Riff-raff units too strong?

[Nightmare]

I'm a hardcore strategy game nut. I have all the "total war" games, as well as others. I ran across this mod and downloaded it recently, and I think it's the best by far I've ever played. Good job on developing this.

One complaint. Units of riff-raff caliber seem to be far stronger against elite units than they should be. For instance (this is just one example), I'm currently playing a Carthage campaign. Some of these Numidian cities will be held by riff-raff "joke" units - guys wearing towels and holding wooden spears. Guys with zero armor. I'll build a full stack of the best cavalry I can field, bring in a general, and attack. I'll lose the entire stack against these joke units. I just spent 100,000 on the units themselves, not counting the infrastructure it took. He spent a couple thousand on rag-tag riff-raff, and he slaughters me time and time again, kills the general, etc.

It isn't my technique - I know how to charge cavalry, to pull it out, to repeat. It isn't the difficulty settings - this particular game has battle difficulty set to medium. It isn't that he has some 10 star general and I don't have a general at all. It's that low cost riff-raff seems higher powered than it should be. This actually deters one from teching-up and getting decent units, because they aren't better than the riff-raff you can field (with the exception of greek phalanxes, which when properly deployed seem to annihilate everything else).

Anyone else notice this, or am I the only one?

[Arjos]

Did you fight in the city? Where they packed and with guard mode or something? Did you get all their javelins thrown on you?

I really don't know which units you are using though...
Also are they chevroned? Or created after a rebellion and possess armour and weapon upgrades?

[Shadowwalker]

Hello Nightmare,

First of - welcome to the forums and to EB. :)


It would be interesting to read about the detailed army composition of your and the rebels' army.
Other than that:

(1) If the rebel general has 10 stars and you don't have a general at all this makes a real and huge difference in fighting abilities.
(2) Each chevron adds one point of attack and defense skill so if the enemy units have 5 chevrons they are 5 points better in both skills (compared to a standard, freshly trained unit).
(3) If you fight in a city all your nice charge - pull out - repeat routines will be less (if at all) effective, especially if you are forced to charge head on.
(4) Please take into account that the numidian "low quality" skirmish units are some of the strongest skirmishers in the entire game since for example the archers have (armour piercing) clubs as second weapon and the javelineers have swords (if I recall correctly).
Calling those units "riff raff" is like calling their light cavalry "average skirmisher cavalry" - you underestimate them I think.
(5) You will get much (!!!) better results if you rely on libyan spearmen and liby-phoenician infantry (6 and 4 of them is what I usually use) as backbone of your army, add in a few (2-4) archers and/or slingers of your own to take advantage of the lack of armour (hire kretan archers in the eastern parts of Sicily for example), 2 carthaginian citizen cavalry and 2 generals (or 1 general and 1 liby-phoenician cavalry).
This kind of army is not only way cheaper but also much better at creating and holding a frontline. Not to mention that it is much more flexible to prevent flanking attacks or being forced into long melee with your precious cavalry units.
Use a well-balanced army, it's key in EB (regardless of the faction).

Good luck. :)

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

What the Numidian and other North African units lack in armour protection, they make up for with high defence skill and high quality weapons. They aren't riff-raff, they are good units. There's a reason why historically Carthage only managed to conquer the coastline of North Africa and not the interior.

Also, cavalry in EB, even heavy cavalry, is not the nigh-invincible steamroller it was in the stock 'vanilla' R:TW. They aren't like medieval knights (except for the some of the cataphract-like units). So don't expect cavalry in EB to have the same capability as in vanilla - cavalry has been made more historically accurate (i.e. weaker.) Cavalry need to make the enemy rout to kill them in large numbers, and that usually means hitting the enemy from two or even three sides simultaneously, and having a local superiority in numbers at the point of contact.

EB is set during the pre-Christian era, when infantry was the dominant force on the battlefield, not cavalry. (Except for the north-eastern steppe and Parthia, which is horse archer territory). Except for those areas, you will achieve much better results with a combined-arms force, not an all-cavalry force. As Shadowalker says, that's the real key to EB, combined arms, using different unit types together, and finding the right ratios to have between them. And the backbone of most successful armies, for most factions, will be infantry. Cavalry's role is to support the infantry, not vice versa as in the medieval period. The only time you should have an all-cavalry army is when the enemy have nothing except cavalry too.

As for storming cities, that's definitely an infantry job. Cavalry are weak in street fighting.

[Nightmare]

Hi, to answer everyone's questions:

No, didn't fight in city, waited them out several times and attacked on open ground.

The enemy units weren't created after rebellions, weren't upgraded.

I always had a general. The enemy general had stars, but not more than mine.

You say their skirmisher units are the strongest in the game. That's certainly my experience (also had my horses mauled by their skirmisher cavalry in another battle). My question is, why are they so strong? Are they trying to reflect historical accuracy here or something? Could the unarmored Numidian skirmishers and cavalry really thrash Liby-Phoenician and Sacred Band? Maybe I'm wrong, but something seems wrong with that.

As for the suggestion to use infantry, yeah I know I can just go in with a phalanx and win, but when I see a bunch of what seems like rag-tag archers and skirmishers, that "screams" at me to plow through them with cavalry. But that didn't work :-(

Anyway, thanks guys. I'm easily gonna win the campaign, just seems strange to me that cavalry seems so weak or basic skirmishers seem so strong. I've also got a Saka campaign I'm gonna win (VH/M), and a Pontus campaign where I've almost taken all of Turkey (VH/M).

[Lazy O]

I'm a hardcore strategy game nut. I have all the "total war" games, as well as others. I ran across this mod and downloaded it recently, and I think it's the best by far I've ever played. Good job on developing this.

One complaint. Units of riff-raff caliber seem to be far stronger against elite units than they should be. For instance (this is just one example), I'm currently playing a Carthage campaign. Some of these Numidian cities will be held by riff-raff "joke" units - guys wearing towels and holding wooden spears. Guys with zero armor. I'll build a full stack of the best cavalry I can field, bring in a general, and attack. I'll lose the entire stack against these joke units. I just spent 100,000 on the units themselves, not counting the infrastructure it took. He spent a couple thousand on rag-tag riff-raff, and he slaughters me time and time again, kills the general, etc.

It isn't my technique - I know how to charge cavalry, to pull it out, to repeat. It isn't the difficulty settings - this particular game has battle difficulty set to medium. It isn't that he has some 10 star general and I don't have a general at all. It's that low cost riff-raff seems higher powered than it should be. This actually deters one from teching-up and getting decent units, because they aren't better than the riff-raff you can field (with the exception of greek phalanxes, which when properly deployed seem to annihilate everything else).

Anyone else notice this, or am I the only one?

That is your problem.

If numidian cavalry surround yours and pepper them with javelins, which really is not that hard, they will win. But obviously give them a lance charge and they are dead.

[Kival]

Numidian skirmishers are not "riff-raff unit" or "rag-tag". They are known for their experienced skirmishers who trained skirmishing "from birth" (which might be an exageration, but you see where this leads to). Numidian skirmishers also have spears, so that a combination of numidian cav and numidian skirmishers is quite desastrous for a cav-only army. Numidians are vulnerable to sword infantry, javelins, arrows. Cavalry is nearly the thing they are the best against.

[Nightmare]

If the skirmishers are so good against cavalry, shouldn't there be something in the unit description such as "bonus against cavalry" or something like that?

I know you guys are just trying to answer my question, and I appreciate that. This is a great mod, and this is a good bunch of guys on a good forum. Still, this is basic infantry I was going against - like tier 1 level. If what you guys are saying is true, these guys could have marched on the Carthage capital and just taken it. Hell, they could have marched on Rome, with their unarmored battalions of towel-wearing, iron-skinned, stick-throwing people.

I think something represented here is inaccurate. Either make the units weaker, or keep them the strength they are, but make them more advanced, higher-tier, and expensive.

EDIT: One last thing I forgot to mention - their foot skirmishers are faster than horses. You heard me right - people running on foot are faster all day long than horses, and can kite them all day all across the map. Come on, admit that's BS. It's a great mod, just change a few numbers on a few of the units and it will be perfect.

[Kival]

All spear units have a bonus vs cavalry. So if a skirmisher uses a spear, he has boni vs cavalry. He's not necessarily good vs cavalry then though. And regarding the rest, I'd like to ask you to reread our answers, as at least nearly everything you're asking has already been covered. And your assumptions are wrong: Numidian skirmishers are good but no match for any quality infantry. You just made the mistake to use an all out cavalry army. It might be just my bad english but I already said that numidians are vulnerable to missiles and sword infantry. Numidians lacked heavy infantry and any decent infantry unit kills numidian skirmishers.

[Nightmare]

Your english is fine, we just have a difference of opinion.

I understand you say Numidians are vulnerable to missle/sword, and I agree. I'm stating that they SHOULD BE vulnerable to the best cavalry an advanced empire can field. We are talking a cheap tier-one skirmisher group with no armor. Sure, maybe they have wooden spears, but they aren't long spears, and they don't fight in a phalanx, or even in rows and columns. It just makes no sense that these guys can stand there in rags and I charge heavy cavalry into them over and over again full-force, and they don't break and get slaughtered. Now, a phalanx, ordered-up and facing my cavalry? Yeah, I expect my cavalry to get slaughtered. But low-tier, unarmored skirmishers and archers should get murdered by the best cavalry I can field.

We agree on the reality of the situation, and what can kill these Numidians - infantry, arrows, etc. I'm not talking "what is," I'm talking "what should be."

EDIT: And again, the skirmishers can outrun the cavalry. These are humans running on 2 legs outrunning horses. Who thinks this is accurate? Shouldn't the speed be reduced?

[Lazy O]

You are not charging properly then. Any cavalry murders these guys if they get a charge in. Once they get stuck the numdians will win.

[Nightmare]

Oh I'm quite practiced at charging cavalry, pulling out, rinse repeat. My carpel-tunnel syndrome will attest to that. You can't be too close or your horses won't charge. You can't be too far away or they will tire out. You should be at the minimum distance necessary to pull the charge off, facing the enemy and fully formed-up. Then you issue the charge and hover the mouse over the unit card. If it doesn't say "charging" at some point, then halt the charge and repeat the process. If it does say "charging" then wait until the charge executes, then keep the horses in until it no longer says "charging." The second it doesn't say "charging" anymore, pull the horses out, rinse, repeat.

I hope that convinces you that I know how to charge horses. Who knows, maybe it was just bad luck.

It was either 1) bad luck, or 2) these guys aren't right on their stats.

[Stark]

I don't believe anyone ever had this problem, so it's not a game balance thing - either your game files are somehow messed up or you're doing something wrong.

Why did you simply charged them and used only heavy cavalry? Some cheap spear unit to pin them down and give your cavalry time to hit them in the back and flanks would be more then enough. Low tier units will not flee upon first contact like in vanilla RTW, don't be afraid to use them.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

Nightmare, I think you need to read more history first.

You're mixing Hollywood History with real history. The idea of a "more advanced" empire or "the civilized world" are inherently a logical fallacy. The whole point behind Europa Barbarorum is to enlighten everyone that "Everyone is a Barbarian to Someone".

Everyone are all different; they are all individuals.

To tackle your questions though, the "tiers" of recruitment in the game isn't about "tech levels" (like C&C), it's about the extent of the local(or factional) military industrial complex in it's ability to leverage local resources in the utilization of armed forces. "Lower" levels simply means the troops available are relatively easier to muster. Your local Numidians are not weak warriors, they are simply 'easier to muster'.

As to answer why certain troops are easier to muster than others, you will have to put the local social economic and cultural structure into account. Using your example of local Numidians, again, you may look into how they are armed and they way Numidians lived. The Masaesyli, had their origins as a Nomadic tribe in North Africa. In fact, the term "Numidian" means "Nomad". (EBII Preview, 2009) Nomadic subsistence is less rigidly structured and harsh compared pastoral cultures, where social and cultural roles are more defined due to the differentiating roles of land owners, farmers, dedicated warriors, etc. By living on the move, every nomad would by default have a higher level of physical aptitude and combat skills than people of pastoral cultures: those who don't simply won't survive.

Although the concept of dedicated soldiery wasn't new by EB's timeframe, the idea of a standing army clearly was still very novel. Most EB factions still relied (even the Romans and Carthaginians) on levying from the local populace, hence going back to the concept of Local/Faction MICs. Actually, the term MIC is an acronym for (you guessed it) Military Industrial Complex. While some cities or settlements may actively maintain an armoury or a store of arms of sorts, most people that go to war provide their own equipments. These people are your shepards, farmers or traders, grabbing what weapons and armour their fathers have left them, or buying what they can afford, then banding up with their friends and neighbours into a "unit" for war. They didn't go to war because they were legally bound to (there are exceptions, of course), conscription is a very modern concept. These people went to war because they were morally bound to, or simply war was within their interest. Some do it because they need to defend their God-King, defend their homes, religious reasons or simply for loot. Often times, loot is a very important incentive to go to war for- especially if you're poor. This accounts for the reason 'lower' MIC level tend to recruit simpler troops. Simpler, being either in quality (usually the case for 'civilized' factions) or simplicity in recruitment. Easier to recruit troops may be of poorer quality, but not all are of low quality.

The opposite is true for 'higher' MICs, too. The "better" troops available in higher level are not inherently better- it just means the means to get these certain people to go to war is more difficult than 'lower' troops. Why? Because they tend to be wealthier, expensive to maintain or both. Your Sacred-Band Cavalry would fit perfectly into both instances. Horses are not cheap. Horses provide mobility for the rider, not combat strength. Being able to ride and afford a horse does not mean one is a better fighter, it just means he is from a class of people from within that culture that can afford and maintain a horse. In the case of the Carthaginians, that would be the case. A higher MIC, therefore, (roughly) translates to 'being able to get these richer toffs don their shiny stuff and go to war' or 'at least afford to hire a bunch of dedicated warriors, and arming them as well'. Their higher price means they are harder to muster, as well as more complex to arm and equip. Better gear doesn't equal a better warrior.

I'm no historian (yet, at least), but at least I've kept my end of the deal when I clicked "agree" on licence agreement during installation: "...to read and learn more history". I suggest you try to hold your end of the bargain, too.

[Nightmare]

Nightmare, I think you need to read more history first.

Whoa there. I'm a bit of a history buff.

"Lower" levels simply means the troops available are relatively easier to muster. Your local Numidians are not weak warriors, they are simply 'easier to muster'.

If this were the case, then for the most part there would be no incentive whatsoever to "tech up," or using your terms, "develop an MIC capable enough to mass up troops more difficult and/or expensive to muster." This would be the case in the game, and in real life.

The opposite is true for 'higher' MICs, too. The "better" troops available in higher level are not inherently better- it just means the means to get these certain people to go to war is more difficult than 'lower' troops. Why? Because they tend to be wealthier, expensive to maintain or both. Your Sacred-Band Cavalry would fit perfectly into both instances. Horses are not cheap. Horses provide mobility for the rider, not combat strength. Being able to ride and afford a horse does not mean one is a better fighter, it just means he is from a class of people from within that culture that can afford and maintain a horse. In the case of the Carthaginians, that would be the case. A higher MIC, therefore, (roughly) translates to 'being able to get these richer toffs don their shiny stuff and go to war' or 'at least afford to hire a bunch of dedicated warriors, and arming them as well'. Their higher price means they are harder to muster, as well as more complex to arm and equip. Better gear doesn't equal a better warrior.

Again, this is just wrong. In real life, the Carthaginians or any other power would not go through the trouble and expensive of mustering up people who were more difficult and expensive to mobilize if those people weren't better troops - there would be no reason to do that. They could just stick with their cheaper, easier to muster troops and be done with it. There was a reason people went through the massive trouble and expensive to field elephants. It wasn't because they thought the elephants were the equivalent of peasants - otherwise they'd just stick with peasants. Doesn't that make sense?

To represent what I just said, let's use a game example of phalanx for one of the Greek factions. At the lowest MIC level you can field a levy phalanx unit. At the next level, the stats get better. At the next level, the stats get better again. If what you said is true, one would expect that the stats wouldn't get better, rather the units would just get more expensive. As it stands, stats get better AND the unit gets more expensive.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. I haven't run the numbers and done experiments to find out whether an upper-echelon phalanx performs better PER COST than a lower one does. I ASSUME that it does, because that's the only thing that would make sense. But I don't KNOW that it does. If it doesn't, and if what you say is true, then there is no reason to ever climb the MIC ladder (I'll use that term vs. "tech ladder"). All you'd need to do is stick with the lower-MIC phalanx, and simply use your money to build more of those, instead of the more expensive higher-MIC phalanxes.

If it doesn't work this way, then I'd say it is an error in balancing on the part of the design team, because I can't imagine one of the designers would come here and say "No, the guy you are replying to is right. Higher MIC buildings and units are a trap we put in the game to troll people."

[Lazy O]

I think you are experiencing a bug then. When skirmishers/archers are in loose formation, cavalry does not properly charge them, and they get into a drawn out engagement, which only works for the numidians, though if you are having so much problems, why not just deal with them with light cavalry en masse and archers/other skirmishers like you are supposed to rather than waste expensive heavy cavalry on them?

[Ludens]

Now, here's where it gets interesting. I haven't run the numbers and done experiments to find out whether an upper-echelon phalanx performs better PER COST than a lower one does. I ASSUME that it does, because that's the only thing that would make sense.

Hello Nightmare, welcome to the .Org and to EB .

I think part of the problem lies in the way the battle engine deals with formations. Even a strung-out, light-infantry formation is solid enough to stop a cavalry charge. That's wrong, but it's not something that can be modded, unfortunately.

The other part lies in the above assumption: upper-tier units are not necessarily more cost-effective. They are more effective, but you do pay a premium for that. They are still worth it at army-level for their ability to tip the odds (by holding key positions for longer or leading a critical breakthrough), but if you're just comparing stats they're overpriced.

[Nightmare]

I think part of the problem lies in the way the battle engine deals with formations. Even a strung-out, light-infantry formation is solid enough to stop a cavalry charge. That's wrong, but it's not something that can be modded, unfortunately.

Ah, good to know. This is the type info I'm looking for.

The other part lies in the above assumption: upper-tier units are not necessarily more cost-effective. They are more effective, but you do pay a premium for that. They are still worth it at army-level for their ability to tip the odds (by holding key positions for longer or leading a critical breakthrough), but if you're just comparing stats they're overpriced.

Ah, I didn't know that either. Very good info to have. I guess if I care about playing efficiently and winning, I'll use the cost-effective, lower tier units. If I have money to burn and just want to have fun, I'll build some upper-tier ones. I'm on a VH pontic campaign fighting both the selucids and the egyptians, and I just started pumping out their elite pontic phalanx (expensive as hell) as I just got access to it. I needed something to deal with their full stacks they're throwing at me continuously - very annoying. But with this new info, I'll just start using levy phalanxes again and I should fare much better.

To answer several questions below of the type "why didn't I just use [insert infantry/archers/whatever] instead of expensive cavalry?" I'm not sure I understand the question. There's always several ways one can handle a condition. If someone throws horse archers at you, you can use foot archers against them, armored horse archers, or melee cavalry. If you pick one of those, someone can always ask why you didn't use the other option. My answer to the question is, fighting against the Romans and Greek rebels in Sicily and southern Italy, I hadn't had a chance to use any cavalry at all. Once I hit the Numidians, I saw an opportunity where cavalry should be effective, and wanted to use it. I could have stuck with infantry, sure. But I was bored with that and had no reason not to use cavalry, which I like using when I have the chance. Now I have a reason not to use it. But before, I didn't.

Thanks!

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Your english is fine, we just have a difference of opinion.

I understand you say Numidians are vulnerable to missle/sword, and I agree. I'm stating that they SHOULD BE vulnerable to the best cavalry an advanced empire can field. We are talking a cheap tier-one skirmisher group with no armor. Sure, maybe they have wooden spears, but they aren't long spears, and they don't fight in a phalanx, or even in rows and columns. It just makes no sense that these guys can stand there in rags and I charge heavy cavalry into them over and over again full-force, and they don't break and get slaughtered. Now, a phalanx, ordered-up and facing my cavalry? Yeah, I expect my cavalry to get slaughtered. But low-tier, unarmored skirmishers and archers should get murdered by the best cavalry I can field.

We agree on the reality of the situation, and what can kill these Numidians - infantry, arrows, etc. I'm not talking "what is," I'm talking "what should be."

EDIT: And again, the skirmishers can outrun the cavalry. These are humans running on 2 legs outrunning horses. Who thinks this is accurate? Shouldn't the speed be reduced?

Spear-armed light troops wouldn't stand in a phalanx to repel cavalry. They would split up into a loose formation, thus making the enemy cavalry split up too while chasing them, and try to engage the cavalrymen in a swirling melee. If a cavalryman can be split away from his comrades (which easily happens as he gets excited chasing after someone) then he's easy meat for a loose group of very agile light spearmen surrounding him on all sides.

Grounding a spear is a good way to kill a horse too, dig the butt into the ground and let the horse impale itself on the point - the horse's own momentum kills it. Finally, an agile man not weighed down by armour can hurl himself bodily at a cavalryman, jumping up and pulling him out of the saddle (easier if he doesn't have stirrups to hold him in his seat). Once on the ground, the cavalryman is as good as dead.

As for Numidian skirmishers outrunning horses - well, in the EB era, most so-called horses were what we would call ponies. Ancient horses were a lot smaller than modern Arabians. Load a pony down with a heavily armoured cavalryman, plus maybe armour for itself as well, and it won't be able to gallop, only canter. And it will get tired very quickly, after a while it can only trot, and when it's exhausted it can only walk.

So it's not really so surprising that an extremely fit young man, (almost as fit as a modern athlete although maybe a foot shorter) could outrun a heavily-laden, tired pony.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

The other part lies in the above assumption: upper-tier units are not necessarily more cost-effective. They are more effective, but you do pay a premium for that. They are still worth it at army-level for their ability to tip the odds (by holding key positions for longer or leading a critical breakthrough), but if you're just comparing stats they're overpriced.

Excellent summary, Ludens. That's why whole armies of elites are a waste of money.

In a full stack of 20 units, I have a house rule than no more than 5 should be elites (and that includes the general.) For some factions, I limit myself to only 2 elites.

[Nightmare]

Spear-armed light troops wouldn't stand in a phalanx to repel cavalry. They would split up into a loose formation, thus making the enemy cavalry split up too while chasing them, and try to engage the cavalrymen in a swirling melee. If a cavalryman can be split away from his comrades (which easily happens as he gets excited chasing after someone) then he's easy meat for a loose group of very agile light spearmen surrounding him on all sides.

Grounding a spear is a good way to kill a horse too, dig the butt into the ground and let the horse impale itself on the point - the horse's own momentum kills it. Finally, an agile man not weighed down by armour can hurl himself bodily at a cavalryman, jumping up and pulling him out of the saddle (easier if he doesn't have stirrups to hold him in his seat). Once on the ground, the cavalryman is as good as dead.

As for Numidian skirmishers outrunning horses - well, in the EB era, most so-called horses were what we would call ponies. Ancient horses were a lot smaller than modern Arabians. Load a pony down with a heavily armoured cavalryman, plus maybe armour for itself as well, and it won't be able to gallop, only canter. And it will get tired very quickly, after a while it can only trot, and when it's exhausted it can only walk.

So it's not really so surprising that an extremely fit young man, (almost as fit as a modern athlete although maybe a foot shorter) could outrun a heavily-laden, tired pony.

Fine points, except it makes one wonder why tightly-packed spearmen or pikemen or phalanx was ever used to defend against cavalry (classical era, or on out to medieval) when cheap, unarmored troops standing in a loose formation could achieve similar results at far less expense and risk.

[Nightmare]

Excellent summary, Ludens. That's why whole armies of elites are a waste of money.

In a full stack of 20 units, I have a house rule than no more than 5 should be elites (and that includes the general.) For some factions, I limit myself to only 2 elites.

Then I say get rid of elite units (remove them from the game), or buff them.

[Nightmare]

Creative thinking 101.

So I sent a general all around Sicily and southern Italy. He only managed to find a single unit of Cretan Archers. So as of now I'm taking a different route. Since I have no archers, but have teched to ultimate tier, I am producing a bunch of arrow projectors (never tried them before). I will defend them with cheap infantry and deploy them outside Numidian cities and see what happens.

Not very efficient by any means, but should be fun (I hope) :-)

Will report results back here.

[Lazy O]

Would be much cheaper to just recruit the Numidian archers.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Fine points, except it makes one wonder why tightly-packed spearmen or pikemen or phalanx was ever used to defend against cavalry (classical era, or on out to medieval) when cheap, unarmored troops standing in a loose formation could achieve similar results at far less expense and risk.

Because those cheap, unarmoured spearmen in loose formation might be OK defending themselves against cavalry, provided they have good morale so they don't panic, but they would be chopped down like wheat by massed enemy heavy infantry. Also, spearmen in loose formation can't prevent enemy cavalry charging through their formation, out the other side, and on into the rear where they could pose a severe threat to the rest of the army. Finally, as stated above, unarmoured troops are highly vulnerable to missiles.

So there are drawbacks to using such troops as well as advantages - whether they perform well or not depends on the makeup of the enemy force and on the tactical situation.


(Double-click behind a unit in EB to make your cavalry ride all the way through it.)

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Then I say get rid of elite units (remove them from the game), or buff them.

No need for either. Elites have their uses and have enough of a superiority over the rank and file basic units.

For example, in a phalanx or spearman army, the unit on the extreme right of the line should be an elite unit, because that is the most vulnerable position in the line. The shield is held in the left hand, meaning the unshielded right side of the rightmost men is open to enemy attack. The enemy know that, so it's the most likely place in the line to be attacked. You need a good unit there which won't break when it suffers heavy losses, since if it does rout, your whole line could be rolled up one unit at a time.

The Romans use their elite triarii or pedites extraordinairii to stem an enemy front line breakthrough or hold a collapsing flank when the battle starts going pear-shaped.

Armies of swordsmen need a elite breakthrough unit to hack a hole in the enemy front line, that's what units like the Gaesatae or Solduros are for.

An elite unit of heavy cavalry can either turn an enemy flank by driving off the enemy cavalry, or act as a reserve when enemy cavalry get round your flank.

They are for critical points on the battlefield, and the critical moments, when you absolutely cannot afford them to fail otherwise the whole battle is lost.

Or, you could manage without elite units, and just rely on superior numbers and/or superior generalship to win the day. Depends on your playing style.

[Rahl]

Fine points, except it makes one wonder why tightly-packed spearmen or pikemen or phalanx was ever used to defend against cavalry (classical era, or on out to medieval) when cheap, unarmored troops standing in a loose formation could achieve similar results at far less expense and risk.

He named the best tactic for LIGHT infantry to defend against cavalry, but hoplites or phalangitai aren't light troops and usually do a better job fighting cavalry. Light infantry with short spears trying to form a phalanx won't work against anyone.

Actually most elites are more cost-efficient. I tested several units against each other and elites usually suffer lower losses and you lose less money, though the difference is clearly smaller then in vanilla. The stats don't seem much higher but having some more attack and defence skill here and some more amour and moral there makes most elites usually clearly stronger. One unit of elite infantry against one unit of medium infantry in melee, the elites are more cost efficient even without considering the fact that the medium infantry breaks earlier. The problem about elites is that in early and mid game you usually won't have the money and infrastructure to hire many of them, because you need to defend several borders and develop your cities. It's more important and useful to have a full army that is tactical flexible then having a small pure elite army. But if you have money left over, they're worth it.

I personally use elites most of the time only for roleplaying. I don't like their small AORs and to build the biggest MICs instead of developing the towns.

[Nightmare]

He named the best tactic for LIGHT infantry to defend against cavalry, but hoplites or phalangitai aren't light troops...

I know those aren't light troops, but that really isn't the point. The point is, he said light, unarmored, low-tier troops (dudes in robes and sandals holding sharpened wooden sticks) are utterly fantastic units for taking out heavy cavalry. Just stick them in a loose formation, the cavalry charges, and these dudes will plant those sharpened wooden sticks and impale horses, or hurl themselves into the air and tackle the armored opponent off his horse. Or, they will just outrun the horses and kite them to death. He said that's a historically accurate depiction.

I said that given what he said, I don't know why you'd ever field heavy phalanxes and spearmen. I don't know how or why that evolved, either in the classical age, or the medieval age. Basically commanders must have been stupid to go through all the expense and armor and hassle when almost naked troops with sticks standing in loose formation murder cavalry. That speaks to your point. You are saying there's a difference between light infantry and heavy phalanxes. I know - I'm saying the difference is that the light infantry is apparently (according to the dude above) far superior, as they get the job done great at far less cost in time, money, mobilization, etc.

In case it's not apparent, let me spell it out. I've never in my life heard what this guy is saying. I don't believe it. My guess is, he's making this up according to how he thinks it must work and did work historically. He was presented with an example I gave (my horses were murdered by the Numidians), and since he thinks the game is working properly or depicting things accurately, he then, quite logically, came up with some way this must work. My take is what a few others have alluded to in this thread - that the engine doesn't quite work correctly for dudes standing around in loose formation. In other words, I think he's wrong. I think dudes standing around naked with sticks were murdered by heavy cavalry historically, and that tight rows of spears and a phalanx was a response to the fact that heavy cavalry murdered other stuff. But good for him in creatively trying to work out how it must have worked, given my experience.

Anyway, it's good you say that you believe elites are cost efficient. Just remember in your testing not to put a single elite against a single non-elite (reading your text, it seems that's what might have done). Rather, put the same COST of elites vs. non-elites, i.e. it might take a 2/3 ratio of elites to non-elites (you'd have to work it out).

[Tanit]

Heavy infantry evolved as a counter to light infantry. The main purpose of cavalry is mobility. Additionally it gives a powerful advantage in a charge due to your speed and weight. However, the price that is paid for speed and hitting power is that horses are ridiculously vulnerable to harm, and once your horse goes down your useless. The rider is often injured or killed in the fall, and if they aren't then they are left behind by their mounted brethren when the unit moves on.

The advent of barding, which additionally required the breeding of larger, more powerful, horses was an attempt to remove this weakness and this is seen best in Cataphracts and medieval knights, though not all. The next big thing is that the more armour you wear the faster you tire, and the more tired you are, the worse you do. RTW represents this fact. So your heavy cavalry, although fantastic for the first few minutes, will quickly tire and lose effectiveness while the light troops, having very little to carry, will remain fresh, agile and able for much longer. That is probably how the kiting you mentioned occured, your cavalry charge at full gallop across the map, fight a bit, continue running and become very tired, many of the Numidians who were not in combat at the start are entirely fresh and can run for a while before their level of exhaustion drops to the point where your exhausted cavalry can catch up again.

Last point on the effectiveness of cavalry. Its scary. One of the main reasons cavalry is effective is the fear it causes thundering toward you or appearing unexpectedly on a flank. This is calcualted in the morale counter in RTW, and thus EB, however, if a unit has the morale to survive that initial charge then they will usually hold forever unless another unit flanks them. The battle you mentioned was sally correct? Sallying armies have pretty decent morale and fight to near destruction of their units before breaking, their lives are literally on the line if they lose. In an open field battle you likely would have fared better.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I know those aren't light troops, but that really isn't the point. The point is, he said light, unarmored, low-tier troops (dudes in robes and sandals holding sharpened wooden sticks) are utterly fantastic units for taking out heavy cavalry. Just stick them in a loose formation, the cavalry charges, and these dudes will plant those sharpened wooden sticks and impale horses, or hurl themselves into the air and tackle the armored opponent off his horse.

Nightmare,
Where are you getting this 'sharpened wooden sticks' bit from? Numidian skirmishers don't have sharpened wooden sticks - they have iron-tipped javelins for throwing and an iron-tipped light spear for melee. A proper spear, not a sharpened wooden stick.

http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...y&category=any