice tidy defense figure (20 I think?) so they can last in combat.
I'd compare axemen to that little kid you play rock paper scissors with. He claims that by grabbing your hand or punching you, he wins (which he can do), but in the long run you could easily have him in a fight.
spears are teh best!
everyone uses spears. they are cheap and versatile. swords are better for close quarter combat where you wont have enough room to manoevre a spear. basically the greek hoplites are the "perfectly armed soldiers"
*Pokes fleaza in the eye with a sarissa*Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaza
Har har.
(Or with a xyston, if it's a cavalry-y day)
the shield bonus makes a huge difference on resisting missles - units with a +4 shield (or more) take very little losses head on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcAurel
you need to attack those troops from an angle where they don't get their shield bonus - i tend to have more missle units on the left hand side of my army (as the shield offers less protection to the right hand side of a unit, thus troops are more exposed)
The difference between slings and arrows is the slings have the 'armor piercing' bonus which only takes into account half the armour of the defender (does not effect shield). Thus slingers are generally better against the heavier units - but this isn't clear cut it really depends where you are, in the west, celtic slingers are generally much better than the low grade archers in that region. in the east you'll find far higher class of archers who have larger groups, more ammo etc
Thats very interesting. I will keep it in mind when I'm playing. Thanks.
That's why you apply them directly to the forehead.Quote:
the shield bonus makes a huge difference on resisting missles - units with a +4 shield (or more) take very little losses head on.
falcata have ap though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I was not aware that the hardcoded RTW engine made a difference between shieldhand and swordhand side, I will bear that in mind. Still in the rear goes best.... Stupid AI....:smash:
~Fluvius
falxman beats all sorry mates but quite true :yes:
though I can only find Katana assasins in the east. :laugh4:
I feel like watching the last of the samurai while they butcher my cataphracts!
About the slinger/archer thingie earlier in the thread, I've always played mainly Western factions, so I want to say that slingers in that context at least are far better than archers--mainly because the archers you get there are quite frankly substandard, so slingers are best, since the units you need to fear most (and most need to get rid of) are the high-armour, high-morale ones. Also, slingers have longer range and more ammo than any archer unit in the west. In the west my Roman armies generally have a ranged wing of 4 Iaosatae and I have found it exceedingly easy to get them up to at least silver chevrons even though I mainly fight field battles in which they don't have the time to really use up their ammo.
Their main difference though is when you're assaulting cities with them--just begin your assault with a slinger barrage and watch them scythe through any heavily armoured units if they have anything more than a few chevrons.
It is risky to position your slingers behind your lines of course, what with their flatter trajectory (which means sometimes the slingers can shoot your own infantry in the back of the head), but the benefits have already been mentioned. Slingers are ill-protected and when experienced, too precious to lose in melee or even in counter-ranged combat. So I usually position them behind my line, and once they meet hostile fire, I retreat them until my cavalry can deal with them. In the meantime they do very good work, even frontally, since they halve whatever armour they meet, with frontal 'bonus' (or lack of penalty) or not.
In the east of course, it's a different story, with archer units having bigger unit size (hence more arrows per volley) and an improved range. I would definitely prefer archers then, since they are far more economical.
AFAIK the shield bonus is applied to the front and left of a unitQuote:
Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus
I find EB's approach is a lot better than the original RTW approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
The problem is that the RTW engine does not allow for what should be obvious: a Roman Legionary should use his pila against a cavalry charge. It sounds commonsense. And there are well published pictoricals showing Roman Legionairs fending off cavalry with their pila. But the RTW does not allow for this :wall:
I wish there was a way around this. :wall:
if a pila bends on impact like most sources claim a pila is not very effective as a spear
also according to what i know from these javelins they had an iron tip that detached itself from the wood frame meaning that against a katatank charge the pila had 2 many weaknesses and could barelly compare to a proper spear (it´s tip would bend. it could be broken beteween the iron and the wood frame or if the impact was strong enough and it didn´t pierçed the horse then it would break the wood making the iron tip not suitable)
Your forgetting horses dislike for pointy things, the idea of using the pila in that way was that cavalry wouldn't charge the soldiers if they were presenting their pila, it was never intended to be used like a spear in combat.
I doubt the pila was ever so fragile that it meant it couldn't penetrate as much as other spears. The concept of the iron bending on impact only meant that it warped slightly so if thrown back, it would be off centre and just glance off anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
Furthermore, i'd assume that the idea was for the spear tip to penetrate the armour/flesh/shield and the force of the throw and the momentum of the wood shaft (sorry for all the innuendos) to bend the end of the pila and make it unthrowable.
Think about it, do you really think the Romans would've adopted pila as a standard javelin on such a large scale if it didn't work?
it did work thats why they adopted it
what i meant is that using a pila as a spear is not trully practical except perhaps as bobbin described it that it would make horseman think twice before charging but in the event of a charge aslong as the horses and the men ridding them where well armoured the pila would probably break/bend 90% of the times
the concept of the pillum is simple you trowht it, it´s woden frame smashes against the shield but the iron tip goes on and penetrates the men behinde the shield while bending so even if the men survives it´s harder to remove it from one´s body (cause it bends) in the case of a failled shoot then the enemy doesn´t have an extra javellin to trowh back at you but this same reason doesn´t make it a practical spear to use against cavalary expecially the examples above of fighting parthians katatanks
wich is the reason why i imagine the eb team didn´t provided the legionaires or any other roman unit the chance to use is as a spear
I imagine a better reason why they decided not to allow that is because the engine doesn't allow it... I've never seen a case in which a unit, instead of throwing/firing a missile, used it in melee.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
You kind of miss my point, horses would think twice abot charging they just wouldn't no matter how much armour they had on.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
This picture demontrates how the tactic was deployed
http://rome.recitus.qc.ca/images/formation_arche.jpg
Any horseman who charged would find himself stalled at the line as his horse wouldn't charge in it, this left him open to attack from pila thown by the second standing up line. This was used many times agains Kataphrakts.