javelins too weak?

[Vilkku92]

Well, phalangites wore linen cuirasses, bronze helmets and greaves, and carried shields. They were packed in tight ranks, so that they were protected not only by their personal equipment but also by the shields of the men next to them, the bodies of their comrades and that forrest of pikes. As javelin isn't the most accurate weapon you can find, it would be hard to hit those vulnerable parts from a sensible distance, so we shouldn't be suprised if Akontistai can't kill too many of them from the front.

[antisocialmunky]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a top armor bonus from phalanx as straight shooting weapons like slingers can still do a little bit of damage while all arcing weapons are ridiculously weakened.

If that's not the case then its not a shield bonus but an armor bonus. If IIRC AP is not effective against shield. It only halves armor values.

Ludens, correct me please.

[Tollheit]

If either of your theories were true phalanx/no phalanx should not make much of a difference for slingers, so I repeated my little test with defence: 0,0,5 phalangitai and a unit of 41 Iaosatae

results:
with phalanx: Iaosatae shoot 9/15/15/10 phalangitai
without phalanx: Iaosatae shoot 32/31/31/27 phalangitai

At least as much of a difference. Which is consistent with increased shield values, since Iaosatae have more ammo but less attack, and their ap ability doesn't make a difference against shields.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, phalangites wore linen cuirasses, bronze helmets and greaves, and carried shields. They were packed in tight ranks, so that they were protected not only by their personal equipment but also by the shields of the men next to them, the bodies of their comrades and that forrest of pikes. As javelin isn't the most accurate weapon you can find, it would be hard to hit those vulnerable parts from a sensible distance, so we shouldn't be suprised if Akontistai can't kill too many of them from the front.

I understand that these factors would combine to make the phalanx a resistant formation to missile fire, but it should not be nigh-invincible to missiles. Also, remember that if a javelin hit a shield, it would likely render it useless, forcing the user to discard it. As for accuracy, a tightly packed mass of men makes a pretty easy target, although the chance that they would hit a vulnerable area was unlikely. Even so, I think the ratio should be better than 2 kills for every 100 javelins thrown. Does that not seem just a little bit ridiculous to you? Remember that kills in EB also represent those who are injured too badly to continue fighting but may recover after the battle. So, essentially, we are getting 2 casualties for every 100 javelins thrown. Whether you find that believable or not is up to you.

Anyways, as I said before, I don't really care whether this gets changed, as there are plenty of better ways to kill phalanxes, but I think it overestimates the resilience of the phalanx formation to missiles. Let's be honest, this was not the equivalent of the testudo formation.

[antisocialmunky]

If either of your theories were true phalanx/no phalanx should not make much of a difference for slingers, so I repeated my little test with defence: 0,0,5 phalangitai and a unit of 41 Iaosatae

results:
with phalanx: Iaosatae shoot 9/15/15/10 phalangitai
without phalanx: Iaosatae shoot 32/31/31/27 phalangitai

At least as much of a difference. Which is consistent with increased shield values, since Iaosatae have more ammo but less attack, and their ap ability doesn't make a difference against shields.

Where's your control of other missile units?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I understand that these factors would combine to make the phalanx a resistant formation to missile fire, but it should not be nigh-invincible to missiles. Also, remember that if a javelin hit a shield, it would likely render it useless, forcing the user to discard it. As for accuracy, a tightly packed mass of men makes a pretty easy target, although the chance that they would hit a vulnerable area was unlikely. Even so, I think the ratio should be better than 2 kills for every 100 javelins thrown. Does that not seem just a little bit ridiculous to you? Remember that kills in EB also represent those who are injured too badly to continue fighting but may recover after the battle. So, essentially, we are getting 2 casualties for every 100 javelins thrown. Whether you find that believable or not is up to you.

Anyways, as I said before, I don't really care whether this gets changed, as there are plenty of better ways to kill phalanxes, but I think it overestimates the resilience of the phalanx formation to missiles. Let's be honest, this was not the equivalent of the testudo formation.

I agree. Phalangites have only small shields, not like the huge shields of traditional hoplites. Although their long sarissas might provide some extra protection, overall, the anti-missile defence ability of phalangites should be no better than that of hoplites with equally good body armour. Even in phalanx formation.

[Ludens]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a top armor bonus from phalanx as straight shooting weapons like slingers can still do a little bit of damage while all arcing weapons are ridiculously weakened.

If that's not the case then its not a shield bonus but an armor bonus. If IIRC AP is not effective against shield. It only halves armor values.

Ludens, correct me please.

No, you are right. AP does not work against shields. However, I doubt there is a special armour calculation for projectiles based on their arc. More likely this is caused by the AP effect, or perhaps because slingstones traverse more of the formation than do arcing weapons.

I agree. Phalangites have only small shields, not like the huge shields of traditional hoplites. Although their long sarissas might provide some extra protection, overall, the anti-missile defence ability of phalangites should be no better than that of hoplites with equally good body armour. Even in phalanx formation.

In vanilla R:TW hoplites also used phalanx formation, so this was not a concern to the programmer. But I agree that the pike formation would not have provided much protection in reality.