Hoplitai and 0.2 density

[Dutchhoplite]

Hmm it's well beyond the EB period but at Strasbourg (357 AD) the Roman infantry *might* have carried the spatha and still fight in a shieldwall. So fighting in close formation and still use a longer sword is not impossible.

[Zett]

But they a Romani, they don't use shield wall. They are very disciplined and have a good training. And i think their formation is not so close like a shield wall.

About the barbarian units that Phalanx300 posted:

I could give all units with javelines that should also fought in a denser formation a 0.3 density:

Dugunthiz (Germanic Spearmen) - 0.3
Herunautoz (Germanic Swordsmen) - 0,3
Dugunthiz Hattisku (Chatti Spearmen) - 0.3

units that only fought with swords a 0.3 or 0.25 density:

Thegnoz Drugule (Germanic Heavy Infantry) - 0.25
Druhtiz Herusku (Cherusci Swordsmen) - 0.3

and for the others:

Gaizoz Frije (Germanic Levy Spearmen) - 0.3
Gaizoz Alje (Celto-Germanic Spearmen) - 0.4 (standart, cause they are levys and throw javelines AFAIK)
Druhtiz Skandzisku (Scandinavian Spearmen) - 0.23 or 0.25
Druhtiz Habukisku (Chauci Spearmen) - 0.23 or 0.25
Herthaganautoz (Germanic Bodyguard Infantry) 0.4 (even if they are elites, they carry smaler shields, fight with sword (secondary) and the unit descritpion says nothing about dense formation or shield wall

Noricene Gaecori - 0.3 (javelines)
Milnaht - 0.25 or 0.3 (swords)
Arjos - 0.2 or 0.23 (im not sure, I would prefer 0.23)

[SwissBarbar]

The Camillan Triarii do. You can read in their description:

Thus the Triarii still continue to fight like the classical hoplite of the 5th and 4th century BC Etruscan Roman armies.

[Zett]

The Camillan Triarii do. You can read in their description:

Look at the first post, they where some of the first non hellenic units that get a lower density, in the Density Mod 0.2 they have 0.23 0.2.

By the way, if nobody move this thread to the Unoffical Modding Projects, I will open there a new thread and leave this as a dicscussian thread.

[SwissBarbar]

ah yeah, there they are ^^

[Phalanx300]

Then I gues we both will just have different EDU's. I will pick what in my eyes will be more Historical.

[Zett]

Then I gues we both will just have different EDU's. I will pick what in my eyes will be more Historical.

If you give me the unit numbers (in the EDU) and the density (I guess the density you posted earlier) I could change the EDU for you if you want.

[Aper]

But they a Romani, they don't use shield wall.

...
Please read something about the battle of Strasbourg, and about the late roman army, NOW.


BTW, I fail to understand why should be impossible to use a spatha in shield-wall: sure, you cannot perform wide lateral cuts, and so? You still have plenty of handy techniques in your pocket.

(I'm not attacking you Zett, but I'm getting really annoyed by the videogamish approach to military history of many members, who should play less and study more before posting)

EDIT: maybe you were referring strictly to EB timeframe? In that case my apologies, because probably you were right

[Zett]

In the EB timeframe Romans and nearly all units with big shields could use some kind of shieldwall. I do not say that the Romans never used it (testudo was some kind of shieldwall too). But is was not their main fighting style. Hoplites for example where more often deployed in a phalanx/shieldwall formation then Roman soldiers (except the early Triarii, which fought similar to Greek Hoplites). I originally wanted to represent the Hoplitephalanx with this mod. I'm aware of other soldiers, who fought in the EB timeframe in a dense formation (how Phalanx300 already said: many Sweboz warriors).

Yes, you can use swords in shieldwalls, but a weapon with a longer range (spears,pikes) can be better used while holding the shieldwall formation. If you swing a sword (or axe) then you have to move your shield away and step a little out of the shieldwall to use its full power (in this moment you are not longer fighting in a shieldwall, you fight individually and expose the man next to you). If you only stab with the sword it would be possible.

I think it would make sense to speak only about EB timeframe, if this mod is only used to represent the fighting styles in this timeframe.

But I think we should not argue about which unit should get it and which not (at least not yet), I posted the mod links so you could test how it affects the balance. That's the mainproblem IMO. A lower density makes Hoplites and other units 'stronger'. And the question is, how to rebalance the game. Should all units with lower density get a lower attack? Or should they get a lower defence? Or higher costs and upkeep? And how low or high should the new stats be?

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Aper]

If you swing a sword (or axe) then you have to move your shield away and step a little out of the shieldwall to use its full power.

Not always "full power" is necessary... or desirable! But this discussion will surely get OT fast...

However, I feel like you guys are overestimating the matter a bit... I mean, if you give to hoplites 0.2 radius and -4 to attack (to counter the "light_spear" bug), why things shouldn't be balanced enough?

I hope to be wrong, but I fear all this microtesting will be a waste of time in the end...

About Romans and units depicted fighting in shield-wall, they can be included or not depending on how people want to portrait their style of fighting... Teorically they should be included, as all other soldiers who were trained to fight like a whole and not as individuals, but maybe THIS will turn out to be unbalancing, so for now I think you should stick to hoplites only.

pherhaps some experienced modder could tell me which other values define the foramtion density of a unit.

I hope you will find this useful

The Complete EDU Guide

[Zett]

However, I feel like you guys are overestimating the matter a bit... I mean, if you give to hoplites 0.2 radius and -4 to attack (to counter the "light_spear" bug), why things shouldn't be balanced enough?

I know the EDU guide and its comment about density:

[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.

That's why I think, that -4 attack won't do it. The problem about density is, that nobody can say exactly what will happen if we give a unit a lower density. The standard value is 0.4, several elite Hoplites in the files I posted have a value of 0.2, which would mean that one soldier in a unit with 0.4 density would have to face two soldiers of a unit with 0.2 density. I'm not sure if you could say so, but for me this sounds like you could say, that in general the one soldier have to face another soldier with doubled attack and doubled lethality values.

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Woreczko]

Zett is right, 0.2 density transforms itself into a massive bonus in close combat. In my own files, I decreased attack of spearmen by 4 points and gave them 0.18 lethality to compensate (spear is a big and powerful weapon after all) . When I tried to implement 0.2 density for some units, they lethality had to be decreased to 0.1 in order to retain balance between units.

In the end I resigned from fiddling with radius attribute. While it allows hoplite units to fight in truely close order, it also makes their formation impossible to break. I mean, look at the macedonian phalanxes. They are impervious, when keeping an orderly pike-wall, but it`s still possible to mess them up. If they formation gets messed up, they easily fell prey to other units. Hoplites with 0.2 radius have no such weakness however. They will keep their extremely close formation no matter, how badly they are disordered and from whatever side you attack them.