v 1.2 Macedonian Peltastai (Elite): assault role must be a joke, right?

[The Celtic Viking]

Sorry, but that isn't really accurate in game terms (while I agree with the historical notes). If you look at RTW base files, you'll find EB "equiv" units have on average 2 or 3 times the Defence of those. Some of the weapons have lower attack, but most actually are higher. Its the extra armor, defence and higher morales that are really responsible for longer battles.

I'm afraid he's correct here. Lethality is not the same as the attack, it's two different things. Attack is how likely a strike is to hit, and lethality is how likely a hit is to kill the target (when it fails, soldiers are just knocked down). In vanilla RTW the lethality was 1 for all weapons - in EB only the missile weapons have that, and that's because of hardcoded limits. The others all have much less than that - and that's the main reason for longer battles, along with a much improved morale.

An average Archer in RTW is 7 missile attack (Elites are up to 11). In EB, Archers are generally around 3 missile attack. Because even Skirmishers have (compared to RTW) pretty decent armor/ and or shield/defence, Archers even struggle relatively vs them. If the point was to make Archers ineffective vs most units, then its been accomplished, with venom. I just think they've been pushed too far to the side of becoming useless.

They have not become useless, you just can't put them against armoured enemies. The attack for missiles have been put low because the missiles' lethality can't be changed. A higher attack would make them overpowered, as they already are after gaining a little experience.

[Drewski]

I'm afraid he's correct here. Lethality is not the same as the attack, it's two different things. Attack is how likely a strike is to hit, and lethality is how likely a hit is to kill the target (when it fails, soldiers are just knocked down). In vanilla RTW the lethality was 1 for all weapons - in EB only the missile weapons have that, and that's because of hardcoded limits. The others all have much less than that - and that's the main reason for longer battles, along with a much improved morale.

They have not become useless, you just can't put them against armoured enemies. The attack for missiles have been put low because the missiles' lethality can't be changed. A higher attack would make them overpowered, as they already are after gaining a little experience.

You partly right, that of course the lethality is much lower, but the higher def/armor and lower attack is also part of the equation too. It doesn't matter how
lethal an attack is, if it misses ;)

[delra]

I'm afraid he's correct here. Lethality is not the same as the attack, it's two different things. Attack is how likely a strike is to hit, and lethality is how likely a hit is to kill the target (when it fails, soldiers are just knocked down). In vanilla RTW the lethality was 1 for all weapons - in EB only the missile weapons have that, and that's because of hardcoded limits. The others all have much less than that - and that's the main reason for longer battles, along with a much improved morale.



They have not become useless, you just can't put them against armoured enemies. The attack for missiles have been put low because the missiles' lethality can't be changed. A higher attack would make them overpowered, as they already are after gaining a little experience.

On topic of archers:

I usually bring two to four units with me depending on the faction I'm playing and enemy. They always score 150-200 kills per battle (unless enemy brought an extremely heavy army) which puts them at the top of the list of killers after the battle. They also get experience very fast.

I position them on my flanks so they can shoot at enemy side. I also sometimes hold fire until enemy is in the right place so I don't waste ammo. In big battles there's usually no chance to manouvre them behind enemy line... but if enemy makes enough mistakes sometimes it's possible and in such cases they basically are screwed.

Finally, if enemy brings a very heavy army, I just shoot flaming arrows at them. Even morale tanks like Extraordinarii or Triarii after such a rain of fire start having second thoughts about the battle. It doesn't give many kills but the difference between enemy units that were shot with fire arrows and those who weren't is noticable.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Archers are indeed quite well balanced. Drewski, is it possible that you play on anything below huge unit size? On large or even normal, cavalry charges and ranged troops lose effectiveness significantly.

[Drewski]

Archers are indeed quite well balanced. Drewski, is it possible that you play on anything below huge unit size? On large or even normal, cavalry charges and ranged troops lose effectiveness significantly.

Unfortunately, my Graphics can't really handle Huge Unit size adequately. Tried it for a while, but the mid battle freezes/ lack of control was too frustrating. I also found, that the camera doesn't really pan out far enough to get a proper view of the battlefield (with huge units), and if you put a 20 stack Army in a straight line, it covers virtually the whole battlefield ! Which kinda gives the idea, that the game wasn't really designed to be played with huge unit sizes.

So in short, No ;)

[antisocialmunky]

Archers are great. :) Also, just so you gus know, all missiles have 1 lethality meaning if it successfully strikes a unit, it dies. So its a little different balancing these guys.

[Rilder]

On large or even normal, cavalry charges and ranged troops lose effectiveness significantly.

You are completely wrong about the calvary charges on that part, I hate using calvary and on large they are absolutely devastating if used right. Ranged units aren't too bad either, at least not the levy ones, like the Toxotai. And even Toxotai are useful early on as cheap range support.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

You are completely wrong about the calvary charges on that part, I hate using calvary and on large they are absolutely devastating if used right. Ranged units aren't too bad either, at least not the levy ones, like the Toxotai. And even Toxotai are useful early on as cheap range support.

I'm surely not completely wrong since they are less effective on a smaller scale. Also, didn't you say you hate using cavalry?

I find the Peltastai Makedonikoi to be pretty good troops if you can afford them. I have found them to be a strong alternative to regular peltastai but due to their lower numbers, the unit seems to diminish quickly. I have not tried them in an assault role, such as storming walls. I usually use Agrianians for that. I'll have to try them out and see how they fare.

Don't let yourself be misled by their name. They are not Peltastai. They are an elite assault infantry, the creme da la creme. I imagine they fare pretty bad as Peltastai.

[Cyclops]

Is this one of those situations where people confuse the name peltast (medium javelin armed skirmishers carrying a pelta type shield) with a peltast (any unit carrying a pelta type shield)?

I find the whole pelta-theuro-dory-hoplon nomenclature thing occasionally confusing. Is their an agreed harmonisation for ancient military terms? The EB nomenclature seems reasonably consistent, perhaps its that the source material is a bit loose with its definitions sometimes.

[-Praetor-]

@Cyclops. Here's a small explaining on the name, from the February preview:

The need of heavy, steadfast and sufficiently mobile assault troops in the Hellenistic kingdoms was fulfilled by units like the Peltastai Makedonikoi. This unit's name ressembles that of the unarmoured and pelte-equipped Thracian skirmisher of the fifth century. However, these troops, aside from their name, have little in common with that extremely mobile light infantry unit. They were equipped with reinforced linen and leather thorakes, a heavy shield 60cm in diameter, richly adorned helmets, greaves, good quality blades and a clutch of javelins.

These units were richly adorned, and were made up of the best men the kingdom had to offer: noblemen's sons in their prime physical condition, relentlessly trained to become an elite special unit.

Mindful of the fact that such a heavily outfitted, highly trained unit could not run around the battlefield performing the simpler task of the older Peltastai, the Strategos of the Diadochoi utilized these troops in fortress assaults, where their javelins could pepper wall defenders and their equipment enabled them to fight in such lethal environments. They were also utilized to carry out special tasks, such as exploiting gaps in the enemy line and hitting the enemy hard from their rear or their flank. They were some of the best assault troops available, and could be used as such if the situation called for it.

However, these troops were not as heavily armoured as their cousins, the Hypaspistai, and while both were considered as Agema and belonged to the Basilike Ile or royal squadron, it should not be confused as to what function corresponds to who in the battlefield.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kO1LYrMa1w

Peltastai does not nominally refer to the shield, but to their extreme mobility. They evolved from being an elite skirmisher, to an extremely mobile assault troop.

[MeinPanzer]

Is this one of those situations where people confuse the name peltast (medium javelin armed skirmishers carrying a pelta type shield) with a peltast (any unit carrying a pelta type shield)?

I find the whole pelta-theuro-dory-hoplon nomenclature thing occasionally confusing. Is their an agreed harmonisation for ancient military terms? The EB nomenclature seems reasonably consistent, perhaps its that the source material is a bit loose with its definitions sometimes.

I'm not sure about this. They used a shield of similar dimension as the phalangites and also the latters was often called pelte although it had nothing to do with the light peltai of the psiloi peltasts. I think at least partly they were called peltastai because of the use of a pelte styled (but massive) shield. It would be consistent as the hypaspists were also called after their shield type.

It's a case of the shield changing but keeping the same name. Classical peltasts used the classic pelte which seems to have been introduced by the Thracians- a light, crescent-shaped shield. The form apparently changed throughout the Classical period, so that when Iphicrates made his reforms, his men were called peltasts after their shields (according to Diodorus), which at that point (early 4th c. BC) may still have been crescent shaped (but that all depends on how you interpret Diodorus' comment, as he calls them "symmetrical"), but were otherwise quite heavily armed. In the Hellenistic period, pelte came to refer to the so-called Macedonian shield, which was the small, shallow, rimless shield about 60 cm in diameter, as it probably resembled what the pelte turned into at the end of the Classical period. Units bearing this shield - phalangites and some elite units - therefore came to be called peltastai or peltophoroi.

[Africanvs]

Don't let yourself be misled by their name. They are not Peltastai. They are an elite assault infantry, the creme da la creme. I imagine they fare pretty bad as Peltastai.

I would say the Hypaspistai are the "creme da la creme," and if they aren't petastai, why are they called peltastai? [1] At any rate, that is how I use them and they work quite well for that purpose. That is, harass enemy flanks with javelins then charge in to the flanks or rear. Any time I have tried to use them as "elite assault infantry" I find that even though they have nice stats their small unit size makes them less useful than many other units, especially considering their high price.

[1] Posted this before I read k raso's message. Interesting post.

I have always wondered why EB chose to make elite units have such a small number of men. Surely there would be less units of them in an army, but would a unit of them be so much smaller? I find it almost eliminates the purpose of recruiting them. Even though they are better troops, they are always so outnumbered it seems to make little difference in the end.

[Rilder]

I'm surely not completely wrong since they are less effective on a smaller scale. Also, didn't you say you hate using cavalry?

If you had read my post you'd see that Even though I hate using calvary, there is no effectiveness lost by being on large unit size, they are absolutly devastating.