This.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
And oh I didn't know Crete was taking in eastern archery technology. I thought it was independently developed. Thanks for clearing that up for me Arjos. You're the man!
Printable View
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
And oh I didn't know Crete was taking in eastern archery technology. I thought it was independently developed. Thanks for clearing that up for me Arjos. You're the man!
Interesting. I did wonder about the Cretan bows.
There is a factor other than bow-technology or melee skill that could explain the reputation of Cretan archers: aggression and tactical skill. For example: Napoleon's light infantry didn't use special muskets or engage in close-combat fighting more often than other skirmishers, but they were very effective. This was the result of aggressive deployment and good leadership; I read that their marksmanship skills were actually poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Also, the TW games restrict the fighting to large-scale battles, but especially light troops would spend most of their time patrolling, skirmishing or raiding. Better bows or more accurate rifles won't make a great difference in these situations, since the enemy will often get too close for them to matter. Aggression and clever deployment are the deciding factors here.
This cannot be properly simulated on the TW engine, though.
Hey
Interesting discussion. I wanted to see what others said before I weighed in.
As far as I know, Cretans used composite bows which were not recurved (as many of the steppe peoples used) made out of locally available materials. Whilst these composite bows were more powerful than the self bows used by the vast majority of mainland Greeks, they would not be as powerful as the composites used further east or in the Steppe. It is very likely that they picked up some of the knowledge on bow-making from these regions, though there is nothing to indicate that they could replicate the same quality of bows. Even though they used composites, obviously not all composites are made equal (due to variations in materials, technology, know-how, etc). Even is the East and Steppe regions, there were significant variations in quality- a good quality bow could take upto 10 years to make (aging/gluing materials etc).
Just a quick note on the earlier link. Whilst it is incredibly interesting, the author of that post does not make his sources clear, nor which time period the bow he used refers to. I am generally reluctant to rely on such material.
The only source I have been able to find which speaks of Cretan bow range (Anabasis by Xenophon) explains that the Cretans were not able to match the range of Persian slingers or archers. Do keep in mind that Xenophon wrote earlier than the EB time period, though by this time, the Greeks had exchanges with Scythians (and would presumably have had an opportunity for trade and exchange of knowledge).
I am very inclined to agree with Ludens in his assessment of Cretan archers- namely that the reason for their renown is due to their aggression, ability to understand and follow orders and high morale rather than their prowess as marksmen or the power of their bows. Being scumbags also gives them that distinctive touch :).
Though this is purely conjecture, I think another reason for their frequent use and mention may well be because they were the only decent archers that the earlier Greeks, and most civilisations west of them, would have access to. By the time of Diadochi and late republic Rome, they already established a “brand name”. Plus, they would have been easier to integrate into a Western/Hellenic army (due to common language, culture and ethos) than say a band of Scythians or Persians.
I have always thought that a significant, unsubstantiated bias was given in favour of Cretan Archers in EB (strictly) in terms of their bow range and attack; and lately, accuracy. I think they should be inferior to Eastern and Steppe archers (even the medium-quality ones) in terms of range, attack. Accuracy should be same-ish as medium-quality, and slighly higher than persian levies. Melee and armor should remain the same though. They were noted as being crazy in melee and relatively heavily armoured.
All hail the Shak. Making long posts so I dont have to. Yay
I wasn't much thinking about accuracy, as with such big numbers in battle something is to get hit...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
But rather penetration and missile speed, then yes I agree that battlefield awareness must have been a nice addition, not to mention they spoke greek, which must have been a plus considering the employing "nations"...
So we wait and pray for gg2 to correct the Kretan monsters? Bahahah. Bosphorans remain the top dog then, eh? Those Greeks in the East must have learned quickly then!
I dont believe they were greeks, who says they were greeks? Isnt it much more probable that they were Scythians?
And what happened to your presentation?
I found a cheap way to win, a very cheap exploit . replay
Who needs archers just get all infantry and some cav . and even if the guy you go up agaisnt brings archers and slingers he wont do anything .
The Greeks colonized from Iberia to the Black Sea. :book2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
It had great reception. People asked many questions about EB, and I answered the best I could. If only presentation could be dedicated to the multiplayer aspect alone!
Sure they colonized, but how do you know they were great enough archers that we justify their place as the best in the game? If it were scythians I would be fine with it but....
Much like the mercenaries reaching Pontos during the Anabasis, didn't see the people living in the colonies as "fully Greeks"; so it was in all the other areas so far from Hellas (due to political or geographical matters)...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
It wasn't a black or white thing, it was all grey...
Ah, now I understand why you don't like historical accuracy as a stat system's basis!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Anyways, I like the interpretation of Cretans' effectiveness put forward by Shak and Ludens. This would leave Bosporans and Elite Dacians as the only expensive foot archer units, assuming we reduced Cretans' accuracy and cost to tier 2 levels.
I'm in favor of this as well, if only because so many factions can get Cretans, it makes it difficult to determine who will go archer heavy. Also making Cretans somewhat cheaper gives factions like Makedonia better missile options since it can be hard to build a decent army with them and not end up taking psioli units as your only missiles.
So basically Cretans are like peltastai with a bow?
It's likely that a large number of the "Greeks" you mention would either be of mixed race or ehtnically Scythians due to heavy Scythian settlement. Secondly, the access to the more powerful bows would be much, much greater as many Scythians lived in these Greek colonies and they were bordered by Steppe tribes. Lastly, they would really be forced to adopt the more effective bows and train archers to fend off raids by steppe tribes. So whilst Cretans trained for the sake of being mercinaries, these guys would need to train for the sake of defending against horse archers etc. In other words, their need for archery was more urgent; their access to superior bows greater.Quote:
So we wait and pray for gg2 to correct the Kretan monsters? Bahahah. Bosphorans remain the top dog then, eh? Those Greeks in the East must have learned quickly then!
I kind of agree with this in the sense that I think a lot of eastern/steppe foot archers should have attack/range/accuracy at the highest level (equal to bosphorans); however thats not the same thing as saying they are the best archer unit (since bosphorans have heavy armor, they can resist arrow fire much better). This will also work in favor of Cretans.Quote:
Sure they colonized, but how do you know they were great enough archers that we justify their place as the best in the game? If it were scythians I would be fine with it but....
I don't think their nerfing should be limited to accuracy, it should also include bow range and attack (not a huge nerf, but significant enough). I also do not think their cost should be decreased too significantly, since they were mercs, and would be pretty expensive to hire (apart from KH factional units maybe). They were also in relatively low numbers. Basically, the same logic as applied to Baelaeric slingers should apply to them as well...low unit numbers, relative higher cost than factional units.Quote:
This would leave Bosporans and Elite Dacians as the only expensive foot archer units, assuming we reduced Cretans' accuracy and cost to tier 2 levels.
To balance it out historically, I'd say maybe take away cav fighting penalty and increase morale by 1 (they were after all crazy mofos...sorry for language, thought it was appropriate tho :) ).
To be honest, I am not sure why Dacian elites are so powerful, but since I know little of history there, I won't venture any opinions, though I would be happy if someone could point me to a source about them (Dacian archers) so I could learn more. I guess since they lived in such close proximity to Scythians, it is logical they needed to develop units similar to Bosphorans as anti HA units and foot archer units.
On this topic, shouldn't toxotai syrakoi be a bit more powerful given that unit description says they are heavily armored (maybe they should be on same level as bosphorans?) and have better range/bow attack than they do right now(powerful large composite bows). Once again, dont know much about these guys- just going on unit description here. Though they would certainly have access to great armories and composite bows.
Kind of, except they used more expensive equipment (composite bow and arrows) and should be a medium-quality (in terms of archery) unit.Quote:
So basically Cretans are like peltastai with a bow?
A 1600 missile unit would be pretty good. I think.
Also I'm going to put forward a request to take scary off nakeds and catas and increase charge. I think the scary effect should only be reserved for chariots and elephants. The range of scary is just too large right now.
