Results 1 to 30 of 104

Thread: Phalanxes in version 1.1

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    is on the outside looking out Member PraetorFigus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Windy City
    Posts
    49

    Smile Re: Phalanxes in version 1.1

    First Post! I am always playing EB, and fooling around with the text files to test things and I found something interesting.

    In the EDU for a unit there is this line in the text

    "soldier unit_model, soldiers, extras, mass (,radius, height)" (the last two attributes are hidden)

    the default for radius, left blank, is (0.4), I tested with 0.2 for some units and they did not lose as many soldiers as usual in battles with other heavy infantry and improved the kill numbers for the unit, I used this on Rorarii, different Hoplitai and a few others I can't remember now.

    What I would like to suggest is if the units that lost their phalanx ability are less effective in testing, they can be modded to a default guard mode and a radius smaller then 0.4, without the need to change the mass of the units, morale or have to use short_pike to group the units.

    Aradan has a great guide here that has been a big help in figuring out RTW: forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88859

    Here is a quote from Aradan's guide, "[radius](may not be visible) : Hidden attribute radius of the unit. The default value is 0.4. It's the area surrounding each single soldier that he "occupies" as the engine perceives it (not visually that is). Small radius makes a unit fight better, in that it allows soldiers to fight more closely to each other, resulting in more men of the small-radius unit fighting against fewer of the enemy one's."
    "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it." Oogway, Kung Fu Panda

    "Mortui Tantum Terminem Belli Viderunt" (Only the dead have seen the end of war)
    a technical memory solution

  2. #2
    Member Member Woreczko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    deep province in Masovia
    Posts
    121

    Default Re: Phalanxes in version 1.1

    Quote Originally Posted by PraetorFigus View Post
    First Post! I am always playing EB, and fooling around with the text files to test things and I found something interesting.

    In the EDU for a unit there is this line in the text

    "soldier unit_model, soldiers, extras, mass (,radius, height)" (the last two attributes are hidden)

    the default for radius, left blank, is (0.4), I tested with 0.2 for some units and they did not lose as many soldiers as usual in battles with other heavy infantry and improved the kill numbers for the unit, I used this on Rorarii, different Hoplitai and a few others I can't remember now.

    What I would like to suggest is if the units that lost their phalanx ability are less effective in testing, they can be modded to a default guard mode and a radius smaller then 0.4, without the need to change the mass of the units, morale or have to use short_pike to group the units.

    Aradan has a great guide here that has been a big help in figuring out RTW: forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88859

    Here is a quote from Aradan's guide, "[radius](may not be visible) : Hidden attribute radius of the unit. The default value is 0.4. It's the area surrounding each single soldier that he "occupies" as the engine perceives it (not visually that is). Small radius makes a unit fight better, in that it allows soldiers to fight more closely to each other, resulting in more men of the small-radius unit fighting against fewer of the enemy one's."
    Small radius has one serious drawback. It makes men more resistant to missiles (as they are harder to hit). Units with 0.2 radius will be on average 2 times as hard to hit as "normal" soldiers. On the other hand, you cannot make everyone to have 0.2 radius, because it will make all units fight in an effective shieldwall.

  3. #3
    is on the outside looking out Member PraetorFigus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Windy City
    Posts
    49

    Smile Re: Phalanxes in version 1.1

    Quote Originally Posted by Woreczko View Post
    Small radius has one serious drawback. It makes men more resistant to missiles (as they are harder to hit). Units with 0.2 radius will be on average 2 times as hard to hit as "normal" soldiers. On the other hand, you cannot make everyone to have 0.2 radius, because it will make all units fight in an effective shieldwall.
    Point taken, we need to test how different values for radius affect unit ability in melee. And try units one on one in custom. I started with .2 because I'm not sure what the range of acceptable values there are to use, and if .285 is any different from .3 yet. I figured guard mode could mimic phalanx for units that had the ability removed with the smaller radius since the unit's soldiers will not spread out of formation.

    I played KH, Makedonia, and SPQR so far with the changed values on EB 1.2.
    I set no battle-time limit on medium battle difficulty.

    I will need to keep track of battle statistics to be more definitive and perform controlled tests, but from my observations, Rorarii were still vulnerable to missile and would still rout easily against better units. I did not notice any difference from the hoplites either against slingers. I've been playing RTW since it came out and EB since 1.0, I love this mod! and I try to keep up on this forum.

    It would seem that formation spacing, body armor and shields would account more for ranged weapons effectiveness then the radius an individual soldier in a unit uses to attack. Slingers and archers still made an impact in the battles I fought. Personally the experience that units get seemed more of an issue in my Makedonian campaign since my SS bodyguards for my FM's were tanks in melee and were able to rout the hoplites from behind as usual when exhausted and pinned by a phalanx.

    As Makedonia I was still able to defeat the classical and KH bodyguard with phalanx and cavalry tactics. The formation spacing of the units stayed the same, ekodromoi(sp) hoplites still spread and surrounded phalanxes one on one but caused enough casualities anchoring the phalanx unit for a hoplitai haploi to circle round and attack from behind.

    As Romani my legions were shredded pretty good for a change by KH and not just by their FMs, but superior numbers still won the day for me.

    Using ifikrates hoplites and thorakitai hoplitai with the .2 radius helped them last longer, before the .2 test they'd be the first to rout and lost more then they killed, after the .2 they fought more like classical hoplites in terms of kills, but still taking as many losses as before, more or less. Lethality is fine according to my observations. the gaulish units still kicked major butt against me same for getai.

    In sum, going back to the original thread, using a smaller radius should improve efficiency for the mobile phalanxes while making them different from other spearmen that did not fight in that sort of tight formation and keeps us from using short_pike that has it's own issues.
    "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it." Oogway, Kung Fu Panda

    "Mortui Tantum Terminem Belli Viderunt" (Only the dead have seen the end of war)
    a technical memory solution

  4. #4
    Member Member Woreczko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    deep province in Masovia
    Posts
    121

    Default Re: Phalanxes in version 1.1

    Quote Originally Posted by PraetorFigus View Post
    Point taken, we need to test how different values for radius affect unit ability in melee. And try units one on one in custom. I started with .2 because I'm not sure what the range of acceptable values there are to use, and if .285 is any different from .3 yet. I figured guard mode could mimic phalanx for units that had the ability removed with the smaller radius since the unit's soldiers will not spread out of formation.

    I played KH, Makedonia, and SPQR so far with the changed values on EB 1.2.
    I set no battle-time limit on medium battle difficulty.

    I will need to keep track of battle statistics to be more definitive and perform controlled tests, but from my observations, Rorarii were still vulnerable to missile and would still rout easily against better units. I did not notice any difference from the hoplites either against slingers. I've been playing RTW since it came out and EB since 1.0, I love this mod! and I try to keep up on this forum.

    It would seem that formation spacing, body armor and shields would account more for ranged weapons effectiveness then the radius an individual soldier in a unit uses to attack. Slingers and archers still made an impact in the battles I fought. Personally the experience that units get seemed more of an issue in my Makedonian campaign since my SS bodyguards for my FM's were tanks in melee and were able to rout the hoplites from behind as usual when exhausted and pinned by a phalanx.

    As Makedonia I was still able to defeat the classical and KH bodyguard with phalanx and cavalry tactics. The formation spacing of the units stayed the same, ekodromoi(sp) hoplites still spread and surrounded phalanxes one on one but caused enough casualities anchoring the phalanx unit for a hoplitai haploi to circle round and attack from behind.

    As Romani my legions were shredded pretty good for a change by KH and not just by their FMs, but superior numbers still won the day for me.

    Using ifikrates hoplites and thorakitai hoplitai with the .2 radius helped them last longer, before the .2 test they'd be the first to rout and lost more then they killed, after the .2 they fought more like classical hoplites in terms of kills, but still taking as many losses as before, more or less. Lethality is fine according to my observations. the gaulish units still kicked major butt against me same for getai.

    In sum, going back to the original thread, using a smaller radius should improve efficiency for the mobile phalanxes while making them different from other spearmen that did not fight in that sort of tight formation and keeps us from using short_pike that has it's own issues.
    First we need to sort out different things we are talking about.
    1. How does "radius" affect melee combat
    2. How does "radius" affect missile defense
    3. Can we use this attribute to make gameplay better?
    4. Can we use this attribute to simulate Ifikratean-style phalanx better?

    Ad. 1)
    a) Smaller radius does affect spacing of soldiers during melee AND WITH GUARD MODE OFF. Classicals hoplites with radius of 0.2 will not spread out during the fight. They will still envelop the enemy if given a chance and won`t have stupid problems with facing (common thing with guard on). However by staying close together they will hold formation better, than with the default radius. In general they will fight better and very much phalanx-like without the need to use guard mode. To do: test how much better will they fight.
    b) Units with loose formation, like peltastai, if given 0.2 radius will do the same as hoplites. If they enter the fight, they will get close together and present a solid shieldwall to the enemy. They will keep their loose formation in guard mode though. This is definately not something we would like to see in the game.

    Ad 2)
    When I`ve done the tests earlier on, I got the impression, that units with small radius were more resistant to missile fire. But now after 2 custom battles I`m not so sure. This needs further testing.

    Ad 3)
    Radius attribute is something to consider for close order units, primarily classical hoplites. However we must ask ourselves, are they not good enough already (using the guard mode of course)? By giving them small radius we will prohibit them form using loose formation in combat (they will stick together in combat despite being in loose formation). And we will make them stronger overall.

    Another thing, which needs testing is whether small radius will give units undeserved resistance to missiles. As already pointed out, we cant give small radius to all the units and it would be unfair if just some of them had "unnatural" resistance vs. missiles.

    Ad 4)
    If we are going to use (small) radius attribute, than definately classical hoplites, german warbands and other units fighting in a shieldwall-like formation should receive it too, besides the Ifikrateans (do we even have accounts of them fighting in a particularly close order?). That means, playing with radius attribute will do zilch to increase Ifikrateans performance in comparison to their more ancient brethren...
    Other possibility is to give small radius to the traditional hoplites and leave Ifikrateans as is - they will be still able to hold close formation (with guard on) but unlike hoplites, will able to spread out too (to not get outflanked for example).
    Last edited by Woreczko; 12-30-2008 at 13:17.

  5. #5
    is on the outside looking out Member PraetorFigus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Windy City
    Posts
    49

    Default Re: Phalanxes in version 1.1

    With KH i am trying the ekodromoi, ifikratean and thorakitai hoplites with a radius of 0.2 and they are individually fighting better (not sure how de-synchronized animations affects unit performance), classical, KH bodyguard, thureophoroi, and thorakitai were left at default.

    against phalanx, with peltast support, when out numbered the units with 0.2 radius got kills in the same range or higher then pure thorakitai and KH bodyguard. the formation spacing has a significant impact. with the classicals set with the tight formation and 0.2 in earlier tests were tanks on the field losing very few troops if any, at the default 0.4 radius setting they were dying as quickly as the other non-elite hoplites. also the defensive skill and armor and a +1 shield of the classical over ifikratean and helps a lot, in extended melee where both units get exhausted against missle and phalanxes.

    also the thorakitai hoplitai with their high armor rating were racking up the kills while taking most losses from ranged units. one battle had them with over 200 kills alone.

    I was able to keep ifikratean and thorakitai hopitai in the center of the line pinning phalangitai, then they held for a very long time trading kills at a respectable rate until they got surrounded by peltasts, but 0.2 seems too effective from initial tests against phalanx anyway

    next I am going to test 0.3 to see how it affects these three troops who in my opinion have underperformed before against phalanx in the past with the default 0.4 radius setting.

    Later I will continue tests of the default, 0.2 and 0.3 against non-phalanx units, including SPQR.

    Woreczko, I agree with your concerns about keeping this balanced, the radius also seems to drain morale slower even when outnumbered 2 to 1 at battle start and then getting whipped bad by ranged fire during battle, before being surrounded. they took a long time to waver and get shaken against those odds then expected!

    I started with KH since it seems more EB members that are on the forums have used or faced these units in battle and know how they have performed in battle, including me, :)

    once I can get a bench mark on what radius is ideal and not too unbalanced, where ekodromoi can pin a phalanx suffering few losses from the phalanx but not be an unexpected tank, I will test others.

    I am still not familiar with all of those that lost the phalanx ability. I know:

    Mori Gaesum,
    Alpine phalanx,
    Helvetii,
    German units (don't remember names)

    but as Watchman said earlier some of these units may not require a change or improvement while others really do, also it seems that attack rating and lethality may need to be adjusted if radius is ultimately worth changing.

    So far I have only tested units classified as spearmen, I have no idea yet how radius can affect heavy, light or cavalry units.

    I also need to do some poking around so that I can post some screen shots, not sure if any of those programs work on XP 64bit Professional...

    On a side note does MTW2 have radius? it might be worth a round of testing since lethality seems more for unit type infantry, missile, etc. then individual units like we have in RTW.
    Last edited by PraetorFigus; 12-30-2008 at 18:42. Reason: can't spell and trouble with complete sentences!
    "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it." Oogway, Kung Fu Panda

    "Mortui Tantum Terminem Belli Viderunt" (Only the dead have seen the end of war)
    a technical memory solution

  6. #6
    Member Member Phalanx300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort
    Posts
    743

    Default Re: Phalanxes in version 1.1

    I also use the 0.2 radius for the Hoplite and shieldwall/phalanx like units.

    What I did first was to remove the KH of having guard mode all the time in descr ai formations. Then Hoplites fight very well and realistic. Basicly guard mode but then more mobile and stronger.

    Also, Ekdromoi and Thureophoroi and Thorakitai I left as normal spear man since individual combat was more important for them I believe?

    I strongly advise it for EB(and all other mods) to use it as it really makes the mod better, in looks and historical accuracy and gameplay.

  7. #7
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Phalanxes in version 1.1

    Eh, the Classicals are tough enough already if you ask me. Damn tough. *They* don't need tweaking with the radius, unlike the Artist Formerly Known As Phalanx lot.
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO