-
light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
For a week or so, this thread has been developing in the main forum. The main point: it seems, that the EB developers have added +4 attack to all spear units to compensate for the -4 defense the light spear units suffer when fighting infantry; and -4 attack that spear units (not light spear) suffer when fighting other infantry.
No conclusive response from the development team has been expressed yet though.
My main concerns:
1. Why was such stat compensation designed in the first place? Weren't spears supposed to 'suffer' when fighting sword units for example? With the current balance, medium swords lose in one on one fight with the lower tier spear units.
2. Could it be that this compensation (+4 attack for light spear units) is a bug?
-
AW: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Slaists
With the current balance, medium swords lose in one on one fight with the lower tier spear units.
Which levy spearunits? Hoplitai Haploi should be ok this way, but Lugoae shoudn't win in my opinion.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Slaists
For a week or so,
this thread has been developing in the main forum. The main point: it seems, that the EB developers have added +4 attack to all spear units to compensate for the -4 defense the light spear units suffer when fighting infantry; and -4 attack that spear units (not light spear) suffer when fighting other infantry.
No conclusive response from the development team has been expressed yet though.
My main concerns:
1. Why was such stat compensation designed in the first place? Weren't spears supposed to 'suffer' when fighting sword units for example? With the current balance, medium swords lose in one on one fight with the lower tier spear units.
2. Could it be that this compensation (+4 attack for light spear units) is a bug?
This post is quite a coincidence , as I was just about to post a mini mod :)...
It is absolutely a bug. The values were adjusted when all the Spear Units were classes as "spear", and received -4 attack vs Infantry. When all the "Spear" units were changed to "Light_Spear", nobody bothered removing the +4 bonus. Hence now, Skirmishers (with a 2nd weapon light_spear) often have a better attack than Medium and even in some cases Heavy Infantry with Axes and Swords.
Its not just the traditional Spearman either. You'll find all the Phalanx Units have attr "Long_Pike AND Light_Spear" and thus have 4 higher attack than they should. This completely unbalances all Phalanx Units, (just check the EDU yourself, you'll find Levy Phalanxes have a better attack than Elite Swordsmen :dizzy2:). Its like they all start out with a Silver Chevron in attack...
Anyways:-
Mini Mod To Balance All Spear and Phalanx Units
All I've done is remove the erroneous +4 attack from Spears and Pikes.
Copy over the EDU in C:.....\EB\sp game edu backup to make it work for your current Campaign NOT the EDU in EB\DATA as the game reads from the backup file.
EDU zip
-
AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drewski
It is absolutely a bug. The values were adjusted when all the Spear Units were classes as "spear", and received -4 attack vs Infantry. When all the "Spear" units were changed to "Light_Spear", nobody bothered removing the +4 bonus. Hence now, Skirmishers (with a 2nd weapon light_spear) often have a better attack than Medium and even in some cases Heavy Infantry with Axes and Swords.
What about Hoplites? They have no Phalanx ability, removing their bonus would make them singnificant weaker. The engine can not represent their Hoplite fightingstyle, so they should get a +4 defence instead.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drewski
This post is quite a coincidence , as I was just about to post a mini mod :)...
It is absolutely a bug. The values were adjusted when all the Spear Units were classes as "spear", and received -4 attack vs Infantry. When all the "Spear" units were changed to "Light_Spear", nobody bothered removing the +4 bonus. Hence now, Skirmishers (with a 2nd weapon light_spear) often have a better attack than Medium and even in some cases Heavy Infantry with Axes and Swords.
Its not just the traditional Spearman either. You'll find all the Phalanx Units have attr "Long_Pike AND Light_Spear" and thus have 4 higher attack than they should. This completely unbalances all Phalanx Units, (just check the EDU yourself, you'll find Levy Phalanxes have a better attack than Elite Swordsmen :dizzy2:). Its like they all start out with a Silver Chevron in attack...
Anyways:-
Mini Mod To Balance All Spear and Phalanx Units
All I've done is remove the erroneous +4 attack from Spears and Pikes.
Copy over the EDU in C:.....\EB\sp game edu backup to make it work for your current Campaign NOT the EDU in EB\DATA as the game reads from the backup file.
Attachment 60
Well, my original concern is that this might somehow NOT be a bug. Maybe the EB developers were trying to compensate for the anti-cavalry bonus that the "light spear" units lose (relative to the regular spear ones)...
as to vs. 'the other infantry': the situation is not that different now as it was when +4 attack was compensating for the attack lost (in my opinion, there should not have been a compensation in the first place; the spear units were supposed to be weaker against sword units): now, +4 attack compensates for -4 lost in defense (light spears vs. other infantry)...
so, my question still remains: why were they compensating in the first place?
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zett
What about Hoplites? They have no Phalanx ability, removing their bonus would make them singnificant weaker. The engine can not represent their Hoplite fightingstyle, so they should get a +4 defence instead.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Here's a classic Hoplite with EB1.2
Code:
;333
type hellenistic infantry hoplitai
dictionary hellenistic_infantry_hoplitai ; Hoplitai
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type General_1
soldier hellenistic_infantry_hoplitai_hellenikoi, 40, 0, 1.22
officer ebofficer_hellenic_officer
officer ebofficer_hellenic_standardbearer
mount_effect elephant -1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest
formation 0.7, 1, 1.6, 2.4, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 14, 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 11, 8, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -3
stat_mental 12, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1367, 342, 80, 498, 1367
Thats a basic 14 attack against anything and 23 Def against other "Spear", 19 Def vs Inf and 31 Def vs Cavalry, and only 1367mnai to recruit, and 342 upkeep. Compare that to any Sword or Axe, and you need an Elite to get anywhere near 14 attack, with twice the upkeep and recruitment cost. So take away the +4 attack vs everything, and you have what is a well balanced low/medium cost allround unit. Good Def, and reasonable attack.
If you are going to start giving stuff like the Hoplite a better defence, to compensate for the better attack that it shouldn't have had in the first place :inquisitive: (and remember this defence would work against everything) , then you'd better make it probably 40-50 % more expensive too, and a higher lvl of MIC to recruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Slaists
Well, my original concern is that this might somehow NOT be a bug. Maybe the EB developers were trying to compensate for the anti-cavalry bonus that the "light spear" units lose (relative to the regular spear ones)...
as to vs. 'the other infantry': the situation is not that different now as it was when +4 attack was compensating for the attack lost (in my opinion, there should not have been a compensation in the first place; the spear units were supposed to be weaker against sword units): now, +4 attack compensates for -4 lost in defense (light spears vs. other infantry)...
so, my question still remains: why were they compensating in the first place?
#1 light_spear: Gives default bonus of +8 to defense vs cavalry, and penalty of -4 to defense vs. infantry. Offers less pushing power than spear.
#2 spear: Gives default bonus of +8 to attack vs cavalry, and penalty of -4 to attack vs. infantry. Offers more pushing power than light_spear. Units with "spear" attribute tend to lose cohesion and break lines (due to the extreme pushing power) with undesired results, so use is advised only with cohesive formations/attributes like short_pike, shield_wall, phalanx etc.
The "Spearmen type" units were apparently all type #2 Spear originally, and +4 attack was added to said unit types. But (see last part under#2) this was found to produce undesirable results , hence they were then all Changed to type #1 Light_spear. BUT this attack was never taken away, for one of two reasons.
1) They forgot
2) They decided to leave it in for "balance"???
1) Means its a bug
2) It screws up the Infantry/Spear balance completely, so its wrong whatever.
From the above #1 Light_Spear Still gets +8 Def vs Cavalry, which is a heck of a boost. It doesn't need any phantom extra attack. The extra def means they still should slaughter Cavalry, because they can stay in battle for so much longer without taking casualties.
Why the heck Creative Arts gave +8 attack to #2Spear vs Cavalry in the first place is beyond me. Spears are not an offensive counter to Horseborne troops, they are a defensive one, i.e to keep the Cavalry off the Infantry's backs. How on earth can men on foot ever chase down men on horseback in an offensive capability? ;)
-
AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Slaists
the spear units were supposed to be weaker against sword units
Perhaps 1 vs. 1, but a spearunit can hit a swordnuit before it's able to attack. Also in a formation, like the Hoplitephalanx, there are no 1 vs. 1 fights (or should not be). They stand behind their shields and protect each other with shield and spears. I don't think that they would be (in this formation) weaker then swordunits.
And about the stats, it's right that Hoplites seem to be much better then for example Roman soldiers. But if you use a Hoplite army against a Polybian army you will see that they are balanced. You will notice that Hoplites break much faster then for example Princeps.
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8247/neubitmap2.jpg
Thats because they have a higher morale. And remember, Hoplites need a level 3 MIC, Principes only a level 2. You could say that their higher costs are for their higher Morale.
How Slaists already said, it's the question if this is a bug or if it's part of the balance. Would be nice if someone from the EB team could say something to this topic.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Edit:
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/75...svsromans2.jpg
The KH needs a level 4 MIC to get similare morale (Thorakitai Hoplitai) like the Polybian Principes. The stats of this troops are better then the Princeps, but Thorakitai Hoplitai are some of the 'elite' troops of the KH.
-
Re: AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zett
Perhaps 1 vs. 1, but a spearunit can hit a swordnuit before it's able to attack. Also in a formation, like the Hoplitephalanx, there are no 1 vs. 1 fights (or should not be). They stand behind their shields and protect each other with shield and spears. I don't think that they would be (in this formation) weaker then swordunits.
And about the stats, it's right that Hoplites seem to be much better then for example Roman soldiers. But if you use a Hoplite army against a Polybian army you will see that they are balanced. You will notice that Hoplites break much faster then for example Princeps.
https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8247/neubitmap2.jpg
Thats because they have a higher morale. And remember, Hoplites need a level 3 MIC, Princeps only a level 2. You could say that their higher costs are for their higher Morale.
How
Slaists already said, it's the question if this is a bug or if it's part of the balance. Would be nice if someone from the EB team could say something to this topic.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Nice comparison post, but you as the player can compensate. The morale difference is tiny -seasons, general traits etc. all change the morale more than this. I honestly think (and no offence to you or anyone), that people have got used to fighting easier battles with spear/phalanx heavy unit composition than they should, because they all kill MUCH faster than they should.
Rome should be more dominant in the game (in the hands of the ai) than they currently are. Most of the time, if you play another faction Rome don't really go anywhere( But I haven't yet seen any significant changes how auto-resolve calculates things, that is ai on ai battles, that would make a huge change to the campaign map).
The hoplitai was becoming extinct at the time..from the EB unit info list
Quote:
The classic Greek hoplite still uses the old Argive shield, spear, short sword and linothorax. Although surpassed by the times they can still be usefull in any battle line.
They really shouldn't be a killing machine.
-
AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zett
Outdated. Now Princeps (Polybian) cost 1185 mnai and Principes (Camillan) cost 1046 mnai. So they are cheaper then Hoplitai with 1367 mnai (which are now more expensive).
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zett
How Slaists already said, it's the question if this is a bug or if it's part of the balance. Would be nice if someone from the EB team could say something to this topic.