I'm also going to request that lighter cavalry units be given faster animations if possible. Currently all cavalry still run at the same speed so catching catas with even the lightest armed cavalry is basically impossible. :|
If this is going to get implemented.....I don't think all chariots should be scary. They were incredibly outdated by EB timerange. Scythed chariots might be the exception....Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
All I can think is good luck playing Casse without scary chariots or nakeds. Druids only get you so far.
And good luck playing Saka split into 2 eras :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Sorry, couldn't resist :D
Enough of this mistake of imposing modern notions of West vs East, race, ethnicity and others on the past. Stick to the :book2: and the digs. Deal with the contemporary context, not the out-of-place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
I find that a funny comment, because Cretans actually fielded excellent Peltastai as well as Toxotai!Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Essentially; the dominant elements of the Bosporan population would be largely composed of Greeks, Thracians, and wealthy Scythian colonists. Likely elements of all of these would be present in the archer units, and almost certainly intermarriage was common. Nonetheless, the Greek culture was by far the dominant one, as shown in the language used for day-to-day affairs. Militarily, however, the Scythian elements were extremely important. Not only were numerous Scythian allies used, but many of the wealthier Bosporan citizens equipped themselves as well-armored horse archers with bow, lance, sword, and scale armor. Sadly we don't have any such Bosporan Cavalry in EB. The foot archer in Greek-style armor and wielding a Scythian bow and typically a spear (not a long sword, which would mainly be a cavalry weapon) would also be a very important part of the army. In addition, the Bosporans' hoplites (mainly in the earlier part of the Hellenistic period), being quite wealthy in general, would often wear metal cuirasses of some sort; either muscled or scale, with scale-reinforced linothorax being probably the minimal amount of armor they'd wear.Quote:
It's likely that a large number of the "Greeks" you mention would either be of mixed race or ehtnically Scythians due to heavy Scythian settlement. Secondly, the access to the more powerful bows would be much, much greater as many Scythians lived in these Greek colonies and they were bordered by Steppe tribes. Lastly, they would really be forced to adopt the more effective bows and train archers to fend off raids by steppe tribes. So whilst Cretans trained for the sake of being mercinaries, these guys would need to train for the sake of defending against horse archers etc. In other words, their need for archery was more urgent; their access to superior bows greater.
So, the proposition is that Bosporans should be first among equals, rather than in a class of their own? The danger I see in this is that this makes factions like Pontos easily win the missile duel without spending significantly more than their opponents on archery troops. Should I just implement this anyways and see how it works out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shak
The Toxotai Syriakoi are well armored, but recall that they aren't professionals, rather they are more of a 'pressed' unit, one fighting for a foreign master. They currently function as one of the more important archer units available to the Seleukids, Ptolemaioi, and Hayk so I don't really see a problem with them as of now. Their bows aren't really any better than those of the Persians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shak
What are you talking about???Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
The speeds of cavalry have always been a problem but it is especially problematic with scaraphracts. It doesn't matter what the cavalry is, it is basically impossible for 1 cavalry unit to catch another cavalry until unless the lighter cavalry is a very fast fresh unit.
I think it would also be interesting if you made mercenaries generally slightly better and more expensive (they can afford to grow beards) than their normal counterparts. Mercenaries often had quite a bit more money and experience than the normal middle class guy who fights only when they need to.
Really guys? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Why do you want to test out normalizing Bosporans gg2? Why don't you leave them in a class of their own? Makes it an interesting and unique investment if you ask me.
ASM doesnt like scary, and wants as few units as possible to get scary becuase scary is the weakness of his faction rome. the weakness of rome is Scaries everyone knows that. The only reason that you give is "range of scary is too long" a player who doesnt use scaries would say this is bad. a player who does use scaries would consider this good.Quote:
Also I'm going to put forward a request to take scary off nakeds and catas and increase charge. I think the scary effect should only be reserved for chariots and elephants. The range of scary is just too large right now.
I'm in a rush so I cant respond to other posts, but storm, ASM's faction is not Rome. If you played as often as you complained, you'd see that :PQuote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Leave the Bosporans as they are, they already cost 2.1k and arrows do not scratch shielded infantry.
