Roman Soldier Mount Effect

[antisocialmunky]

I was wondering if the EBII team is thinking at all about depicting the use of the heavy pilum as a anti-horse weapon? The legionaires sometimes would keep the heavier of their two pilums and use it to ward off horses in a defensive formation atleast recorded by Arian.

[The General]

I was wondering if the EBII team is thinking at all about depicting the use of the heavy pilum as a anti-horse weapon? The legionaires sometimes would keep the heavier of their two pilums and use it to ward off horses in a defensive formation atleast recorded by Arian.

That would require legionaries to have three weapons, now wouldn't it? (Gladius, javelin-pilum and spear-pilum)

That's impossible with the game enginge iirc.

[Mediolanicus]

That would require legionaries to have three weapons, now wouldn't it? (Gladius, javelin-pilum and spear-pilum)

That's impossible with the game enginge iirc.

Not when you simulate this by just giving the Romans a bonus against cavalry.

On the other hand, this can only be done when it is almost certain the Romans would have used this every time to counter cavalry.

[The General]

Not when you simulate this by just giving the Romans a bonus against cavalry.

On the other hand, this can only be done when it is almost certain the Romans would have used this every time to counter cavalry.

Indeed, and giving the bonus at all times would be rather unfair, considering they can throw both of their pila to decimate their enemies before mêlée and still get the bonus against cavalry afterwards.

[Mediolanicus]

Indeed, and giving the bonus at all times would be rather unfair, considering they can throw both of their pila to decimate their enemies before mêlée and still get the bonus against cavalry afterwards.

Which is the best argument against what I think antisocialmunky is proposing/putting up to be considered.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I think that all types of heavy infantry should have a bonus against cavalry.
Is sword (or mace and axe) so ineffective against horses?
Yes, spear is more long for hit the knight, but the horse can easily be hit in melee.
I ve seen in EB that some time cavalry can run through enemy infantry(especially swordsmen) without died.
I think shouldn t be only for roman legionaries, but should be for all heavy infantry.

[Cybvep]

This is gonna be an endless moot point if some things aren't clarified. Firstly, we (or, more precisely, the EB team) should decide what we expect from particular unit(s) on the battlefield, given the limitations of MTW2 engine.

Then, however, it must be decided what we want from the game in terms of overall balance in the singleplayer mode, which accounts for the greatest part of average player's gaming experience. And singleplayer mode means facing AI opponents. In such case, those are bad opponents, even if better than RTW ones.

If we introduce impenetrable heavy infantry from the front (I'm not saying that it should be the case, as it's just an example), human player would be smart enough not to use his/her cavalry in a suicidal manner. AI, however, cannot be taught this. Handling the cavalry would be one of the trickiest things to do on the battlefield, as they could only be used to flanking manuevers, something which on MTW2 engine will always be much easier to perform for a player than for the AI. Therefore, if we want some challenge from sp game, we must make a compromise of sorts and such compromises are present in EB1 (some are better than others).

A good example would be the balance of primary and secondary weapons of "lancers" in EB1. They are full of compromises. Their primary weapon is perfect for charging, but it should be really effective only when charging from the flank or rear and it shouldn't be that great in prolonged melee. However, in EB1 AI can't switch to secondary weapon, so the lancers must be able to fight with their primary weapons with at least average efficiency, as they do in EB1. Also, the lancers should retain their ability to cripple enemy with flanking charges, as they do in EB1. Switching to secondary weapons should also be possible and at least useful in some situations, e.g. when fighting lightly armed opponents with swords (so that players can utilise this) and that's the case in EB.

This impressive balance is achieved by utilising weapon delay attribute (so lancers are not overpowered in melee), low attack value (see above), very high charge (so the lancers are much more powerful when charging) and lethality values (so they are not underpowered in charges from the flank or rear and in melee in general, for the AI's sake) and armour-piercing attribue (so units with high armour value are not immune to flanking attacks). Secondary weapon, in case of swords, have much higher attack value, no weapon delay and lower lethality, so they are perfect when fighting opponents with high defence and low armour rating. Of course, the balance is not perfect, even because of existance of experience stat (which can throw the balance of in many parts of EB1 combat system). Also, as pointed out, sometimes lancers are too good versus armoured opponents in melee and it's not practical to change to secondary weapons. Personally, I would give "area" stat to swords and decrease number of soldiers in an unit to remedy this problem, but that's another topic.

Long story short - there are many things to consider when balancing the statistics and things that look realistic on paper aren't always the best ones in practice.

[antisocialmunky]

If you read my posts, they are about makign a compromise to not make Legionaires suck unrealistically and considering that the AI has a pretty bad habit of frontal charges, you're probably going to run into that problem if you actually get to Marian, haven't conquered the world, and Parthia has taken over everything in the East.

If you're going to balance for singleplayer, you should take Phalanx out completely because the AI cannot handle it at all. :-p Lets just make units balance realistically and leave it at that.

[Cybvep]

If you read my posts, they are about makign a compromise to not make Legionaires suck unrealistically and considering that the AI has a pretty bad habit of frontal charges, you're probably going to run into that problem if you actually get to Marian, haven't conquered the world, and Parthia has taken over everything in the East.

If you're going to balance for singleplayer, you should take Phalanx out completely because the AI cannot handle it at all. :-p Lets just make units balance realistically and leave it at that.

Concerning phalanx - that's why they are not as susceptible to attacks from the flank or rear as they should be.

Besides, when I was talking about a compromise, I didn't mention "totally screwing history and going for gameplay fun"...

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Does anybody have every played Med2 online ? Cavalry is totaly overpowerd, it doesn't matter wether in vanilla or mods which even changed the unit states significantly. Even light cavalry is able to defeat heavy infantery from the front with some charges and retreats. Heavy cavalry is almost unstoppable, except against pikes but even spears are kinda useless for some reason.

I really hope that there is some way to change this. Heavy cavalry is also strong in Eb but a joke if compared to Med2.

[antisocialmunky]

Concerning phalanx - that's why they are not as susceptible to attacks from the flank or rear as they should be.

The AI is incapable of utilizing that though. They also can't do bridge battles or fight up hills.

Besides, when I was talking about a compromise, I didn't mention "totally screwing history and going for gameplay fun"...

I didn't mention "totally screwing history" either, just figuring out how ot represent it better.


@FB - Actually from what I've seen from most mods, the mechanics are quite moddable, also cavalry STOPS after it runs into any unit so its not possible to charge through your own mans. As long as cavalry does MAD onto spears, you're winning the cav fight.

[Cybvep]

The AI is incapable of utilizing that though. They also can't do bridge battles or fight up hills.

I don't get your point. Phalanx should be very susceptible from the rear or the flank (much more than it currently is in EB1) and they don't always collapse because it helps the AI tremendously, especially if it's not outnumbered.

AFAIK nothing could be done about the bridge battles in EB1. Small fords were much better, but unfortunately when roads improved, so did the fords and they became the bridges...

N/c about fighting uphill.


We must see what the EB team will achieve in MTW2, with new combat system being developed. However, I don't think that heavy cavalry will be made completely useless when attacking heavy infantry from the front and giving bonuses to single units (e.g. legionnaries) are not justified unless they are really needed because of limitations of the engine. As pointed out by some people in this thread, when you give a bonus to one unit, you must consider other untis, too. Otherwise, one must state why legionnaries should be better or worse at repelling heavy cavalry than other heavy infantry in the first place. Why not give skirmishers bonuses against cavalry? They have pointy sticks, too.

I think that a much more interesting topic is the one of giving all units which should have "third weapon" or working secondary weapon certain bonuses in order to better depict them, e.g. hoplites or cataphracts. That would be an interesting topic, indeed.

[antisocialmunky]

Oh wait, nvm. I misread your post as I often do...

But at the rest, what are trying to get at? Its very confusing.

Anyways, I think that it would be a reasonable policy to give ALL heavy infantry should have some sort of minimum ability to resist cavalry via mass to account for their denser formation..

[The General]

Oh wait, nvm. I misread your post as I often do...

But at the rest, what are trying to get at? Its very confusing.

Anyways, I think that it would be a reasonable policy to give ALL heavy infantry should have some sort of minimum ability to resist cavalry via mass to account for their denser formation..

I'm curious how that would affect charges to the flanks and rear, though. If the mass is simply greater, won't they resists charges from all sides?

[antisocialmunky]

I'm curious how that would affect charges to the flanks and rear, though. If the mass is simply greater, won't they resists charges from all sides?

To a certain degree: yes but its the difference between massive damage and slightly less massive damage. You can still attack the weakspot for massive damage(relatively).

@Parallel Pain, you want to see the replays?

@Ludens, you know... after playing TATW for the past week, I have no faith in the AI department at all. Its such a terrible mess. I hope they have some ideas on how to fix BAI.

[Cybvep]

If the EB team wants it, then it will be possible to design stat system in such way that charges from the flank or rear will be devastating. We have, after all, three types of defence + mass + weapon attributes + horse mass etc.

[Ludens]

If the EB team wants it, then it will be possible to design stat system in such way that charges from the flank or rear will be devastating. We have, after all, three types of defence + mass + weapon attributes + horse mass etc.

It's certainly possible, but I am afraid that it would mess up something else. Also, you need to take into account how the A.I. will deal with these changes. It probably will ignore them, thus giving the player a major advantage.

[Cybvep]

Yep, just as I've said... But it's hard to add anything without knowing what the team wants to do.

[Parallel Pain]

I still say in EB1 at least if my tiny little bowmen armed with knifes, no shields and no armor can kill cataphracts of any kind in a VH game vs the AI, your legionaries in any era can do the same and better