Spears are very unbalanced

Am I the only one who realised that the new stats have made Spearmen so terribly overpowered? I mean, the balance in EB 0.81 was very nice and EB 1 has some excellent features, but the new skins and the unbalanced stats are making me mad. Basically, what I've seen is that the developers have overpowered to much anything holding spears, including most Greek units such as the hoplites and the Makedonian pike phalanxes.

But most of the Romani stats are screwed, now. The awesome and professional Roman Legions from EB 0.81 have turned into a bunch of weaklings, and that includes the Cohors Evocata. Their attack wasn't upgraded to reflect the new balance changes, and their defense even got lower. Now I'm having to trouble to defeat a bunch of hoplites with a Cohors Evocata!

I say that we must return to the old balance. Spears are very overpowered, to a degree that lacks any realism. Were they so strong, then why would Ancient peoples such as the Celts and the Romans bother to make expensive swords to their nobles and professional infantry? Indeed, many times a spear is weaker than a sword, less maneuvarable than many shorter swords, and many times it lacks the punch of a longsword manned by a professional warrior.

Plus could anyone give me details on how to get the old Roman legionary graphics? I have nothing against the new ones, except that their faces, well, for my personal taste they don't look as good as the tough old Roman face. Plus they're bigger and have no proportion with most other Romani units. They were a fine idea, except for a few tweaks I would make for myself, but then wouldn't be better to wait 'till all other soldiers are reskinned?

Apart from that, they are good and all... But the old graphics were fine. Just remove the trousers from the Cohors Imperatoria, the Imperial Itallic Helmet from the Evocati, and it was fine. At least it did have some similarity with the other Roman skins, and all were very good works of art.

Quite the opposite. In fact the spears were underpowered.

Let me remind you that if any unit was overpowered it'd be the Romani Legions. I mean, it's not like they were any better than pezhetairoi as far as we can judge. Still they were statted if they were some kind of elite soldiers; which again they are not. Now they are not a "bunch of weaklings" but they aren't an elite unit either. Perhaps, then, for the very first time you'll have to rely on brains; or take our advice and not play on anything more difficult than M (for battles) to win a fight against equally strong opponents?

I suggest you try some other factions as well; see if you still think that the Legions are a bunch of weaklings now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

But the old graphics were fine.

---

Wait until a Romani Member sees this.

Because they were. Not. Fine. By any means. At all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Quite the opposite. In fact the spears were underpowered.

Let me remind you that if any unit was overpowered it'd be the Romani Legions. I mean, it's not like they were any better than pezhetairoi as far as we can judge. Still they were statted if they were some kind of elite soldiers; which again they are not. Now they are not a "bunch of weaklings" but they aren't an elite unit either. Perhaps, then, for the very first time you'll have to rely on brains; or take our advice and not play on anything more difficult than M (for battles) to win a fight against equally strong opponents?

I suggest you try some other factions as well; see if you still think that the Legions are a bunch of weaklings now.

---

Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites, and EB 0.81 did well; Legionaries were strong, but not excessively overpowered.

Rome did have war-winning troops. Why aren't the Evocati elite anymore? They are supposed to be, but now what's the worth in recruiting them? The Romani are underpowered now, in fact.

I really would like to know why such changes were made. Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors. Rome was the first to have a stable and permanent system capable of training solid soldiers, and the legionary infantry was the most superb not only in tactical capability but also in unit strenght. That's why Rome conquered the whole world; many had economical links with many places, but only Rome was able to effectively conquer a lot thanks to their superb military machine. And that's not represented well now.

Quote:

---

Wait until a Romani Member sees this.

Because they were. Not. Fine. By any means. At all.

---

Sorry, but apart from the minor historical innacuracies, I liked them. I found them one of the best legionary graphical mods, really.

Quote:

---

Indeed, many times a spear is weaker than a sword, less maneuvarable than many shorter swords, and many times it lacks the punch of a longsword manned by a professional warrior.

---

To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

---

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.

Cohors Evocata seem to have been nerfed. Their stats are almost exactly identical to Cohors Reformata, but with a higher cost. The only difference is they are better with the pilum, and have one man less.

In 0.81 they had a lot more armor than Cohors Reformata, so a reduction was okay; but I think it may have been reduced too much, so that they are now useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.

---

Swords were a weapon for the elite -- the few. Only the best and richest warriors of a Celtic clan or tribe had one. They were prestige weapons, and thusly designed for the best of the best, be that in society circles or among warriors.

Meanwhile, spears, because they were far cheaper (took less metal to forge, and involved little to no balancing work while forging, either) and easier to make as well as easier to learn to use (unless we're talking exceptions like Shao Lin spear styles), were the weapon for the masses, the plebs, the common man. In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

So, yeah, the majority of units used spears, and one of the most disctinct military formations of the period functioned as one that did. I haven't had the chance to play EB 1.0 yet, but what I can say is that if spear-wielding infantry is effective, that isn't unrealistic.

Just know that the stats can be missleading. Spear units get an attack penalty against other infantry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

Swords were a weapon for the elite -- the few. Only the best and richest warriors of a Celtic clan or tribe had one. They were prestige weapons, and thusly designed for the best of the best, be that in society circles or among warriors.

Meanwhile, spears, because they were far cheaper (took less metal to forge, and involved little to no balancing work while forging, either) and easier to make as well as easier to learn to use (unless we're talking exceptions like Shao Lin spear styles), were the weapon for the masses, the plebs, the common man. In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

So, yeah, the majority of units used spears, and one of the most disctinct military formations of the period functioned as one that did. I haven't had the chance to play EB 1.0 yet, but what I can say is that if spear-wielding infantry is effective, that isn't unrealistic.

---

That swords were weapon for the few, and the elite, I can't deny. However virtually every Roman carried a gladius with himself, and the Principes even switched to swords in the 3rd Century B.C. We're not talking about Elites, we're talking about a massive citizen army wielding short blades. Shorter blades were also less expensive than their Celtic Longsword counterparts.

Quote:

---

In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

---

Yes, the Roman military was very effective, but then they still carried the short Gladius sword. They stabbed a lot with them, yet it was still a sword... And with the Gladius, they managed to defeat a myriad of enemies who valued Spearmen a lot.

Quote:

---

Just know that the stats can be missleading. Spear units get an attack penalty against other infantry

---

Yet, stats are too high.

I'm not saying spears are weaker than swords. I think EB 0.81 had a fine balance in armour and attack stats; if an increase in the stats of spearmen is ever needed, then it shouldn't be as high as in the present EB version. Massed spears were an effective weapon, but it was much more than just sticking it to the front. A spear has to be maneuvered so that the enemy doesn't cut it in pieces, and a sword can be better maneuvered than a spear.

As said, the Roman maniples and cohorts operated like flexible phalanxes (i.e. able to meet a threat on any side easily), mainly due to the fact that their "spears" were a whole crapload shorter than that of a troop of Foot Companions in Alexander's army. The basic principle of the shield wall that stood at the foundation of the Greek phalanx remained the same with the Roman reformed army from Camillus onwards.

But as said, I haven't played EB 1.0 yet so I can't comment on spears vis-á-vis swords; what I can say is that spears, and the formations that used them (or acted like one of those) were dominant in militaries throughout the ancient Mediterranean world -- for good reasons.

And who says Pezetaroi (sp) were not a profesional, hardcore infantry??? Hey they kicked a** either in a phalanx or out of a phalanx.

Spears are not weaker that swords, maybe in 1-to-1 they are. But when you are facing a group of men with spears then there is no real disadvantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

As said, the Roman maniples and cohorts operated like flexible phalanxes (i.e. able to meet a threat on any side easily), mainly due to the fact that their "spears" were a whole crapload shorter than that of a troop of Foot Companions in Alexander's army. The basic principle of the shield wall that stood at the foundation of the Greek phalanx remained the same with the Roman reformed army from Camillus onwards.

But as said, I haven't played EB 1.0 yet so I can't comment on spears vis-á-vis swords; what I can say is that spears, and the formations that used them (or acted like one of those) were dominant in militaries throughout the ancient Mediterranean world -- for good reasons.

---

The Shieldwall did contribute well to many battles, but I disagree. Were they wielding spears, then using the pilum as a hand-to-hand spear would be mre frequently seen. Yet, the Romans liked their shorter swords better, so in fact it wasn't the use of "spears" properly that led them to victory but the strict discipline required to keep a shieldwall with the massive Scuta.

Quote:

---

[...] so in fact it wasn't the use of "spears" properly that led them to victory but the strict discipline required to keep a shieldwall with the massive Scuta.

---

... which was the exact principle of all kinds of phalanx. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites...

---

Pft... bollocks. When you spend most of your time building your night camp you don't exactly get the training that people think you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

And who says Pezetaroi (sp) were not a profesional, hardcore infantry??? Hey they kicked a** either in a phalanx or out of a phalanx.

Spears are not weaker that swords, maybe in 1-to-1 they are. But when you are facing a group of men with spears then there is no real disadvantage.

---

The Pezhetairoi were only great pikemen. However, when the pike phalanx failed and swords had to be used, any phalangites would be at disadvantage fighting against the heavy legionary infantry.

The game already represented that well. In Custom Battles, I was able to defeat a wave of Roman legions with only a few Phalangitai Deuteiroi in defensive mode. Phalangites were already the most formidable troops on the field without the need for further stat increases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

... which was the exact principle of all kinds of phalanx. ~;)

---

But with swords, not spears :P.

Quote:

---

Pft... bollocks. When you spend most of your time building your night camp you don't exactly get the training that people think you do.

---

Stamina. Oh yes, and last time I read a history book, it much more than building a night camp.

I totally agree with your posts, Basileos ton Ellenon. (In fact I already posted much of the same things earlier myself).

I believe we got the attention of one of the EB guys and they said that the new Romani units are going to be readjusted to match with the rest of them (sorry I don't remember which thread it was in). The old Evocata unit really was awesome, so again I'd really like to see a mod that brings the old one back (many people seem to be requesting this)

It also seems to me that the Romani are now clearly underpowered, but someone said something along the lines of "we have a very complex system that we use to make accurate stats for units based on many different things and the guy doing it is very good." That said, I still believe 0.81 had better balancing. Romani isn't the only faction who has suffered stat-lowering of their elite units, Carthaginian sword-wielding heavy infantry has been downgraded as well.

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them. Just in case, i'll say this: the Romans were NOT super mega fighters 1 on 1. They were inferior to most Celts or Germanics in that matter. Their strength lied in their tactics, not their big muscles. See?

If you take 250 Roman legionaries and pit them against a phalanx of 250 man on even ground then i would put my money on the phalanx...

I agree that the Evocata isn't worth its money. As veterans they should have a higher attack and defense value as if they had a chevron or two. I can't see the point in making their pila stronger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors.

---

Now, that's for sure not correct: Most of the Greek and Barbarian warriors were in fact mercenaries and by this professionals.

I also do not agree that the Roman Legionar was superior to his opponents. The Roman military machine was, but not the single soldier.

If spears were so dominant, and formations of spearmen were so dominant, is that why the Romans with their puny gladii conquered much of the known world? I mean all this talk of spears being superior and their formations being invincible doesn't seem to hold up to history and facts. I don't think we'd be playing Rome:Total War today if ill-trained spear levies were able to stop the legions, so it's silly to try and say they should.

Luck, an unwillingness to surrender, and good timing.

I dont mind trained spearmen being good, but here is the biggest issue which I think needs balanceing.

A lot of spear armed units have a lethality of 0.123, and many sword units have a lethaity of 0.1


Now the basic spear armed levies are more lethal, than the medium sword infantry. Also in the case of Armenia, the noble infantry uses a spear and a sword. The spear does damage of 14 with lethality of 0.123 and the sword does I think 10-12 with lethality of 0.1 why would the player switch to the sword, when the spear does more damage, and has higher lethality?

The medium sword armed infantry for Armenia has damage of 11, with lethality of 0.1 the peasant spearmen have dammage of 13-14 with lethality of 0.123

THis issue is universal in the mod, and is not only a case with Armenia.

I think, that levied spearmen should be given a lethality of 0.1 with damage of 9-11. and the more trained swordsmen given a lithality of 0.123 with damage of 10-13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderland

If spears were so dominant, and formations of spearmen were so dominant, is that why the Romans with their puny gladii conquered much of the known world?

---

The Roman tactic was to keep a very close formation and get very close to the enemy, thus they would not have been able to use spears efficiently.

They didn't conquer so much because they were big or tough or because they had uber weapons or because they had shiny helmets. THEY WON because of their TACTICS and DISCIPLINE and also due to the detrimental state of most of their opponents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

But most of the Romani stats are screwed, now. The awesome and professional Roman Legions from EB 0.81 have turned into a bunch of weaklings, and that includes the Cohors Evocata. Their attack wasn't upgraded to reflect the new balance changes, and their defense even got lower. Now I'm having to trouble to defeat a bunch of hoplites with a Cohors Evocata!

---

so why dont u go into the EDU and change them? i did that for .81 with the antesignani...... and a few other units

So would I, and btw I'm in a good mood guys, so this is coming from the head. Generally when the Romans won in our period someone else screwed up, they weren't that great and Evocata Cohorts were sat on their backsides twiddling their thumbs until recall.

Only under Augustus did the army become professional, the Makedonian or Seliukid soldiers were more than a match one-for-one before that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them.

---

And I get tired of people saying this kind of thing when all we want is more realistic stats for the Romani faction. I'm not a "Roman fanboy" by the way, I am an "Ancient world fanboy". I love playing as KH, AS, Carthage and Baktria. When I play against Rome I want it to be a challenge to defeat them. When I play as them I want them to have the stats they deserve. I'll say it again: EB 0.81 seems to have been more balanced, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them. Just in case, i'll say this: the Romans were NOT super mega fighters 1 on 1. They were inferior to most Celts or Germanics in that matter. Their strength lied in their tactics, not their big muscles. See?

If you take 250 Roman legionaries and pit them against a phalanx of 250 man on even ground then i would put my money on the phalanx...

---

Asking for balance doesn't make people Roman fanboys. The fanboys would just stay with vanilla RTW and love it.

I for one don't see the reason why Cohors Evocata are almost exactly the same as Cohors Reformata, yet cost substantially more. You'd think veterans would have better morale and perhaps slightly better melee fighting skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderland

If spears were so dominant, and formations of spearmen were so dominant, is that why the Romans with their puny gladii conquered much of the known world? I mean all this talk of spears being superior and their formations being invincible doesn't seem to hold up to history and facts. I don't think we'd be playing Rome:Total War today if ill-trained spear levies were able to stop the legions, so it's silly to try and say they should.

---

Actually if the Macedonian kings of the time knew how to use the war machine passed down by Phillip the Romans would have failed to conquer Greece and thus remain restrained in the West and away from rich Eastern ports and markets.

Both battles of Pidna and Cynoscephalae are masterpieces of mistakes by the Macedonian side. Plus, the phalangites were consisted of untrained men since wars had reduced the trained and professional phezetairoi.

It was Rome's brilliant organisation skills and political system that allowed it to outlast the Carthaginians and defeat the Greeks. After that, the rest of the opponents were "barbarians" that might be brave but fought without having studied the art of war as every seasoned Roman, Greek, Carthaginian general had.

People seem to mix up a couple of things. I guess I'll be among them. Still:

-The Romans extensively used auxilia; ever though of what they got for equipment?
-The Romans extensively used local peoples to do the job for them
-The Romans had a bit of a Red Army mentality: "if the first 20,000 can't do it; we'll send in another 50,000" ... "and if that doesn't work -ouch- let's call upon anoth 50,000 or so". It's how they defeated Hannibal in the end; it's how they conquered Spain.
-By the time the Romans get going their neighbours have been seriously weakened due to infighting. In fact the only empire to draw upon equal resources they faced was Carthage. It's how they acquired Greece (mind you, the independent city states invited them to), it's how they massacred Gaul.

And when the Romans face a serious opponent: what does history teach us? Oh, yeah they get whipped pretty badly: ask Crassus how his newfound riches tasted. ~;)