And I think speeds have something to do with the unit model (iirc) so I do not think gg2 has the time to change all of them.
I agree 100% . but i think its impossible making the animation faster. Ive talked to gg about this, I cant rememebr what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
and there is another problem is that it takes time for cav to catch up to running infantry. Cav speed is just marginally faster
Yeah, I figured but it is completely annoying especially if they are sporting the scary ability since they just need to be near by to apply scary. They already do morale damage by just being behind your units.
Standing close with scaries is how most ppl use scary units. Though there might be something to say about the large radius it affects, I think this is quite justifiable. Plus, standing close but not engaging is how barb fear units are usually used (except Gaesatae). Fear is a very psychological thing, and the mere sight of things like eles and catas are likely to affect the average trooper.
Re: Bosphorans, I think lets try them out as they are. They are not particularly cheap (though an excellent bargain as they double as melee units). We can always tweak later if they turn out to make Pontos too OP.
Re: Persian bows- they should be just as powerful as steppe bows iirc. Certainly their proximity to steppe peoples, the fact that Persian warfare historically relied upon archery heavily, and that many Persian dynasties has steppe-ish origins would indicate so. Though this is merely conjecture, it would be like how the Romans adopted the Gladius, which was in its early form an iberian weapon. Romans liked sharp pointy things, saw that the gladius was excellent for packed troops to use in close combat and upgraded their own weapons to suit.
Am I wrong to think this re persian bows? Are there any sources on this to prove otherwise?
You are right.
From the top of my head if I put it rougly
Aryans=Persians=Scythians=Sarmatians=Iranians=Whatever
Wow. More of the same modern nonsense. This is getting more exciting as the days go on.
Are you referring to me or Lazy?Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
I just refer to Armenians as Vartans.
I'd also just like to point out that step archer size is still tiny...
Lazy. He's mixing up modern terms of nationality and ancient cultures. I also had some impulse to ask if he really wants to base his criteria for marksmanship on genetics after his last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
I know it's free entertainment and all but it gets old after a while, hence my posts. Anyway, we await the perfect EDU I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
Well, technically the language of the first branched into that of the fifth, which branched into that of the second, third, and fourth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Once again, it surprises me little that you dislike historical accuracy as a basis for balancing stats.
I have...erm, other work to do this weekend, so don't expect an EDU update till the second half of October rolls, or perhaps not until the end.
Hmm, I cant really say, but the general conception is that the Easterns trained with the bow since they were children, and hence, "should" be much better than anything else, Cretans included, note, I am not referring to bosporans, as I think they are fine as is, my only issue is with the machine gunning cretans which are somehow better than any eastern archer unit bar the Bosporans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
@GG2; What are you talking about? Since when did I say we should not be using history as a base for stats? Besides the cretans I have not even been talking about stats. Oh and, Indian Archers need a buff, they were a class of professional soldiers trained from birth to fight.
And the thing I posted before, It actually has no order, I just said that all of them are more or less the same people.
Right and Westerners trained with the Nintendo so they should be "much better" gamers? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Nice.
EDIT: Please don't post any claims about history if you don't have a respectable idea of what you will be posting. Thank you.
Tell Herodotus. Im not saying that :P
----
Come on hamachi, I know youre not doing anything right now.
You do not need to know what I'm doing right now. Herodotus is problematic, to make a great understatement with regards to historiography. I'm not going to lecture you, this is an EDU-related thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Why? I like your overly philosophic lectures. Really :2thumbsup:
Herodotus is a problem, but he is also one of the only glimpses we have into the non-Greek world before Xenophon shows up. I wouldn't believe all that much that he says as he is prone to exaggeration and is not a first hand observer much of the time, however there are likely grains of truth in just about everything he says, we just have to sift through and pick out the facts from the fiction.
We all know the line that Persians are taught three things from youth: to shoot a bow, to ride a horse, and to speak the truth. Well this probably applies only to the Persian nobility first off as most people would not own horses. As such, it is not necessarily true that the general levy (i.e. Persian Archers/Archer Spearmen) would be trained in using the bow any more than a western levy of Celtic Archers. Obviously there was a tradition of archery in Persia that did not exist in the West so bows were a more prevalent weapon in warfare, therefore the Persians come in larger sizes. Also, they had access to superior bows and therefore they have better range. However, it does not necessarily make them any more accurate with that weapon as individuals.
The Heavy Persian Archers may be a more professional fighting force though I am unsure of this and would defer to others. However, they are already represented as such in game so no problems there.
Speaking of archers, why KH doesn't have the thureopherontes?
Why should they?
You mean that an inland anatolian faction, who took 170+ years to get to the bosphorus, has more credit than the motherland of such colonies, who kept trading and friendship relations with them?
Do they own the bosporus at the game start? And I dont support Pontus having them either. All I know is, the greeks had them before, but they were removed.
Own it no, but they had an alliance with Athens...
I still find it ironic that the KH, the most backwards in terms of military advancement faction in the game, ends up being the most cosmopolitan because one coalition of two greek cities has been expanded to include greek colonies all over the mediterranean.
The colonies of the Bosporan kingdom were founded by Miletos (Pantikapaion), Herakleia Pontika (Chersonesos Taurike), and the fleeing citizens of Teos (Phanagoria) and by now they were part of an independent Hellenic kingdom anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Agree wholeheartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Sorry for double post. This is a very good post and I would agree with this with the exception of 1 point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
1) I think the levy persian archer accuracy should basically be a bit better than celtic levy archer accuracy. It's like how gaul and germania raises decent quality melee troops as levy. These melee levy troops, would not be able to beat the more expensive persian infantry (like babylonian spearmen), but, they provide decent stats for their cost compared to other factions.
Secondly, it was my understanding that stats were based on weapons used, and in the case of archers, this would attack and range. In this, I would imagine the persians levy unit would have good stats. I am not saying they do not already as I have not looked at them in any detail. I will do so and get back to you guys.
Lastly, I think this is a good point and is imp that it gets highlighted:
"The Heavy Persian Archers may be a more professional fighting force though I am unsure of this and would defer to others. However, they are already represented as such in game so no problems there"
I feel their bows are pretty sucky (range and attack).
Weren't the Spartokidai very close with Athens?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Brave et al are prime examples of how pervasive and prevalent the Greco-Roman perversion of the east remains to this very day. How could one forget the great arduous work undertaken by historians and others in the past decades (and century) on native sources within the near east... Old Persian. Akkadian. Aramaic. Babylonian dialect Akkadian. And so much more. Josef Wiesehöfer does a good job of pointing this out in his Ancient Persia...
Stats are based on both the man and the weapons he wields. The Celtic archers are often drawn from hunters, whereas I believe the Persians are drawn from a more agrarian population. That's why the Celtic archers have better accuracy but worse bows and smaller numbers. While the Persians' numbers are typically exaggerated by Greek sources, the Iranian folks from which the "Persian Archers" of EB are drawn are from rather numerous nations. The Sassanid Empire at its greatest extent is estimated to have controlled more than 1/3 of the world's population; the Achaemenid, 20%.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
Heavy Persians are quite good, the only modification I would consider for them is +5 ammo.
Why is the range lower for persian archers (archer spearmen, levies, and heavies) than steppe and dacian bows though?
