Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

    There is historical precedence for this. While the Romans employed equites (wealthy horseowners) as a sort of early medium cavalry, most cultures would have lighter javelin cav as their base cav level.

    The units you are comparing are for different purposes. The javelin cav on light horse is very effective in skirmishing, but looking at its stats reveals it is a lot weaker in melee. The full charge value of the militia cav is 8 vs. 14 for the Greek cav. And that makes sense as the greek cav are spear armed and on medium horse (the heavier horse will add more as well because of the higher "momentum" stat of the mount.) Neither is going to be particularly effective in melee (although almost all cav units seem to have inflated melee stats.) One thing does stick out, that 4 shield stat for the militia cav. I didn't think any greek cav really used shields at that time? I'll have to look into that a bit. Even despite that, the Greek cav still have an advantage of 2 on defense.

    The Equite stats are a bit inflated, they are getting credit for a large shield although they have a small.

    As you have said, all the cav upkeep costs are ridiculously low. Cav were very expensive to maintain in the field--keeping them fed in large groups is no mean feat. Any time you read about large cav forces, forage is the primary concern and often limits the size of the cav force, or at least how long it can remain in the field before it must be moved on before the horses begin breaking down to an irrecoverable state. (Upkeep must be easier than an elephant though...which needs 350 to 500 lbs of forage a day! Imagine the associated "clean up" costs.) Upkeep for the horse should probably be based primarily on type: light, medium, heavy, general's bodyguard as well as on whether or not the horse carried substantial armour (cataphract.)
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  2. #2
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

    Obviously ranged units should have a higher upkeep than comparable melee units. Javelin units should be cheaper than archers (javelins are cheap compared to the rather complex arrows), but stronger horses should of course be more expensive than lighter horses (eat more).
    For the Greeks the HP and AR should perhaps share the slot, or the HP could even be relegated down to level 1 but be dependant on some other building as well, perhaps level 2 Barracks? And they most definately should be cheaper in upkeep (they are after all lightly armed despite the bigger shield), at least compared to the archers.

    But I agree that some units are strangely placed here. Perhaps the Militia Cav should be nerfed in melee?
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  3. #3

    Default Re: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

    I'm not so sure about javelins being cheaper. The Pila, for example, is quite complicated (with that weak spear neck and all). A poorly made javelin is just as bad as a poorly made arrow, and there is much more material required for a javelin.

    Just the wood itself would be an issue. An arrow requires considerably less mass of wood than a javelin, due to size. Finding the right wood of the right length and preparing it for a javelin would be considerably more effort than for a single arrow.

    The only element I can think of that might make an arrow more expensive is the feathers. That cost would depend on what type of feathers that are used, whether the supporting faction has farms for birds for those feathers or not, etc.

  4. #4
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

    Quote Originally Posted by hoof
    I'm not so sure about javelins being cheaper. The Pila, for example, is quite complicated (with that weak spear neck and all). A poorly made javelin is just as bad as a poorly made arrow, and there is much more material required for a javelin.

    Just the wood itself would be an issue. An arrow requires considerably less mass of wood than a javelin, due to size. Finding the right wood of the right length and preparing it for a javelin would be considerably more effort than for a single arrow.

    The only element I can think of that might make an arrow more expensive is the feathers. That cost would depend on what type of feathers that are used, whether the supporting faction has farms for birds for those feathers or not, etc.
    Well the pilum was just that, an expensive weapon. It was made for a single hard hit, its construction wasn't mirrored in the Hasta Velites (normal javelin). Normal javelins were made for harassment rather than killing (of course that would be nice too). Thus a javelin wouldn't need to be of good quality wood, damn it could even be gnarled if the supply of wood was low. You are still able to throw a gnarled stick rather accurately and with the head first. Its head wouldn't need much more metal than a few arrows (which in total brings the archers up as more expensive in metal). You mentioned the feathers yourself.
    Arrows need to be of at least some quality of wood as if they aren't you risk them splitting when fired (apparently the longbows had a bad tendency to split arrows). And it can't be gnarled as the arrow would not only be impossible to let loose (bumping into the handle or hand) it would also go nowhere and would it got there not hit with the head first or with any power.
    Further arrows is that much smaller, having a much smaller tolerance towards faults, and the maker would need to be that much more dexterous than the javelinmaker.

