Printable View
Does anyone know how to increase the morale of a unit to make it impossible for them to retreat. Maybe it's not realistic but it makes for good role-playing purposes with the KH *cough* Sparta *cough*
I thought I could do it by increasing 'mental_stat' to 100 in the EDU but I just played a custom game and the Spartans still retreated after taking 80% losses. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? Thanks in advance.
Go to EDU
;326
type hellenistic infantry spartiateshoplitai
dictionary hellenistic_infantry_spartiateshoplitai ; Spartiates Hoplitai
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier hellenistic_infantry_spartiateshoplitai, 30, 0, 1.22
officer ebofficer_hellenic_officer
officer ebofficer_hellenic_standardbearer
mount_effect elephant -1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, very_hardy
formation 0.7, 1, 1.6, 2.4, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 17, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.13
stat_pri_attr light_spear
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 0 ,0.1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 13, 11, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 5
stat_ground 0, 0, -3, -3
stat_mental 17, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 3095, 774, 60, 504, 3095
ownership greek_cities, egypt
These are all of the Spartan hoplite stats. 17 is how high their morale is. disciplined tells you how fast they lose/regain the morale. highly_trained indicates how neat their formation is and how close each individual soldier is to his neighbor. In order to modify their morale the best thing to do is to change 17 to 99, thus ensuring that they will pretty much never rout (I am not sure that the RTW engine accepts morale that has three digits) and then you could also change their discipline to berserker, which I believe is better. You can try this and see if the hoplites ever go berserk (or the game crashes), which they probably shouldn't, because I believe there is one more stat that controls the possibility of a unit going berserk.
A new unit for EB?
Spartan Berserkers?? :inquisitive:
Berserker? Wow, I've never heard of anyone doing that. What does it do? Make them break formation, switch to swords, and fight to the last man or something? Do tell... :grin:
As I have already said, simply changing their mental stat from disciplined to berserker should not make the Spartan go berserk. They probably have another stat that allows them to go berserk. Or at least that's what I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
Hopefully the Spartans don't go berserk if you do as I have told. Hopefully. Because if you change the stat_mental to impetuous, the unit description will say that the certain unit will be prone to charging without orders (which by the way never happened to me), then maybe changing the stat_mental to berserker will make the unit go berserk. I'm hoping there is another trait that makes a unit go berserk. Just wait a little bit so I can check the vanilla RTW EDU berserker stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
Now about the morale. Disciplined means that a unit loses the morale slower and regains it faster. My theory is that Berserker units lose morale even slower and gain morale even faster. You could also try to change the morale to 999, but once again, I am not sure there can be such thing as three-digit morale. If 999 trick doesn't work, just use 99 or something a bit lower.
If I remember from my failure modding days, changing that to berserker is all you need to do. I'm totally sure since it's been a few years but I think so. They will even do that super spinning attack of doom the berserkers do in vanilla, it's pretty funny. If no one else does/reports for sure before I get done eating, I'll edit that and see what happens.
Anyone know what happens if give cavalry the ability to go berserk?
Here is the original vanilla RTW berserker stats:
type barb berserker german
dictionary barb_berserker_german ; Berserkers
category infantry
class light
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier barb_berserker, 12, 0, 1.5
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, frighten_foot, very_hardy, warcry
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 2, horde
stat_health 2, 0
stat_pri 19, 7, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, axe, 25 ,0.87
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 5, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 2, -2, 3, 2
stat_mental 16, berserker, untrained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 2, 930, 120, 100, 140, 930
ownership germans
Hmmm... So looks like changing the stat_mental to berserker will probably make spartans go berserk. Still its worth a try. Just be sure to make backups!
BTW, remember how the vanilla berserkers threw units around, much like the elephants? Well I just found in the EDU that "launching = attack may throw target men into the air". Simply adding berserker to stat_mental should not make the Spartans attack resemble that of a real berserk.
Alright! I'm off to see some berserker action now lol
And to think, people said that Spartans didn't really fight like they did in the movie, 300 :grin:
It'd be pretty funny if the horses go ballistic and started donkey-kicking everybodyQuote:
Originally Posted by Fondor_Yards
Yeah, its not realistic. Or at least in 272 BC. By 272 BC, the Spartans had grown very soft. So have the many other Greeks, with the exception of the Aetolians and Achaeans. By this time, the citizen militias were no longer what they were in the older times. No longer did everyone go to defend their homeland once an enemy showed up. The poor still went to the war, but it was no longer common for a man of high standing, especially a man of high wealth to go to war. Mercenary armies mostly replaced the citizen militiasQuote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
Did you actually like 300? I'm just asking for your opinion, because I thought that the movie was horrible, and yet every person I have met since the movie's release date said the movie was amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
They actually did worse then normal. It was kinda funny, they do that spinning attack animation, but wouldn't kill anyone. They held out pretty well, despite being surrounded, the captain dieing, and going out of berserk mode, they lasted till 30 men left before routing. #00 was good if you can turn your historian mode on and off at will. History wise, blah, stupid gory action flick, good.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...0-39-51-09.jpg
What about changing the Spartan hoplite's morale to 1000? Will that work?
Did you even watch the previews? They give you a pretty good idea of what to expect. If you walked into that movie thinking it was going to be historically accurate, then it sounds like you were setting yourself up to hating that movie from the start. I liked it because I've never had so many wtf moments in one sitting. Regardless of reality, one has to admit the Spartans looked SO freakin' badass tossing Persians around like they were nothing. Just try to keep a more open mind if you ever watch it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
And to think that they let you on the team...Quote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
No, I did not see the previews. I do not normally watch movies or TV. I watched 300 when I was bored and flying on KLM airlines, where you can choose the crap you watch, so I thought it was interesting to see what so many of the people in my school were talking about. Just one more lesson on the fact that the popular culture is most of the time not the right culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by fenix3279
It wasn't the lack of historical acccuracy that particularly upset me, it was the lack of any accuracy at all that turned me against the movie. Normally when I am about to watch a Hollywood movie that has to do with history, I most certainly don't expect it to be as historically accurate as EB, but at least it's not fantasy. Uber-immortal, rain of arrows that blots out the sun, magi throwing grenades in the Bronze Age, humans so deformed that they resemble alien forms of life, and a king more perverted than Michael Jackson and Paris Hilton put together are all examples of fantasy, not simply historical inaccuracy. Just look at the other movies such as Troy, Kingdom of Heaven, Alexander, Gladiator. Most of them suck (except Gladiator!)and are generally historically inaccurate but have at least a bit of realism in them. Not to mention the fact that everything in the 300 except some of the actors was CG - simply preposterous.
As said before, you just need to 'turn the historian mode off'. Just because it is set in ancient times doesn't mean you need to refer to it as history. Star Wars stars with the caption "A long time ago..." - does that mean its historical and realistic? I also downloaded the mod and love it for its historical accuracy, and I'm also very fond of history, but you can't expect a hollywood movie to be historical accurate(to any degree). That movie is good for 2 things. Awesomeness and funniness. when I saw arrows blackening the sky I started laughing, when I saw the "this is sparta" badass kick I laughed, and at the same felt damn that's cool :P
In short, great movie, just happen to have nothing in common with history :P
Well since we're on the topic of 300 now, from the point of view of an ancient history major and aspiring historical fiction writer 300 is indeed disgusting. From the point of view of an average person looking for an entertaining time however, it magnificently succeeds in entertaining and giving you your money's worth.
Nearly two years ago at a family reunion two dozen of my aunts, uncles, cousins and myself watched it and we had a hell of a time. After the credits started rolling I was bombarded by questions from my cousins, old and young, if the Spartans really fought like they did and what the real story was (yes none of them believed the movie was historically accurate for a second.). I spent the good part of an hour explaining to them the basics of Spartan culture, how large the Persian army really was (I told them that in my opinion it was in the 100,000 - 200,000 man range) and the battles of Platea and Salamis. Despite it's obvious historical faults it actually has succeeded in enticing the average person to read up on history, whether learned people such as us want to believe it or not.
And to be honest, I find the "historical elitism" that people who know about the actual history show to those who enjoy the inaccurate history inspired movies that Hollywood churns out very childish at times. I mean it's one thing to say, "Don't mean to burst your bubble, but that's nowhere near how it really happened." but it's another to say "You actually liked that piece of garbage? And you call yourself a historian.".
I'm just saying that people should approach anything with an open-mind and enjoy something for itself, especially if they know about the material of the movie/film/book/play/game or whatever else.
at least in alexander, they did the battle of gaugemela historically accurateQuote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I was hella laughing at the movie screen where they showed the phalanx that looked like when they were marching in the echelon with dust kicking up , but then they zoomed out and showed a hetairoi standing still next to them.. i was like LMFAO!!!
only one part of the movie thats bad is the gayness part, id vote it for like the most accurate battle scene but just the overall story was just too gay..focus on his conquest!!! not his gay life!! lol :):wall::smash::egypt::dizzy2:
now onto 300 spartans...Lets c ,yes its quite entertaining and thrill for the money but not historically accurate, HELL even the history channel made a documentary named 300 spartans doing the real phalanx (1st row underhand back rows overhand) and with linthorax and bronze curias!!! i bet they were refuting the movie bcuz it came out less than 3 months later
i give :balloon2::balloon2::balloon2: if someone can back up my claim :)
u gotta gimme a video link to that, I'm a person that craves video depictions of (accurate) historical warfare.
then you should have a looksie at the show "WEAPONS THAT MADE BRITAIN" that show is freaking ammaaazing
btw the movie 300 was based on THE GRAPHIC NOVEL which was based on the actual events WHICH IS SURROUNDED IN LIES N BULLSHIT.
I personally liked 300 for its gory persian-asskicking :wizard:. It took me awhile to actually like it though. I'm the dude who walked out of Troy tearing my face off.
if you wanna rag on a movie, rag on troy you useless schoolgirls! i mean cmon! Agemenmon was murdered by his wife and her lover whilst he was bathing in the comfort of his own home! (if my memory serves me correctly) IMMSE-new acronym anyone?
OH AND HOW COULD I FORGET!? Ajax was NOT killed in battle, he butchered a flock of lambs and killed himself over the dishonour of losing control. such a beast could not be killed by mortal man!
Man, these are fractions of the crap in this movie. Achileas died after the city was captured?! Menelaus died?!And many many more! I liked a movie called Hellen of Troy much better. It also had differences with the Iliad, but it was clear the movie presented its own viewpoint. While Troy was just converted to some damn producer's taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
Yeah, I understand what you mean. Just think of it more as an action fantasy with some real world influences and it might grow on to you. It all depends on personal taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
That seems a little harsh so maybe I should take that as a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWFanatic
yeh... I liked 300 :sweatdrop: it was cool and a lot of blood... but... as historically acurate as a flying pink hippo :hippie:
I agree that Troy is ... UGH!!!! :wall:
which movie do you guys think is the most historically accurate? <.<
alexander, at least they did the phalanx properly
Quote:
Originally Posted by ||Lz3||
HBO's Rome is a movie I liked, actually I liked Alexander, even Gaugamela was all I have read it was. This is all I can think of
300 was never meant to be historically accurate. It was meant to show the courage and determination of three hundred Spartans (plus the other Greeks that also fought in thermopylae) that fought against an army much bigger (200/300 thousand but never a million that some records of that time said), and stood there, fighting to the death (only the Spartans stayed to the end which only demonstrates their superiority over other soldiers at that time) to protect their "country" (just a matter of speech), for their culture and for everything they believed in.
For Troy, It's just a dumm movie
"If I'm wrong in any historical facts, please DON'T LINCH ME"
I wonder if TPC could fill in on this. Is this the entire standing army, or the invasion force or what? Where did you get these numbers? I'm sure I could find some myself but I'd prefer to get a more knowledgeable opinion on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathEmperor
Wasn't Glory pretty accurate?Quote:
Originally Posted by ||Lz3||
:)
I agree with you completely here. I'm sick and tired of CGI shortcuts and movies filmed on green screens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Just one moment, please.Quote:
I wonder if TPC could fill in on this. Is this the entire standing army, or the invasion force or what? Where did you get these numbers? I'm sure I could find some myself but I'd prefer to get a more knowledgeable opinion on the matter.
Half of the regular troops, would of course be 180,000 men. In total counting (3 x 60,000) x 2 = 180,000 x 2 = 360,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire
However, keep in mind that not all of the soliders were stationed in Thermopylae at that time, as some were I believe in Thrace, or with the fleet at Salamis. There are some other interesting things Olmstead states in his book, such as:
(400 x 3) [three meals per day] x 60 [calculation to minai] = 72,000 [mnai for meals] 0.2 (or 20 drachmae). Well, 20 ancient drachmae per soldier was more than enough to feed a standing army of 360,000 men, especially when thinking of supplies and such. So I guess 360,000 men is probably a good bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire
Thank you very much, Hax. I knew someone here would have that readily available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I'm not so clear on whether or not this was just the invasion force, though.
I apologize for not replying sooner. Went with a couple friends to see Babylon A.D. (which was better than I expected though it felt like they rushed the unresolved ending).Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
The number of 100,000 - 200,000 is my personal opinion on how many Persian soldiers were present at land battle, and I apologize for not specifying earlier. For that number range I mainly use Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond's estimate, though I used a bit more salt so to speak and reduced it by 42,000. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the book of his I used, I think it was called The Classical Age of Greece but it's been a long time since I read it and I'm probably wrong. However, I do have a copy of John Warry's Warfare of the Classical World on hand. Warry writes that 130,000 Persian soldiers, 20,000 Persian cavalry and a fleet of 1,200 triremes and many supply ships were present for the battle.
Unfortunately, he doesn't list the crews of the triremes or the size/class of the supply ships and their crews as well. If we use the consensual believe that a trireme had a crew of 200 men that multiplied by 1,200 gives us the massive figure of 240,000 in naval personnel alone! :dizzy2: This plus the land army gives us a grand total of 390,000 men, not including support personnel or the crews of the supply ships.
Now that I've looked over my old notes and reread a few of my books that went over the battle, my interest in this battle has been reignited. I hope some of what I wrote is helpful to you, and if not TPC will surely arrive and correct any errors on my part.
I think the 100,000 estimate is based upon Herodotus's figures, if memory serves.