Pelstat casualties

[Slon]

I have been using skirmishes (Germans) from behind my main line. Because of how inaccurate they are, I usually set them to guard mode and disable fire at will and skirmish mode. However, whenever I tell them to attack a unit of enemies that are somewhat far away from my main line (they ARE in range), the skirmishers simply attack the nearest enemy unit instead. This causes heavy casualties on my side, because the closest enemy unit is usually engaged with my spearmen. How do I make them attack the unit I tell them to instead of the nearest one? The damage done by them has become so devastating, that I decided to just use them as chasing units for routing enemies instead (for that battle, anyway).

[Rosacrux redux]

I've found skirmish cavalry to be of great use in this game, but on the contrary skirmishing infantry... well, let's put it bluntly, suck big time. I've given up on using them and now my armies don't include any skirmishing infantry (peltasts or whatsoever) at all.

[lars573]

I have been using skirmishes (Germans) from behind my main line. Because of how inaccurate they are, I usually set them to guard mode and disable fire at will and skirmish mode. However, whenever I tell them to attack a unit of enemies that are somewhat far away from my main line (they ARE in range), the skirmishers simply attack the nearest enemy unit instead. This causes heavy casualties on my side, because the closest enemy unit is usually engaged with my spearmen. How do I make them attack the unit I tell them to instead of the nearest one? The damage done by them has become so devastating, that I decided to just use them as chasing units for routing enemies instead (for that battle, anyway).

The problem is your using them wrong. The way to use any skirmisher unit, and slingers to a lesser extent, is to put them out in front of your battle line and when it's go time run them up to the enemy line and pepper heavier infantry with javelins/bullets. While they are marching or just standing there it doesn't matter. If you try to use them against lighter troops like other skirmishers all they will do is pin each other down. In this situation you need to have another fast moving unit sweep in and crush them. When your battle lines engage pull your skirmishers back till the rounting happens. That is really all skirmishers are good for anything else will lead to disaster, so speaks the know-it-all voice of experience.

[Jonny Dangerously]

I've found skirmish cavalry to be of great use in this game, but on the contrary skirmishing infantry... well, let's put it bluntly, suck big time. I've given up on using them and now my armies don't include any skirmishing infantry (peltasts or whatsoever) at all.

Absolutely. What is the point? I would rate peltasts just above peasants, and below everything else. I can't think of any circumstance where they are more useful than ANY other infantry unit, with the POSSIBLE exception of city wall defence where you don't have archers, or slingers... I have only ever used them when I've been in situations so desperate I was hiring any merc unit I could muster just to make up numbers for an unavoidable battle..... and even then they p*ssed me off.

[Chimpyang]

Actually i rate them very highly wiuth Slingers and any javs....especially again the phalanx armies of the western civs (Sels, Egypt, Mac, Greece and Thrace)

Why? becuase when a massive all hoplite army is marching at you you can cause tons of injuries by using the skirmishers, if you are sure hte enenmy has no cav......run them up to the enemy and fire away, this happened in the Scipii PBEM game where my army was outnumbered by the enemy, also my small band of reinforcements were late (they will get fired.....). So i rna my slingers and javs up and fired away, to my amazement the solid hoplite line broke in to segment with some units slowing due to the missile fire, then some units broke away to chase my skirmihsers and meant that when they finally reached my line, they were no lnoger the concentrated line that they deployed as, but as a broken line, that arrived rag taggedly. My 3 units of skirmishers drew away 6 units of the enemy hoplites and this evened things up in the center enoiugh for me to win easily.

[Jonny Dangerously]

I see your point.... but if you traded those three units of peltasts for say three units of basic infantry, you would have had enough spare troops to completely surround the hoplites. You obviously pick your battles better than me, I usually always encounter enemies with cavalry......

[Chimpyang]

Ah that was just dumb luck......the Greeks were on their last legs so I dont thinkl they really had the tech to train and Horsemen.

[Jonny Dangerously]

I love those desperate tooth-and nail battles, where you're outnumbered, outgunned, but you still cling to victory.....

[m4rt14n]

Peltast are perfect cannon fodder units. They are not much better than peasants, but hey at least u get a nicer line formation than those big blobs of routing mofos. The fact that they shoot stuff is good too.

I usually keep them in front of my roman battle line, skirmish off, auto-fire on. When they march close, I charget them forward throwing javelines, and tempt the enemy to charge. When they do, I immideately take em off auto-fire and skirmish on. Sure they die from enemy pilas, and sure they get whacked by enemy swordsmen tryin to run back through my line. But the point is, they can pin the enemy enough, for my heavier legionaries (or hastati for that matter) to shoot their pilums and charge in.

Hey a couple dead peltasts is far cheaper than dead legionaries. No?

[Bacchon]

I love skirmishers. I use them all the time. They're cheap, fast and effective.

Err....

I have a great deal of success in using skirmishers, especially with the greeks and Romans, where you've got nice solid formations. Take two or three units of skirmishers/peltasts and line them up in long, thin lines across your battle line. Then, when the enemy gets close, or you get close to your enemy, your peltasts lob a geat smackload of pointy death into their ranks. The enemy either has to sit there and deal with it, which sucks as javs go right through shields, or charge forwards. If they charge (make sure you have skirmish mode OFF as it makes your units harder to control), just run your skirmishers behind your battle line and to one side where they're set for flank charges against almost-ready-to-rout units and chase down already-routing units (remember to turn off auto-fire as you do this, or you'll take nasty friendly-fire casualties). Units charging your skirmishers will either turn away as your peltasts retreat, or will charge right into your nicely prepared line of spears/pikes/angry Germans/charging legionnaires/whatever and be mulched. And the enemy will never, in my experience, charge with his entire battle line to deal with skirmishers, which means you get to smash him unit by unit as long as you can keep up the skirmisher bait, or he'll/you'll charge, enemy weakened and ready for the kill.

I've found peltasts highly useful even in stone wall assaults. But only when you have siege weaponry. Get your ballistas/onagers to knock out the gatehouse, then run up your skirmishers (put any archers you have back at the extent of your range, thus any casualties will come from your cheaper, more replaceable peltasts) to clear the wall/weaken the defenders with pointy, pointy flying sticks of doom. Thus when your siege towers/ladders get there, they've got a much easier fight on their hands. Also in sieges, I've found that unless you enter the square, units defending it will stay defending it, and you can pretty much just expend ammo on them while laughing maniacally.

As for fast/skirmishing cavalry threatening your skirmishers, that's what your heavy cav is for. Your general wasn't going to just sit there, was he?

[Mus]

The range of all foot units that use normal javelins (not pila) needs to be bumped up to like 70 and slingers need to be bumped out to the same range as archers.

[Bacchon]

*blink*

slingers need to be bumped out to the same range as archers

Have you ever tried using a sling? How about a slingshot? Powerful as centrifugal force is, it just cannot achieve with an unaerodynamic rock what a bow can with a highly aerodynamic arrow. A sling in the hands of a trained user is deadly (just ask Goliath), but over extended ranges the flight pattern of the rock becomes unstable, and without an effective method of aiming (like sighting along an arrow) there's not much chance of actually hitting what you want to, or where. You could always just take the British rifle regiment approach and just hurl lots of rocks down the field, but it wouldn't appeciably extend the range any.

[lars573]

You could always just take the British rifle regiment approach and just hurl lots of rocks down the field, but it wouldn't appeciably extend the range any.

*cough*musket regiment*cough*

[Slon]

I never thought of using Pelstats as meat shields before, mostly because I just had full armies. But now that I am playing as Germania, I might have a few slots for some pelstats. That way, I can literally retrain in any city.

[m4rt14n]

Wat they need to do is pump down the archers... Especially those egyptian ones...

Damn egyptians!!!

[Rosacrux redux]

Gents, there is nothing the skirmishers can do, that archers can't do much better. Line three or four archers in front of your battle line, autofire on and skirmish off, and wait for the enemy to arrive... by the time they get in reach of your archers, they are sishkebap... and if they send cavalry in, just retreat your archers behind your battle line and let your hoplites, legionaries, pikemen or whatever, absorb the cavalry charge.

Along with some cavalry on the flanks (a tricky assignment with Greeks, who lack decent cavalry) you are set for total domination. The only armies that may cause you trouble that way are super-mobile cav archers. But then you just have to take more foot archers and shoot the buggers into oblivion (and more light cavalry too).

[Mus]

Have you ever tried using a sling?

There have been claims that skilled slingers could throw projectiles in excess of 400 or even 500 meters. Xenophon stated that his Rhodian slingers could fire further and more accurately than the persian archers harrassing the march of the Ten Thousand.

The author of the attached essay was able to go out and, just testing around, was able to get out to 150 meters. This was with a replica of a rather short egyptian sling, not a longer one designed to fire over long ranges, and certainly not a staff sling (such as those used by the Rhodians), by a person of limited skill.

The sling can easily be said to rival or exceed the range of most bows. Vegetius says that slingers and archers practiced hitting targets at the same range.

slinging.org

Regardless of which figures you believe the range of a sling is certainly far far greater than that depicted in the game. Bumping all slingers out to the range of the archers would be appropriate, and at least serve to make them useful. Further than that might be unbalancing and bumping Rhodians out to the full 400-500 meters speculated by some would certainly be.



The javelin tossing ranges are too short as well and should probably be bumped up to where slingers are now, 80, although 70 might serve to make them useful just as well.

The fact that the AI brings large amounts of useless skirmishing troops in their armies is a big part of the reason why RTW single player is so easy.

[Bacchon]

There have been claims that skilled slingers could throw projectiles in excess of 400 or even 500 meters. Xenophon stated that his Rhodian slingers could fire further and more accurately than the persian archers harrassing the march of the Ten Thousand.

I stand corrected. I'd always understood slings to be devastating at short range, but nearly useless after that. Inertia is a wonderful thing.

*cough*musket regiment*cough*

You mean muskets and rifles aren't the same things?



@Rosacrux redux: Actually, javs are better at close range than arrows are, as they go right through shields and armour with far more effectiveness than arrows. I usually go for two units of archers stretched out in front of my lines, with two or three units of peltasts in front of them. Thus, you get the long-range casualties with the short-range punch.

[Jonny Dangerously]

there is nothing the skirmishers can do, that archers can't do much better

I've been really impressed with some of the arguments here in defence slingers and peltasts....but when I think about it, the brute reality can't be ignored. Archers have more ammo than skirmishers, and better ranges than peltasts. The can also shoot over the heads of your line infantry (within certain parameters), where slingers will just shoot through your line, smashing your own guy's skulls to pulp.

There are loads of convincing arguments for circumstances where skirmishers are brilliant, I don't deny it, but if you had a choice, why would anyone NOT choose archers??!? They have the best of everything, AND they can use fire arrows to demoralise the target units. Sure, all sorts of units are fun and exciting to use.....when you're desperate. But I honestly don't think that there is any place for them once you have access to archers.

As for using then to pin units to save better units from taking harm....well.....in the long term, and correct me if I am wrong, but I like my best units to get into the fight and take some damage. They seem to gain experience faster this way.

PS Having had a slingshot, and been an archer, I think the stats in the game are pretty accurate. (with the exception of javelin ranges) Sure, slings are vastly underestimated, but man, think of the aerodynamics and the techniques of operation. Bows just ARE better, that's why historically they superceded slings.

[m4rt14n]

Archers do shoot at ur own infantry's back. Also a unit that has been peppered with a couple rounds of javelins is always wavering. Send a charge home with hastatis after that and ull have a quick rout.

Besides javs are cheaper. The only archers worth getting is the cretan or other long range ones. The other ones only shoot far enough and wont get their kills in time for their charges. Archers are also harder to retrain, while peltasts are available almost anywhere.

thats my .2 anyways

[lars573]

You mean muskets and rifles aren't the same things?

No

[Slon]

Slingers are NOT useless at the moment. I've sent 2 units of slingers against 2 units of greek hoplites and my 2 units of slingers won a victory, losing only 2 soldiers! Their speed and ability to fire quickly are great advantages because they are VERY effective at wearing enemies down. But yeah, peltasts are fairly useless (other than for the mean shield tactic).

[Mus]

I stand corrected. I'd always understood slings to be devastating at short range, but nearly useless after that. Inertia is a wonderful thing.

No problem! Theres some interesting things on that website, including information on slinging competitions still held on the Balearic Isles.

PS Having had a slingshot, and been an archer, I think the stats in the game are pretty accurate.

The ranges depicted in the export_descr_unit file are 1/2 to 1/3 their real life range. How can that be considered accurate by any means?

Slingers are NOT useless at the moment. I've sent 2 units of slingers against 2 units of greek hoplites and my 2 units of slingers won a victory, losing only 2 soldiers!

Balaeric and Rhodian slingers are ok, but they already are bumped up to normal archery ranges. Normal slingers on the other hand stink. Period. If your opponent had any brains (as in wasnt a deficient AI) he woulda just taken his hoplites out of phalanx formation and chased them off the field.

[Bacchon]

The ranges depicted in the export_descr_unit file are 1/2 to 1/3 their real life range. How can that be considered accurate by any means?

I think I'll mod that into my game, see what the differance is like. I quite like using slingers, once I figured out that they should be put in front of my troops. Rocks appear to make bigger dents in heads than arrows.

if you had a choice, why would anyone NOT choose archers??!? They have the best of everything, AND they can use fire arrows to demoralise the target units. Sure, all sorts of units are fun and exciting to use.....when you're desperate.

Peltasts = Tier 1. Archers = Tier 3, if you're lucky. Some cultures don't even get them at all. And I favour the 'blitzkrieg' approach, so I frequently don't get even my starting cities to that level until I've already rampaged over most of Europe. Mostly, though, I prefer peltasts simply because you can retrain them just about anywhere, since I play on Large/Huge sizes, which means the AI factions (barbarian especially) usually haven't gotten their populations up to that level by the time I take their cities. Also, javs go right through shields, which I like. It's vaguely irritating to see a great storm of flaming arrows bounce off a shield wall.

[lancer63]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).