Yup, it would be really nice if any of them responded to this thread. I guess, everyone's busy playing ETW, LOL...
While I understand the points Drewsky is making I am still not convinced the current attack scheme was not set in place for some balance reasons. Maybe due to same factors that we do not know about.
For example, Drewsky argues that +4 attack was given to all spear units to compensate for the -4 attack penalty they suffer against other infantry. Well, they were meant to 'suffer' in that department so +4 attack does not seem justified just by the aforementioned penalty.
-
AW: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
I fought some costume battles against the AI, no outflanking, no great strategies, nearly no battlemanagement, grassland map, medium.
Koinon Hellenon (7 Hoplitai) vs. Romani (7 Principes Polybian)
#1 Koinon Hellenon vs. Romani (AI)
#2 Koinon Hellenon vs. Romani (AI)
#3 Koinon Hellenon (with guardmode on) vs. Romani (AI)
#4 Romani vs. Koinon Hellenon (AI)
#5 Romani vs. Koinon Hellenon (AI)
#6 Romani (with guardmode on) vs. Koinon Hellenon
Here are the replay files, put them into your Europabarorum1.2/EB/replays folder.
Hoplitai (#1,#2,#3) without guardmode had no chance, with guardmode pyric victory.
Principes (#4, #5, #6) won all 3 battles easely even with guardmode off.
So my opinion is, that Hoplites are no match (without support) for Principes, that's ok, they are outdated how Drewski already said. But remember, Principes are availabel at MIC level 2, Hoplitai at MIC level 3. Also Principes (Polybian) are with 1185 mnai cheaper then Hoplitai.
If you make them weaker that would be a problem for KH, who have no better standard line infantery, Thorakitai are even worser as line infantery. Thorakitai Hoplitai are only slightly better (higher morale) then Thorakitai. Whats left are the Epilektoi Hoplitai (high costs) or the Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai (only available after MoT). The KH really depends on these Hoplitai (before the MoT). At the moment they are just weak against Principes, but if you take them their bonuses, they would be even weaker. That's why I say, that they should stay as they are or get something in exchange (defence bonus, lower density).
As for the Phalangitai, I agree, they are overpowered in EB (my opinion) and should get a weaker attack, their Phalanx ability makes them still a good line infantery.
I'm not against your change Drewski (the opposite, I really think that the Phalanx units should get a weaker attack too). But as a KH Player I have to say, that Holites already perform weak against swordunits (especially Romani). Of course, a human player still has no problem with that and it's historical correct, but to make Hoplites even weaker as they are now (see the battleresults again) makes no sense for me.
My :2cents:
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: AW: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zett
I fought some costume battles against the AI, no outflanking, no great strategies, nearly no battlemanagement,
grassland map,
medium.
Koinon Hellenon (7 Hoplitai) vs. Romani (7 Principes Polybian)
#1 Koinon Hellenon vs. Romani (AI)
#2 Koinon Hellenon vs. Romani (AI)
#3 Koinon Hellenon (with guardmode on) vs. Romani (AI)
#4 Romani vs. Koinon Hellenon (AI)
#5 Romani vs. Koinon Hellenon (AI)
#6 Romani (with guardmode on) vs. Koinon Hellenon
Here are the replay files, put them into your Europabarorum1.2/EB/replays folder.
Hoplitai (#1,#2,#3) without guardmode had no chance, with guardmode pyric victory.
Principes (#4, #5, #6) won all 3 battles easely even with guardmode off.
So my opinion is, that Hoplites are no match (without support) for Principes, that's ok, they are outdated how
Drewski already said. But remember, Principes are availabel at MIC level 2, Hoplitai at MIC level 3. Also Principes (Polybian) are with 1185 mnai cheaper then Hoplitai.
If you make them weaker that would be a problem for KH, who have no better standard line infantery, Thorakitai are even worser as line infantery. Thorakitai Hoplitai are only slightly better (higher morale) then Thorakitai. Whats left are the Epilektoi Hoplitai (high costs) or the Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai (only available after MoT). The KH really depends on these Hoplitai (before the MoT). At the moment they are just weak against Principes, but if you take them their bonuses, they would be even weaker. That's why I say, that they should stay as they are or get something in exchange (defence bonus, lower density).
As for the Phalangitai, I agree, they are overpowered in EB (my opinion) and should get a weaker attack, their Phalanx ability makes them still a good line infantery.
I'm not against your change
Drewski (the opposite, I really think that the Phalanx units should get a weaker attack too). But as a KH Player I have to say, that Holites already perform weak against swordunits (especially Romani). Of course, a human player still has no problem with that and it's historical correct, but to make Hoplites even weaker as they are now (see the battleresults again) makes no sense for me.
My :2cents:
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Great post :)
I see what you mean totally, but (and this is just my opinion ) An Army of pure swordsmen, with excellent Armor, and who throw pilae too, should utterly destroy an Army of pure Spearmen who don't. In your battles, The Hoplitai killed 41% of the Principes (as an average). That's obviously because of the +4 attack. Losing 41% of your heavy Infantry, is a pretty Pyrrhic result too ;)
I don't think that comparing Rome in its ascendency, to KH in its decline (and last days) is really fair either. Rome should wipe the floor with KH (imho). They don't need to be "balanced" and made equal. Also the Hoplites would have a massive advantage in a similar staged battle, where you matched the Princepes against Heavy Cavalry, then the Hoplitai against same Heavy Cavalry.
Rome relies on its Infantry. KH has a more diverse array of weapons at its disposal. (but yes I still prefer Rome's ;))
I maybe agree that Hoplites (with 4 attack removed) might need a slight tweak elsewhere, but think its slightly unfair to compare them against Rome. Maybe against Epiros, Mak,or Arch Seluk, is a fairer comparison.
Glad we agree on the Phalanxes though, which again imo, fall into the "what were they thinking" category, they are so unbalanced.
Btw, I'm not some Rome junky either. I like playing all the factions, and think that some should be a lot weaker than others, that's part of the challenge :) I'm still quite new to EB btw, but a very old hand at RTR and modding bits and pieces in general....
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
All units should not be balanced. Historicaly some units were just better than others. An armored swored unit is more flexible than an armored spear unit. Historicaly that is how ROme beat KH. They were more flexible. NOw KH can make use of Thesalyian Cav. When fighting against Rome. If it becomes a little more difficult for KH to face a Roman army, than that is better because it is more historicaly accurate.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
artavazd
All units should not be balanced. Historicaly some units were just better than others. An armored swored unit is more flexible than an armored spear unit. Historicaly that is how ROme beat KH. They were more flexible. NOw KH can make use of Thesalyian Cav. When fighting against Rome. If it becomes a little more difficult for KH to face a Roman army, than that is better because it is more historicaly accurate.
i take 'balanced' to mean proportionally adjusted; not equal to...
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
hi, downloaded your file.................... makes since to me (!) but i got an error....i didnt write it down but it said 'couldnt find' some bit.. i'm using RTW era's edition. I'm assuming you made an error somewhere.
... i'll write it down later if you want but was mid flow so didnt want to have to start the campaign again
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mosedavid
hi, downloaded your file.................... makes since to me (!) but i got an error....i didnt write it down but it said 'couldnt find' some bit.. i'm using RTW era's edition. I'm assuming you made an error somewhere.
... i'll write it down later if you want but was mid flow so didnt want to have to start the campaign again
I'm sorry, I don't completely understand you (if you meant the file I adjusted)...can you restate your error and the problem you are having?.
Thanks.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Anyone tried the Spears/Pikes fix? And if so, what have your impressions been?
Thanks.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Haven't tried it yet. Is it save game compatible? How does this affect autoresolve?
-
AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ravenfeeder
Haven't tried it yet. Is it save game compatible? How does this affect autoresolve?
EDU (export_descr_unit) changes are savegame compatible.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drewski
Anyone tried the Spears/Pikes fix? And if so, what have your impressions been?
Thanks.
I did.
Currently, I am playing as KH, so I am in the middle of it:)
So far the majority of my opponents, namely Macedonia, Pontos and AS are using mainly spear units too, so no much power shift here.
At the beginning, the strong unit are peltasts, because they are sword unit. They work like "baby legionnaries". Interesting are also Iphikratean Hoplites, because they have secondary sword and they have a bit better defence than peltasts.
But the most excellent unit are of course Thorakitai hoplitai. Not only they have decent stats and affordable upkeep/price, but they have armour piercing sword as their secondary weapon. Nice versatile unit with spear/ap sword combo.
Traditional infantry types like Hopliatai and even Epilektoi Hoplitai pale before mentioned units. But I used family members units (spartiates and Epilektoi BG) a lot and they performed well.
The same is with Thorakitai and maybe Thurephoroi, but i did not try any of the latter yet.
So the conclusion is, KH has units that can stand toe to toe against sword infantry, but it differs to unmodded version of EB, whre classical hoplitai were one of the most useful units.
Thats probably because opponents are using a lot of infantry here, if they were using cavalry instead, it would be another story.
Lately I tried Thorakitai Hoplitai vs. Hypaspists in SP to test them and they butchered macedonian elites with no mercy. The same case would probably be with even such units as roman principes or maybe even legionnaries, ap sword is really killer vs. well armoured infantry.
The conclusion is I like it. The only drawback is that AI probably do not use secondary weapons, so some units will be probably too weak when used by it. True, as somebody posted here before, KH should be a weak faction anyways.
Rev
-
AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Revenant
The same case would probably be with even such units as roman principes or maybe even legionnaries, ap sword is really killer vs. well armoured infantry.
After all the Thorakitai Hoplitai are elites and you need a level 4 MIC to recruit them. Princeps are only medium infantery (available at level 2 MIC).
The Mod as far as I know didn't change the Thorakitai Hoplitai (ecxept removing the +4 attack bonus for spear attack). So the sword attack is the same as in vanilla EB.
If you fight against other Roman elites (such as Pedites Extraordinarii) you will see, that the Thorakitai Hoplitai are still a 'weak' elite unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Revenant
The only drawback is that AI probably do not use secondary weapons, so some units will be probably too weak when used by it.
AFAIK if a soldier gets knocked down he will switch to his secondary weapon automaticly. So the Thorakitai Hoplitai would fight with swords (not all, but some of them).
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Well I've tried a couple of major campaigns myself. First as Casse (who are just riduculously easy to play imo--take the British Isles at your leisure, then start mopping up Celts who have kindly weakened themselves/the slave settlements). Its surprising, how many Spear units are involved in Casse/Celt battles, but I liked how upper lvl sword units actually stood out from the pack a little (as they should), instead of taking heavy losses vs some levy spearmen.
Currently playing a Getai campaign (and jeez, are they hard to get going, and even to keep going). You're 4000 mnai in debt before you even reach a settlement to take! Anyways, persevered with it, and now have around 10 provinces, and of course I've been backstabbed by all three "Greek" nations on the peninsula. I can only afford two 3/4 stacks, and they are pretty banged up, just won 3 heroic victories with one army, all on the ai's turn.
The last couple of battles, against decent ai armies, really proved a point to me, that the ai is sometimes worse than clueless. It had a decent Cavalry/phalanx/hoplite/skirmisher mix and if it had just attacked even in a straight line, I would have been pretty screwed. But no, it lost a third of its men trying these crazy premature flanking attacks, e.g. the troops walk straight forward (quite missile proof) the turn sideways within never mind archer range, but javelin range. This results in most of the "flankers" dying before even getting to the flanks. Then it tries to charge its Cavalry at troops who aren't engaged in melee, which while getting a decent kill score from the charge, then results in their quick demise. Would it have been to difficult to code in to the ai "charge then back up, then charge again", and "hold the charge until your melee guys are engaged"? Especially if you have much superior numbers. Ho hum.
(Apologies for rant)
Did quite a bit of messing around with all the Steppe factions too (in my own game). Some of those generals/horse units have frankly ridiculous armor, so I toned them all down quite a bit. Also lowered the missile attack for most horse archers (a touch)..no-one in the world will ever convince me, that guys on horses with bows, are more accurate than guys with the same bows on foot. Its pure nonesense, but EB has that in it. And we all know that Horse Archer only armies are basically illegal ;).....don't remember any Steppe faction cutting a swathe across the world either....well not until around 1500 yrs later ;)
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
I've been using this minimod - thanks for doing the EDU edit and posting it! Can't really tell the difference, honestly, other than seeing more sensible attack numbers on the unit cards of hoplitai, etc. Late stage Romani, 150s BCE. Long standing low intensity war against the Lusotannan in western Gaul (Lusos now hold Brittany, Normandy, and the central province south of Normandy and east of Lemorisae - apologies for the weird mix of modern and EB names, that's how my memory works...). Since the Luso armies now consist entirely of Lugoae, some sort of Celtic shortswordsmen, and the usual Celtic slingers and archers, they get stomped regardless of the spear fix. Especially since they're usually attacking a bridge.
The Fourth Macedonian War was also not obviously affected by the mod, for similar reasons (I picked up Mytilene, Byzantion, Tylis, and Serdike, leaving them with the northernmost Thracian provinces). Maybe without the mod a hoplitai plus phalangitai deuteroi would have defeated a cohors reformata on the walls before a second cohort cut through to the other side of the phalangitai. But maybe not, and there were plenty more cohorts where those came from so the city was going to fall regardless.
Just started the First Mithridatic War (really, the Pontic king happens to be Mithridates Somebody-or-other! :2thumbsup:), as might be guessed from acquiring Mytilene and Byzantion. Gotta love the campaign "AI"... Again, no obvious effects. Facing the front of a phalanx even in guard mode still costs men quickly even with the -4 from this mod. The other Pontic spearmen I've seen have been levies - in fact I can't think of any quality non-phalanx spearmen in their roster other than hoplitai. And cohors reformata ate hoplitai for lunch even without the -4 to the latter.
Probably the only way I'll see any difference in this campaign would be in fights against the Ptolemaioi. If I play that far, which is by no means certain (starting to grow bored, and hearing Baktria calling to me... ~:)).
Steppe factions/HA: a steppe faction did cut a swathe across the world - Parthia. And I believe they really did have ridiculous armor... I know much less about them, but I gather the Saka also kicked serious butt in this period. Do horse archers have higher ranged attacks than the archers with the same bows (Scythian foot archers vs. Scythian horse archers, say)? I don't recall for certain from my Hai campaign back in 1.0, but I thought they had the same attack (5 or 6, can't recall which).
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jhhowell
I've been using this minimod - thanks for doing the EDU edit and posting it! Can't really tell the difference, honestly, other than seeing more sensible attack numbers on the unit cards of hoplitai, etc. Late stage Romani, 150s BCE. Long standing low intensity war against the Lusotannan in western Gaul (Lusos now hold Brittany, Normandy, and the central province south of Normandy and east of Lemorisae - apologies for the weird mix of modern and EB names, that's how my memory works...). Since the Luso armies now consist entirely of Lugoae, some sort of Celtic shortswordsmen, and the usual Celtic slingers and archers, they get stomped regardless of the spear fix. Especially since they're usually attacking a bridge.
The Fourth Macedonian War was also not obviously affected by the mod, for similar reasons (I picked up Mytilene, Byzantion, Tylis, and Serdike, leaving them with the northernmost Thracian provinces). Maybe without the mod a hoplitai plus phalangitai deuteroi would have defeated a cohors reformata on the walls before a second cohort cut through to the other side of the phalangitai. But maybe not, and there were plenty more cohorts where those came from so the city was going to fall regardless.
Just started the First Mithridatic War (really, the Pontic king happens to be Mithridates Somebody-or-other! :2thumbsup:), as might be guessed from acquiring Mytilene and Byzantion. Gotta love the campaign "AI"... Again, no obvious effects. Facing the front of a phalanx even in guard mode still costs men quickly even with the -4 from this mod. The other Pontic spearmen I've seen have been levies - in fact I can't think of any quality non-phalanx spearmen in their roster other than hoplitai. And cohors reformata ate hoplitai for lunch even without the -4 to the latter.
Probably the only way I'll see any difference in this campaign would be in fights against the Ptolemaioi. If I play that far, which is by no means certain (starting to grow bored, and hearing Baktria calling to me... ~:)).
Steppe factions/HA: a steppe faction did cut a swathe across the world - Parthia. And I believe they really did have ridiculous armor... I know much less about them, but I gather the Saka also kicked serious butt in this period. Do horse archers have higher ranged attacks than the archers with the same bows (Scythian foot archers vs. Scythian horse archers, say)? I don't recall for certain from my Hai campaign back in 1.0, but I thought they had the same attack (5 or 6, can't recall which).
Thanks for reply....I maybe did go a bit nuts on the Steppe armor, its just that it can't be properly represented in the RTW world. FM generals already can take ridiculous amounts of damage, Samartian ones are just completely silly in any players hands. With all that armor, charging around should make the horses tire very quickly (far more than they do), and make them loose effectiveness.
I just took all HA ranged attacks down by 1, to make their equiv foot soldiers slightly better. (in my latest personal experiment ;))...
Re Parthia, ok they annihilated Rome at Carrhae, but its a bit of a myth about their dominance over Rome. From wiki:-
Quote:
The Battle of Carrhae was one of the first major battles between the Romans and Parthians. This battle also created the myth—both in Rome, Parthia, and today—that Rome's legions could not combat the Parthian army. This myth was not dispelled even when the Parthian capital was sacked twice. It was this belief that led Parthia to invade Syria and Armenia several times, usually unsuccessfully.
Parthia at its greatest extent :- http://americanhistory.si.edu/collec...ages/pamap.jpg
Yeah Ok, not bad, But I was thinking of this Steppe Empire http://chinggiskhanfound.com/images/...pire%20Map.jpg ;)
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Hoo boy. Its the mongols again. Yes, they had a large empire, but if you looked closer, you see that almost half of that empire is empty steppe. The gains in the Middle East and China are more impressive, but no real testaments to the mongols. The world at that time simply did not have an answer to horse archers, akin to trying to fight a helicopter gunship with assault rifles.
The mongols also lacked any real ability to govern the lands they conquered. There were not enough of them to keep the populace happy, nor were they especially good administrators. They simply slaughtered enough people to keep the rest at a low enough level and high enough fear to prevent rebellion. After Kublai Khan died, the empire quickly broke up into pieces, and disintegrated shortly afterwards. Only the vast imperialist domains of various European powers can be called great empires.
-
Re: AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zett
After all the Thorakitai Hoplitai are elites and you need a level 4 MIC to recruit them. Princeps are only medium infantery (available at level 2 MIC).
The Mod as far as I know didn't change the Thorakitai Hoplitai (ecxept removing the +4 attack bonus for spear attack). So the sword attack is the same as in vanilla EB.
If you fight against other Roman elites (such as Pedites Extraordinarii) you will see, that the Thorakitai Hoplitai are still a 'weak' elite unit.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
In my experience, the Roman infantry is a bit stronger than they "should be", if you look at their price and MIC from where they are available. I understand that its because of limitation of their recruitment zone and also because they really were tough as nails.
My mentioning of Thorakitai Hoplitai was because of concern if Koinon has some solid line unit, I know the attack of sword was not changed. And they are good, not very expensive and versatile (spear + ap sword). That they cannot be compared to such units as Pedites is obvious :yes:
It just surprised me, how they wiped floor with Hypaspists... Probably because of spear modification (-4 att for Hypaspists and they sadly have spear as primary weapon)
Rev
-
AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drewski
Did quite a bit of messing around with all the Steppe factions too (in my own game). Some of those generals/horse units have frankly ridiculous armor, so I toned them all down quite a bit. Also lowered the missile attack for most horse archers (a touch)..no-one in the world will ever convince me, that guys on horses with bows, are more accurate than guys with the same bows on foot. Its pure nonesense, but EB has that in it. And we all know that Horse Archer only armies are basically illegal ;).....don't remember any Steppe faction cutting a swathe across the world either....well not until around 1500 yrs later ;)
I agree, but all steppe lovers will kill you for that. You better take a fast horse and keep yourself hidden in Britain or something thats far away from the steppes.:laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Revenant
In my experience, the Romani infantry is a bit stronger than they "should be", if you look at their price and MIC from where they are available. I understand that its because of limitation of their recruitment zone and also because they really were tough as nails.
IMO Romans are with and without Drewski mod overpowered. But in vanilla EB it was in a way that was still ok. My main concern was, that this mod would make all sword factions (like Romani and the Celts) unbalanced. But was I heard so far, was that the balance is still ok. I mean, if the Lusotannan (a spear faction) are still able to take Gaul (sword and spear) then there is no problem for me (concerning the spear/sword balance, balance in general...we need a second spainfaction to balance the beige death).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Revenant
It just surprised me, how they wiped floor with Hypaspists... Probably because of spear modification (-4 att for Hypaspists and they sadly have spear as primary weapon)
That's interesting. Hypaspistai have sword as primary weapon and spear as secondary, Thorakitai Hoplitai have spear as primary and sword as secondary. And still they beat up Hypaspistai? Would be nice if someone could make some costume battle tests with Hypaspistai and Thorakitai Hoplitai.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A Very Super Market
Hoo boy. Its the mongols again. Yes, they had a large empire, but if you looked closer, you see that almost half of that empire is empty steppe. The gains in the Middle East and China are more impressive, but no real testaments to the mongols. The world at that time simply did not have an answer to horse archers, akin to trying to fight a helicopter gunship with assault rifles.
The mongols also lacked any real ability to govern the lands they conquered. There were not enough of them to keep the populace happy, nor were they especially good administrators. They simply slaughtered enough people to keep the rest at a low enough level and high enough fear to prevent rebellion. After Kublai Khan died, the empire quickly broke up into pieces, and disintegrated shortly afterwards. Only the vast imperialist domains of various European powers can be called great empires.
