Javelin's and their effectiveness

[Arman616]

Adapted from the elephant thread:

Do you guys think javelins should do more damage? Especially to unarmored units which still have shields. Because if 200 or so javelins come flying at a tight group of people with just shields, a lot of shields are going to be pierced, shredded up, and knocked around; and some of the javelins will fly right through and hit the body. And some javelins will will actually hit flesh. Now I know we cannot simulate injury on the field, so do you think the kill rate of javelins thrown into units should be increased?

Of course heavily armored units should withstand a lot more javelins. But people with no armour and just shields should get ripped.

[pezhetairoi]

I dunno, my impression was that they were already getting considerably ripped... my mala gaeroas lost almost a quarter to a third of their troops by the time the unit of Roman leves opposite them finished their ammo...

[jebes]

If anything, I think arrows should be increased in power and javelins too against armored opponents. There was a reason that full plate mail became full plat mail. No matter how strong your breast plate is, hundreds of arrows hitting randomly will hit an uncovered spot. However, I can fire about 500 arrows into a group of guys with a cuirass, a helmet and a shield with their faces and next exposed and it won't kill barely any. Javelins are barely better.

[fallen851]

I completely concur with Jebes. 80 archers firing 80 arrows into 80 legionaries should produce at least 3 fallen legionaries I would think.

I never did like how you can fire hundreds of arrows into armored troops and kill none... as Jebes points out, there are weak points in the armor, and even more importantly, there are so many unprotected areas that would disable a man if not kill when hit there (legs, face, neck, arm, you try fighting with an arrow sticking out of one of those places causing massive pain and bleeding).

Javelins should be even more effective...80 javelines into a group of 80 legionaries should produce at least 8 fallen.

But if it makes you that upset, just edit it yourself!

[Arman616]

I completely concur with Jebes. 80 archers firing 80 arrows into 80 legionaries should produce at least 3 fallen legionaries I would think.

I never did like how you can fire hundreds of arrows into armored troops and kill none... as Jebes points out, there are weak points in the armor, and even more importantly, there are so many unprotected areas that would disable a man if not kill when hit there (legs, face, neck, arm, you try fighting with an arrow sticking out of one of those places causing massive pain and bleeding).

Javelins should be even more effective...80 javelines into a group of 80 legionaries should produce at least 8 fallen.

But if it makes you that upset, just edit it yourself!

lol can someone do a missle kill-rate alteration text file? Something along the lines of what we discussed here.

[econ21]

Arrows seem reasonable to me - I suspect those legionnaires would be fairly safe, hunkered down behind those big old shields. If 80 archers can kill 3 legionnaires in one volley and had 30 arrows, they could effectively wipe out the unit by shooting alone. That seems over the top. We had something like that in vanilla - 4 aux archers on a hill could stop a full strength pre-Marian stack.

80 pila killing 8 legionnaires sounds more reasonable though. For a start, there will only be two pila (I'd make javelins less effective). Typically, the defending pila throwers would get off just one shot. If they take down much less than 8, they would seem to be of little use. It may be a little high historically, but we can't catch the effect of pila in stripping men of their shields, so it seems reasonable. Plus I've read that javelins do have surprisingly high armour penetration - they are rather slow, but can slice through most armour of the time.

Does anyone know the actual kill rates in EB?

[a_b_danner]

If anything, I think arrows should be increased in power and javelins too against armored opponents. There was a reason that full plate mail became full plat mail. No matter how strong your breast plate is, hundreds of arrows hitting randomly will hit an uncovered spot. However, I can fire about 500 arrows into a group of guys with a cuirass, a helmet and a shield with their faces and next exposed and it won't kill barely any. Javelins are barely better.

Actually, i think the move to full plate in the middle-ages was because of the English Longbow with Bodkin (armor piercing) arrow heads, and to a lessor extent the Arbelest. That, and the Eurapean method of war, which to some extent was a gentlemens war, (ie; meet somewhere and have it out, with the loser often surviving in captivity), led to the full plate of the armored knight. Suiting up in Full Plate took time, and it couldn't be worn day after day on campaign. So it would be much less practicle to wear in non-gentlemens war.

Arrows in the roman period had low penetration compared to the Long Bow or arbelest. A case could be made that the composite bow had better penetration.

I think Javelins in EB could all be armor piercing, which would make them more useful, but this would detract from the relative effect of the Pilium.

[the_handsome_viking]

Isn't there some sort of reenactment forum you can ask? that would seem like the most logical way to find out.

I've read and watched various demonstrations of weapons and armors and I think the bulk of celtic javalins didn't do so much damage to sheilds, however the Roman pilum did lots of damage to the sheilds.

That said, it really does depend on the design of the sheild, according to channel 4's history section, in weapons and armor demonstrations the Saxon sheild, covered in leather, could absorb a lot of damage.

http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...s/shield1.html

Three types of shields were tested. The plain lime-wood shield was split by an arrow and smashed in half by a throwing axe. However, once covered in leather, a lime-wood shield easily received the shock of an impacting arrow, absorbed the stopping power of a throwing axe and was only split around the rim by the almost unstoppable Dane-axe.

The final test, on the lenticular shield, proved that this design could indeed withstand the mighty Viking two-handed axe. In fact, when tested by machine to destruction, it required a Dane-axe impact four times as powerful as a man could swing.

So in conclusion, sheild are sexy.

[fallen851]

There sure is a lot of arguing going on, but not much problem solving...

[Spectral]

Name a battle occurring between the fall of Troy and the reign of Augustus that was decided by arrows or sling stones? Having trouble? So am I. Platea, Charonea, Issus, Granicus River, Cannae and all the rest . . . archers and slingers were a mere sideshow.

At least at Carrhae they played a very significant role, if not the most important one.


On the topic, sometimes the javelins feel like a bit underpowered, for example a peltast unit against a pezhetairoi one sometimes struggles to achieve even 1 or 2 kills...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, if you read the Anabasis, you get a healthy impression about the sling stone's impact effect. Not so the arrow.

One problem we have with archery effect is that most of us have little personal knowledge of archery and many of us who do are thinking in terms of modern weapons.

Remember, during RTW's time-frame:

Compound bows were the exception and crossbows were not used outside of East Asia. Most folks went to war with the same bow they used for small game or one only slightly more powerful. There is a reason the AA and Chosens have more range and more killing power - they're using war bows.

Most of them were tipped with iron -- steel was expensive and rarely wasted on a disposable weapon -- and iron points will not pierce most plate (and even then will do so only at point blank range) [The history channel did a nice piece on this: in their test an arrow fired from an english Longbow would not pierce 1/8 inch of armor at 75 yards]. Therefore, in all likelihood, the greaves of a hoplite, the cuirass, most shields and helmets and a goodly portion of the mail even in this earlier period were strongly resistant if not altogether proof against arrows. This suggests that even though the number of hits may approach unity when firing at a mass of infantry from normal distances, the number of effective hits -- wounding in more than a cursory fashion -- is probably very low.

Arrows are bulky to carry without damaging the arrow -- so carrying enough to be decisive is tough. This would not be the case for a defender in a siege, who would -- if provisioned -- have buckets of the things nearby. Ancient records note their importance in sieges (as even the wounds of Alexander attest).

Sadly, if CA modeled the real effectiveness of archers, I suspect nobody would use them.

All-in-all, I disagree with up-powering the arrow, it should be decreased (if anything). Slings may be under-powered slightly, but javelins are probably pretty close to true.

[fallen851]

Well arrows played a very important role in the battle of Troy, due to the fact one went through a rather important man's heel...

I'm afriad this problem might solve (or one might be created, depending on how you see it) itself with the 1.5 patch port coming, unless Qwerty decides to not have archers firing on units in selected situations, archers will be getting a boost.