which units should have the SW?

well, i was trying to add the shield wall to the EB on BI, but what do you think? wich units should have it?

currently i have added it to:

Classic hoplites
Haploi hoplites
Spartan hoplites
Chartage Cit Militia
Chartage Libian-Phoenician Spearmen (light and heavy)
Massilian Hoplitai
Camillian Triari

Ive added it only to over-hand spearmen units, like oplites etc.
Ive not added it to others spearmen (like Polibian Triari, Nizag Gund, Geroas etc.)

now do you think Thureophori-like units should have it? For example torakitai, Libian spearmen etc.? They have the over-hand spear, but i dont want to give it to a lot of units.

im considering it just like an "Oplite Attribute" so i haven't given it to Barbarians or Romans (except the Camillian Triari)

what do you think? suggestions?

Well I have added myself to all the overhand hoplites units and all the roman infantry units. I think the advance with shield wall is ok for roman legions. The problem I see is that AI is not using much the shield wall. Any suggestions?

additional units

Hypaspistai
Baktrian Agema
Agema Hellenikon
Gaizaharjoz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blingerman

Well I have added myself to all the overhand hoplites units and all the roman infantry units. I think the advance with shield wall is ok for roman legions. The problem I see is that AI is not using much the shield wall. Any suggestions?

---

well, to say the truth, im not very entusiast to add it to all romans, cause i think that the old-style Wall vs Wall tactics, or Masses vs Masses, is ok for the early repubblican army (camillian, but i gave it just to the triari) but it's not ok for the Polibian incarnation,who is intended to be more mobile and to flank and sourround the enemy. This is cause i like to intend the Shield Wall in EB just as an Oplite attribute, in the old mass vs mass battle style.

I suppose that if i have to add it even to swords unit and other roman units or other spearmen units, i have not to intend it like an oplite attribute anymore... well, it's a good problem.

PS according to the "Oplite attribute" matter, now that i think on, it's ok to not give it to the Thureophoroi-like units (Libian Spearmen, Torakitai etc.) who are supposed to be a mobile infantry not given to the wall vs wall tactic...

PPS what about the Icons? is some one capable of doing some nice SW icons for every faction group to add in the interface?

I gave shield wall to.....

Lo'hamim Azzilim, Aanatim Leebim, Dorkim Aloopim, Dorkim Kdosim, Dorkim Leebi-Ponnim Mesoorianim, Dorkim Leebi-Ponnim Mookdamim, Misteret Izrahim Tsorim, Mesoorianim Leebim, Arjos, Batacorii, Bataroas, Botroas, Calawre, Milnaht, Mori Gaesum, Neitos, Rycalawre, Solduros, Gaelaiche, Noricene Gaecori, Getikoi Stratiotai, Thorakitai Stratiotai, Taxeis Triballoi, Nizag Gund, Agema Hellenikon, Babylonian Heavy Infantry, Nakhararakan Tiknapah, Mardig Sooseramartik, Galatikoi Kleruchoi, Galatikoi Kuarothoroi, Hundáskápiz (Group of Hundred), Frameharjoz, Frankamannoz, Gaizaharjoz, Gastiz, Ferulharjoz, Sahsnotoz, Klumbokarlaz, Swardimannoz, Uachtarach DuboGaiscaocha, Epilektoi Hoplitai, Hypaspistai, Pheraspidai, Hoplitai Haploi, Spartiates Hoplitai, Baktrioi Agema, Hoplitai, Misthophoroi Hoplitai, Hoplitai Hellenikoi, Massiliotes Hoplitai, Dosidataskeli, Gestikapoinann, Scortamareva, Mercenary Scortamareva, Hastati*both*, Antesignani, Triarii*both*, Principes*both*, Western Auxilia, and Eastern Auxilia.

:thumbsup:

As regards Roman units, it's appropriate for both types of Triarii and the Rorarii, the other early Roman units, including Princepes fight in an open formation which we can't exactly simulate, the closest thing is to charge in open formation after hurling pila and then switch to close just before contact.

It is most certainly not appropriate for Antesignani who are a form of light infantry.

As to Western and Eastern Avxilia, well I can't really say yay or nay. I'm sure they were capable of forming a shieldwall, the question is whether they'd do it for anything other than facing cavalry.

There's a really difference between close-order spearmen and a shieldwall, you knwo.

You might consider it for certain later celtic or germanic spear units since according to certain reports some were formed up into something of a 'phalanx' atleast around Caesar's day. However, no one alive now really has much of an idea of the accuracy of that statement...

Those would probably be what the EB Gaisazharjoz represent. Anyway, the descriptions in export_unit.txt in fair few occasions mention something like "shieldwall formation" (and/or "Barritus warcry"), which besides the overall description and tactical niche of an unit is one guideline I used when modding mine.

I also gave it to most of the Eastern "sparabara"-style spearmen (which amount to the Hai Nizagamartik and Nizag Gund really) - if I've understood correctly those fellows' main battlefield duty was to form a solid barrier from behind which the infantry archers fired, and the SW formation presumably does a decent job at that. And, really, those poor folks are so weak in general it's only fair.

Well, the Babylonians and Nakrharakharakhasomething Tiknapahs too, as the descriptions sounded like they should be able to form very solid barriers to resist cavalry if necessary.

Obelics, Watchman, could either of you guys post your files when you're done giving shieldwall to the appropriate units? I believe Watchman also added warcry and some of the other abilities to appropriate units as well. (I know I asked in the other thread too, but heck, I needs it!)

Ah, well, as I also mentioned in the other thread mine's been altered to a fairly high degree and as such might not be very suitable for "public use". But I can post it if you really want. If nothing else it might make for an interesting base for your own modifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Ah, well, as I also mentioned in the other thread mine's been altered to a fairly high degree and as such might not be very suitable for "public use". But I can post it if you really want. If nothing else it might make for an interesting base for your own modifications.

---

Mkay, just read your reply there but I'll post here so as not to hijack Thorlof's thread. Do you think you could post up the list of changes you've made in the required file exactly? If there's really a lot of stuff going on (which might not be a bad thing, depending on what specifically), maybe Obelics can post his file with just new attributes?

well for now, ive modified only the first list of units on the first post (that i repute enough "sure") according to my view. But im stil dubious on other units, i dont want to spawn the SW attributo to too much units.

So i had this speculation:

well, thinking on it, i think we have assume some conventions.

First Convention:
What in Vanilla BI is called Shield-Wall, in the EB first convention is called "Packed Oplite Formation".
And lets say that this convention is intended for old-style "shield against shield" oplite units. When the fight was intended as "i push you, you push me, the first to give-up has lost the battle. (no much more tactic or manoeuvering)
According to this first convention, the first list is ok for me:

Classic hoplites
Haploi hoplites
Spartan hoplites
Chartage Cit Militia
Chartage Libian-Phoenician Spearmen (light and heavy)
Massilian Hoplitai
Camillian Triari (not polybian)

plus:

Rorari (but id like them to have the overhand animation)
Samnite Spearmen ???????? (are they supposed to fight over-hand and with the oplite influence? im not sure)
Some celtic/Germanic units according to the antisocial post


The polybian triari do not enter in the first convention, cause from what i recall, they were used even on the flanks in the final phase of the battle, to enclose the enemy. And i will assume that they not have that old-times oplite training anymore.

now we can make a second convention.
The second convention will be called "Heavy-infantry Assault/defense Formation" (it's just an example).
And it will be intended for hightly trained units, of a certain level, that are supposed to have enough skills to break compacted in to a line of enemies, breaking the enemy ranks, or whose skills can be used even for keeping a position on the defensive. (a sort of assault/defensive hight level infantry)

In this second convention could enter the Samnite Assault infantry, the Polibian triari, pedites extraordinari?
It will not enter the Celtic swordsman (Gaesatae, Baratroas etc.) cause i think "their swords were too long"???

Even the Babylonian/Assirian style spearmen could enter in this second convention (as from Watchman)

Third Convention:
We will call it: Generic Packed Anti-Cavalry Formation. (it could be special intended to bost a bit some poor anticavalry infantry, especially for non infantry faction, like Easterns and Nomads).
And in this convention it could enter the Nizag-Gund, othern eastern poor spearmen, some gallic spearmen??? (Geroas???)

Anyway i have still a lot of doubts, but at last im quite satisfacted for the first convention till now.

So, i consider good, to assume these different conventions, and different names for the Shield Walls, so it is easier to choose the units who have to have it.

hmmm...

The Samnites shouldn't have shieldwall, they fight in manipular formation.

Just out of interest, why do you write "Oplites"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderland

Mkay, just read your reply there but I'll post here so as not to hijack Thorlof's thread. Do you think you could post up the list of changes you've made in the required file exactly? If there's really a lot of stuff going on (which might not be a bad thing, depending on what specifically), maybe Obelics can post his file with just new attributes?

---

Eh, it'll actually be easier to just turn it into a kind-of minimod. I'll make a thread for it in the Unofficial Modding subforum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Just out of interest, why do you write "Oplites"?

---

sorry, i speak italian, so i tend to mix italian words with my elementar english (especially when i write fast). I think it is clear the meaning anyway...

So what do you think of that second convention: Heavy-infantry Assault/defense Formation. I think the Samnite Assault infantry could fit well, and so the Polibian triari, if we assume it as a convention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As regards Roman units, it's appropriate for both types of Triarii and the Rorarii, the other early Roman units, including Princepes fight in an open formation which we can't exactly simulate, the closest thing is to charge in open formation after hurling pila and then switch to close just before contact.

It is most certainly not appropriate for Antesignani who are a form of light infantry.

As to Western and Eastern Avxilia, well I can't really say yay or nay. I'm sure they were capable of forming a shieldwall, the question is whether they'd do it for anything other than facing cavalry.

There's a really difference between close-order spearmen and a shieldwall, you knwo.

---

Oh I basicly gave it to all units I know used it, *hoplites and such, and celtic/germanic units that in their describition say they use a shield wall*, and then a bunch who I thought should have it *like the babylonian spears*.

And how are Antesignani light infantry, they wear muscled bronze cuirass. That should make them more medium/heavy infantry shouldn't it?

Well, the Antesigniani are described as being a more mobile type of infantry than the Legionary line troops (the description says they wear the bronze quirasses to avoid the greate rencumberance of the long Lorica hamata, remember). I actually modded mine to use the semi_fast skeletons to represent this. Anyway, given that by the description they're apparently supposed to operate away from the security of the main battleline giving them the option to go into shieldwall might actually make sense, as an emergency cavalry-counter or similar that is easy enough to train the soldiers in.

Well this is the problem, technically ANY spear unit would form shieldwall when faced with cavalry. The problem is that.

A: The bonus against cav already reflects this.

B: Units such as Princepes and Antesigniani would not normally fight in such a manner.

As to the Antesigniani's status as light infantry, they operate on the flanks or at the front and rear of the column and are generally intended to be highly mobile, rather than to slog it out with real heavy infantry.

I don't know that there really is such a thing as "medium" infantry really, unless you go just by armour.

Well, the main purpose I can see for the shield wall ability mirrors that of the phalanx button: a strong front, but more vulnerable on the flanks and rear then normal units as well as being sub-optimal at defending walls (but not as bad as phalangatai)

So units that historically could fight well under most conditions should simply get good stats, rather then the shield wall attribute that's only helpful for ordered, frontal engagements. For that reason, units that fought in what you could call a shield wall like Ricalawre and Belgae Batacorii shouldn't get the ability.

I haven't actually ever used the Shield Wall formation, but from what I understand from it I'd say that only the various hoplites and similar troops (including the Liby-Phoenicians, but probably not the Camillan triarii) and maybe the Sweboz lancemen.

Oh no, our Camillian Triarii are pure hoplites.

they should definately get shieldwall.

Actually ive updated my list of what i repute enought "sure" units

"Packed Oplite Formation". (it's a pure "convention")

Classic hoplites
Haploi hoplites
Spartan hoplites
Chartage Cit Militia
Chartage Libian-Phoenician Spearmen (light and heavy)
Massilian Hoplitai
Camillian Triari (not polybian)
Rorari
Noricene Gaecori (?)
Gaizaharjoz (?)

what do you think of noricene gaecori? and gaizaharjoz?
I think the best way to proceed, is to exclude every units you are in doubts.

Regarding the Theurophoroi-like units (Torakitai, Libian-spearmen etc.) im still of the opinion to not give them the ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh no, our Camillian Triarii are pure hoplites.

they should definately get shieldwall.

---

Ok, I wasn't sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obelisc

Classic hoplites
Haploi hoplites
Spartan hoplites
Chartage Cit Militia
Chartage Libian-Phoenician Spearmen (light and heavy)
Massilian Hoplitai
Camillian Triari (not polybian)
Rorari
Noricene Gaecori

---

Not the Hypaspists or the Baktrion Agema?

In my humble opinion, I disagree with giving it to the Rorarii or the Noricenes. It always seemed to me that as far as their style is concerned they were closer to Thureophoroi then Hoplites. Personally I'd give it only to Hoplites and immitation hoplites :smash:
The Sweboz lancemen perhaps deserve the shield wall to represent the effects I mentioned earlier, to set them apart from units like Batacorii and because the vanilla phalanx seems overboard for them.

According to their unit describtions, Milnaht, Rycalawre, Frámêhárjoz, Hêruskoz Swáiut, Gestikapoinann, Nizag Gund, Hábuko-z Swáiut, Kavakaza Sparabara, Gáizáhárjoz should all have it as well.

I didn't give it to the Gestikapoinann myself though. Seemed a little too clunky for the hurly-burly Iberian style of warfare to me.