Lowest to highest range IMO would be Persian Archer-Spearmen, Persian Archers, and Persian Heavy Archers. Only the heavy archers would approach Dacio-steppe ranges. Sound about right?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
Sounds correct, but i meant what is the historical basis esp compared to Dacian bows. Persian composites were just as good afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
At a very cursory glance I found these links (they do not show much, nor am I relying on these solely):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perso-Parthian_bow
http://www.salukibow.com/28.html
Yea the main reason I posted the link was because it was interesting, I didn't expect it to show exactly what a Cretan bow would've looked like. The bowyer said he had a difficult time finding sources. As for the time period someone posting in reply mentioned the Mycenean era so I'm guessing that's when it's from.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
I know a little bit about archery mechanics and physics and I agree. The steppe peoples and the Persians both used recurved composite bows, so I see no reason why they would perform differently. Sure not all composite designs are created equal and some are better than others, but the difference in performance wouldn't be enough to change their effectiveness in combat, in my opinion. Plus performance can vary between bows of the same design, so when you get hundreds of composite bows massed together the difference evens out.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
Just as good as the Scythian ones, yes. Persians beat the Scythians during the 6th century BC. I don't think the discrepancy would be immense by the 3rd century. I don't know about Dacian archery. I wouldn't be surprised if it was influenced heavily by archery of the steppes...but definitely would question any purported superiority of the Dacian archery over the Persian, at least amongst the trained.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
As it is the Persians are statted with a cheaper, lower quality bow to represent the cheap bows that the lower level Persian archers sometimes used. The Dacians on the other hand use fully-blown steppe composite bows. I can definitely change this, and almost certainly will for the Heavy Persians.
Good. Now what about the Indian Longbows?
Hopefully this will give you an idea that these were not peasent levies running around naked but one of the most advanced military cultures of the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7URD...ayer_embedded#!
@Shak; Makes nice music for slaughtering our enemies no? :clown:
We pushed back Alexander. I demand justice be done to Indian units.
Hahahaha. Ok first of all I want to clarify I do not think they deserve to be awesome units just bcoz someone descended from that region :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Secondly, I will actually have to disagree with you about the armor. The indian levies (and I believe the unit depicts levies as opposed to the warrior caste, kryshtias), would more often than not wear a simple cotton shirt with (at most) a heavily padded shirt. Few could afford to wear decent armor or actually bothered to wear armor since they knew they would not be expected to get into heavy melee though they were pretty capable of melee considering they were levies (their swords were cool).
Thirdly, a movie/tv show made by Indians will obviously glorify Indian history with little notion of historical accuracy :P I do agree with you that they had one of the most advanced armies and weaponries of the time period though since this is reflected in many sources and esp under Maurayan Empire.
Lastly, in line with my previous posts, I agree that the longbow they used is still not powerful enough to reflect their actual power in history. They should be more powerful than even large composites, due to the size and construction of the longbow (it was not a selfbow i.e. just a piece of long bamboo), with a nerf to accuracy since these were anchored on the ground with the left foot and would likely have been less accurate. Arrian (Alexander's historian) wrote that arrows launched from these longbows were capable of punching through even the most powerful armor and shields. The second way to implement it would be to give them equal stats (and accuracy) to the highest tier if it is felt that giving them too high an attack will spoil gameplay.
EB2 unit description:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=466774Quote:
" These men a re armed with the weapon most closely associated with the ancient Indian warrior: the longbow. The longbows would have been made of either bamboo or wood, and it would have been drawn in a particular fashion, described by ancient authors...In addition to the bows, these warriors also carry a broadsword. According to Arrianos, the broadsword and the bow were the weapons of choice of Indian warriors, and the sword was used in a slashing fashion. There were several different types of swords, some of native Indian design, but through foreign influence, other types, such as the Hellenic kopis made their way into the hands of Indian warriors...Most of the warriors are dressed in their everyday clothing, which includes loincloths, skirts, and short-sleeved shirts. The majority would have fought bare-chested, however. Some of the warriors wear a simple type of armour corselet, made from strips of hardened leather and tied at the back by what is in the epics referred to as a corselet strap...These archers can use their bows with great efficiency, and though they may not have the best aim, the power and range of their weapons more than make up for this. Though their broadswords make them more capable in mêlée than most archers, they are primarily ranged warriors, and may break if facing better trained warriors in hand-to-hand combat."
Arrian on Indian longbows:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancie...VIII-India.aspQuote:
Indian war equipment differs; the infantry have a bow, of the height of the owner; this they poise on the ground, and set their left foot against it, and shoot thus; drawing the bowstring a very long way back; for their arrows are little short of three cubits, and nothing can stand against an arrow shot by an Indian archer, neither shield nor breastplate nor any strong armour. In their left hands they carry small shields of untanned hide, narrower than their bearers, but not much shorter. Some have javelins in place of bows. All carry a broad scimitar, its length not under three cubits; and this, when they have a hand-to-hand fight -- and Indians do not readily fight so among themselves -- they bring down with both hands in smiting, so that the stroke may be an effective one.
The quote indicates they should get shields too, but since the unit model doesnt have any, i will not push for this.
To add:Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
So after Athens broke free from Polioerketes, Spartokos III renewed the symmachia with the polis (this friendship having a very long history going back to Spartokos I), because Athens allowed the Bosphorans to take part at the Panathenaic games and helped his dynasty to seize supremacy in the past...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scythians and Greeks: A Survey of Ancient History and Archaeology on the North Coast of the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucasus
Deal which gave recognition to the thracian dynast, legitimizing him as a greek monarch; while for Athens it meant cheaper grain and help in possible future expeditions...
Imo there's ground to give some Skuda units to the KH, I agree that they get quite cosmopolitan, but that's what the KH is about: a conglomerate of military alliances, in typical greek fashion, coming and going with the flow :D
@Shak; The Indian Guild warriors are not levies. And yes the rest of the post was a joke :clown:
Following on what Lazy said, proof in Indian longbow accuracy :clown:
:clown:
Check out from 1.51 for about a min for pure awesomeness :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcTt...eature=related
Apparently they had gunpowder in their arrows.
And their bows were so powerful, they could cause hurricanes and even hurl pieces of furniture.
:clown:
Hahaha! It's just too bad that fire arrows are banned. ~;)
Well then, please wait for EBNOM where you will be playing with these indians:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Attachment 2808
Indian Officer
Attachment 2809
Indian Macemen
Attachment 2810
Indian Light Spearmen
Better yet, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq3TH7ds6ZM
Wow what a display of accuracy. And those arrows with multiplying heads were awesome! Where can I pick up some of those?
And we complain about Hollywood historical inaccuracies lol
Haha, I know. In fairness tho it is depicting a religious epic, so it's kind of like clash of Clash of the Titans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Aside from a the usual innacuracy here and there I do not see anything that makes it BS ala 300 Spartans
Lazy, we were talking about the clip I linked, not the one you linked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Hey GG2, since you had to go I thought I might as well put this here for your convenience. I think your proposal to give +1 arrow attack to longbowmen would be good; but I think you should either decrease cost, or give them more men at current cost.
Also, they should really be AP... the two handed huge sword would surely provide just as much blunt force as a kopis or axe? I'd like to hear ur thoughts on why they shouldn't before I go further into any details. If you look at Arrian's quote on them (earlier post) the swords were pretty big and used with two hands.
Thanks!
IIRC the falxes got AP (again). The sword on the Indians is in a similar situation, no? Formerly AP. Now it does not have AP? We could replace the AP with the same reasoning for the falx, no?
Agreed 100% :)Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
I'm going to have to oppose this extension of the reasoning, because scimitars can't puncture helmets, whereas falxes potentially can. Neither do these scimtars strike behind shields.
They were broad scimtars, similar to the kopis (according to EB2) rather than the true "scimitars" used by arabs and turks. Plus, being longer than a longsword (therefore heavy), and used with 2 hands, they would certainly exert more force than a kopis, and I wouldn't be surprised if force generated was similar to an axe (which was used with one hand....most EB axe units have a shield in other) or even greater.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Yes, and while we're at it, how about the Rhomphaias and the Giant Swords of Terrible Ouchies that the British swordmasters and Lugians carry, eh? :wink3:Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
A kopis is more like an axe that can also be used to stab somebody. The in-curving design increases the surface area of the blade, allowing for a better draw cut, and the weighting towards the end gives the thing a bigger wallop. So the weapon does hit hard, but it can't move aside defenses like a falx can, and it certainly can't get past armor. Frankly, the archers weren't even trained properly in the weapons' use, if we are to take Herodotus for his word on the issue.
I'd consider AP for the Rhomphaias, but for the Lugians and Kluddargos I'm going to increase lethality.
Actually you're right. If these dudes dont have AP, maybe longbows shouldn't have it either...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Herodotus wrote on indian swords?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2