I read that peltast/velites inflct more damage than archers on armor. Is that true of unarmoured opponents as well?
Do their shorter range but heavier damage make them more bang/buck?
Printable View
I read that peltast/velites inflct more damage than archers on armor. Is that true of unarmoured opponents as well?
Do their shorter range but heavier damage make them more bang/buck?
Looking at the EDU file (export_descr_unit.txt in the RTW data folder), I can't see that peltasts are better than archers against armour. They are not armour piercing and have the same lethality, with a lower attack.
Some mods do make them more lethal (at their own short range) which is intuitive but I can't see that vanilla RTW does.
1. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
2. No.
Though, they 'are' good vs eles and chariots and that's what differ.
Good point about eles - peltasts have reliably been the "anti-elephant" unit in vanilla, RTR and EB. At worst (vanilla), they will lead the beasts a merry dance before dying and so buy your heavy units time to kill the rest of the AI army. At best (EB beta), they will effortlessly slay the brutes with a volley or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
Never tried them against chariots, but that is a good idea (chariots are nasty in vanilla).
Personally, I prefer bowmen. I like their long range so they can keep the enemy occupied from a safe distance while I move my troops up.
Peltasts are good when firing into "battle mess" butr against archers or against groupped infantry they are quite weak unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
The big difference is peltasts/javelin units can unleash all there ammo in 30 seconds vs minutes for an archer unit.
huge unit setting as a reference
So a peltast may score 80 kills in that 30 seconds versus archers who can kill 160 men in 3 minutes. So peltasts will make a weak spot in the enemy formation quickly where as archers will take time. My favorite is running a peltast unit up to archers when the opportunity exists cut them in half in no time flat and then fight the rst of the battle knowing I'm a little safer.
Ah that makes sense. I was beginning to wonder what was the point of keeping peltasts since they run out of ammo quickly and have a short range.
Um, I fear in vanilla they are a pretty pointless unit. I'm not sure about Oaty's point - the "swing speed" of both units is the same, so I'm not clear why peltasts should do damage more quickly. I can't say I've observed them having a higher rate of fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
By contrast, in some of the mods, they are very useful. In RTR, peltasts used to be lethal against phalanxes and in EB, I like them as classical skirmishers - taking fire, distracting enemy etc. Archers have rather different functions in the mods - including as the "anti-peltast" unit.
They are definitely underpowered in vainlla, but not as much as the archers are overpowered. Sometimes I take a unit of Mercenary Peltasts or Illyrian Skirmishers to use against hoplites, but anything weaker, or against any non-phalanx unit (barring Elephants and Chariots) you're better off without them.
I just tested them in 1 unit vs 1 unit custom battles against Carthaginian town militia, cheap cavalry and elephants. The velites were totally useless. The javelins didn't seem more potent but the biggest shortcoming was range. I didn't bother with chariots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Javs are just deadly to eles. It is like saying what's better Numidian Mercenaries or HA? I tell you Numidian Mercenaries if you're facing eles and HA if you're not.
I would think that peltasts would be more important as in ancient times skirmishing was a MAJOR element of battle. The ability of a light quick screen to harass the enemy and draw off some of thier units was very important.
I think TW does a bit of a poor job with them since they are so important. However I still like to keep some on hand as a good balance. Most non-Roman units don't have a nice close artillery option, one that gives charging enemies a second thought before and after closing. Plus they can sneak around the back of an enemy and attack from their unprotected rear. They can also charge other artillery units and send them running and can chase down slower retreating enemies. Then as Simon Appleton says you can always sacrifice them to buy time against really powerful units.
So while they are not a main line or death dealing archer they are versatile have some use, (and are CHEAP).
Not my fault the A.I. will run around with missile units when they are in range of something. Due to the A.I. using it's skirmishers in inproper fashions can cause the concept of making a unit look stronger than it really is. I guess what mad the javelin units seem stronger to me then what they really were was because ovewr 50 percent of the time I'm hitiing moving units with my javelins making them seem tougher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Another good use is to park them in the back of an engaged unit when the way is clear and unleash all there javelins
The peltasts don't quite perform up to their historical standards because A) battlefield control in the TW series is on the average light years beyond what historical armies had to deal with B) their nasty effects on shields and the like (ie. the tendency of javelins to pretty much pass straight through most of the time) isn't in C) both the AI and human players prefer to run the little buggers down with cavalry before they hurt too much, where their short range becomes a severe problem and this also ties to A) because historical cavalry didn't have quite as easy a time dashing to and fro as needed across the battlefield. Most of the time they didn't have any more clue of what was happening beyone their immediate vicinity than anyone else either, so while they might quite well trample the skirmishers near them that wasn't much of a help to the guys dying of javelins two hundred meters to the right...
That said, I think they're good to use as a first wave to absorb the pila of assorted units you'd rather not have skewering more armoured (and expensive) units, worrying chariots and elephants, shooting up infantry and chasing routers if cavalry isn't available. In other words, cheap, cheerful and expendable. Good archers tend to do better most of the time, but hey, there's a reason javelin-toting light infantry went out of military fashion long before bowmen... Nevermind now that most of the time the javelineers were "better than nothing" troops who couldn't afford the training and gear to be effective in other ways.
Most of their relative weakness in RTW is due to the small battlefield and the heavier use of cavalry in it. No steep hills and little rought terrain, high speed units and too long aiming cycle. In such conditions and the added troubles of the Ai it is hard to use them effectively, and in the MP they are doomed to stick close to a heavy unit. They seem also to lack the deadliness of MTW times, where they could wreak hovoc even on heavily armored units, as they don't posses the AP ability anymore.
Yet against the stupid A.I they can shine, especially if it is phalanx-based. With a little micromanagement they can harass very efficiently and deal with the enemy units one-by-on. They are not bad chasers too. EB makes them better.
Gealai
Incidentally, peltasts and suchlike were responsible for the defeat of a force of Spartiates, and indeed the capture of 120 of them... nothing quite like being reduced from the most feared soldiers in Greece to a cowering PoW by a peasant with a few pointy sticks... In the rocky terrain of Greece, they proved far more useful in the Peloponesian war than the hoplites ever did.
In game though, they're pants. Unless they're Illyrians, in which case they can act like poor quality legionnaires... Javs are handy to disrupt a formation for a brief while, but unless they can follow up... nah. Archers can inflict casualties over range for a longer period of time. One's a steady battle winner, one might swing the occasional result.
I find peltasts to be very useful in MP if you are going for a rush type army. In the rush role the purpose of the peltasts is to be placed in front of your main infantry line and take any fire from any enemy archers (if they have any) on your advance, then once they get close enough they can pepper the enemy archers or any other targets you see fit or even just run straight into melee in which they can be backed up by your main line. I don't use peltasts much but for the times I have used them they have proved to be very useful indeed.
Yeah Somebody else, it was on a small island which name doesn't come to my mind :furious3: Demosthenes was IIRC the leader of the allied athenian forces and let climb the light troops the hills around the spartan camp at night, so that the Spartans faced a very nast surprise...
Not being able to move out of the phalanx without catching missiles of all sorts with their unshielded sides, being too slow as an unit and completely sorrounded with no hope of relief the situation was hopeless.
Here we have a different example, which underlines the importance of (Scythian, is suppose) Archers at keeping the Peletasts at bay:
A company of archers with the Athenians kept the Aetolians at bay for a time, but when their captain was killed, the archers scattered, and the Athenian army dissolved in panic. Many were killed immediately; others became lost in the forests and hills and were hunted down by the Aetolians. Demosthenes managed to escape with a small remnant of his army to Naupactus. The soldiers reembarked for Athens, but Demosthenes remained behind, fearing the wrath of the Athenians. He soon had an opportunity to redeem himself.[/QUOTE]Quote:
The next summer, 426, the Peloponnesians cancelled their annual invasion of Attica after earthquakes struck. The Athenians sent out two fleets, one under Demosthenes to cruise around the Peloponnese, the second under Nicias to attack Melos. Nicias' force of 60 ships and 2,000 hoplites failed to bring the Melians to terms, so he sailed north to raid the Boeotian coast. Demosthenes, meanwhile, reached Naupactus and embarked on an ill-fated invasion of Aetolia. He hoped that after conquering the Aetolian tribesmen, he could raise an army to invade Boeotia from the "back door," without using any Athenian manpower. Unfortunately for this grand plan, his initial invasion ended in disaster. His small army made it to Aegitium, whose inhabitants fled into the hills. Soon, however, the Athenians found themselves surrounded by an army of lightly-armed tribesmen, and got a harsh lesson in the vulnerability of a hoplite phalanx unsupported by light troops of its own.
[QUOTE][The Aetolians] came running down the hills on all sides, hurling their javelins, falling back whenever the Athenian army advanced, and coming on again as soon as it retired. So for some time the fighting went on in this way, with alternate advances and retreats, in both of which the Athenians had the worst of it.3
from http://www.warhorsesim.com/epw_hist.html
Gealai
I used a lot of peltasts in the early part of my carthaginian campaign. Their only major vulnerability was against cavalry. So you need cav to counter that.
I fought a lot of battles with two or three cav, a baeleric slinger or two, and all the rest skirmishers.
The peltasts had to beat lots of hastati and iberian infantry. Even after the peltasts ran out of ammo I left them on skirmish. Enemy infantry couldn't catch them. I could turn and fight enemy infantry when extremely favorable circumstances arose, or wait and let the enemy tire out faster than my peltasts.
This is not a very fun type of army to play, but it wins, it's cheap, and you can boom right from the beginning of a campaign.
Illyrian mercs are so great for their cost: 130 / turn!
Yeah, its a good strategy. Carthage has a lot going for it though - quick ealry access to elephants and Sacred band due to the massive growth at the Capital.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangudai
To me peltast are just arrow fodder.
I once was in a battle with Carthage, grossly outnumbered.
I made them skirmish the ele’s and because the battle was so chaotic, I lost track of them.
At the near end off the battle when things came settling down and victory was almost certain,I reorganized my remaining troops and noticed that those peltast dudes where still alive.
Not only that, but they where still fighting the elephants and light (I believe)missile cav ,at the most far edge of the battle map.
Rushed my remaining heavy cav. to aid them and claim victory.
After that I’ve given them a long vacation in my capital and upgraded their armour to the very best.
Because without them keeping that ele’s unit busy, I never would’ve won that battle and they would be speaking Carthagian in Carthage once more.
I find skirmishers useful as anti-ele units but not much use apart from that.
Without some micromanagement, they might die quick because they have to walk up close and might get butchered. But if I keep them back, they are useless because of their short range or cap friendlies in the back of the heads.
I would like to see Peltase as an anti cav unit, rather than cav meals.
Annie
Now that would be something there's zero historical or logical justification for. Light infantry in loose formation was something that barely even slowed down hostile horsemen.
I am sorry, but do you mean you use them as anti-cav or you merely want them to be anti-cav? The only anti-cav properties of peltasts I can think of is using them to lure enemy cavalry into my spear units.Quote:
Originally Posted by FallenJade
Welcome to the Org, BTW ~:wave: .
Well, they work as flankers if need be. Not terribly good ones, but if they're out of javelins I don't see why you shouldn't sic 'em at the sides and rear of already engaged cavalry...
I prefer Archers longer range. Kill at a distance and/or to entice an enemy to attack you.
Javlin armed troops have a bonus against Elephants and Chariots.
So recruitment choice depends on the enemy expected.
Can I use peltast/velites up on the walls if i am under siege. Can they fire from up there?
Yes - they can fire down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petsman
If you mean Sphacteria, it was archers that murdered the Spartiates. Peltasts could easily be gotten rid of: chasing them, giving the the choice of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
A) continue shooting and get cut down
B) engage in melee and get cut down anyway
C) run
all three options are good for the Spartiates
The problem for the Spartiates is that a guy with a small pelte is going to be faster than a guy with a big hoplon. Result: the Spartans lose formation, get tired and are thus extremely vulnerable to the not-so-tired, nimble javelineer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Of course, you have to take the training of the Spartiates into account. The Spartiates were trained from seven to be the perfect warriors: this includes training up their strength, cunning, dexterity, and stamina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Yes, but we are talking about speed here. Stamina or no, you cannot run fast with a hoplon. That is why it was always discarded when soldiers routed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
All the cunning and stamina in the world cannot make up for the fact that they are lugging about nine foot spears, armour and a big shield. Peltasts can run away and pelt them to death at leisure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
nine foot? that was the macedonian spear. the hoplite spear was much shorter.
Huh? The Macedonian spear or sarissa is longer than the hoplites spear (at approx 9 feet). Regardless the hoplite's heavy armour and greaves would be a severe disadvantage in terms of speed no matter how well conditioned the Spartans were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Sarissae tended to be in the 5-6 meter range (15-18 Imperial feet, approx.; even longer ones were tried by the Diadochi by what I've read, but weren't worth the hassle). True pikes, in other words, and rather useless outside ordered formation. The spears used by the hoplites were of the pretty standard international pattern of long one-handed fighting spears, in the 2-3 meter range, and obviously way more manageable.
There's apparently a fair bit of debate about when, in what form, how effectively and/or if at all the "light hoplite" concept was used; but I've read the Spartans and following their example many others discarded virtually all body armour to be better able to chase down annoying peltasts and generally improve formation mobility (as a plus decidedly more men could afford to fight as hoplites when they didn't have to possess the fairly expensive body armour). The "Iphicratean" hoplite reform apparently went along the same lines, but replaced the spear with a fair bit longer one to make up for the lightened harness.
'Course, that's a bit controversial issue too.
Entirely aside from whether hoplites in lightened gear could actually catch peltasts, there's the issue that in many situations they quite possibly simply could not afford to break ranks in pursuit as that'd have left them sitting ducks to enemy heavy infantry... any enemy cavalry present would also most likely have been only too happy to pick on the now rather more vulnerable spearmen, too.
I think the Spartans got rid of all armour apart from hoplon and helmet for a while before their downfall.. as a stab from an enemy hoplite was probably lethal anyway, with or without the cumbersome armourQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Not by what I've read - AFAIK armour came back in fashion later on. The bigger issue was probably just the damn peltasts and their javelins; I've read those things are *very* good at going through things like shields and armour, and it's obviously tactically somewhat unviable to stand there in nice ordered ranks in nifty expensive armour if a bunch of beggars with javelins whom you cannot catch due to the bulk of your gear cheerfully murder you despite it.
Javelins are great for piercing - it's most basic physic:
WikiWhen you compare the momentum of a heavy pila with a standard wararrow from a reconstructed ancient turkish bow - similar in efficiency to the best modern recurves the following comes out:Quote:
If an object is moving in any reference frame, then it has momentum in that frame. The amount of momentum that an object has depends on two variables: the mass and the velocity of the moving object in the frame of reference. This can be written as:
momentum = mass × velocity
The calculation:
a) The bow + arrow: 75.5lb @ 28", war bow, 49" long; 1067 grain, 155.1 fps
(http://www.atarn.org/islamic/akarpow..._bow_tests.htm)
b) A 0.5 kg javelin
Momentum-Arrow = 0.06914 kg x 47.27448 m/s
MomentumA ~ 3.27 kg m/s
To achieve the same Momentum the javelin must be thrown with a velocity of 6.54 m/s or 21.45 fps - a low velocity.
However we must take into account that the javelin blades where usually quite larger than the arrowheads, thus having more resistance. So simply spoken depending on the mechanical advantage/ area of the blade we get different velocities needed to achieve the same penetration. Given that a wide blade can easily increase the needed velocity by a factor of 5 (~32 m/s needed!!!)it is understandable that almost all javelin warheads were quite narrow.
If we take that formula it is surprising how well it explains the concept of the heavy pila. 2kg combined with a small pyramidical head ~ 2 times larger than the bodkin arrowhead equal the great bow-arrow combo with a velocity of only 3.27 m/s or 10.7 fps :sweatdrop:
Calculating all that stuff and seeing the effect of pilas or narrowbladed heavier javelins on well reconstructed shields I know for sure that I don't want to get hit by them at close range... :skull:
Gealai
In the museums it tends to be pretty easy to tell the javelin-heads from the spear-heads - the former tend to be all slim and narrow. Even the barbed ones. And we all know what the factor "lots of momentum" does when paired with "really small area", don't we ? I understand many historical armour-piercing arrow/-head designs were intentionally made heavy, trading effective range for sheer momentum and penetrative capability.
I've read javelins tend to fly so slow, and are so easy to see coming, that people with room to maneuver (ie. specifically *not* heavy infantry in combat order...) tend to have little trouble dodging them though. Apparently javelineer skirmisher duels tended to be exercises in frustration, with very little results on either side. Javelins against close-order troops, on the other hand, were just nasty...
Ludens:
Thucydides (greek historian) wrote a famous passage (4.34.3) stating that the Spartans suffered against the Athenian archers, 'for their piloi(helmets) did not keep out the arrows.'
Quite so, but we were discussing the effectiveness of Hoplites against javelineers. Incidentally, all the writers I have read (which are admittedly not that many) considered Sphacteria a victory of peltasts over elite hoplites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius