Some queries regarding EB's units...

Alright, let me start this out by saying that I'm aware I'm a new fish here - new to both this forum and new to EB. If this issue or topic has been brought up before, I apologise - I did as much searching as seemed rational, but it's entirely possible I missed something. I'd also like to add that while this post is fundamentally critical, I do love EB. The mod is just plain fantastic - a true testament to human ingenuity and dedication - and I hope not to offend anybody with my questions/criticism.

The basics of my queries mostly consist of addressing some problems I've seen with certain units during my long-running Seleukid and Koinion Hellion campaigns, and some discrepancies with these. Again, let me please reiterate that no disrespect is meant to the mod and the mod team, I'm just trying to figure out a few issues here and there.

Phalanxes:

My main issue with the Diadoachi phalanxes is their shield bonus. In the game, Diadoachi phalangites experience a shield defensive bonus of +5. Units using the Aspis or Hoplon shield, however, experience only a +4 bonus. This does strike me as a little illogical, as the shields used by Phalangites tended to be somewhat smaller than those used by the traditional Hoplati. Also, I would presume that the cumbersome nature of the Sarissa would make the shield much less useful, especially in a melee.


Light units:

A number of units in antiquity went into battle with no armour, relying only on shields or lightly-packed formations and skirmishing to protect them. However, I have found that a number of these units, for example Parthian Spearmen and Gestatae, have a relatively high armour value for unarmoured men. While I can understand the sheer lunacy of the Wild Men would make them more resistant to damage, the same can not be said of Parthian Spearmen. It also makes otherwise poor, lightly-armoured units unnaturally resilient to damage when combined with shields.

Gaesatae and Parthian Spearmen both have helmets. Helmets count for a lot of points in the EB system. Their missile resistance is mainly due to their large shields.
If you're having a problem with OP Gaesatae or Tindanotae, you can always remove the secondary hitpoint, like some others did (me included), ideally combined with a price adjustment or a stat compensation. This will reduce their resilience to missiles as well.


e: oh, and welcome to the forum. :2thumbsup:

Hi Rolling Thunder, and welcome to EB and the EB community. I'm not a modder (that's a word, right?), but I do know that many share your concern. Some even go to such lengths as to modify these stats, such as shield values, defence values, armour values, weapon values, and so on. You can join in by finding such threads on the Unofficial Mods section, or even start your own! I always preferred starting my own projects (yeah!) but never too late to join in!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

In the game, Diadoachi phalangites experience a shield defensive bonus of +5.

---

Phalanx units get a -2 penalty to defense and -1 to armor which is somewhat offset by a +2 to their shield value. This is intended to simulate the relative weakness of the phalanx to flank and rear attacks: the shield bonus is only applied is only applied to attacks from the left and front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

I have found that a number of these units, for example Parthian Spearmen and Gestatae, have a relatively high armour value for unarmoured men.

---

Gaesatae get +3 armor for their metal helmets, +1 armor for cheekguards, and a +1 armor bonus for being barbarian melee troops.

We've done our best to adjust unit stats to take into account factors which don't appear in the combat system. Some of these are non-intuitive, but I think they yield results which tend to mirror historical reality.

Thanks for the warm welcome all three of you. It's good to be welcomed aboard in so friendly a fashion.

@athanaric: No, it's not a problem, merely a realism query. The game's pretty fantastic and all, and I don't find anything unbalanced, merely odd.

@Vartan: Oh, I do plan to modify my own game (been doing for ages). I just want to discuss things with this community before I change anything, see the reasons behind it and so on. Basically, I want to discuss these things

@Atilus: I can see the logic behind that, but the issue I find is that phalangites are, fundamentally, very vulnerable troops. They rely on the sheer power and reach of their pikes to keep them alive and in one piece. Would it not be more realistic for them to have relatively low defence and shields statistics to reflect that their shields are smaller, much harder to use with the Sarissa and that the Sarissa is a relatively clumsy weapon and hard to defend yourself with. Whereas in EB, I would thing they are...a tad too resilient. Hoplites, having larger shields and being able to use them more effectively, really should be more resilient all-around (and less powerful).

A solution that was found in the Medieval II mods was to actually remove pike unit's secondary weapons. Has this been considered?

I can't imagine the secondary units being removed from pike units, unless perhaps the most basic of levies are left with no more than a knife for a secondary. The main argument against this being that they did actually have secondary weapons. While I agree they're too strong from the front vs missiles and too resistant to rear charges due to the mass bonus of the phalanx formation, most of this is hardcoded and a result of the engine, not the EB team. They've hinted though, and I'm looking forward to, very different phalanxes in EBII.

Phalanxes look a lot more realistic in rough terrain. While they're still tough, try charging a phalanx frontally in a forest where you have a significant slope advantage - highly armored troops can sometimes get into and break levy phalanxes and even pezhateroi without flanking support.

Edit: As Vartan pointed out below, phalanxes are also more reasonable using fair play standards (even if the AI doesn't follow them) by not switching direction without leaving combat & phalanx formation and reforming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterFred

I can't imagine the secondary units being removed from pike units, unless perhaps the most basic of levies are left with no more than a knife for a secondary. The main argument against this being that they did actually have secondary weapons. While I agree they're too strong from the front vs missiles and too resistant to rear charges due to the mass bonus of the phalanx formation, most of this is hardcoded and a result of the engine, not the EB team. They've hinted though, and I'm looking forward to, very different phalanxes in EBII.

---

Phalanx-mode units need secondary weapons unless you want 180 degree pike-turning. How would you fight melee?

@Vartan: With their pikes. Sure, they would have had their knives and falcattas, but consider this: If you remove these, they can't switch to them. If they always keep fighting with the pikes, you get a much more realistic situation with the metacombat as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

... Would it not be more realistic for them to have relatively low defence and shields statistics to reflect that their shields are smaller, much harder to use with the Sarissa and that the Sarissa is a relatively clumsy weapon and hard to defend yourself with. Whereas in EB, I would thing they are...a tad too resilient.

---

Look, any combat system has limitations. We have fiddled with unit stats to try to get around RTW's shortcomings. As for the EB phalanx being too resilient, as Polybios (18.29) says: "... so long as the phalanx retains its characteristic form and strength nothing can withstand its charge or resist it face to face."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

@Vartan: With their pikes. Sure, they would have had their knives and falcattas, but consider this: If you remove these, they can't switch to them. If they always keep fighting with the pikes, you get a much more realistic situation with the metacombat as a whole.

---

For what reason? Metacombat? What metacombat? The No Secondary Weapon system is useful for the duration that the pikes are fighting frontal enemies. Once surrounded, the pikes have no way of fighting back. They can't even pull out the swords that they had with them historically. They simply stand there without pikes and wait to be slaughtered.

maybe you can experiment with lowering the lethality of their secondary weapons, instead of removing them, but then... the pike roll.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

Look, any combat system has limitations. We have fiddled with unit stats to try to get around RTW's shortcomings. As for the EB phalanx being too resilient, as Polybios (18.29) says: "... so long as the phalanx retains its characteristic form and strength nothing can withstand its charge or resist it face to face."

---

Okay, I know the system is flawed and hardcoded. Sorry, did not mean to upset anybody.



@Vartan: So they can't use the pikes in a melee? I know that it would be impossible for them to use the pikes on the small, little combats occuring outside of the melee, but in the broad mass of a close-in fight they could still use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

@Vartan: So they can't use the pikes in a melee? I know that it would be impossible for them to use the pikes on the small, little combats occuring outside of the melee, but in the broad mass of a close-in fight they could still use them.

---

I admire your looking at the bigger picture, but this is a real time tactics game, not an RTS. Everything matters. You need to have something to do in such close-quarter-combat situations. In fact, the current system is limited. A tertiary weapon combat system would be more preferable (and what I seek to implement in my battle engine). Look at the Armenian Late Bodyguard for instance (Hai Zoravar): You will notice that the bodyguard hold a lance, a mace, and a sword. Which one can't they use? The sword. How unfortunate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

I admire your looking at the bigger picture, but this is a real time tactics game, not an RTS. Everything matters. You need to have something to do in such close-quarter-combat situations. In fact, the current system is limited. A tertiary weapon combat system would be more preferable (and what I seek to implement in my battle engine). Look at the Armenian Late Bodyguard for instance (Hai Zoravar): You will notice that the bodyguard hold a lance, a mace, and a sword. Which one can't they use? The sword. How unfortunate.

---

Is there any way to make the soldiers bunch together any more in the phalanx, so that they can focus on fighting 'into' the enemy rather than spreading out like they tend to (somewhat unrealistically) do in the Rome Engine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Look at the Armenian Late Bodyguard for instance (Hai Zoravar): You will notice that the bodyguard hold a lance, a mace, and a sword. Which one can't they use? The sword. How unfortunate.

---

This also tends to make them under-perform vs. light units, especially axemen or falxmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

Is there any way to make the soldiers bunch together any more in the phalanx, so that they can focus on fighting 'into' the enemy rather than spreading out like they tend to (somewhat unrealistically) do in the Rome Engine?

---

Yes. Understand that what you are experiencing is the infamous phalanx bug, wherein you have a phalanx (usually guard off, sometimes with guard on) whose one half is attacking, and whose rear half is lagging. Or any variation of this breakage. Alexander update of the engine (1.5 to 1.9) did a lot to rectify this. Keeping guard on whilst attacking also does the trick for the most part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

This also tends to make them under-perform vs. light units, especially axemen or falxmen.

---

And quite unfairly so indeed.

check out my post where I tweaked some of the unit values:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...tc-suggestions

For sarissa phalangites, I reduced the shield value by two (from 5 to 3) and added 1 defense point value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

check out my post where I tweaked some of the unit values:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...tc-suggestions

For sarissa phalangites, I reduced the shield value by two (from 5 to 3) and added 1 defense point value.

---

Why add the defence point value? I mean, they're meant to be vulnerable to attack. They're pikemen.


Armour Values Problems:

While playing EB, I've found what appear to my untrained eyes to be serious discrepancies with the armour values of most 'heavy' units on the battlefield.

Firstly, let us examine the Hoplati. These men wear a linenthorax, bronze greaves and a Corinthian helm. Solid, reasonable armour that stands at '11' armour value.

However, if we examine a Cohors Reformata (Post-MarianLegionary Cohort), we see something truly wrong with the armour value. Clad in a shirt of heavy chainmail and a bronze helmet, and he only has an armour value of 10!?

This becomes even more strange when examining or Polybian Triarii, who wear a bronze helm, heavy chain armour and a single bronze greave, and yet for some reason only have a mere armour value of '10', compared to the Hoplite's 11, despite the fact that the Hoplite's linen armour is vastly inferior to the chain armour of the Triarii!

Even comparing the Cohors Reformata with the Triarii, we see that the Cohors, despite lacking the single bronze greave of the Triarii, has the same armour value as the more heavily-armoured Triarii.

This becomes even more strange when we compare the Babylonian Heavy Spearmen, armoured in iron scale mail curiasses and bronze helmets. 9 armour. 9 armour for a heavy scale cuirass and a bronze helmet? A levy phalangite has 8, for a bronze helm and a linen cuirass?

It almost seems like the more armour a unit wears on the model, the less protection it offers!

Bump, could someone answer my questions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

Bump, could someone answer my questions?

---

To answer your question with a short sentence: balancing the units was more important than giving armour values by skins. I agree this unit stat modding policy of EB team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

To answer your question with a short sentence: balancing the units was more important than giving armour values by skins. I agree this unit stat modding policy of EB team.

---

Can you translate that into everyday American English please? :help: As far as I know, the EB team uses the WYSWIG system where they give each type of armour a certain value (albeit rarely inconsistently :laugh4:). What does 'giving armour values by skins' mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Can you translate that into everyday American English please? :help: As far as I know, the EB team uses the WYSWIG system where they give each type of armour a certain value (albeit rarely inconsistently :laugh4:). What does 'giving armour values by skins' mean?

---

I thought they gave certain values, but they "overwrote" that because of unit balancing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I thought they gave certain values, but they "overwrote" that because of unit balancing.

---

Sure. Why not? :laugh4:

EDIT: Didn't you read what I wrote? At times, inconsistently. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I thought they gave certain values, but they "overwrote" that because of unit balancing.

---

There are a few balancing adjustments to my knowledge (barbarian units get +1 armour, phalangites get reduced armour and increased shield), but beyond that armour and shield stats are consistently based on equipment. In this particular case: the EB team considers linothorax to be almost as good chainmail, and the standard hoplite wears leather or a linothorax reinforced with metal plates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

To answer your question with a short sentence: balancing the units was more important than giving armour values by skins. I agree this unit stat modding policy of EB team.

---

And thus realism (and thus historical accuracy) was not so much discarded as it was kicked down a giant well by the king of Sparta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

There are a few balancing adjustments to my knowledge (barbarian units get +1 armour, phalangites get reduced armour and increased shield), but beyond that armour and shield stats are consistently based on equipment. In this particular case: the EB team considers linothorax to be almost as good chainmail, and the standard hoplite wears leather or a linothorax reinforced with metal plates.

---

I must politely disagree with the EB team. The linenthorax is excellent armour - equal or superior to the bronze muscle cuirass that is replaced - but it is neither as covering nor as effective as chainmail. Unless it is literally immune to sword slashes as chainmail is, highly resistant to thrusts and blunt trauma as well, then it is, put simply, not as good as chainmail. Leather armour isn't even as effective as padded armour (unless reinforced with plates).

Linothorax has been tested by reenactment and found to be quite resilient to thrusts and blunt trauma. Furthermore, chain mail would actually be weak against a thrust since the rings could split, but it is generally better against a slash - quite good, in fact. Reinforced linothorax is quite excellent armor as well due to the iron banding or scale. As such, reinforced linothorax is equal to chain mail.

The hoplites have helmets (which are Attic, not Corinthian) with cheek-guards, plus two greaves, plus reinforced linothorax and hence the higher value. If anything, it seems we may have made a mistake and that the hoplites armor value should be 12, the triarii 11, and the cohors reformata 10 since they lack greaves.

I feel enlightened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

I must politely disagree with the EB team. The linenthorax is excellent armour - equal or superior to the bronze muscle cuirass that is replaced - but it is neither as covering nor as effective as chainmail. Unless it is literally immune to sword slashes as chainmail is, highly resistant to thrusts and blunt trauma as well, then it is, put simply, not as good as chainmail. Leather armour isn't even as effective as padded armour (unless reinforced with plates).

---

Chain mail is highly vulnerable to blunt trauma. Internal bleeding is a big issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Chain mail is highly vulnerable to blunt trauma. Internal bleeding is a big issue.

---

Not so much if you consider chain is always worn with padded armour underneath it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Linothorax has been tested by reenactment and found to be quite resilient to thrusts and blunt trauma. Furthermore, chain mail would actually be weak against a thrust since the rings could split, but it is generally better against a slash - quite good, in fact. Reinforced linothorax is quite excellent armor as well due to the iron banding or scale. As such, reinforced linothorax is equal to chain mail.

The hoplites have helmets (which are Attic, not Corinthian) with cheek-guards, plus two greaves, plus reinforced linothorax and hence the higher value. If anything, it seems we may have made a mistake and that the hoplites armor value should be 12, the triarii 11, and the cohors reformata 10 since they lack greaves.

---

The linenthorax is excellent armour, no doubt. It's light, cheap to make and resilient, like you said, to thrusts and blunt damage. But the thing is, so is chainmail. Not to the degree it is against slashes, which it's pretty much invincible against, but I would be fairly confident in saying it's generally superior armour by a more significant factor than 1 or 2 AV. The iron or scale banding on reinforced linen armour is only around the belly region in EB, which would offer less protection still than a full haubergon or hauberk. That said, I would agree that it's equal-ish to chainmail armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder

Not so much if you consider chain is always worn with padded armour underneath it.

---

Whoops. You said always. :laugh4: