Why longswords have 0.225 lethality?

[siegfriedfr]

Really can't find a justification about that, longswords in that era werent that much longer than shortswords, and i dont remember the gallic tribes totally wiping out roman armies 1 on 1.

Any insight?

[SlickNicaG69]

Because the EB mod is skewed for Barbarian factions. And since most barbarains have longswords, then it is natural that they made longswords have the .225 lethality.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I think it just represents that the longswords were quite lethal, usually swung with great power and thus able to shatter shields and cause damage through helmets and armour. Most of the units that use longswords lack armour (defence rating), aren't usually particularly disciplined and - unless their initially lethal attacks break the enemy will pretty rapidly lose morale. So, rather than being "skewed" in favour of the barbarion factions, it is a reasonable interpretation of the era, I think.

[The Celtic Viking]

Had it been anyone else than Slick, I'd have been certain it was sarcasm. I'm just going to take it that way anyway, because otherwise it would just be crazy.

To the OP: I've never seen AI barbarians defeating AI SPQR. In all my games, the SPQR easily expands north, unless I'm there to stop them myself. You can question it if you like, but I can't see how you could make the claim that it makes the barbs overpowered.

[seienchin]

I think it just represents that the longswords were quite lethal, usually swung with great power and thus able to shatter shields and cause damage through helmets and armour. Most of the units that use longswords lack armour (defence rating), aren't usually particularly disciplined and - unless their initially lethal attacks break the enemy will pretty rapidly lose morale.

Wait.... Isnt that what the general advisor tells you in Vanilla? ^^
I am not sure about rapidly loosing moral.
Anyway, many longswords (esspecialy the celtic ones) found from EBs timeframe were of a poor qualitiy, still its true that they were often swung from above, so had quite an impact. Anyway, roman shortsword were extremly deadly esspecialy in combination with their shield so I am sure romans were deadlier warriors than celts, but besider that:
Gladius has AP in EB, which makes it exremly good against armoured enemies and Longswords with hight lethatlity are good against unarmoured troops. This might not be accurate, but it balances the system.

@Burebist
Interesting... Adopting the Spatha because of the late roman lack of discipline... Any proof?

[siegfriedfr]

Wait.... Isnt that what the general advisor tells you in Vanilla? ^^
I am not sure about rapidly loosing moral.
Anyway, many longswords (esspecialy the celtic ones) found from EBs timeframe were of a poor qualitiy, still its true that they were often swung from above, so had quite an impact. Anyway, roman shortsword were extremly deadly esspecialy in combination with their shield so I am sure romans were deadlier warriors than celts, but besider that:
Gladius has AP in EB, which makes it exremly good against armoured enemies and Longswords with hight lethatlity are good against unarmoured troops. This might not be accurate, but it balances the system.

last i checked the EDU, legionary/roman units have absolutely no AP: just medium atk, and low lethality.

No they wouldn't. High lethality in EB is usually compensated by a looser formation which makes the unit less effective . Romans used tightly packed units with short swords to mainly stab. the change to Spatha came after the discipline and formation of roman infantry had decayed so wielding a larger sword in a looser formation made more sense.

EB can't representate all the details , that is true , but all the units behave as they should so that is a great merit for the team. Even the multiplayer is balanced (excepty that damn guard mode issue)

There has been no major EDU balancing since at least 1.1 in april 2008, and new things are discovered about unit behaviour/stat over at TWcenters every now on then. Even EB can have its shortcomings.

They already had the spatha in the Principate they just kept it for cavalry use where it was tactically more useful. Despite some revisionist scholarship on the matter I still think the later legions that adapted the spatha were far less disciplined and effective in pitched battles than the ones from the empire's golden age. Perhaps part of it was decaying discipline and organisation, perhaps part of it was the later Empire's greater focus on avoiding battle and achieving victory through means such as diplomacy, ambuscade, skirmishing and starvation of the enemy, but the bottom line remains. I see the spatha as a consequence of the change from an army that seeks out the enemy in pitched battles to one that expects to mostly fight smaller skirmishes where a more unwieldy but powerful weapon is to be preferred.

As for the stat-balancing in EB, part of the problem is the R:TW engine. Lethality simply is far better than attack. Smiths and experience can raise attack and defence values very high even if they were low to begin with, whilst nothing changes lethality. Looking through the "Surprisingly good/bad units" thread this theme is apparent again and again. Units with high lethality are surprisingly good, with low lethality surprisingly bad.

I know there won't be any more big changes to EB1, but in theory I think there are two solutions to this: First, smaller differences in lethality. A longsword being more than twice as effective as a non-gladius short-sword makes the difference too pronounced. And second: doing what mods like Fourth Age Total War do, and having all units start out with a lot of experience based on class. If stats are balanced for all elite units starting out with silver chevrons to reflect their elite status, their getting experience won't unbalance the game as they gain it much more slowly. And if it becomes hard to raise attack values through such means, then having a higher base attack actually becomes an advantage that might compensate for lower lethality.

That's what i tought too. But the slightest change in unit stats can change the tide of a battle entirely. For example add 5 base soldier to a unit, and it can win where it previously lost.
ALso, i agree that giving TWICE the lethality to longsword compared to short seems a bit overthetop, but then, its true that gallic armies will be composed of many levies and few elites, whereas roman armies are just 1 infantry with very good armor.

[Randal]

Burebista:

Wider spacing indeed is a good and logical compensation for longswords' higher lethality. However, not all longsword units have this. Milnaht and Solduros, for example, have a tighter spacing than legionary troops. Like I said above, I think it would make sense if tight-formation longsword troops had slightly lower attack and/or lethality to indicate they can't use them as effectively in such a formation.

I was talking about the single-player campaign. I don't doubt that the attack/defence system is better balanced in multiplayer, where you don't get stacks of chevroned troops unbalancing the stat-system. (Case in point: Getai, who can get up to 4 free chevrons per unit) And yes, attributes like AP make an even bigger difference even in single-player.

[athanaric]

Gladius has AP in EB, which makes it exremly good against armoured enemies and Longswords with hight lethatlity are good against unarmoured troops. This might not be accurate, but it balances the system.

The Gladius does not have the AP attribute. It has, however, decent lethality (0.13).
You might be confusing it with Kopis style swords which have a lethality of 0.11 plus AP attribute.

The effectiveness, and hence the lethality, of a sword is not in its physical measurements, but rather in its manufacturing process - its metallurgy. We hear it stressed all the time when we see the documentaries on the Samurai sword. The fact is the Gaul's, by their relative scientific ineptitude, were unable to forge durable swords or equipment, even amongst their elites. Their only real chance at durable armor and weapons were by, as stated by Ludens, the plundering of enemy material. That is why the most fearsome of barbarians were always those with a long winning streak, allowing them to develop large caches of distinct, high-quality weapons that they themselves used as they progressed. Those of the barbarians who remained stagnate were doomed by the inferior quality of their domestic equipment.

Such is the fact of the barbarians in history, their inferiority only non-existent in the multitudes they represented. But, unfortunately, as some have said, it appears that the engine that drives EB is simply unmatched for the task of representing them accurately...

Who are you trying to troll here? Your claims were state of the art in... 1700 AD, when anti-Gaul or anti-Germanic bias was en vogue. Also the thing about Katanas...

[SlickNicaG69]

Haha, Athanaric, I don't try to troll anybody. You can disagree, if you want, but you can't refute me without credentials.

And don't compare me with 16th century biases. I have given the barbarians much more credit than any of them ever have.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Wait.... Isnt that what the general advisor tells you in Vanilla? ^^

Hmmm..., it is very likely very similar to the EB description..yes. Deliberately so. Irony seems wasted sometimes, doesn't it? The main point being (and, that I have to point this out is rather disturbing...) that taking one statistic out of many, without any consideration of the other stats, rather misses the point. Clearly the Celtic hordes don't overpower the other factions..., so I don't really see what the problem is...

Anyway, many longswords (esspecialy the celtic ones) found from EBs timeframe were of a poor qualitiy

Isn't that (poor quality) a relative term? Poor quality compatred to what?

Ok, for those of you whom presume that I base my assertions on bias and my own private theories, here is evidence that I base mine, since I myself am not an expert in the field, on those that are experts:

-Wikipedia



The effectiveness, and hence the lethality, of a sword is not in its physical measurements, but rather in its manufacturing process - its metallurgy. We hear it stressed all the time when we see the documentaries on the Samurai sword. The fact is the Gaul's, by their relative scientific ineptitude, were unable to forge durable swords or equipment, even amongst their elites. Their only real chance at durable armor and weapons were by, as stated by Ludens, the plundering of enemy material. That is why the most fearsome of barbarians were always those with a long winning streak, allowing them to develop large caches of distinct, high-quality weapons that they themselves used as they progressed. Those of the barbarians who remained stagnate were doomed by the inferior quality of their domestic equipment.

Such is the fact of the barbarians in history, their inferiority only non-existent in the multitudes they represented. But, unfortunately, as some have said, it appears that the engine that drives EB is simply unmatched for the task of representing them accurately...

Have you actually taken in what Pleiner says, in the text that you have quoted? he says, firstly, that; " only one third could be described as conforming to the quality which he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. Even so, it is quite possible that even some of the better quality swords would have failed in battle."....ok, so, what does that mean? Well; "Nevertheless he argues that the classical sources are exaggerated. Plutarch's claim that Celtic swords would bend completely back is implausible, as only a slight bending would be likely"....ahhh..., so actually, none of the swords could be described as conforming to the quality he ascribed generally to Celtic swords. About a third of them might have suffered a slight bending..., so quite what "failed" in battle outside of that slight bending might suggest....who knows? Doesn't actually say much, does it? Other than that Plutarch was talking out of his backside.

As for the rest of your post..., the drivel about the technologically undeveloped barbarians (can't really believe you actually use the term seriously...), take a look at Power2the1's post. Puts some perspective on that little fairytale....

[abou]

Wow SlickNica, biased much? Honestly, I don't know why you're even here considering your incessant complaining of the mod. I'm sorry that we try to provide a more balanced insight into the Hellenistic world. But hey, maybe we just don't know what we're talking about and perhaps should just give up.

Siegfriedr, we do actually have a significant difference in length for the swords. In Lang's article "Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords" published in Britannia, she states that the Celtic La Tene III blades averaged 620 mm and one example being 855 mm. Much earlier La Tene I blades were about 535 mm and tapered. Compare this to the gladius, which has some big extremes: 367 - 590 mm. However, from tests it has been determined that practical lengths for the Roman infantry would be about 380 - 430 mm. Longer examples than this stated range may have survived, but appear to be over represented due to their use as officer swords or as votive offerings much in the way that overly fancy cavalry helmets seem to be so common as finds in rivers.

So what does this mean? Well, 20+ cm is indeed quite a difference in length as well as weight. Do a little physics using radial acceleration and you get quite a difference in force. And if the sword connects with it's "sweet spot" against a helmet, not only will it have a greater chance of overcoming the armor, but it will have a greater chance at a kill. I hope that helps.

[siegfriedfr]

Wow SlickNica, biased much? Honestly, I don't know why you're even here considering your incessant complaining of the mod. I'm sorry that we try to provide a more balanced insight into the Hellenistic world. But hey, maybe we just don't know what we're talking about and perhaps should just give up. :shrugh:

Siegfriedr, we do actually have a significant difference in length for the swords. In Lang's article "Study of the Metallography of Some Roman Swords" published in Britannia, she states that the Celtic La Tene III blades averaged 620 mm and one example being 855 mm. Much earlier La Tene I blades were about 535 mm and tapered. Compare this to the gladius, which has some big extremes: 367 - 590 mm. However, from tests it has been determined that practical lengths for the Roman infantry would be about 380 - 430 mm. Longer examples than this stated range may have survived, but appear to be over represented due to their use as officer swords or as votive offerings much in the way that overly fancy cavalry helmets seem to be so common as finds in rivers.

So what does this mean? Well, 20+ cm is indeed quite a difference in length as well as weight. Do a little physics using radial acceleration and you get quite a difference in force. And if the sword connects with it's "sweet spot" against a helmet, not only will it have a greater chance of overcoming the armor, but it will have a greater chance at a kill. I hope that helps.

Ok i understand the "physics" reasoning, and i have no problem beating them not did i see AI romans being beaten by them.

it's just that i'm running dummy fights in custom battles, and solduros are quit extraordinary 1 on 1, beating most other units while reading a book.

[The Celtic Viking]

So you tested the elite of the elite and were surprised to see them do well?

[Burebista]

Solduros are the best gallic unit to have around so it's normal to beat most things . But i know a lot of other units that can beat them 1 on 1 so....not OP

[Mediolanicus]

Ok i understand the "physics" reasoning, and i have no problem beating them not did i see AI romans being beaten by them.

it's just that i'm running dummy fights in custom battles, and solduros are quit extraordinary 1 on 1, beating most other units while reading a book.

Well, it is quite stricking that today we have "soldiers" in the army.


Roman infantry are by no means elite. They are trained, disciplined and numerous line infantry. Put one unit against an elite unit and it will most likely lose.
Put a Roman army against a Celtic army with one or two such elite units and it will win with ease.

[Cute Wolf]

Because the EB mod is skewed HISTORICALLY ACCURATE for Barbarian factions. And since most barbarains have longswords, then it is natural that they made longswords have the .225 lethality.

plus : celtic longswords are far superrior metalworks compared to Roman Gladius, if mass per length is compared, longswords is lighter, but since longswords are longer, they are at the same weight or a bit heavier, since longsword have longer reach, that means with the same mass they gain more momentum via swinging arc, that's why longswords have lower base damage, but higher lethality