hypaspistai vs. peltastai makedonioki

[Drag0nUL]

I have a few questions regarding these 2 units:

1. In their descriptions (and what I've been abel to dig up on the internet), Hypaspistai were attested in the time of Philip and Alexander, while Peltastai Makedonikoi appeared in the armies of their successors. So, were the Peltastai the evolution of the Hypaspistai, or were they 2 different units that coexisted?

2. I was doing a quick comparison of their respective stats (in EB Unit Compare). and I noticed that the Hypaspystai have a 0.225 lethality sword while the Peltastai have only 0.13 lethality. This doesn't make much sense to me. While will somebody arm their elite swordsmen with anything else than the best swords available? Is there any historical evidence that the Hypaspistai carried better swords?

[Genava]

1. In their descriptions (and what I've been abel to dig up on the internet), Hypaspistai were attested in the time of Philip and Alexander, while Peltastai Makedonikoi appeared in the armies of their successors. So, were the Peltastai the evolution of the Hypaspistai, or were they 2 different units that coexisted?

The peltastai are the evolution of the hypaspistai, they appear at the Battle of Sellasia and at the battle of Pydna. They replace the hypaspists which are almost not mentioned in the armies of the successors.

2. I was doing a quick comparison of their respective stats (in EB Unit Compare). and I noticed that the Hypaspystai have a 0.225 lethality sword while the Peltastai have only 0.13 lethality. This doesn't make much sense to me. While will somebody arm their elite swordsmen with anything else than the best swords available? Is there any historical evidence that the Hypaspistai carried better swords?

During the battle of Pydna, Plutarch mentions that the phalangits use small daggers against the roman gladius. But nothing on the Peltasts who use the sarissa too.

[Ludens]

1) The evolution of elites in the successor armies is rather obscure. For example: Alexander disbanded the hypaspists in India so the later hypaspists are not the same unit. And, off course, Hellenic naming conventions are a mess. Peltast originally meant low-grade skirmisher (akontistai-type), but after Alexander the term was used for royal bodyguards. The team chose to use the term hypaspists to indicate the traditional heavy-hoplite elite, while peltast was used for the more mobile assault-type troops, and argyraspides for the elite phalangites.

2) Not better, but different swords. Peltasts carry a top-heavy armour-piercing sword (kopis or macheira, I am not sure which) that does less well against lightly-armoured foes, but is way more effective against heavy infantry.

[Raiuga]

2) Not better, but different swords. Peltasts carry a top-heavy armour-piercing sword (kopis or macheira, I am not sure which) that does less well against lightly-armoured foes, but is way more effective against heavy infantry.

They don't have AP attribute in their stats nor in their battle model appears a AP sword (kopis or macheira).

[seienchin]

Early hypaspitai were light troops, only in later times they were the heavy armoured kings guard. They are mentioned a few times.
To the sword question,
Sometimes I think its just random. The mauretanian skirmisher infantry has 0.225 lethality swords making them incredible powerfull, and the Indian longbowman with 0.225 plus ap are just insane, they win 1:1 melee with roman troops.

[tarem]

that does not make much sense. is there only a limited permited lethality values for weapons? and i really don't think indian longbowmen should be able to melee 1 on 1 with roman heavies. that's just odd

[bobbin]

2. I was doing a quick comparison of their respective stats (in EB Unit Compare). and I noticed that the Hypaspystai have a 0.225 lethality sword while the Peltastai have only 0.13 lethality. This doesn't make much sense to me. While will somebody arm their elite swordsmen with anything else than the best swords available? Is there any historical evidence that the Hypaspistai carried better swords?

The Hypaspistai are armed with massive longswords while the Peltastai have more nimble shortswords that fit their role as mobile troops.

Sometimes I think its just random. The mauretanian skirmisher infantry has 0.225 lethality swords making them incredible powerfull, and the Indian longbowman with 0.225 plus ap are just insane, they win 1:1 melee with roman troops.

that does not make much sense. is there only a limited permited lethality values for weapons? and i really don't think indian longbowmen should be able to melee 1 on 1 with roman heavies. that's just odd

There is no limited permittivity of lethality values but the team have a system, the stats are done by the weapons the units are armed with, longswords like those used by the Maures infantry and the Hypaspistai get 0.225 lethality, short swords get 0.1 lethality and "gladius" types get 0.13. The longbowmen get AP and high lethality because they are armed with very heavy, very large machetes which would have been deadly as well as being quite effective anti armour weapons.

[tarem]

but such swords must be quite heavy and slow to use, making their users have slow attack rates and even lower attack and deffence rates?

[bobbin]

Yes well they do, their attack rate (as governed by the animation they use) is slower, as is their attack value. Their defense skill is a bit high but then they do not wear armour and so are more agile.

[tarem]

i guess i'll have to test them myself to see how well they perform against diferent types of enemy infantry. my campaigns never brought me to India yet, even less so with the Romans. by the way how does the shield value influence the overal survavibility of the unit? does it add to the defence or to the armor value? or does ot work against missiles only?

[bobbin]

As far as I am aware its seperate from both, all of them get counted for meele defence but only armour and shield get counted for missle defence, I also know its not affected by AP. The sheild is pretty important for survivability of a unit, especially against missles as its value is doubled (supposedly) when being hit from the front or left hand side.

[athanaric]

As far as I am aware its seperate from both, all of them get counted for meele defence but only armour and shield get counted for missle defence, I also know its not affected by AP. The sheild is pretty important for survivability of a unit, especially against missles as its value is doubled (supposedly) when being hit from the front or left hand side.

You can see this quite easily when testing your units against missile troops. Units with a shield value of 4 (mostly Legionaries, Parthian Spearmen, Hoplites, Gallic elites and the occasional Barbarian tribesman) fare very well vs frontal missiles, and everyone with 2 and below suffers. That is the reason why you don't put shortswordsmen or two-handed swordsmen in the main battle line - they die like flies from arrows and javelins.