Quite true, but then Alexander's empire hardly even outlasted the man himself aswell...anyways, this isn't the place to argue about an empire that was 1 and 1/2 millenia laster than the time frame of EB ;)
Edit: Also, the amount of people in China in 1250AD outweighed the whole population of Europe, so I don't know how that's not an Empire? Damn, Im arguing again...must...stop ;)
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A Very Super Market
The world at that time simply did not have an answer to horse archers, akin to trying to fight a helicopter gunship with assault rifles.
Not true at all, many of the emipires destroyed by the mongols had been fighting HA armies for centuries by that point (eg the turkic invasions of the middle east, china) or had HA/heavy calvary based armies themselves (Khwarezmids).
What really made them successful was excellent tactics, disipline and above all mobility, the mongols armies could move at up to 100 miles a day, a figure probably not matched until modern times.
Sorry for contuning th argument btw.
Anyway back on topic: has anyone on the EB team ever given an answer concerning the spear stats question?
-
AW: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Slaists
No conclusive response from the development team has been expressed yet though.
I'm still waiting for some respones from the team. Alternatively we could post it in the bug thread and tease bovi with our question:laugh4:.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zett
That's interesting. Hypaspistai have sword as primary weapon and spear as secondary, Thorakitai Hoplitai have spear as primary and sword as secondary. And still they beat up Hypaspistai? Would be nice if someone could make some costume battle tests with Hypaspistai and Thorakitai Hoplitai.
That`s because non-phalanx infantry units with 2 melee weapons tend to switch to secondary arm durin melee. Thus hypaspistai were fighting mostly with spears and Thorakitai with ap swords. No wonder, that Th. hoplitai won. The above mechanics makes all sword@spear infantry (mainly elites) much weaker than it should be. They receive cavalry charges with swords, and melee other infantry with spears - exact opposite of what they should have been doing.
Spear as primary and sword as secondary works pretty well for the very same reasons.
-
AW: Re: AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Woreczko
Spear as primary and sword as secondary works pretty well for the very same reasons.
I think so too. Same goes for Massaliotai Hoplitai and the Indogreek Hoplites. How you already said, if a soldier is stoken down but not killed, he stands up and switch to secondary weapon. As human player you have to order the unit to attack again and again only to maintain the swordfight. Thorakitai Hoplitai are easier to use, if they are in melee with an infantery unit, only klick alt attack one time and they will fight with swords until you order something else.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zett
I think so too. Same goes for Massaliotai Hoplitai and the Indogreek Hoplites. How you already said, if a soldier is stoken down but not killed, he stands up and switch to secondary weapon. As human player you have to order the unit to attack again and again only to maintain the swordfight. Thorakitai Hoplitai are easier to use, if they are in melee with an infantery unit, only klick alt attack one time and they will fight with swords until you order something else.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
A very long time ago I asked for help trying to switch spear as primary and sword as secondary for those elites: sadly people answered that the only way to do this is to change the model of the unit with 3D Max or similar...
There are two possible solutions:
1) change EB units with similar units of other mods that have spear as primary and sword as secondary
2) remove the spear
I use the second option and I'm quite satisfied: they suffer charges but in melee they perform better than before.
BTW, have you considered the idea of linking the reduction to soldier's radius to morale, giving a lesser bonus to levies and a greater one to elites?
I'm using this system with success in the development of Paeninsula Italica mod...
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Yep, you need 3dmax to switch weapons. Unless you don`t care about the visuals - unit stats themselves can be easily swapped.
Personally I did, what you did - removed spears from said units. While celtic and germanic elites are ok that way, I feel hypaspistai-like infantry should be rather like classical hoplites, than swordsmen...oh, well.
Regarding spear units - I divided them into overhand, hoplite-like ones and underhand, anti-cavalry spearmen.
- First type has -4 attack, no light_spear attribute (no longer anti-cav) and 0.3 radius (except units, who naturally operate in loose formation, like ekdromoi)
- Second type has -4 attack. These are usually low-grade spear units (who aren`t expected to be good vs other infantry) or higher quality spear&sword infantry (who got swords for meleeing other inf.).
- All spears get lethality of 0.18
I changed a lot of lethality and attack values as well as distribution of "ap" attribute and numerous other things... so don`t expect above modifications to work flawlessly in vanilla EB. I thought of releasing a whole mod out of this, but i`m not sure yet.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
why change lethality values at all?
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
That`s a long story. As I said - I modified a lot of things, so 0.18 lethality of spears fits my version of EB well. Generally the outline is like this:
- spears have low to medium attack and 0.18 lethality. Overhand get a "density bonus", underhand are good vs. cavalry
- shortswords have medium attack values, low lethality (0.1-0.13) and are armour piercing (unless used by horsemen)
- longswords have high attack values and 0.2 lethality
- axes have low attack values and 0.25 lethality, no longer armour piercing.
- falcata, sica and other fancy sword-like weapons have very high attack values and medium lethality (0.16). No ap.
- 2-handed weapons got even higher lethality, than before, but lose the "ap" attribute.
The reasoning:
It was always strange to me, why best ap units (axemen, 2-handers) were found in areas, where heavy armour was pretty rare. Then I thought, why are heavy weapons ap? Sure, they are good vs. armour, but aren`t they even more deadly vs. unarmoured foes? It can be simulated IMHO better with high lethality or attack values, rather than ap attribute.
And that`s why, I gave "ap" attribute to weapons, who should be specifically efficient vs. armoured warriors. To soldiers, who are used to fighting opponents clad in linothrax or iron. Roman legionaries were an obvious choice, and so shortsword became an ap weapon in my version of EB.
I was also dissatisfied with unnaturaly high attack values of spearmen - so I lowered their attack and gave them higher lethality - spear is surely a deadly weapon. Then I thought - are hoplites indeed an anti-cavalry arm? Sure, they are not. They evolved in theatre dominated by infantry combat, and so are trained and equipped to fight infantry mainly. No reason for "light_spear" attribute. And thus came the division of spear-armed units into "general-purpose" short, overhand spears and anti-cavalry, longer spears, not-so-good vs. other foot soldiers.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Woreczko
That`s a long story. As I said - I modified a lot of things, so 0.18 lethality of spears fits my version of EB well. Generally the outline is like this:
- spears have low to medium attack and 0.18 lethality. Overhand get a "density bonus", underhand are good vs. cavalry
- shortswords have medium attack values, low lethality (0.1-0.13) and are armour piercing (unless used by horsemen)
- longswords have high attack values and 0.2 lethality
- axes have low attack values and 0.25 lethality, no longer armour piercing.
- falcata, sica and other fancy sword-like weapons have very high attack values and medium lethality (0.16). No ap.
- 2-handed weapons got even higher lethality, than before, but lose the "ap" attribute.
The reasoning:
It was always strange to me, why best ap units (axemen, 2-handers) were found in areas, where heavy armour was pretty rare. Then I thought, why are heavy weapons ap? Sure, they are good vs. armour, but aren`t they even more deadly vs. unarmoured foes? It can be simulated IMHO better with high lethality or attack values, rather than ap attribute.
And that`s why, I gave "ap" attribute to weapons, who should be specifically efficient vs. armoured warriors. To soldiers, who are used to fighting opponents clad in linothrax or iron. Roman legionaries were an obvious choice, and so shortsword became an ap weapon in my version of EB.
I was also dissatisfied with unnaturaly high attack values of spearmen - so I lowered their attack and gave them higher lethality - spear is surely a deadly weapon. Then I thought - are hoplites indeed an anti-cavalry arm? Sure, they are not. They evolved in theatre dominated by infantry combat, and so are trained and equipped to fight infantry mainly. No reason for "light_spear" attribute. And thus came the division of spear-armed units into "general-purpose" short, overhand spears and anti-cavalry, longer spears, not-so-good vs. other foot soldiers.
Sounds very interesting, like the ideas :)
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
To clarify, in my campaign the Lusos were reduced to NW Gaul well before this spear mod existed (big empire plus not a lot of playing time means rather slow progress, sadly...). So their presence there doesn't say anything meaningful about balance.
On the plus side, I noticed just before quitting last night that the Maks have displaced the Getai from their homelands. I find that impressive since the Makedonian armies I see lately are a few Phalangitai Deuteroi, a fair number of those Thracian levy spearmen, and an odd and unpredictable assortment of other troops (akontistai, or thracian peltasts, or lugoae, very rarely a rhomphaiaphoroi will pop up). Unless the AI started spamming rhomps a few turns ago, I find it very surprising that such a force could push the Getai around. Will send spies to see what's going on next time I play.
Drewski, that Parthia map you posted was what I was thinking of. I find that pretty impressive, both in absolute terms and especially considering their starting position in 272 BCE.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jhhowell
To clarify, in my campaign the Lusos were reduced to NW Gaul well before this spear mod existed (big empire plus not a lot of playing time means rather slow progress, sadly...). So their presence there doesn't say anything meaningful about balance.
On the plus side, I noticed just before quitting last night that the Maks have displaced the Getai from their homelands. I find that impressive since the Makedonian armies I see lately are a few Phalangitai Deuteroi, a fair number of those Thracian levy spearmen, and an odd and unpredictable assortment of other troops (akontistai, or thracian peltasts, or lugoae, very rarely a rhomphaiaphoroi will pop up). Unless the AI started spamming rhomps a few turns ago, I find it very surprising that such a force could push the Getai around. Will send spies to see what's going on next time I play.
Drewski, that Parthia map you posted was what I was thinking of. I find that pretty impressive, both in absolute terms and especially considering their starting position in 272 BCE.
On your first point, I've played enough campaigns to know that the RNG holds more sway over the campaign map, than any little tweaks I (or anyone else) can add...e.g. play 5 campaigns as Casse, where u dont really influence anything for 30 yrs or so ...and sometimes The Arverni rule France and The Lowlands, sometimes The Aeudil, sometimes the Sweboz, sometimes even The Romans.., most of the time, they are all still slugging it out..
Its MOSTLY down to the great RNG.
Second point, yep that really is quite an impressive Parthian map. Point one, Id just got my Northern Getai army completely Nuked by Samartian HA and was very pissed off, Point 2a, don't EVER code ANYTHING when u are pissed off ;)
Point 3, in the cold Light of Wednesday, I still reckon the whole steppe factions need a little rebalance--HA secondary attack is equal to Princepes primary (with MIC taken into consideration), for friks sake ...
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Woreczko
I changed a lot of lethality and attack values as well as distribution of "ap" attribute and numerous other things... I thought of releasing a whole mod out of this, but i`m not sure yet.
:laugh4: It seems like you just read my mind: the same thoughts occupied too much of my time in the last weeks... Maybe we can discuss about this through PMs and release a joint project...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Woreczko
And that`s why, I gave "ap" attribute to weapons, who should be specifically efficient vs. armoured warriors. To soldiers, who are used to fighting opponents clad in linothrax or iron. Roman legionaries were an obvious choice, and so shortsword became an ap weapon in my version of EB.
