-
How effective was the Pilum?
Hi guys. This question has been bugging me for a while now. How effective was the Pilum? I have often wondered if it is underpowered in EB. Elite Roman units like the Praetorians have only 5 missile attack, while elites from other factions have missile attack of 8 or so. This seems a bit odd to me for several reasons.
First of all, the natural qualities of the Pilum. The Pilum is designed with a long metal shaft and point at the end. This gives it incredible penetrating power, having been able to punch through curiasses in tests.
The ability to stick into shields. In reality, Pila were able to stick in shields and not come out. This would have forced the bearer of the shield to fight without his primary source of protection. As this cannot be implemented due to engine restriction, it seems to reasonable to make up for that with an increased attack stat.
Disorganization. All javelins cause disorganization in a line when they hit, but Pila caused much more than a normal javelin. By sticking into shields of charging enemies, they caused those enemies to trip, pause to try yank out the Pilum, or pause to drop their shields, and this caused mass mayhem. Entire charges have been reported to have fallen apart after Pila volleys. Again, this cannot be replicated and calls for an increased attack stat.
Weight. Pila are heavy, as much as 10 pounds with an added lead weight. This, combined with the metal tip, explains the AP attribute. However, a heavy javelin is also more effecive than a light javelin against and unarmored foe, which is not displayed in EB with the Pilum.
Training. Legionaries were constantly trained, and javelin throwing was part of that training. They would not have been any less accurate than anybody else, as I have heard it said that Legionaries were innacurate.
All these factors combine to show, at least in my opinion, that Pila are grossly underpowered. I'd say that the average legionary should get a missile attack of 6, and that elite units should get 7 or 8 missile attack. I know that this makes them brutally powerful against armored units, but weren't they historically really strong? Right now Pila are crap against all but the most heavily armored units, in comparison with other javs.
What do you guys think? Are Pila underpowered?
Edit-Watchman, this is aimed at you, as you came up with the unit stats, unless I'm mistaken.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Pilum are AP. They are fine, other javelins are a little underpowered.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
antisocialmunky
Pilum are AP.
Aye, my own rascals they are. Sweet little sons they are, but pack a punch, like their daddy!
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
I was wondering when this was going to get posted.
I agree, javelins on the whole are hella nerfed, especially the pila. I mean, why whould they use them if they only caused one or two casualties a volley? I'm not saying that the whole enemy unit needs to roll over and die (even if it would be hilarious), but javelins seem to do even less damage than the even lighter and smaller arrow. I'm no expert, but the bow and arrow's main drawback was the arrow's lack of mass behind it, so it didn't have enough punch. The javelin, later replaced by the longer ranged crossbow, had the mass and power, if lacking in distance, to handle heavier armored soldiers.
If you wanted, it's not difficult to edit the EDU on our own and post it as a mini mod.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Concentrated fire from 2-3 units will break up and rout most charging infantry. Otherwise try to manuever your legions so that they are thrrowing into the side or rear of a unit. This will increase casualties. Do this with other javelin-throwing units as well (jav cav are great for throwing at the rear of a unit)
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gamerdude873
I mean, why whould they use them if they only caused one or two casualties a volley?
There always is a psychological impact of being under fire and being unable to throw something back. If nothing else, the soldiers would at least feel comfortable to know they could return fire, and against non-javelin equiped units this (killing and psychological effect) may even have had a devastating effect.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
If you want to kill heavy armored units with pilums, position your troops on the right flank of them and throw the pilums from there, because they won't get the shield bonuses. Right?
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gamerdude873
I mean, why whould they use them if they only caused one or two casualties a volley?
Ugh, my javelins tend to cause casualties in the dozens (I play on huge settings). As Lusotani, the battles are just brutal in Iberia, with hundreds of javelins in the air and soon dozens of men on both sides lay slain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gamerdude873
I'm no expert, but the bow and arrow's main drawback was the arrow's lack of mass behind it, so it didn't have enough punch.
Longbows? Composite bows are quite effective too, afaik.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Apázlinemjó
If you want to kill heavy armored units with pilums, position your troops on the right flank of them and throw the pilums from there, because they won't get the shield bonuses. Right?
Aye, rear is a good place from which to throw, too. Skirmisher cavalry, eg. Equites Campanici, especially can do nice morale damage to an enemy, all the while killing foes. Follow this with a charge to the flank/rear and just watch the panic spread...
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
What i experience the pilum is that its more of making the enemy distracted before the clash. As it said it had ability to penetrate heavier armor at close range or stuck in shields. But if it is so leathal im not all convinced about. I stick to my distraction theory which follows by the heavy roman infantry clash that followed after the throw was more affective and decisive.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
If the Pilum stuck onto your shield, you would almost certainly die very quickly in a close combat scrum, especially as most of the people with their shields destroyed would have been in the first couple ranks.
I know that Pila are effective against armored units from the rear, but they should be from the front, also. Plus, against a humble unit of lugoae, a Pila volley will kill 10 guys if you are lucky, while regular javelins from gaeroas will kill many more. All the mentioned effects of the Pilum would have caused many initial casualties, as well as weakening the enemy in the melée.
@gamerdude-I may post a mini mod with this and some other stuff.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
I was curious, so began a few test with Post Marians and Gaeroas against the poor Lugoae.
First try, Gaeroas
First volley of javelins:
Second volley of javelins:
Second try, Gaeroas
First volley of javelins:
Second volley of javelins:
First try, Cohors Reformata
First volley of pilums:
Secondy volley of pilums:
Second try, Cohors Reformata
First volley of pilums:
Secondy volley of pilums:
Romans killed 50% less men with javelins than Gaeroas. Interesting.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Perhaps the test would be fairer to the Romans if you were fighting a unit with more armour. The pila have a large advantage of being AP, but that counts for nothing against Lugoae. You should instead match the Cohors Reformata and Gaeoras against an armoured late-game infantry unit, instead of the Lugoae with are, anyways, not a unit that Post-Marian Romans should really be fighting. Too low-level...
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
This is because the legionaries have 1/3 less attack than the gaeroas, and as the lugoae have no armor to speak of, the AP bonus has no effect. Raising the Pila attack rating to 6 would fix this problem. The Pila would be effective against unarmored troops too.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
retep219
Perhaps the test would be fairer to the Romans if you were fighting a unit with more armour. The pila have a large advantage of being AP, but that counts for nothing against Lugoae. You should instead match the Cohors Reformata and Gaeoras against an armoured late-game infantry unit, instead of the Lugoae with are, anyways, not a unit that Post-Marian Romans should really be fighting. Too low-level...
Ohh true, forgot that. Although it still suprises me that the Romans did so poorly against low tier units with javelins. The damage difference between their "missile" weapon is only 1 damage...
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Apázlinemjó
Ohh true, forgot that. Although it still suprises me that the Romans did so poorly against low tier units with javelins. The damage difference between their "missile" weapon is only 1 damage...
Doesn't the missile attack value affect the accuracy of the missiles, rather than the deadliness (which is governed by the lethality value)...
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The General
Doesn't the missile attack value affect the accuracy of the missiles, rather than the deadliness (which is governed by the lethality value)...
Then it's funny that the Gaeroas have more accuracy. W/e, I didn't check their stats in the EDU, yet.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
retep219
Perhaps the test would be fairer to the Romans if you were fighting a unit with more armour. The pila have a large advantage of being AP, but that counts for nothing against Lugoae.
That's exactly the problem. AFAIK, Pila were designed to pierce shields, not armors, so they should be very effective against shielded unarmored units rather than being armor-killers. My proposal is to raise heavily the attack, at least to the value of solifera (7-8) or more, and eventually get rid of the AP attribute, maybe imbalancing with the new values.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The General
Doesn't the missile attack value affect the accuracy of the missiles, rather than the deadliness (which is governed by the lethality value)...
All missiles have a lethality of 1, I believe.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frontline1944
All missiles have a lethality of 1, I believe.
Indeed.
It then follows, that the question to be asked is why are Romans seen as less accurate as other warriors(/soldiers).
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Longbows? Composite bows are quite effective too, afaik.
Longbows didn't exist back then, at least not outside of India (I think). Anywho, the effectiveness of an arrow is dependent on mass and force. The Longbow has a massive, actually heavy arrow and alot of force and velocity, which explains why it was so effective against armor. The composite bow's arrow is not nearly as big, but it tends to make up for that in it's snap force.
I wasn't much thinking about the eastern scheme of things, but the west had fairly shitty archers and bows in general. The composite bow was a good deal better than predecessors, but at the same time, if it was so good, why didn't every soldier carry one? If that was true, they could level enemies in minutes. However, armor and shields limited their effectiveness severely. Javelins, especially things like the soliferum and pilum were useful tools for tackling armored hulks, given the weight of the missiles.
And remember, it took ALL DAY for the Phalavans to defeat the Romans at Carrahae with volleys of arrows, where as in the Pelopenisan War, Spartan hoplites took on a number of Athenian peltasts and Javelineers on a certain island (can't remember ther name) off the southern coast of greece, and were defeated in several hours, then finished off later. The spartans were heavily armed and armored, but javelins clearly helped get around that.
As for the psychological edge, its difficult to represent that in RTW, but yes, it's really frustrating and irritating, and probably frightening, to not be able to fight back. But still, javelins still have the potential to cause a hell of a lot for damage than one or two casualties.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Composite bows weren't used in the West because the heavier rains there caused the glue holding the bows together to dissolve, and the bows would literally fall apart.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Well I'd assume the differences in time between the two battles of which you speak would be caused more by numbers than by missiles used. Spartan force probably numbered several thousand while the Roman force at Carrhae was massive, can't think of the number right now but likely at least 5 times the number of the spartans.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
Well I'd assume the differences in time between the two battles of which you speak would be caused more by numbers than by missiles used. Spartan force probably numbered several thousand while the Roman force at Carrhae was massive, can't think of the number right now but likely at least 5 times the number of the spartans.
I think he refers to Iphicrates (sp?) who forced a small Spartan unit (few hundred men) to surrender. Sadly I forgot the island's name too. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I'm sure it wasn't several thousand, so the Roman army at Carrhae was much bigger.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gamerdude873
Longbows didn't exist back then, at least not outside of India (I think). Anywho, the effectiveness of an arrow is dependent on mass and force. The Longbow has a massive, actually heavy arrow and alot of force and velocity, which explains why it was so effective against armor. The composite bow's arrow is not nearly as big, but it tends to make up for that in it's snap force.
Arrows and bolts tend to relatively light, especially when compared to javelins, and the main difference in the lethality between is the force driving them forward. Western bows tended to be shortbows, but longbows, crossbows and composite bows allow the archer to shoot the arrow with more force - which is why longbow arrows and crossbow bolts can penetrate armor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gamerdude873
I wasn't much thinking about the eastern scheme of things, but the west had fairly shitty archers and bows in general. The composite bow was a good deal better than predecessors, but at the same time, if it was so good, why didn't every soldier carry one?
Bow was the weapon in the east. Massed archery was practised by peoples like Persians and Chinese, and horse archery was the primary form of combat in the steppes.
However, combined arms tactics defeeat single-arms tactics. Horse archers are vulnerable to archers, archers are vulnerable to cavalry, which is vulnerably to spearmen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gamerdude873
And remember, it took ALL DAY for the Phalavans to defeat the Romans at Carrahae with volleys of arrows, where as in the Pelopenisan War, Spartan hoplites took on a number of Athenian peltasts and Javelineers on a certain island (can't remember ther name) off the southern coast of greece, and were defeated in several hours, then finished off later. The spartans were heavily armed and armored, but javelins clearly helped get around that.
There somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 soldiers in the Battle of Carrhae.
In the Battle of Yarmuk, there were somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 soldiers and the "battle" took six days to resolve...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gamerdude873
As for the psychological edge, its difficult to represent that in RTW, but yes, it's really frustrating and irritating, and probably frightening, to not be able to fight back. But still, javelins still have the potential to cause a hell of a lot for damage than one or two casualties.
Missiles do cause morale damage - as do the casualties caused by them.
Note that I'm not arguing that javelins are bad - I just don't they suck in-game. A few hundred javelins cause a few dozen casualties (I'm playing on Huge settings).
In my opinion, one the simplest ways to make javelins more effective should be removing - or halving the shield bonus against javelins from front because of the fact that while the shield might save the life of the one carrying it, he'd lose his shield and be at a great disadvantage in melee (especially against someone with a large shield and a short sword...). However, the R:TW is incapable of that, just as it is incapable of depicting invidual soldiers losing their shields. Increasing the attack value raises casualties caused by everyone, from all directions.
Mnergh, it's been some time since I fought a battle as Romans, but I just can't recall that I would've had any particular problem with my javelins... Might be my memory, though. :juggle2:
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up yet. It might answer a few of your questions..
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
I would say that the pila in EB is well balanced. These things were quite heavy and understandably hard to throw. This made it very powerful against anything it hits *if* it hits pointy side forward. I'm sure if several thousand guys were charging at you no matter how much discipline you had, you'd still have a tough time throwing a heavy stick and making sure it would hit properly...
So yeah.... pila were heavy things....
hard to chuck....
and to aim....
but when used by experienced troops (ie: those with chevrons) it would definitely be more effective :yes:
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Apázlinemjó
If you want to kill heavy armored units with pilums, position your troops on the right flank of them and throw the pilums from there, because they won't get the shield bonuses. Right?
X3!!!!!!!!
no shield defence from right side or back
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Bow was the weapon in the east. Massed archery was practised by peoples like Persians and Chinese, and horse archery was the primary form of combat in the steppes.
Woo-wee! I must have been smokin' somethin a little differnet than the usual when I said that! I was still thinking apparently about the composite bow's use in the west, and not in the east. (Blame that new weed) But however:
Quote:
Composite bows weren't used in the West because the heavier rains there caused the glue holding the bows together to dissolve, and the bows would literally fall apart.
Go figure, you learn something new everyday. So if the climate had been that much different, our ancestors would have been fighting with a lot more bows and arrows? Apparently then, this is what the long bow and the crossbow solved. These held up much better in the climate, or at the very least didn't frickin' fall apart when you needed them most.
Anyways, does this mean that my case for the javelin is completely screwed? Was the javelin just a fire and forget weapon that everyone could carry that might kill someone or at least scare the poop out of them when it lands on their shields in a cloud with many sharp pointy ends?
Quote:
Missiles do cause morale damage - as do the casualties caused by them.
Hell, you got this all figured out. Another thing I didn't know about RTW. Maybe more morale damage would be better than more actual damage.
Still, the original question was about the Pilum. Shouldn't that at least have more damage? It seems kinda nerfed from my Point Of View. Maybe the real question here is this: How innovative was the Pilum historically? Was it merely something that did just what every other javelin did, except that it's spear head broke when it landed, and that it's piercing capability was just as good as the next javelin, and it was highly popularized because the Romans carried it and they tended to win a lot? Or was it a truly devastating piece of hardware? Or thirdly, was it the kind of javelin that was far better than the standard pointy throwing stick, but in comparison to all other things, it was just okay? If we can answer this, it might give us an idea on how exactly to tweak it, or if it needs tweaking at all. As mentioned, the Pilum was damn heavy for a javelin, but them men using it were skilled at using it and very strong from their training. I think the real root of the problem is, we can't exactly convince a bunch of people to stand in a tight formation and let us throw heavy sharp sticks at them and see what happens, to know exactly what sort of damage a javelin is supposed to do, then turn that around into a computer game. You say it's just fine, while I think it isn't enough (for the pilum), but there's no real way we can really resolve it to find what is really "enough casualties".
About the current in game effectiveness, Foot says
Quote:
We are happy with the performance of javelins in EBI, you can expect to see the same results in EBII as you did in EBI. We would love to include some sort of penalty to units that have been struck by javelins to represent their primary use before a charge as a device for disrupting a formation. However, we cannot, and it would be inappropriate to have them as some sort of killing machine instead.
Still, the fact that Pila have lower damage, despite their AP, makes it seem kind of inaccurate historically. I've been wrong before though. Just look up a few posts and you'll see.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Ok, I've been away. So, lets clear a few things up:
1. Longbows were used around 5,000 years ago at least, just not as massed war-weapons because Celtic warfare always remained somewhat heroic in nature.
2. The pilum does not have lowere damage, but lower attack.
3. The pilum is a heavy weapon and therefore traveled more slowly through the air.
4. Ergo, if you are not wearing too much armour a thrown pilum is easier to dodge than a lighter javalin.
5. RTW has no "dodge" defence stat to calculate how likely a soldier is to dodge a ranged attack.
6. So, we nerfed pilum attack to reflect the fact that lightly armoured troops were more likely able to dodge this form of javalin, but gave them AP to reflect the fact that if they did hit they were more than likely to skewer you.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Xenofon, Hellenica/Book 4/Chapter 5
"The Lacedaemonians were presently within range of the javelins.Here a man was wounded, and there another dropped, not to rise again. Each time orders were given to the attendant shield-bearers to pick up the men and bear them into Lechaeum; and these indeed were the only members of the mora who were, strictly speaking, saved. Then the polemarch ordered the ten-years-service men to charge and drive off their assailants.
15Charge, however, as they might, they took nothing by their pains--not a man could they come at within javelin range. Being heavy infantry opposed to light troops, before they could get to close quarters the enemy's word of command sounded "Retire!" whilst as soon as their own ranks fell back, scattered as they were in consequence of a charge where each man's individual speed had told, Iphicrates and his men turned right about and renewed the javelin attack, while others, running alongside, harassed their exposed flank. At the very first charge the assailants had shot down nine or ten, and, encouraged by this success, pressed on with increasing audacity.
16These attacks told so severely that the polemarch a second time gave the order (and this time for the fifteen-years-service men) to charge. The order was promptly obeyed, but on retiring they lost more men than on the first occasion, and it was not until the pick and flower of the division had succumbed [...]Again and again the monotonous tale of doing and suffering repeated itself, except that as their own ranks grew thinner and their courage ebbed, the courage of their assailants grew bolder and their numbers increased.
17In desperation they massed compactly upon the narrow slope of a hillock, distant a couple of furlongs or so from the sea, and a couple of miles perhaps from Lechaeum. Their friends in Lechaeum, perceiving them, embarked in boats and sailed round until they were immediately under the hillock. And now, in the very slough of despair, being so sorely troubled as man after man dropped dead, and unable to strike a blow, to crown their distress they saw the enemy's heavy infantry advancing. Then they took to flight; some of them threw themselves into the sea; others--a mere handful--escaped with the cavalry into Lechaeum. The death-roll, including those who fell in the second fight and the final flight, must have numbered two hundred and fifty slain, or thereabouts.
18Such is the tale of the destruction of the Lacedaemonian mora. "
so we see what a terrible threat javelins were to heavy infrantry...i suppose the idea of the Roman heavy infantry carrying some extra pila was precisely as a counter measure to the possibility of facing skirmisher opponents-that way the legionairies would at least stand a fighting chance instead of get decimated by distance... also remember that Romans must have had quite a lot of experience of such guerilla tactics subjugating the Etruscans and Italians ...figting on rough terrain against hardy mountain people who refuse to stand and fight the pilum must have proved quite a life saver ...
All in all the pilum offered Romans volatility and the ability of counter-skirmishing should the need arise ... the prospect of showering your heavy infantry opponent with some javelins before impact was just an extra treat...
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Hi,
I actually own a replica roman Pilum built as those you see in the game of the 1st Century BC type.
I find the Pilum to be a well balanced and very easy item to throw.
Its initial design based on using it I think was to disarm sheilds, the tip would stick into the shield and the bulky part would weigh the sheild down making it difficult for the opponent to hold thus allowing the Roman to get in with his sword and shield.
Obviously he may have scored lucky and got someone with it but initially I believe the Pilum was for disarming rather than piercing.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ARCHIPPOS
All in all the pilum offered Romans volatility and the ability of counter-skirmishing should the need arise ...
Yes, but not only a counter-skirmishing weapon, but added defence against cavalry and a great weapon to devastate and disturb the enemy formation prior to charge, thus serving several purposes for both offence and defence, and being mass-producable and relatively easy to train for a body of men to utilize, it's easy to see why they were such an integral part of Roman warfare.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ARCHIPPOS
so we see what a terrible threat javelins were to heavy infrantry...i suppose the idea of the Roman heavy infantry carrying some extra pila was precisely as a counter measure to the possibility of facing skirmisher opponents-that way the legionairies would at least stand a fighting chance instead of get decimated by distance...
I don't think the pila was suited for that, as it was heavier than the average javelin. This means that enemy skirmishers could simply stay out of range. Nor would they be that dangerous even if the lights did get close: being heavy and slow the pila are easy to dodge, provided you are not in close formation like, for example, the legionaries would be. In conclusion: the pila seems to be specifically intended against shielded and heavily-armoured infantry in close formation, not a deterrent against light infantry.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ludens
being heavy and slow the pila are easy to dodge, provided you are not in close formation like, for example, the legionaries would be. In conclusion: the pila seems to be specifically intended against shielded and heavily-armoured infantry in close formation, not a deterrent against light infantry.
hmmmmmmm,i stand corrected then... :bow:
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ARCHIPPOS
...so we see what a terrible threat javelins were to heavy infrantry...i suppose the idea of the Roman heavy infantry carrying some extra pila was precisely as a counter measure to the possibility of facing skirmisher opponents-that way the legionairies would at least stand a fighting chance instead of get decimated by distance... also remember that Romans must have had quite a lot of experience of such guerilla tactics subjugating the Etruscans and Italians ...figting on rough terrain against hardy mountain people who refuse to stand and fight the pilum must have proved quite a life saver ...
All in all the pilum offered Romans volatility and the ability of counter-skirmishing should the need arise ... the prospect of showering your heavy infantry opponent with some javelins before impact was just an extra treat...
Archippos quote of Xenophon is great. I should add this also explains why the Polybian Legion included such a large contingent of Velites, and, also helps explain why the Romans used such a large Scutum.
-
Re: How effective was the Pilum?
It depends on the javelin types. The low end side of the spectrum constituated a stick with a single stone/flint/fire hardened tip. Those would have sucked vs armor but rocked vs unarmored units due to cheapness and such. Then there is the midrange of heavier types meant to go though some armor or designed to be thrown farther, go faster, etc. Then, lastly there are the specialty javelins liked the barb tipped ones or hooked ones meant to lodge in skin or things like pilum there were used against packed infantry to disable shields or lead darts.