    Also javelins are much easier to find after practice than arrows, so we have to assume the archers would lose many more arrows in practice than the skirmishers would (we must assume that the units actually practice to keep up their skils and that this is part of the upkeep). Also we have both firearrows and normal ones (all others have been left out of the game so we only need to consider these two), that is 100% more diversity in arms compared to the javelins.

    So all in all I would indeed consider arrows to be more expensive, not individually, but in total. 30 arrows > 6 javelins in cost.


    The normal Peltast could perhaps get an upkeep cut to mirror its lower level of equipment. But archers should be more expensive than both. The armour and shields of the two peltasts would most likely be stored until needed, so the wear and tear wouldn't be that much more expensive for a HP compared to a P.
    Last edited by Kraxis; 12-10-2004 at 00:32.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  5. #5
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

    The one big advantage those heavy peltasts have is armour/shield rating. However, with friendly fire the way it is, you can't use HP's to proper effect, nullifying the defensive advantage. HP's are an interesting comparison with velites. Velites get a 7 missile rating, same as the peltasts (and both get 5 melee. Velites get a lower armour/shield stat as they should. Another small advantage of the HP's is that they are "highly_trained" vs "untrained" for velites and the greek archers.

    I'm already on record about the archery missile rating being too high across the board. I don't think an arrow should get the same missile rating as a javelin. Why? First, historically in this time period, javelins were more effective military weapons than archery (early on, the entire Punic War time frame...this changes some time around the Marion reforms or later.) Second, from game balance, the archers have more range and 5 times as many missiles. Third, if you had to make the unfortunate choice of getting hit by one, which would you chance: the javelin from a "highly_trained" peltast, or an arrow from an "untrained" archer with a self-bow? (I'm making the assumption that "chance of a hit" differs from the missile attack rating.)

    The archer "flaming arrows" option really should make all archer units cost a hundred more apiece, plus considerably more upkeep. Heck, it is one of the few anti-elephant devices available. And they also will rout just about any unit that has poor morale.

    If friendly fire is fixed, then HP's and other skirmishers begin to have a useful place on the field. Archers benefit as well, but by less of a margin since they are meant to be used at range, not up close like javelin skirmishers. However, to fully address the problem, archery needs seriously toned down as well. They should be good for specific tasks (at least early on) but less useful than javelin units on the field. If late RTW archers (elites) were as effective as the present "vanilla archers" (with vanilla archers far less) then it would probably be more representative.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
    I'm already on record about the archery missile rating being too high across the board. I don't think an arrow should get the same missile rating as a javelin. Why? First, historically in this time period, javelins were more effective military weapons than archery (early on, the entire Punic War time frame...this changes some time around the Marion reforms or later.) Second, from game balance, the archers have more range and 5 times as many missiles. Third, if you had to make the unfortunate choice of getting hit by one, which would you chance: the javelin from a "highly_trained" peltast, or an arrow from an "untrained" archer with a self-bow? (I'm making the assumption that "chance of a hit" differs from the missile attack rating.)

    The archer "flaming arrows" option really should make all archer units cost a hundred more apiece, plus considerably more upkeep. Heck, it is one of the few anti-elephant devices available. And they also will rout just about any unit that has poor morale.
    Agreed. I was thinking of reducing the ranged attack to 5 or 4 with melee at 2. It is said that archers are "drawn from the peasant classes" and are basically "skilled hunters". Hoplites have a melee of 7 with the spear, which they train with primarily. I wouldn't expect a band of archers recruited from peasant hunters to have as high a ranged attack as the melee rating of regular soldiers who have received formal training.

    Carrying 30 arrows sounds quite reasonable to me or does anyone want to decrease this? Might also want to check the range to see whether 120 is reasonable.

    Also agree that the "flaming arrows" aspect should result in more cost/upkeep. Apart from elephants (of which I can certainly testify that flaming arrows work very well), siege towers can be burnt down too though I've read that it may take quite a bit of time.
    Even if you raise the cost by hundred to 290, archers still look more than worth the deal. But I feel increasing the upkeep might hurt if raised too much though. Currently Hoplites are at 170 and Armored Hoplites at 210 for upkeep. All that added armor probably takes quite a bit of maintainence. I would settle for archers being somewhere in between for arrow supply and flaming arrows. Maybe 200?
    Unit stats are quite easily moddable I believe, so we can test out how any suggestions here work out.
    Last edited by zhuge; 12-10-2004 at 08:10.

  7. #7
    Spends his time on TWC Member Simetrical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,358

    Default Re: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

    The only reason I'd support any sane ammo limitation at all is because of the AI's stupidity and the system's limitations, honestly. IRL, if an archer really wanted sixty arrows, he could carry them in battle without too much trouble. The thing is, they usually didn't need sixty arrows, because their enemies wouldn't be sitting around in the open getting shot to pieces. They'd be out of range, or behind some kind of defensive barrier, or charging in for the attack. So I wouldn't really favor arrow limitations as a means of nerfing archers. Instead, I would like to look into range, accuracy, and lethality.

    Come to think of it . . . aren't bows all but useless in the rain? Archers supposedly get some small penalty in precipitation now, but I haven't really noticed it. My impression was always that wet bowstrings wouldn't be properly taut or something, so you couldn't use bows in the rain. Brief Googling turned up this, which sounds authentic: "He can't shoot in the rain (his bowstring will get wet and stretch) and anyway his arrows won't fly true (see below)." If we could just make archers unable to fire in wet conditions, that would be more than nerf enough—in the north, at least, they'd be unable to fire half the time.

    -Simetrical
    TWC Administrator

    MediaWiki Developer

  8. #8

    Default Re: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

    Thanks for the replies. It would be nice to have more difference between the units (javelin skirmishers being more skirmish-worthy and melee units being more melee-worthy) and that each unit has a certain role to play in the army and justifies their position in the tech tree.

    Therefore I thoroughly support Red Harvest's suggestion to take away the shield from Militia Cavalry. It would make them weaker in melee and confine them more to just being skirmishers and rout chasers, instead of vying with Greek Cavalry for melee and it would better justify their lower spot on the tech tree once they are nerfed.

    I believe that armor piercing pila were designed to break once thrown so that enemies could not pick them up and rethrow them against Roman soldiers. Not sure if regular javelins are also designed in the same fashion. If javelins are not easily reusable for the most part, it makes sense that part of their upkeep/cost be reflected in maintaining a ready supply.
    I recall vaguely that in the medieval times, arrows shot from longbows could be fitted with different warheads (ie barbed). Not sure if that is the case in the R:TW period but fashioning different styled warheads does sound rather expensive. Come to think of it, I suppose most bows used during this period were shortbows(?) (I'm just guessing though so please correct me if I'm wrong) with Eastern Horse Archers having earlier access to composite bows.

    Sharing the slot for AR and HPs is completely fine with me. I don't think having a slightly stronger peltast at a L2 Practice Range would unbalance the game (they still inflict roughly the same casualties but are better equipped for melee). I believe most players would still go for Archers anyway.
    Heavy Peltasts get a +3 for Armor and also +3 for shield (+5 Vs +2) over Peltasts. Armor needs maintainence so some additional upkeep would be logical. As for how much that should be, that's debatable.
    Currently, Heavy Peltasts cost 350 (8.75/man) with upkeep 170 (4.25/man)
    whereas regular Peltasts cost 180 (4.5/man) with the same upkeep 170 (4.25/man).

  9. #9
    Senior Member Senior Member Vanya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,151

    Default Re: Some thoughts on unit stats/tech tree (Greek)

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
    ...Upkeep must be easier than an elephant though...which needs 350 to 500 lbs of forage a day! Imagine the associated "clean up" costs... (cataphract.)
    GAH!

    Vanya sez... Cleanup is done by the conquered... On Vanya's orders, they drop to the ground and use their toothbrush as a spoon and eat the 'phant doo from the fields the day before Vanya indulges in a nice, tidy game of miniature noggin golf.

    Note to Self: Make sure to use FRESH heads with miniature noggin golf... Once they start to decompose, they get soft and it becomes harder to drive them a hearty distance.

    GAH!
    [Sips sake, eats popcorn]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO