Some queries regarding EB's units...

[Rolling Thunder]

Alright, let me start this out by saying that I'm aware I'm a new fish here - new to both this forum and new to EB. If this issue or topic has been brought up before, I apologise - I did as much searching as seemed rational, but it's entirely possible I missed something. I'd also like to add that while this post is fundamentally critical, I do love EB. The mod is just plain fantastic - a true testament to human ingenuity and dedication - and I hope not to offend anybody with my questions/criticism.

The basics of my queries mostly consist of addressing some problems I've seen with certain units during my long-running Seleukid and Koinion Hellion campaigns, and some discrepancies with these. Again, let me please reiterate that no disrespect is meant to the mod and the mod team, I'm just trying to figure out a few issues here and there.

Phalanxes:

My main issue with the Diadoachi phalanxes is their shield bonus. In the game, Diadoachi phalangites experience a shield defensive bonus of +5. Units using the Aspis or Hoplon shield, however, experience only a +4 bonus. This does strike me as a little illogical, as the shields used by Phalangites tended to be somewhat smaller than those used by the traditional Hoplati. Also, I would presume that the cumbersome nature of the Sarissa would make the shield much less useful, especially in a melee.


Light units:

A number of units in antiquity went into battle with no armour, relying only on shields or lightly-packed formations and skirmishing to protect them. However, I have found that a number of these units, for example Parthian Spearmen and Gestatae, have a relatively high armour value for unarmoured men. While I can understand the sheer lunacy of the Wild Men would make them more resistant to damage, the same can not be said of Parthian Spearmen. It also makes otherwise poor, lightly-armoured units unnaturally resilient to damage when combined with shields.

[athanaric]

Gaesatae and Parthian Spearmen both have helmets. Helmets count for a lot of points in the EB system. Their missile resistance is mainly due to their large shields.
If you're having a problem with OP Gaesatae or Tindanotae, you can always remove the secondary hitpoint, like some others did (me included), ideally combined with a price adjustment or a stat compensation. This will reduce their resilience to missiles as well.


e: oh, and welcome to the forum.

[vartan]

Hi Rolling Thunder, and welcome to EB and the EB community. I'm not a modder (that's a word, right?), but I do know that many share your concern. Some even go to such lengths as to modify these stats, such as shield values, defence values, armour values, weapon values, and so on. You can join in by finding such threads on the Unofficial Mods section, or even start your own! I always preferred starting my own projects (yeah!) but never too late to join in!

[Atilius]

In the game, Diadoachi phalangites experience a shield defensive bonus of +5.

Phalanx units get a -2 penalty to defense and -1 to armor which is somewhat offset by a +2 to their shield value. This is intended to simulate the relative weakness of the phalanx to flank and rear attacks: the shield bonus is only applied is only applied to attacks from the left and front.

I have found that a number of these units, for example Parthian Spearmen and Gestatae, have a relatively high armour value for unarmoured men.

Gaesatae get +3 armor for their metal helmets, +1 armor for cheekguards, and a +1 armor bonus for being barbarian melee troops.

We've done our best to adjust unit stats to take into account factors which don't appear in the combat system. Some of these are non-intuitive, but I think they yield results which tend to mirror historical reality.

[Rolling Thunder]

Thanks for the warm welcome all three of you. It's good to be welcomed aboard in so friendly a fashion.

@athanaric: No, it's not a problem, merely a realism query. The game's pretty fantastic and all, and I don't find anything unbalanced, merely odd.

@Vartan: Oh, I do plan to modify my own game (been doing for ages). I just want to discuss things with this community before I change anything, see the reasons behind it and so on. Basically, I want to discuss these things

@Atilus: I can see the logic behind that, but the issue I find is that phalangites are, fundamentally, very vulnerable troops. They rely on the sheer power and reach of their pikes to keep them alive and in one piece. Would it not be more realistic for them to have relatively low defence and shields statistics to reflect that their shields are smaller, much harder to use with the Sarissa and that the Sarissa is a relatively clumsy weapon and hard to defend yourself with. Whereas in EB, I would thing they are...a tad too resilient. Hoplites, having larger shields and being able to use them more effectively, really should be more resilient all-around (and less powerful).

A solution that was found in the Medieval II mods was to actually remove pike unit's secondary weapons. Has this been considered?

[MisterFred]

I can't imagine the secondary units being removed from pike units, unless perhaps the most basic of levies are left with no more than a knife for a secondary. The main argument against this being that they did actually have secondary weapons. While I agree they're too strong from the front vs missiles and too resistant to rear charges due to the mass bonus of the phalanx formation, most of this is hardcoded and a result of the engine, not the EB team. They've hinted though, and I'm looking forward to, very different phalanxes in EBII.

Phalanxes look a lot more realistic in rough terrain. While they're still tough, try charging a phalanx frontally in a forest where you have a significant slope advantage - highly armored troops can sometimes get into and break levy phalanxes and even pezhateroi without flanking support.

Edit: As Vartan pointed out below, phalanxes are also more reasonable using fair play standards (even if the AI doesn't follow them) by not switching direction without leaving combat & phalanx formation and reforming.

[vartan]

I can't imagine the secondary units being removed from pike units, unless perhaps the most basic of levies are left with no more than a knife for a secondary. The main argument against this being that they did actually have secondary weapons. While I agree they're too strong from the front vs missiles and too resistant to rear charges due to the mass bonus of the phalanx formation, most of this is hardcoded and a result of the engine, not the EB team. They've hinted though, and I'm looking forward to, very different phalanxes in EBII.

Phalanx-mode units need secondary weapons unless you want 180 degree pike-turning. How would you fight melee?

[Rolling Thunder]

@Vartan: With their pikes. Sure, they would have had their knives and falcattas, but consider this: If you remove these, they can't switch to them. If they always keep fighting with the pikes, you get a much more realistic situation with the metacombat as a whole.

[Atilius]

... Would it not be more realistic for them to have relatively low defence and shields statistics to reflect that their shields are smaller, much harder to use with the Sarissa and that the Sarissa is a relatively clumsy weapon and hard to defend yourself with. Whereas in EB, I would thing they are...a tad too resilient.

Look, any combat system has limitations. We have fiddled with unit stats to try to get around RTW's shortcomings. As for the EB phalanx being too resilient, as Polybios (18.29) says: "... so long as the phalanx retains its characteristic form and strength nothing can withstand its charge or resist it face to face."

[Rolling Thunder]

Look, any combat system has limitations. We have fiddled with unit stats to try to get around RTW's shortcomings. As for the EB phalanx being too resilient, as Polybios (18.29) says: "... so long as the phalanx retains its characteristic form and strength nothing can withstand its charge or resist it face to face."

Okay, I know the system is flawed and hardcoded. Sorry, did not mean to upset anybody.



@Vartan: So they can't use the pikes in a melee? I know that it would be impossible for them to use the pikes on the small, little combats occuring outside of the melee, but in the broad mass of a close-in fight they could still use them.

[vartan]

@Vartan: So they can't use the pikes in a melee? I know that it would be impossible for them to use the pikes on the small, little combats occuring outside of the melee, but in the broad mass of a close-in fight they could still use them.

I admire your looking at the bigger picture, but this is a real time tactics game, not an RTS. Everything matters. You need to have something to do in such close-quarter-combat situations. In fact, the current system is limited. A tertiary weapon combat system would be more preferable (and what I seek to implement in my battle engine). Look at the Armenian Late Bodyguard for instance (Hai Zoravar): You will notice that the bodyguard hold a lance, a mace, and a sword. Which one can't they use? The sword. How unfortunate.