Pelstat casualties

**lancer63** · 12-10-2004, 07:43

One thing I like about skirmishers is that they involuntarily blunt flanking actions for the AI cav.
Usualy theenmy cav. pursues my skirmishers and that prevent them from charging my main line from the rear while engaged. Thus I can apply Sun Tsu's advise to engage my worst or more expendable troops with the enemy's best leaving my best and second best troop to deal with their mediocre/worst troops. A sure win most of the time.

**Red Harvest** · 12-10-2004, 09:08

The reason not to use archers is simple: the ones we have in RTW don't match up with the time period. They are both very accurate, and very lethal--even the vanilla ones. I could understand if this was a bit later, but since we start in the 3rd century B.C. the archers should have less punch (and the fire archer ability is way overdone.) Their upkeep is also rather low. So archers are a bit like elephants, wardogs, etc.

I'm highly skeptical of the extreme archer ranges given as well as some of the longer sling ranges. I think we need to keep *effective* range in mind. That would be the range at which the average unit member can aim with any sort of accuracy firing as a unit.

The current friendly fire effect is really tough on javelins due to their shorter range. Archers can be employed as skirmishers, fire some volleys, then be withdrawn (with some care to shut off their fire at will and order "halt" before withdrawal to reduce friendly fire), but peltasts really don't get the same luxury. Keep your hopes out for the patch.

**Mus** · 12-11-2004, 02:02

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

The reason not to use archers is simple: the ones we have in RTW don't match up with the time period. They are both very accurate, and very lethal--even the vanilla ones. I could understand if this was a bit later, but since we start in the 3rd century B.C. the archers should have less punch (and the fire archer ability is way overdone.) Their upkeep is also rather low.

I agree with you in that respect. Armor, and particularly in units equipped with large shields, should be more effective at reducing casualties from missile fire.

When it was said that the Persians would fill the sky with arrows the Laconic reply, "Then we shall fight in the shade" wasnt just a smartass retort. The combination of the armor and hoplon shield provided very good protection allowing them to stand up very well against extended missile barrages. Certainly far far better than is portrayed.

**Slon** · 12-11-2004, 09:00

I don't know. The arrow damage does seem somewhat realistic. The quote "Then we shall fight in the shade" was said at Thermopylae, if I remember correctly. The Spartans picked a location where the Persian arrows were not as useful against them. That's why the initial few Persian charges were ineffective against the Spartan phalanxes. Once the phalanx was broken, the Spartans were pushed back and lost their advantage. I think the last few Spartans were actually killed by arrows. Anyway, I don't think 200 B.C. armor and shields were nearly as good as the plate mail used by the English during the Medieval Times, for example. The main reason for this is that armor simply didn't cover that many body parts. Those relatively small hoplon shields were only so effective at stopping arrows until the soldier screwed up and got hit in the leg or foot. It only needs to happen once. Again, I'm no history nerd so don't get angry if I got some of the details wrong.

**Rosacrux redux** · 12-11-2004, 10:32

IF we wish to be historically accurate (a term anyway stretched beyond any comprehensible manner in this game) the archers should indeed be extremely less effective.

In all battles we have accounts of the hoplites fighting against Persian armies, the losses of the hoplites against the missile barages were neglectible at best. In Marathon the Athenian force has suffered only minimal losses until they closed in with the Persian - most of their 250 (or was it 450? my poor memory) losses (from an army of 11.000 roughly) came after they began pursuing the fleeing Persians.

Hoplon (or "aspis") : 1 m. wide shield, practically could not be penetrated by the Persian arrows. Add to it the body armour, the full helmet and the greaves... they sometimes attached a piece of cloth or leather in the bottom of their shield, to deflect stray arrows who were going for the feet.

Against armoured and w/ shield troops, archer fire of that period was a nuissance, at best. In game... I take three units of Cretan Archers and they decimate (20% casualties!) an army before it even closes in.

**Slon** · 12-11-2004, 17:54

I'm guessing this has a lot to do with how archers are used by players in the game and how archers were actually used thousands of years ago. Also, I looked at the battle of marathon and found out how the Greeks avoided casualties from arrows. They advanced in formation until they were 200 yards away from the archers, which is the effective range of the bows. Then, they advanced quickly to avoid casualties. The fact that they started to run at that exact moment resulted in most of the arrows flat out missing their thin lines (4 men deep).

The average 18-year-old male can run at 12-15 mph (I think). I'm guessing that the well-trained greeks, even with their armor, were probably able to run 6 mph (due to how fresh they were and also how short the run was going to be). They would probably make it to the enemy lines in 1 minute and 8 seconds. How many volleys would the Persians get to shoot off in such a short time? Also, note that the Persians would probably avoid firing at the Greeks once they got within a few yards of them to avoid hitting their own lines. Try this out in the game and see how many casualties you can inflict in 1 minute on troops that are running towards you. It probably won't be a lot. Also, the battle of marathon took place at around 490 BC, meaning that there were many improvements to bows in over 200 years (game starts at around 260 BC I think).

**m4rt14n** · 12-12-2004, 02:51

I'd take my Pavise Arbalaster any day....

Wait thats a different game... I'm actually missing MTW now, should I reinstall??

**Red Harvest** · 12-12-2004, 03:16

Originally Posted by Slon

The fact that they started to run at that exact moment resulted in most of the arrows flat out missing their thin lines (4 men deep).

The average 18-year-old male can run at 12-15 mph (I think). I'm guessing that the well-trained greeks, even with their armor, were probably able to run 6 mph (due to how fresh they were and also how short the run was going to be). They would probably make it to the enemy lines in 1 minute and 8 seconds. How many volleys would the Persians get to shoot off in such a short time? Also, note that the Persians would probably avoid firing at the Greeks once they got within a few yards of them to avoid hitting their own lines. Try this out in the game and see how many casualties you can inflict in 1 minute on troops that are running towards you. It probably won't be a lot. Also, the battle of marathon took place at around 490 BC, meaning that there were many improvements to bows in over 200 years (game starts at around 260 BC I think).

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Bows were not all that effective at the time. Carthaginian armies didn't even use them in any quantity during the Punic wars. The Spanish (celt iberians) didn't even use bows for military purposes at the time although they did use bows for hunting at times. Slingers were considered much more useful by both Carthage and Rome. Rome began using some archers near the end of the Punic wars--Cretan mercs. These were apparently primarily used during sieges. Rome began using archers later in the east to deal with horse archers and the like, where they needed a stand off weapon.

Archery was used effectively in limited circumstances in Greek warfare. It was almost always in conjunction with javelins in such a fashion as to wear out the hoplites and slowly attrit them--not to cut them to shreds in a few volleys.

In my tests armoured hoplites take 1 to 2% casualties per volley from a single unit of archers. Make that several units (as the Persians would be fielding with their typical hordes of archers) and you will be looking at 5 to 10% casualties per volley. At least 3 volleys would be fired before the hoplites could close (since I can get off 10 when they march in with phalanx formation that they switch to halfway across.) And these are some of the best armoured units in the game, standard hoplites would take many more casualties and be utterly worthless by the time they reached the opposing line--Spartan hoplites are lightly armoured and would take a beating. I've seen lightly armoured troops like Balearic slingers take 15 and even 20% casualties from a single volley, while on the move, and from a single archer warband unit at its max range.

**Clips** · 12-12-2004, 16:27

Best way to use the beats are wait until you engage the enemy and have them being held, make sure the skirmish unit is on hold formation and position, and when you have your front line engaged and holdiing the skirmishers should start firing at will (leave it on) and after some time the enemy will begin to waver and then run, they are a good unit, espeically napthas but you Must use them properly.

**Mus** · 12-12-2004, 07:03

Originally Posted by Slon

I don't know. The arrow damage does seem somewhat realistic. The quote "Then we shall fight in the shade" was said at Thermopylae, if I remember correctly. The Spartans picked a location where the Persian arrows were not as useful against them.

Their location was picked to create a situation where their flanks were inaccessible not to protect them from arrows.

Anyways Hoplites of the time were pretty heavily armoured, including the legs. Even after the time when many hoplites were no longer wearing greaves for greater mobility they hung a leather flap from the bottom of their Hoplons to break the flight of missiles a good distance from the body.