EB Unit Stats Tweaking - phalangites, hoplites, chariots, gaestae, etc - suggestions?

[Intranetusa]

*Legionary attack should be AP, it says it in the description.
*Legionary lethality should be at least .225 or higher, since even the Southern Gallic Swordsman has a lethality of .225, despite possessing a common 'longsword.' It would be wrong to factor in reputation in for this.

Nah. The gladius is no more armor piercing than your regular spear point. If we gave the gladius AP, you'd have to give all spears AP as well.

As for lethality, a short sword simply isn't as lethal as a long sword. I think the short sword might have a faster attack rate that compensates anyways. Furthermore, EB can't factor in the fact that longswords have a longer attack range than short swords.

So short swords having less lethality than long swords would make sense.

As another AP point, again, giving a gladius AP properties means we would have to give all arrows fired from composite bows AP property as well. Actually, we'd have to make bows much stronger...considering an arrow fired from a composite bow has a better change of penetrating chainmail armor than a stab from a gladius.

*Since the 'rendering the shields useless' is impossible, somehow adjust the pila so that it doesn't kill 0 units up front, regardless of what unit type it is... this one is especially needed as anyone can tell you how unrealistic it is for pila to be thrown at the flanks of a phalanx unit, and still kill only 1 soldier (I remember throwing one whole volley at the backs of some Scythian cataphracts and killed a total of 1 unit... yes 1!!!), there is something wrong with that.

I usually kill like 10+ enemies from throwing pila into their front, and kill 20-30+ enemies if I throw pila into their rear.

As for cataphracts, they don't carry shields, and most of their defense lies in their armor, which covers front and back. So throwing pila into the back of a cataphract line is no different than throwing it into the back of a cataphract line. And if they have good lamellar plate armor instead of chainmail, they wouldn't take very much casualties...

But just killing 1 seems a bit low. I'll have to do tests on that. Are you throwing pila straight on? If it is thrown into a high arc, then it will barely kill anybody.

*The pila has an attack value of 4!, even being armor piercing, what difference would it make vs some light infantry? It would actually be weaker than a rudimentary javelin from a Spanish ambusher... again... a nice subject for an experiment...

Probably for balancing issues. I think they should take out the AP trait for pila and just give it a very high attack value - higher than the regular javelins. That should make it decent against lightly armored infantry. I'll do some testing.

In regards to the Neitos, why is their defense skill, armor, and morale so high? Their description says the following (from site): Why would their armor be superior to the Romans'? Why would their defense skill be higher? Why would, above all things, their morale be so close to the Romans if they were merely the Boutoras in heavy armor... I'd concede a morale of 10, assuming their equipment enchance their 'confidence.'

I think the reason for this is because the Neitors are expensive elite units that are rare, whereas the Roman soldier was plentiful and your rank and file soldier.

So it's a well equipped, well trained "elite" Gallic soldier vs a well equipped, well trained "average" Roman soldier.

This should be reflected with a proportionally higher cost to train and maintain, imo.

[President]

I would tend to agree with Slick for the following reasons Intranetusa:

Nah. The gladius is no more armor piercing than your regular spear point. If we gave the gladius AP, you'd have to give all spears AP as well.

You cannot say that without ignorance or possessing a subtle disdain for the Roman soldier. The Gladius is arguably the most renown weapon for lethality in the ancient world. It's physical design and features reinforced this to a high degree. It was not just double-edged, which in itself was a stark advantage over the typical barbarian swordsman, but also was made of highest quality steel. It was so short as to make it so light as to render it efficient with one hand, yet was able to incapacitate to the same degree as any broadsword. Yet the point most relevant to the point, is its unbreaking sharp point and edge, which made it easily able to deliver blows within the many crevices of heavy armor. It must be pointed out that the lethality of a unit comes not from the weapon, but how the weapon was used.

If you seriously analyze even the most developed spearman - the hoplite - you will see that even such a highly professional soldier did not rely on the lethality of his weapon to kill an opponent, but by skill, defense, and counter-attacks in which the most usual desired outcome involved the knocking down of the opponent, to be pierced in an unarmored spot at the hoplites choosing, due to the defenders defenseless situation.

Thus, it is apparent, as a rule, that a swordsman will always be more lethal than a spearman, due to the fact that it is much easier deliver blows and find weak spots in armor when in close, than when farther away.

Of relative value, I would agree that the "sarissa" should have the AP attribute, as the weight of force with which it was inherently used would allow pikemen to easily pierce heavy armedd units.

As for lethality, a short sword simply isn't as lethal as a long sword. I think the short sword might have a faster attack rate that compensates anyways. Furthermore, EB can't factor in the fact that longswords have a longer attack range than short swords ... So short swords having less lethality than long swords would make sense.

I wouldn't busy myself with attack rates... It is much too trivial and disputable to challenge EB's settings in this respect.

As another AP point, again, giving a gladius AP properties means we would have to give all arrows fired from composite bows AP property as well. Actually, we'd have to make bows much stronger...considering an arrow fired from a composite bow has a better change of penetrating chainmail armor than a stab from a gladius.

This again would fit into what I said previously regarding the nature of the weapons and how they are used. If you look at it with education, it is impossible to deny that the function of the archer is to kill unarmored or undefended opponents. Yes, there are many instances where "arrow pierced through shield" and "pinned foot to the ground" but these are examples in particular, not in general. I doubt that Crassus' legions were lost more because their shields and armor were utterly useless against the Persian bow, than because of Crassus' own strategy and tactics.

Also, realize that, by 272, the composite bow was prevalent almost everwhere in the East and in Africa. It was not adopted in the West due to its logistical failures in the damp weather.

I usually kill like 10+ enemies from throwing pila into their front, and kill 20-30+ enemies if I throw pila into their rear.

Have you ever tried this manoever against pikemen or naken fanatics? It is simply ridiculous.

As for cataphracts, they don't carry shields, and most of their defense lies in their armor, which covers front and back. So throwing pila into the back of a cataphract line is no different than throwing it into the back of a cataphract line. And if they have good lamellar plate armor instead of chainmail, they wouldn't take very much casualties...

Even if an ancient cataphract possessed the means to use Robocop's suit, I doubt he would want to see if he could survive a point-blank shot from a javelin, let alone from the back.

But just killing 1 seems a bit low. I'll have to do tests on that. Are you throwing pila straight on? If it is thrown into a high arc, then it will barely kill anybody.

That is the proper way to test the theory: to test it out. In my example, it was always done at the maximum distance, although I doubt the distance factor should have such a high discrepancy in this respect, albeit with its effect on damage.

Probably for balancing issues. I think they should take out the AP trait for pila and just give it a very high attack value - higher than the regular javelins. That should make it decent against lightly armored infantry. I'll do some testing.

I would argue that it should have both, in order to reflect its high level distinction over the regular javelin.

I think the reason for this is because the Neitors are expensive elite units that are rare, whereas the Roman soldier was plentiful and your rank and file soldier.

So it's a well equipped, well trained "elite" Gallic soldier vs a well equipped, well trained "average" Roman soldier.

This should be reflected with a proportionally higher cost to train and maintain, imo.

A Neitos was nowhere near the level of discipline and training as a legionairre. They were not elite. They weren't nobles. They were merely privileged in the sense that their main duty was to serve their local chief in times of war and were provided special equipment for this purpose - a warrior class far from the distinction of a professional army. When their tribes were not at war, they would live the life of a regular citizen, working farms and indulging in trade.

The Roman Legionnaire, although also not noble and with the same sense of duty, were constantly trained and disciplined during peacetime in preparation for war. They did not live the life of a common Roman citizen, often times living in remote outposts designed to defend the frontier. If anything, you could argue the Neitos to have greater morale, given their great superiorty of courage and bravery, but nothing else.

[gamegeek2]

A Neitos was nowhere near the level of discipline and training as a legionairre. They were not elite. They weren't nobles. They were merely privileged in the sense that their main duty was to serve their local chief in times of war and were provided special equipment for this purpose - a warrior class far from the distinction of a professional army. When their tribes were not at war, they would live the life of a regular citizen, working farms and indulging in trade.

They were every bit as well equipped, if not more so, and while lacking elite training, were well disciplined, professional in the sense that they were full-time warriors, and amazing.

[President]

They were every bit as well equipped, if not more so, and while lacking elite training, were well disciplined, professional in the sense that they were full-time warriors, and amazing.

I am sorry GameGeek, but if you consider the Neitos warrior as equipped than a Roman legionary soldier (let alone possessing the inclination that they were better equipped), you have no conception of what made the Romans the superior power of their time, nor do I think you have taken into consideration anything I have previously said. Otherwise, you would have tried to prove your refutation with some evidence or enlightening description, no?

Just because a man fights does not make him a boxer; just because a warrior goes to war does not make him a soldier. A warrior fights for himself while a soldier fights for his country. The warrior wins by his strength alone; the soldier wins by giving some of his strength to those who fight with him!

[Cute Wolf]

I don't want to said this, but President, you should know that in metallurugical respect, Celts often comes out far better than the Romans, how could you compare mass produced chainmail with carefully tailored and forged chainmail?

[President]

I don't want to said this, but President, you should know that in metallurugical respect, Celts often comes out far better than the Romans, how could you compare mass produced chainmail with carefully tailored and forged chainmail?

How do you know Celtic metallurgy to be better than the Romans? By the time of the Marian days, Rome had dominated much of Spain, North Africa, Asia, Greece, and part of your beloved Gauls. Do you not think they would've had access to a level of blacksmithing that would approach the Celtic?

As far as I know there was never any such thing as "mass-production" in the ancient world. People still depended on the works of skilled laborers and for an empire such as Rome, such laborers comprised various different types of peoples with many skills and customs in the art of "metallurgy." Thus, if anything, Rome would have an advantage eh? I feel you are considering the standing of the Celts in relation to the Romans based on their standing before 272 BC.

[jirisys]

<removed>

This can be applied to your common laborers (...) with many skills and customs in the art of "metallurgy." [sic], who, with excessive demand, had to make the armours faster, and therefore, made mistakes, or had to use less iron to make enough. Those mailles were of lower quality, to fit the demand, that's why 300 spartans and ~7,000 greeks took a hold against 70,000-300,000 persians; because their armour was made with care and pacience, because the common laborer(...) with many skills and customs in the art of "metallurgy." [sic] knew that the armour was going not only to protect his buyer, but his buyer's son, grandson, and etc.

In that matter, legionaries should get lower armour than neitos. Metalurgy is like rennaisance art, hurry it and you will EPIC FAIL().

On the matter of javelins, in order to achieve full power, has to be on the air for at least three feet, but not to attain it's height peak, when cinetic energy is at it's max, but enough about physics flabber-plabber. If you shoot a javelin at PBR (Point-Blank Range) what you will get is your hand hitting the target's armour with your hand, and, you cannot understand, try to jav a cylinder with the same strength, angle, etc. from the "back" and the "front", what you will get is: THE SAME THING

Armour =/= fighting style, as you had put it, it doesn't matter if the legions trained every single day, and the neitos were a bunch of fat old men, and viceversa. Each one's armour WILL REMAIN THE SAME. No matter how you fight, lorica hamata on a gaul=lorica hamata on a parthian!

<removed>

P.S.: Accept it, Rome destroyed everyone once they outnumbered them, I appreciate Hannibal, to have showed them that tactics are more important than pure brute force, same thing with the Quincunx for the romans side, and maybe Caesar, but, most strategos of Rome were just fat, overpaid, tacticless brutes (of course i don't mean it, i don't know that much of roman history, it's just an asseveration of my rant, I apologize)

~Jirisys (...)