Well, actually until Romans fought Hellenistic kingdoms (vs. Phlilip V in 197 B.C. IIRC), heavily armored enemies were pretty rare, and however the broad point and blade of pre-Imperial Gladii don't suit well in an anti-armor role... I think your approach of raising the lethality of the most effective weapons should be more appropriate for the Gladium than the AP attribute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Woreczko
It was always strange to me, why best ap units (axemen, 2-handers) were found in areas, where heavy armour was pretty rare. Then I thought, why are heavy weapons ap? Sure, they are good vs. armour, but aren`t they even more deadly vs. unarmoured foes? It can be simulated IMHO better with high lethality or attack values, rather than ap attribute.
I totally agree:2thumbsup:
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aper
Well, actually until Romans fought Hellenistic kingdoms (vs. Phlilip V in 197 B.C. IIRC), heavily armored enemies were pretty rare, and however the broad point and blade of pre-Imperial Gladii don't suit well in an anti-armor role... I think your approach of raising the lethality of the most effective weapons should be more appropriate for the Gladium than the AP attribute.
I agree with you here. I think all of his changes make a lot of sense, but the gladius was effective because of the scutum. The Romans would hide behind that shield and thrust the gladius into the neck/face or slash the hamstring, not necessarily stab through armor.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Re: KH
@Zett in particular.
Playing a massive campaign as KH at the moment (with Spear changes). I have to agree that KH probably suffer the most. But I'm absolutely loving it. The KH get SO many other bonuses that say the Romans don't. Almost anywhere you conquer early on, has a least one mid level barracks you can instantly recruit from. And what a wonderful myriad of troops to choose from. Plus, you can get "super lance cavalry", which are the real killers, almost anywhere (with a lvl 2 home MIC), with a MUCH lower MIC than other factions' elite troops( and yes in my view they are extremly elite).
My plan (which worked nicely), was to run up through Makedonia, and into Tylis, making Tylis my sole LVL 4 Gov, and growing it as fast as possible. In 25 yrs from the start of game, I am churning out Elite Thracians every turn. 3 per 20 stack, and 3 Noble Cav, plus a good mix of heavy/light hoplites make an awesome army. I even started adding a 30 mnai stome thrower to each army. Yes that's incredibly expensive, but as the KH, you get so rich so fast, you can afford it, and it's so much more fun than the boring old Romani ;)
And then there's Syracusian hoplites, distinguished hoplites (both veritable tanks), and of course, home grown non merc Kretian Archers, and Rhodsian Slingers. What more could a leader want? Yes it's pretty hard in the early days (isn't it for most factions?), with 8 or 9 attack Levy Hoplites, but that's when your Generals earn their mettle. I haven't had a General actually fight in a battle for many a year now.
Took Dalminion and Syracuse, sat there for 15 yrs with mutual Romani borders (some kinda record) without them attacking, and when they finally did, it was with a 20 stack, almost all Pedites Extras, with a few cavalry plus 8 star general. I thought (gulp), here's the test, my Dalminion Army of mostly hoplites, a few illyrian spears, some Rhodes slingers, Kretan Archers, requistite Elite Thracian, wing Galatians Shordswords and lance cavalry absolutely massacred them. And the full stack right behind it.;)
My new favorite faction to be sure :)
Back on the post topic, giving all these guys 4 attack back, would make it so easy as to be almost pointless fighting..........
-
AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drewski
Re: KH
@Zett in particular.
Plus, you can get "super lance cavalry", which are the real killers, almost anywhere (with a lvl 2 home MIC)
Level 3 MIC if you mean these guys
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/u...ystophoroi.gif
Hippeis Xystophoroi (Greek Noble Cavalry)
After I thought a while about the +4 attack bonus I have to agree, that it is not necessary for KH. Nice to hear, that you like KH:laugh4:.
There is a additional point that speaks for KH, they have only one unit (if you leave the artillery out) that requires a level 5 MIC, Spartiatai Hoplitai (only recruitable in Sparte). All other "elite" units (Thorakitai, Thorakitai Hopitai, Epilektoi Hoplitai, Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai) only need a level 4 MIC.
And back to the Hippeis Xystophoroi, if you compare them with their counterparts, they are mostly slightly inferior, but you can recruit them (how you already said) nearly everywhere and you only need a level 3 MIC.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
-
Re: AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zett
Level 3 MIC if you mean these guys
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/u...ystophoroi.gif
Hippeis Xystophoroi (Greek Noble Cavalry)
After I thought a while about the +4 attack bonus I have to agree, that it is not necessary for KH. Nice to hear, that you like KH:laugh4:.
There is a additional point that speaks for KH, they have only one unit (if you leave the artillery out) that requires a level 5 MIC, Spartiatai Hoplitai (only recruitable in Sparte). All other "elite" units (Thorakitai, Thorakitai Hopitai, Epilektoi Hoplitai, Koinon Hellenon Phalangitai) only need a level 4 MIC.
And back to the Hippeis Xystophoroi, if you compare them with their counterparts, they are mostly slightly inferior, but you can recruit them (how you already said) nearly everywhere and you only need a level 3 MIC.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam
Didn't notice it was only a Lvl 3 GVT to recruit Xyst's ...excellent news !
I checked the files to make sure I had the right province to recruit Elite Thracians (as in Tylis), but I've put a self imposed ban on checking recruitment viewer and code for a while, it's good to get surprises still :laugh4:
Btw, excuse my mix of modern and ancient names for places and units, its part how I best remember them, and part lazyness ;).........now if only my PC would finish defragging my hard drive...I've been waiting almost 4 HOURS NOW and want to get back to the campaign....:lam:
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Woreczko
That`s a long story. As I said - I modified a lot of things, so 0.18 lethality of spears fits my version of EB well. Generally the outline is like this:
- spears have low to medium attack and 0.18 lethality. Overhand get a "density bonus", underhand are good vs. cavalry
- shortswords have medium attack values, low lethality (0.1-0.13) and are armour piercing (unless used by horsemen)
- longswords have high attack values and 0.2 lethality
- axes have low attack values and 0.25 lethality, no longer armour piercing.
- falcata, sica and other fancy sword-like weapons have very high attack values and medium lethality (0.16). No ap.
- 2-handed weapons got even higher lethality, than before, but lose the "ap" attribute.
The reasoning:
It was always strange to me, why best ap units (axemen, 2-handers) were found in areas, where heavy armour was pretty rare. Then I thought, why are heavy weapons ap? Sure, they are good vs. armour, but aren`t they even more deadly vs. unarmoured foes? It can be simulated IMHO better with high lethality or attack values, rather than ap attribute.
And that`s why, I gave "ap" attribute to weapons, who should be specifically efficient vs. armoured warriors. To soldiers, who are used to fighting opponents clad in linothrax or iron. Roman legionaries were an obvious choice, and so shortsword became an ap weapon in my version of EB.
.
Mmh... Maybe it balances the game better, but I disagree to your reasoning.
It is unimportant if you use a huge Axe or a short sword against an enemy wearing no armour, but you get a big advantage against heavily armoured people, if you use a big Axe, sword or somehting. It just has to do with the kinetic energy you get from using a heavy weapon. It is much easier to fight with a short sword, because it is small and light. It would be more logical to give shortsword fighters a high atack skill and no armour pircing and the 2 Hand weapons and maybe longswords the AP skill, low atack skill and high lethality.
If you dont believe me, go to the forest and try to pierce through hard wood with a dagger and then with a giant axe. It simply has more impact on hard materials.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Well, after a conversation via PMs with Aper I revised my modded EB. Shortswords are no longer AP, just have the highest attack value (just like in vanilla EB).
However we are both staunchly against axes and 2-handers having an ap attribute. In RTW AP+high lethality = overkill. In EB, armour is relatively high, while differences between stats like attack or defense skill are relatively small. So... AP practically eliminates the need for a high attack value. E.g. you get +5 attack bonus vs. Thureophoroi; +7 vs hypaspistai. At the same time said elite hypaspistai have just 4 points of attack more than yer anatolian hilly-billy hillmen and exactly the same defense skill. If both units get tired, than their skills go down, but massive +7 bonus due to AP remains.
High attack + low lethality is comparably good in a head-on or even a loosing fight. Your soldiers may hit the enemy , despite them having all of their defense working against you. It`s also comparably poor, for attacking in favorable conditions, as your soldiers, despite hitting the enemy even more often, have a low chance, to actually kill them.
Low attack + high lethality is good in favorable conditions. Because of various factors (flank attack, enemy being tired, etc.) you soldiers, despite low attack will hit often enough. And, when they hit, they have a good chance to kill. However, in "fair fight" they may have problems hitting the enemy often enough, for their high lethality to make a difference.
This = balanced. However AP, which often takes away a good chunk of enemy`s defense (and unarmoured units having a low defense overall) combined with high lethality = high chance to hit + high chance to kill.... you get the picture.
Quote:
If you dont believe me, go to the forest and try to pierce through hard wood with a dagger and then with a giant axe. It simply has more impact on hard materials.
"Giant axe" simply can simply accumulate much more kinetic energy, due to it`s weight and (im)balance. It posses absolutely no advantage over dagger, when it comes to using this energy to penetrate things.
Moreover, a typical fighting axe is a rather light weapon, often no heavier, than a sword. It`s just, that most of it`s weight is concentrated at it`s end - so it can strike harder and is more unwieldly at the same time.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Sorry to intrude upon this discussion, but I am wondering if there was a modded EDU that balanced the light spears for multiplayer. I accidentally applied the mod to the mp backup and while the light spears are now balanced, the troop selection in custom battle consists mostly of mercenaries and not native troops.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frontline1944
Sorry to intrude upon this discussion, but I am wondering if there was a modded EDU that balanced the light spears for multiplayer. I accidentally applied the mod to the mp backup and while the light spears are now balanced, the troop selection in custom battle consists mostly of mercenaries and not native troops.
I didn't do one for MP sorry....
If you need the original EB 1.2 mp game edu backup, here it is Attachment 77
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Oh, thanks a lot, mate. I'll take the time to apply your changes to the mp edu and upload it when I have time.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
hi, ive tried downloading this file but everytime i go to unpack it, it says file is corrupt and is empty??? any ideas??
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
I playing now for e few weeks with Drewsky´s EDU,and i think that the balance is just right now..
And the AI balance is the same as it was before.The romans are still slowly,even now that they have an advantage.
Drewsky did you cahange the HA stats?
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamee
hi, ive tried downloading this file but everytime i go to unpack it, it says file is corrupt and is empty??? any ideas??
I just downloaded the file from this thread, and it unzipped fine. Sorry don't know what happened for you if you keep getting the same error.
Here's the same file again, maybe try downloading this one Attachment 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aurgelmir
I playing now for e few weeks with Drewsky´s EDU,and i think that the balance is just right now..
And the AI balance is the same as it was before.The romans are still slowly,even now that they have an advantage.
Drewsky did you cahange the HA stats?
Glad you like it :) Now I've had plenty of time to try out various nations with it (Rome, KH, Epiros, Casse, Getai), I too think the battles really are balanced properly now. No problems here either with ai expansion patterns, I don't think the changes make that much of a difference, to the way ai auto-resolve battles are calculated.
NO the file in this thread DOES NOT change Horse Archer stats at all. (just to clarify). I'm still personally tinkering a little with those in my own games.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
I have also done some tinkering with the edu.
I gave all light_spear units an attack of 11, the result has been surprisingly no spamming of low end levees with more elites in armies. against aedui and arverni as romani I was fighting more gaesatae then expected, Epeiros have phalangites with lots of chevrons very tough to face :wall: triarii and principes are no longer that superior then other units, and hastatii are actually more useful making battles far more interesting for and against romani.
I currently have a Seleukid campaign where I am not steamrolling into Egypt against Ptolies with Pezhetairoi and ranged support. it's been back and forth for a while, and I'm looking forward to fighting other factions besides Pahlava whose bodyguard are now very very tough in melee.
One thing I like with the 11 attack is that cavalry now do not die like flies when the AI tries to out flank me and have been more successful causing mass routs instead of getting chopped up and getting routed with the rest of the AI army wavering, so a little less micro managing for the player also. :2thumbsup:
But I'm not entirely clear on the benefits of some of the other changes you have made compared to vanilla EB, I've also gotten bogged down with the lower radius for units in terms of assigning appropriate values without turning units into tanks. but one thing for sure, with the 11 attack there does not seem any away to fight battles with time limits, battles run much longer. :dizzy2:
how are the battles with your changes? what else can you share with your observations from your changes? I certainly like were these changes are going while we wait for EBII!
also, I want to eventually incorporate the lower radius but with RL :juggle2: don't have enough time to test and tinker
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PraetorFigus
I have also done some tinkering with the edu.
I gave all light_spear units an attack of 11, the result has been surprisingly no spamming of low end levees with more elites in armies. against aedui and arverni as romani I was fighting more gaesatae then expected, Epeiros have phalangites with lots of chevrons very tough to face :wall: triarii and principes are no longer that superior then other units, and hastatii are actually more useful making battles far more interesting for and against romani.
I currently have a Seleukid campaign where I am not steamrolling into Egypt against Ptolies with Pezhetairoi and ranged support. it's been back and forth for a while, and I'm looking forward to fighting other factions besides Pahlava whose bodyguard are now very very tough in melee.
One thing I like with the 11 attack is that cavalry now do not die like flies when the AI tries to out flank me and have been more successful causing mass routs instead of getting chopped up and getting routed with the rest of the AI army wavering, so a little less micro managing for the player also. :2thumbsup:
But I'm not entirely clear on the benefits of some of the other changes you have made compared to vanilla EB, I've also gotten bogged down with the lower radius for units in terms of assigning appropriate values without turning units into tanks. but one thing for sure, with the 11 attack there does not seem any away to fight battles with time limits, battles run much longer. :dizzy2:
how are the battles with your changes? what else can you share with your observations from your changes? I certainly like were these changes are going while we wait for EBII!
also, I want to eventually incorporate the lower radius but with RL :juggle2: don't have enough time to test and tinker
The only thing I changed was removing 4 attack from all Light_Spear Units, which also includes all Phalanx units. I didn't alter the radaii at all (assuming you were addressing me that is ;))
Sorry, but I don't like the idea of making ALL light_spear 11 attack. Why bother recruting the better units if you do this? If you just take 4 attack away, then spear units go from (I think) 8-16 basic attack, which still makes sense.
I found it tough at the start in a KH campaign, but then Levy Hoplites really shouldn't be anything but emergency battlefield troops. Vanilla EB 1.2 gives them 12 attack, which is to my mind quite ridiculous, when taken into account that's more than a pretty decent sword or axe unit.
As I said above, I personally find battles a lot more realistic. Spear on spear is exactly the same balance as before, high lvl sword/axe units perform better vs mid/low spears, but then they should.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
i think i have got it to work,well i hope so.. but when i was trying to unzip it, it kept giving me this error message,--unsupported compression method for export_descr_unit txt-- and it kept saying the title was broken... baffled me it did.. but with perserverance,i somehow managed to do it.. (i think)..
anyway,it does seem like a good thing to have.. good work.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamee
i think i have got it to work,well i hope so.. but when i was trying to unzip it, it kept giving me this error message,--unsupported compression method for export_descr_unit txt-- and it kept saying the title was broken... baffled me it did.. but with perserverance,i somehow managed to do it.. (i think)..
anyway,it does seem like a good thing to have.. good work.
Which unzip prog were you using to get those messages?
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamee
winrar and z-zip...
Very strange. I use winrar too. Oh well, glad you finally got it to work ~:thumb:
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PraetorFigus
I have also done some tinkering with the edu.
I gave all light_spear units an attack of 11, the result has been surprisingly no spamming of low end levees with more elites in armies. against aedui and arverni as romani I was fighting more gaesatae then expected, Epeiros have phalangites with lots of chevrons very tough to face :wall: triarii and principes are no longer that superior then other units, and hastatii are actually more useful making battles far more interesting for and against romani.
I currently have a Seleukid campaign where I am not steamrolling into Egypt against Ptolies with Pezhetairoi and ranged support. it's been back and forth for a while, and I'm looking forward to fighting other factions besides Pahlava whose bodyguard are now very very tough in melee.
One thing I like with the 11 attack is that cavalry now do not die like flies when the AI tries to out flank me and have been more successful causing mass routs instead of getting chopped up and getting routed with the rest of the AI army wavering, so a little less micro managing for the player also. :2thumbsup:
But I'm not entirely clear on the benefits of some of the other changes you have made compared to vanilla EB, I've also gotten bogged down with the lower radius for units in terms of assigning appropriate values without turning units into tanks. but one thing for sure, with the 11 attack there does not seem any away to fight battles with time limits, battles run much longer. :dizzy2:
how are the battles with your changes? what else can you share with your observations from your changes? I certainly like were these changes are going while we wait for EBII!
also, I want to eventually incorporate the lower radius but with RL :juggle2: don't have enough time to test and tinker
you made all spear units have 11 attack? what the hell is the point of that?:thumbsdown:
with no distinction for skill or training or anything, you've taken out much of the diversity between units. am i missing something?
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
drewski how would i be able to find out if i have got it working ok?? where would i be able to see the changes made? also, how do you get your units to use their secondery weapon,ie swords instead of the spear/ or do they just do it automaticly?? cheers
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mcantu
you made all spear units have 11 attack? what the hell is the point of that?:thumbsdown:
with no distinction for skill or training or anything, you've taken out much of the diversity between units. am i missing something?
Yes, I was testing unit recruitment to see how much the AI values attack rating and how much influence armor, shields and defense affects spearmen.
I understood that -4 would put weak levees at a huge disadvantage against other units and I have found that most phalanxes are still very effective with 11 attack, (not enough time for me to test everything right now:juggle2:).
There are also factors of lethality, overall defense rating (and the three individual ones), moral and training and then number of officers and units 162 versus 160 versus 200 or 202 as a few examples. Also spear heavy factions such as the Lusotannan are not as such a disadvantage.
In my tests I only altered units classified as spearmen with the light_spear attribute. what I want to see is how to better control for the other factors to eventually test with an adjusted radius.
I guess I should have explained more in my earlier post.
Just have to keep plugging away :smash:
I hope this provides better insight into what I am testing with the 11 attack rating.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drewski
The only thing I changed was removing 4 attack from all Light_Spear Units, which also includes all Phalanx units. I didn't alter the radaii at all (assuming you were addressing me that is ;))
Sorry, but I don't like the idea of making ALL light_spear 11 attack. Why bother recruting the better units if you do this? If you just take 4 attack away, then spear units go from (I think) 8-16 basic attack, which still makes sense.
I found it tough at the start in a KH campaign, but then Levy Hoplites really shouldn't be anything but emergency battlefield troops. Vanilla EB 1.2 gives them 12 attack, which is to my mind quite ridiculous, when taken into account that's more than a pretty decent sword or axe unit.
As I said above, I personally find battles a lot more realistic. Spear on spear is exactly the same balance as before, high lvl sword/axe units perform better vs mid/low spears, but then they should.
With the attack rating, no prob, I'm still testing other things out as well. When I made the changes I was also intrested in seeing how early ai progression goes and ai army compositions.
Better units also have other things going for them with there other attributes. What I'm not clear on is how some attributes like AP could be reassigned and on what basis, since experience also influences attack rating and defense skill.
But I agree that there is an unnecessary bonus of +4 for spearmen because of the previous use of the spear attribute in vanilla EB. :2thumbsup:
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PraetorFigus
With the attack rating, no prob, I'm still testing other things out as well. When I made the changes I was also intrested in seeing how early ai progression goes and ai army compositions.
Better units also have other things going for them with there other attributes. What I'm not clear on is how some attributes like AP could be reassigned and on what basis, since experience also influences attack rating and defense skill.
But I agree that there is an unnecessary bonus of +4 for spearmen because of the previous use of the spear attribute in vanilla EB. :2thumbsup:
Glad we agree on the last point :beam:
All I can really add, is good luck with the rest of your testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamee
drewski how would i be able to find out if i have got it working ok?? where would i be able to see the changes made? also, how do you get your units to use their secondery weapon,ie swords instead of the spear/ or do they just do it automaticly?? cheers
Easiest way to check, is just look at any spear unit card within the game itself...(Hoplitai, Triarii, Celtic Spearman, any will do).. If it's attack is 4 less than you are used to, then it's working.
To get them to use their secondary weapon, just hold ALT + Right Click on the enemy. Also, some units will switch weapons automatically in certain circumstances.
-
Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aper
A very long time ago I asked for help trying to switch spear as primary and sword as secondary for those elites: sadly people answered that the only way to do this is to change the model of the unit with 3D Max or similar......
No... you can make even Roman phalangitai with just the exp descr unit :book:
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
You can switch sword and spear in the EDU, but the unit would still look like using swords, even if these swords have all properties of a spear.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Yeah why does a unit have probs with the second weapon and others not?
I always asked myself...
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Woreczko
You can switch sword and spear in the EDU, but the unit would still look like using swords, even if these swords have all properties of a spear.
you have to change the animation used in the DMB
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aurgelmir
Yeah why does a unit have probs with the second weapon and others not?
I always asked myself...
there are only problems when the unit uses an overhand spear animation
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mcantu
you have to change the animation used in the DMB
I did, but it was not enough: there's a problem of model/skin/dunno...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seienchin
No... you can make even Roman phalangitai with just the exp descr unit :book:
From Eastern Auxilia, sure; from other units, how? thx
BTW I was speaking about Soldurii/Hypaspistai-like units, and about how to make the spear their primary and the sword their secondary: I don't see how phalangitai entered in the discussion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mcantu
there are only problems when the unit uses an overhand spear animation
but WHAT exactly are these problems? It seems that nobody can/want to aswer this question...
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Regarding the original topic of the thread, while I'm not entirely familiar with the original testing that was done to determine it the consensus among the folks who've SRSLY investigated the murky inner workings of the EDU and the battle engine seems to be that there's a 4-point penalty on something for units unig the "spear" and "light_spear" weapon attributes.
And I know that when I rather extensively tested the two - to see which one would work better as the standard spear-unit attribute - there was a clear difference (all other things being equal, natch) between how those two behaved.
Anyways, in general "light_spear" with the +4 compensation seems to work well enough overall.
As for the "swords beat spears", bollocks. They don't. Except maybe at point-blank quarters where a shorter weapon has an advantage, but in general there's some *very* good reasons why the spear has been the primary infantry weapon par excellence the world over and throughout the ages - among other things it's *very* effective in massed formations, and even in individual combat easily rivals a sword in properly trained hands.
Usually, the fighting-spear was the primary initial weapon; the sword or whatever was drawn once the combat moved into close quarters, or the spear-shaft broke.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Watchman
Regarding the original topic of the thread, while I'm not entirely familiar with the original testing that was done to determine it the consensus among the folks who've SRSLY investigated the murky inner workings of the EDU and the battle engine seems to be that there's a 4-point penalty on something for units unig the "spear" and "light_spear" weapon attributes.
Yes its been documented in this thread and otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Watchman
And I know that when I rather extensively tested the two - to see which one would work better as the standard spear-unit attribute - there was a clear difference (all other things being equal, natch) between how those two behaved.
Anyways, in general "light_spear" with the +4 compensation seems to work well enough overall.
Why compensate something that absolutely doesn't need or warrant it? To make levy spears killing machines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Watchman
As for the "swords beat spears", bollocks. They don't. Except maybe at point-blank quarters where a shorter weapon has an advantage, but in general there's some *very* good reasons why the spear has been the primary infantry weapon par excellence the world over and throughout the ages - among other things it's *very* effective in massed formations, and even in individual combat easily rivals a sword in properly trained hands.
Usually, the fighting-spear was the primary initial weapon; the sword or whatever was drawn once the combat moved into close quarters, or the spear-shaft broke.
The reason spears were so popular...they are very easy to make, and were therefore common place. So being the "standard" weapon of mass manufacture, soldiers of course became proficient with them, and tactics developed around the spear. A good sword /axe takes far more manufacture and is (probably) more difficult to become proficient fighting with. Its also far more lethal than a spear.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drewski
The reason spears were so popular...they are very easy to make, and were therefore common place. So being the "standard" weapon of mass manufacture, soldiers of course became proficient with them, and tactics developed around the spear. A good sword /axe takes far more manufacture and is (probably) more difficult to become proficient fighting with. Its also far more lethal than a spear.
Well in terms of manufacturing arms, I can understand how there is more work in swords then spears, but axes could be considered easier then the other two.
The Sarissa and Xyston (hope I spelled them right :sweatdrop:) are not that easy to make though, but I have no idea about spears from other peoples though.
What I wonder is about phalangites, now were they really skewering machines as they are with the high attack values they have in the RTW engine or were they more pinning forces for flanking with assault forces, cavalry and heavy infantry for example?
I've played as Macedon, KH and Seleucids with the -4 attack and seemed fine with fighting battles. Phalangites still get lots of chevrons! I've done different tests with the attack rating for spearmen with the light_spear attribute and I certainly like what I see.
For pseudo-phalanx units I can see keeping their attack values as is in vanilla EB because of how other changes like adjusting unit radius affects other things as well. Watchman, what do you think?
Cheers:2thumbsup:
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PraetorFigus
Well in terms of manufacturing arms, I can understand how there is more work in swords then spears, but axes could be considered easier then the other two.......
Your right, I was thinking more of the "falx" type axe. Should have said so ;)
On a side note, I've been reliably informed, that all phalanx units have their base shield value doubled
. Since all phalanx units in EB have 5 base shield, that gives them 10 shield plus their armor. No wonder they are missile proof!
On this basis, I edited all phalanx units to give them 2 shield for basic phalanx and 3 shield for elites (4 and 6 in actual play). The phalanxes are still pretty bullet proof, but they occasionally take the odd missile hit pre melee. In about 75 + hours of play testing, I'm liking the results better..:beam:
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drewski
Why compensate something that absolutely doesn't need or warrant it? To make levy spears killing machines?
I fail to see where levy spears are killing machines. Though you may want to be careful with cavalry around even such low-end spearmen, which is quite realistic.
The compensation is there to make spears appropriately lethal in infantry-to-infantry combat, more on which below.
Quote:
The reason spears were so popular...they are very easy to make, and were therefore common place. So being the "standard" weapon of mass manufacture, soldiers of course became proficient with them, and tactics developed around the spear.
Yeah well, obviously. A spear is pretty much a knife on a stick. Plus, in many societies they had ready use as hunting tools (much like axes had any number of utility functions)...
Feel free to try to explain why also wealthy, well-equipped warriors such as Greek Hoplites, "barbarian" warrior elites, Persian warrior-nobles etc. then were such universal afficiandos of long pointy sticks and carried swords, axes etc. primarily as backup sidearms and for combat at ranges too short for a spear ?
Quote:
A good sword /axe takes far more manufacture and is (probably) more difficult to become proficient fighting with.
An axe, hardly. There's not much more metalwork involved, actually, and great many of the people who carried one as a weapon were practised in wielding it as an everyday tool.
A sword, conditionally. Short swords - the line between one of those and a large knife or dagger is often blurry indeed - weren't too difficult to make and hence were cheap and common enough. The larger kinds of spearheads tended to readily rival them in size, actually. Longer blades get exponentially more difficult to make, however, and were duly that much more expensive and prestigious weapons; I've occasionally seen it suggested that the same is true for concave-curved "sabres" like the falcata/kopis/machaira family, too.
Beats me what you base the argument about difficulty on; becoming a genuinely effective fighter with any weapon demands skill and hence, training, but spears have the real advantage they're incredibly well suited for close-order massed infantry formations - a good instructor can turn complete novices into a credible if not very reliable battlefield presence in a matter of days.
Should tell something that even elite warriors tended to have them as their primary weapons, though.
Quote:
Its also far more lethal than a spear.
Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.
I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes...
Quote:
Your right, I was thinking more of the "falx" type axe. Should have said so ;)
The falx isn't an axe. Not even close. It's really more or less a cheaper "staff-weapon" version of the Thracian rhomphaia, which was very much a kind of sword.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Watchman
I fail to see where levy spears are killing machines. Though you may want to be careful with cavalry around even such low-end spearmen, which is quite realistic.
The compensation is there to make spears appropriately lethal in infantry-to-infantry combat, more on which below.
Yeah well, obviously. A spear is pretty much a knife on a stick. Plus, in many societies they had ready use as hunting tools (much like axes had any number of utility functions)...
Feel free to try to explain why also wealthy, well-equipped warriors such as Greek Hoplites, "barbarian" warrior elites, Persian warrior-nobles etc. then were such universal afficiandos of long pointy sticks and carried swords, axes etc. primarily as backup sidearms and for combat at ranges too short for a spear ?
An axe, hardly. There's not much more metalwork involved, actually, and great many of the people who carried one as a weapon were practised in wielding it as an everyday tool.
A sword, conditionally. Short swords - the line between one of those and a large knife or dagger is often blurry indeed - weren't too difficult to make and hence were cheap and common enough. The larger kinds of spearheads tended to readily rival them in size, actually. Longer blades get exponentially more difficult to make, however, and were duly that much more expensive and prestigious weapons; I've occasionally seen it suggested that the same is true for concave-curved "sabres" like the falcata/kopis/machaira family, too.
Beats me what you base the argument about difficulty on; becoming a genuinely effective fighter with any weapon demands skill and hence, training, but spears have the real advantage they're incredibly well suited for close-order massed infantry formations - a good instructor can turn complete novices into a credible if not very reliable battlefield presence in a matter of days.
Should tell something that even elite warriors tended to have them as their primary weapons, though.
Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.
I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes...
The falx isn't an axe. Not even close. It's really more or less a cheaper "staff-weapon" version of the Thracian rhomphaia, which was very much a kind of sword.
There's a lot here. Some true, a lot speculation, some just plainly wrong and misinformed. I don't want another complicated internet arguement, just haven't the time or inclination ;)
At least I/We know where the +4 phantom attack comes from. Its just your opinion, mine differs. Let's leave it at that.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
"Some true, a lot speculation, some just plainly wrong and misinformed" aren't exactly the words to amiably part ways from a discussion with, you know.
:stare:
The last two, in particular, sit firmly in the "back up or get out" category.
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Sigh:- ok
Falx, I don't know why I said were axes, they were the first two handed "chopping" weapon that came to mind (had a long few days). They are not axes, but then they are not really swords either. More a spear/sword amalgam. I was wrong.
Quote:
I'd also suggest you spend a moment pondering why bears, boars and elks alike were hunted primarily with spears, not sword or axes...
Well there's no big secret here. Its because 1) again ease of manufacture and in the greater part 2) So that said hunting can be done from a distance of (relative) safety. To get close enough to kill a bear with a sword, means that the bear is close enough to also dismember the wielder with a huge paw swipe.
Quote:
Nonsense.
What part of getting a pointy piece of metal atop a wooden shaft shoved into your squishy inner organs, from a distance that simply cannot be matched by any other single-handed infantry weapon to boot, are you claiming is "less lethal" than having the selfsame organs compromised by a pointy or sharp piece of metal at closer quarters ?
Spears may not be able to shear off random extremities the way things with proper cutting edges can (although I'm given to understand a quick "tip slash" can do wonders to someone's neck arteries...), but they kill stuff as dead as anything else when poked into someone's guts.
Nonesense? Learn to reply politely if you will..;)
Yes of course having a spear thrust into the abdomen can be lethal, but then so can having a steak knife. The point was about general lethality in battle of a weapon. In Greek "hoplite type" fighting, many, many battles resulted in tiny amounts of casualties, often less than 5% for the losing side. A spear can only generally be used to thrust (hoplite type spears). In close combat, a sword (lets say Gladius), despite being designed for thrusting at the enemy from behind the protection of the shield, all types of gladius appear to have been suitable for slashing and chopping motions. Also, a sword is more effective in parrying or deflecting blows. A 2m long spear is great at a distance, and in a tight formation, but the tight formation and the relative unwieldyness of the spear are telling in close combat.
Quote:
Stabbing was a very efficient technique, as stabbing wounds, especially in the abdominal area, were almost always deadly. However, the gladius in some circumstances was used for cutting or slashing, as is indicated by Livy's account of the Macedonian Wars, wherein the Macedonian soldiers were horrified to see dismembered bodies.
Though the primary infantry attack was thrusting at stomach height, they were trained to take any advantage, such as slashing at kneecaps beneath the shield wall.
Yes, there can be really only one form of "lethal", as a fatal car crash is only as fatal as a fatal plane crash. General versatality, in causing fatalities is what Im really referring too, and for that I still insist the sword wins out over the spear.
Nobles and Elites carrying spears? I won't deny that they did. Why? Can't honestly say I'm sure. Partly tradition, partly because it was easier to fight an enemy similarly equipped in a "mutually assured minimal casualties way" (see hoplites comment), partly through a lack of high quality swords (speculation on my part).
Spears then in general for the same reason as killing a bear. Because it can be done at greater range and more safely, plus totally agreed, they work excellently well in a close tight formation. But then why should anyone attack from the front, as the Romans proved. Just go around the sides, engage in close range sword combat and negate the spear wall. Then the sword wins out. THAT's why CA put the spear / light_spear penalties vs Infantry in the first place.
So, ok let's not get off on a bad footing then Watchman, and agree to politely differ :yes:
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drewski
Well there's no big secret here. Its because 1) again ease of manufacture and in the greater part 2) So that said hunting can be done from a distance of (relative) safety. To get close enough to kill a bear with a sword, means that the bear is close enough to also dismember the wielder with a huge paw swipe.
For the record, hunting large game was long also the favourite pasttime of the aristocracy who, obviously, had no particular money problems.
You are correct on the distance thing, obviously. Which should also tell you rather a bit of why spears were so popular for killing humans too - as infantry close-combat weapons go, their killing reach is flat out unmatched. (That many types can also be thrown if necessary, hopefully killing the foeman that much further away or at least encumbering his shield with a spear now transfixed in it, didn't hurt...)
Another factor, which you either ignore or are ignorant of, is the actual ability to *kill* said animals, which have thick hides, strong bones and lots of muscle over their internal organs (which you need to reach to take the critter down). Trying to cut through such a barrier is, obviously, not a very sensible proposition; driving a sharp point through works much better. A somewhat extreme version would be the massive all-metal harpoons whalers used to punch through the thick hide and deep layer of blubber of their prey...
Humans, being rather more fragile and less well-protected organisms, obviously go down rather easier.
Oh, and as you may already have deduced from the above, spears, like dedicated thrusting swords, are pretty good at going through armour too. Force concentrated behind a narrow point and all that.
Quote:
Nonesense? Learn to reply politely if you will..;)
"Nonsense" is my polite reply when confronted with obvious nonsense. The impolite ones tend to net me warnings from moderators for excessive causticity...
Quote:
Yes of course having a spear thrust into the abdomen can be lethal, but then so can having a steak knife. The point was about general lethality in battle of a weapon.
Just FYI, but daggers were what in many contexts often actually killed the heavier armoured warriors... it's comparatively easy to shove them through visors and other gaps at grappling ranges. Obviously daggers lack reach, which as mentioned before ceases being a problem when you stick it atop several meters of stout wood...
'Course, then you'll lose the pinpoint-accuracy benefit but, well, can't have everything. (Which is why daggers or fighting-knives were a pretty universal warrior accessory, whatever the primary weapons load was. It's not like they cost or weighed much, anyway.)
Quote:
In Greek "hoplite type" fighting, many, many battles resulted in tiny amounts of casualties, often less than 5% for the losing side.
That's because the hoplites sucked at pursuit of broken enemies, which was ever the primary source of battle casualties - it being somewhat difficult to kill someone armed who's actively resisting, period. The aim of the actual combat was putting the enemy decisively to flight; his wholesale destruction, if it was to be achieved, had to happen through the ensuing pursuit, or trapping the enemy force so that it could not escape.
This has crap all to do with weapons - plus hoplites tended to find themselves resorting to their swords sooner or later anyway, on account of broken spear-shafts and/or formations or simply too close quarters for the doru to be effective; this did not meaningfully affect the casualty rates.
Quote:
A spear can only generally be used to thrust (hoplite type spears).
No, really ?
Quote:
In close combat, a sword (lets say Gladius), despite being designed for thrusting at the enemy from behind the protection of the shield, all types of gladius appear to have been suitable for slashing and chopping motions. Also, a sword is more effective in parrying or deflecting blows.
This is true, but rather irrelevant - as it is really just explaining why swords have been so popular overall. They're versatile, fairly agile, and - an important enough consideration - easy to carry around.
Quote:
A 2m long spear is great at a distance, and in a tight formation, but the tight formation and the relative unwieldyness of the spear are telling in close combat.
...which is, obviously, why people switched to shorter weapons if the foeman got past the spear - or spears, since in close order at least the first two ranks could engage thanks to the sheer lenght and reach of the things.
'Course, there's nothing in particular keeping you from simply making a very short spear, in effect a poor man's stabbing sword, if you're so inclined... the Zulu iklwa being probably the major example. Very effective too, by all accounts.
Quote:
Yes, there can be really only one form of "lethal", as a fatal car crash is only as fatal as a fatal plane crash. General versatality, in causing fatalities is what Im really referring too, and for that I still insist the sword wins out over the spear.
Dead is dead. (Well, in most cases the stricken foeman would actually only be incapaciated or unconscious and die of his wounds later, but this difference is obviously irrelevant insofar as his further contribution to fighting goes...) And while the sword may well indeed be more versatile as such, OTOH it simply cannot match the sheer killing reach of a thrust from a long spear.
And getting poked with either kills you dead just the same; your organs certainly don't particularly care whether the pointy thing perforating them is mounted on a grip or a stick, they stop working anyway...
Quote:
Nobles and Elites carrying spears? I won't deny that they did. Why? Can't honestly say I'm sure. Partly tradition, partly because it was easier to fight an enemy similarly equipped in a "mutually assured minimal casualties way" (see hoplites comment), partly through a lack of high quality swords (speculation on my part).
---
Spears then in general for the same reason as killing a bear. Because it can be done at greater range and more safely, plus totally agreed, they work excellently well in a close tight formation.
Entering Dissonance City, population one here...
And you had the gall to call "a lot speculation, some just plainly wrong and misinformed" on me ?
Dude, you've yourself already repeatedly admitted to the tactical usefulness of the spear particularly in close-order mass combat. It really should not require any further elaboration as to why even senior warriors who had no trouble at all affording literally cutting-edge war gear so commonly elected to carry a spear as their primary weapon... theirs just duly tended to be of extremely high quality and pimped out six ways to Sunday with whatever motifs the culture's weaponsmiths now liked to decorate spearheads with.
And as already mentioned the relatively low casualties of hoplite warfare came from their lousy pursuit abilities, not from any details of armament or for that matter any particular "gentlemanly" attempts to avoid casualties. When more mobile troops were involved, or a losing phalanx became trapped (for example, by having its flanks turned), the carnage was duly ghastly.
The warfare between the Greek city-states merely for a fair while was somewhat ritualistic in nature, more a method of sorting out the respective communities' pecking order in one issue or another, so just defeating the opposing force sufficed to meet their strategic goals. Once wars became more serious, ambitious and "total" in aims and character the troop rosters were duly diversified and the concrete destruction of the enemy became more important.
Quote:
But then why should anyone attack from the front, as the Romans proved. Just go around the sides, engage in close range sword combat and negate the spear wall. Then the sword wins out.
You're talking about the six-meter pikes of the phalangites here, you know. Not quite the same thing tactically as what's normally referred to as "spear". And they always were in serious trouble anyway if they got flanked, be it by shortsword-wielding Romans, spear-wielding hoplites, axe-toting Iranians or longsword-waving screaming Celts.
Not that anyone ever liked getting hit in the flank, mind you, but the pike phalangites were frontal-combat specialists through and through.
And, of course, the phalangites would then defend themselves with their sidearms (typically mid-sized or short swords)...
Moot.
Quote:
THAT's why CA put the spear / light_spear penalties vs Infantry in the first place.
Well, no. Not really. They put it in because they were stuck in the RTS rock-paper-scissors mentality RE unit roles. Which has crap all to do with realism or historical accuracy; if you've ever taken a look at vanilla RTW, you should know well enough they weren't terribly concerned with those...
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
Very thorough reply :)
Been up for far, far too long now so I'll keep mine short.
Have to agree with most of it, even though in the hunting analogy, you were mostly talking about a thrown spear (e.g. a pila type weapon from the EB period).
Hoplite casualties, well no-one even knows for sure if they fought over or underhanded.
Quote:
The strength of hoplites was shock combat. The two phalanxes would smash into each other in hopes of breaking or encircling the enemy force's line. Failing that, a battle degenerated into a pushing match, with the men in the rear trying to force the front lines through those of the enemy. This maneuver was known as the othismos. Battles rarely lasted more than an hour. Once one of the lines broke, the troops would generally flee from the field, sometimes chased by peltasts or light cavalry. If a hoplite escaped, he would sometimes be forced to drop his cumbersome aspis, thereby disgracing himself to his friends and family. Casualties were slight compared to later battles, rarely amounting to more than 5% of the losing side, but the slain often included the most prominent citizens and generals who led from the front. Thus, the whole war could be decided by a single field battle; victory was enforced by ransoming the fallen back to the defeated, called the "Custom of The Greeks".
A lot of casualties must have come from blood loss. I don't see all that much evidence for super armor piercing spears here, otherwise you'd see a lot more fatalities.
Quote:
Hoplites also carried a short sword called a xiphos. The short sword was a secondary weapon, used if and when spears broke, or if the phalanx broke rank. When the enemy retreated, hoplites might drop their shield and spear, and pursue the enemy with their swords. A disadvantage to the xiphos though was that it was extremely heavy and did not provide as much reach as most swords from that period.
In other words, it was a bit crap ;) Maybe the best money could buy in Greece, but still a bit crap..
There seems to be a disparity in quality of swords over different cultures, at that period of time. A well made sword can dismember, which will render an opponent well, lets say he's at very least no longer a factor in the battle.
While I was mainly talking about the sarissa and its counterparts, hoplitai type spearmen also relied on their formation and shield wall. And on the sarissa (which in EB also has the light_spear attribute as well as Long_pike, hence they were given 4 attack they shouldn't have had-which is kinda the point of this thread ;))
Quote:
The sarissa was gradually replaced by variations of the gladius as the weapon of choice. Only Pyrrhus of Epirus was able to maintain a high standard of tactical handling with armies based around the sarissa, but with the dawn of the manipular system, even he struggled for his victories.
The spear has 2 inherent advantages- its reach, and its cheap. A good sword or axe is just more versatile in close combat (and isn't that the definition of melee?).
And the very last point, back on the topic thread, in early EB all pointy stick weapons were classed as "spear" which has -4 attack vs infantry (which to my mind is unfair) and 4 attack was added to all of these units. Then all pointy sticks were changed to classification "light_spear" to aid the units cohesiveness in formation, but even though "light_spear" doesn't get an attack penalty vs infantry (they get a -4 defence penalty), the +4 attack was left. Isn't this correct?
If you take away the phantom +4 attack, then you'll find swords/axes and spears have virtually the same attack value as each other, in relative terms for a unit's cost/level. In most cases, the corresponding spear will still have a higher attack. Maybe a +4 defence modifier (to defence skill) might be in order, but why possibly to the attack stat which isn't any longer compromised in any way?
Anyways, enough from me, I need sleep...:burnout:
-
Re: light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2
i recall a post from CA which stated that the spear attribute was intended only for very long spears (like the sarissa). the unwieldiness of a spear like this and the standoff it allows makes the -4 attack vs infantry and the +8 vs cav understandable.
