Peltastai vs. Thureophoroi

[Trithemius]

First of all, I apologise if this has previously been the source of any flamewars; I'm not looking to criticise any choices on the part of the EB unit team, I am just curious about why they made this particular choice.

I was wondering why the peltastai have a good charge rating (24) and the thureophoroi (who, according to the descriptions, seem to be heavier and more melee-capable troops) have a charge rating of 1. I know that the numbers are not always in a simple relationship with each other, but 24 compared to 1 seems a pretty large difference.

Could someone in-the-know possibly explain, or are you all too damn busy to pander to overly-curious fans? ;)

[QwertyMIDX]

Thureophoroi have a 26, the 1 is the charge for their javelins. Peltastai have a 24 with their swords and a 1 with the javelins. (1 is the lowest the game registers).

Also, remember this is 1.2 and charge is pretty much completely bugged, in the 1.5 stats set charge values will be lower, much more important, and more systematically calculated.

[Olaf The Great]

Wow didn´t know that,
So Peltastai are only better then Thuerophoroi in hiding?
Well atleast they are worth it

[Reverend Joe]

They are more mobile and cheaper than Thurephoroi, so they are more adept as skirmishers, but they can still fight hand-to-hand effectively. However, the Thurephoroi are better at holding the line, whereas the Peltastai are better used as flankers. This is only speaking in terms of comparing the two, however; they both fall within a certain area of competence, just that they are on different parts of the spectrum.

Really, it just depends on what you would rather use.

[Trithemius]

Thureophoroi have a 26, the 1 is the charge for their javelins. Peltastai have a 24 with their swords and a 1 with the javelins. (1 is the lowest the game registers).

Also, remember this is 1.2 and charge is pretty much completely bugged, in the 1.5 stats set charge values will be lower, much more important, and more systematically calculated.

Cheers for that!

[Trithemius]

They are more mobile and cheaper than Thurephoroi, so they are more adept as skirmishers, but they can still fight hand-to-hand effectively. However, the Thurephoroi are better at holding the line, whereas the Peltastai are better used as flankers. This is only speaking in terms of comparing the two, however; they both fall within a certain area of competence, just that they are on different parts of the spectrum.

Really, it just depends on what you would rather use.

Cheers for this too!

I think thureophoroi are more stylish, also their name is better. I also think that the Hellenes are well equipped with diverse skirmishing units and prefer the slightly-stiffer mobile infantry for guarding the edges of my phalanx.

[Kralizec]

Plus while peltastai get demolished by heavy cavalry, thureophoroi carry spears

[Sarcasm]

You're comparing 2 different kinds of infantry altogether. While Peltastai are skirmishers (even if they're heavy), Thureophoroi are light/medium line infantry.

Peltastai have 8 missiles, Thureophoroi have only 4 missiles which on top of that, do less damage. If the Peltastai force the Thureophoroi to pursue them, while skirmishing all the way and then take advantage of their enemy's messed up formation, they're *very* likely to get the upper hand.

However if the Thureophoroi remain in formation, with all those spear points sticking out, the peltastai will have a hard time disrupting it to be able to get their swords to full use, though it is possible (depending on every battle's variables). Against cavalry it is at a definite advantage compared to the Peltastai.

Just use the correct unit for each use, peltastai aren'r really supposed to hold a line, though they can, to some extent.

[Trithemius]

You're comparing 2 different kinds of infantry altogether. While Peltastai are skirmishers (even if they're heavy), Thureophoroi are light/medium line infantry.

I was simply confused by the in-game stats screen, which I have discovered tells far from the whole story. It seemed, at the time, that they were remarkably similar which did not seem to correlate with my understanding of the troop types; however the term "peltast" was pretty seriously abused by writers in Greek for many many centuries, so I was curious about whether the peltasts represented something other than what I was expecting in EB.

As far as I am concerned, QwertyMIDX cleared it up with his post. :)

[Sarcasm]

I was simply confused by the in-game stats screen, which I have discovered tells far from the whole story. It seemed, at the time, that they were remarkably similar which did not seem to correlate with my understanding of the troop types; however the term "peltast" was pretty seriously abused by writers in Greek for many many centuries, so I was curious about whether the peltasts represented something other than what I was expecting in EB.

As far as I am concerned, QwertyMIDX cleared it up with his post. :)

Oh Well...sorry I posted ....

[Trithemius]

Oh Well...sorry I posted ....

Don't be! :)

I'm sure your points will be useful to someone reading!

[QwertyMIDX]

Glad I could be of assistance. Don't hesitate to mention stats oddities in future either, in working on the 1.5 EDU I've found a number of errors already.

[econ21]

Oh Well...sorry I posted ....

Nah, it was a great post. I was rather vague on the distinction - your post makes it chrystal clear to me.

BTW, anyone find peltastai and especially thureophoroi surprisingly similar to early Roman heavy infantry in terms of the stats? In vanilla, they were units I tended to run down but in EB, they are rather decent even in melee. I haven't played a Greek faction in EB yet, but I rather like the look of these guys - they seem to have the potential to be something like the plumbatarii in BI.

[Trithemius]

BTW, anyone find peltastai and especially thureophoroi surprisingly similar to early Roman heavy infantry in terms of the stats? In vanilla, they were units I tended to run down but in EB, they are rather decent even in melee. I haven't played a Greek faction in EB yet, but I rather like the look of these guys - they seem to have the potential to be something like the plumbatarii in BI.

The Sicilian independents are mad for peltastai, fortunately I am mostly facing them in street-fights rather than in the field where their mobility would be a real asset; I have had some trouble with them trouncing my skirmishers utterly in some of the open battles.

[pezhetairoi]

Peltastai are...strong. *admiring* I had a fullstack Roman vs Epeiros fight shaping up, and the Epeirotes had 6 units of peltastai. They chose to array the peltastai on the flanks, with a central phalanx and toxotai behind. I planned to crush the Epeirote flanks with my combined cavalry and hastati-principe wings before settling with the central phalanx from all sides with my triarii pinning them from the front.

Bad plan.

The peltastai were still fighting on long after the centre routed. And mind you, this was 6 peltastai against 2 hastati, 2 principes, 2 equites singulares and 4 equites romani. Gah.

[Trithemius]

I recently fought a full stack of independent (Syracusan I believe) peltasti in a field battle, in dense trees with a smallish clearing. I set myself up on one side of the clearing, so my cavalry group could be used to maximum effectiveness. I managed to hold the centre, and get my cavalry on the enemy flank. It was really touch-and-go until my cyclical charges finally broke the enemy unit and then rolled up their line from right to left. They are a lot more tricky to deal with when they are not in town though!

[econ21]

Yeah, Syracuse really loves its peltasts, doesn't it?

I was a little disappointed, as I got into an epic battle with 1500 of them sallying out on turn 2 of my trying to siege the place. I beat off the relieft force (only a few units) while the massive garrison just stood around. Time was up, so I thought it would be back to the siege. Nope. The town fell - I bagged over 1000 peltasts bloodlessly.

[Keba]

I had nearly a full army of those things near Thermon ... that and they had a couple of units of Iphikartes Hoplites and even Thorakitai Hoplites. I was playing Macedon ... my first foray resulted in a rather hasty retreat (it was not a rout, I prefer to call it a strategic withdrawal).

The second battle I fought was won for the simple reason that I had a lot of cavalry ... and a very big mercenary meat shield for them to waste their missiles at.

I've learned to appreciate them, they are excellent at holding the flank of a phalanx, and I've also learned to fear them, they are alse excellent at breaking a phalanx when properly used.

[Watchman]

Say... is it just me, or does the thureophoroi-thorakitai-pheraspidai "family" of units (plus its Carthaginian equivalent) pretty much fill the ecological niche the "copy legionaires" have in vanilla RTW ? The more I look at those guys the more I feel like they pretty much replace the copycats...

Would that make the Thorakitai Argyraspidai roughly the hierarchical peer of Praetorians then...?

[O'ETAIPOS]

There is scientifical debate among historians and archaeologists about copy legionares in which both sides present same reliefs, arch. finds etc. as evidence. EB unit manager Urnamma is among those claiming there was no such a thing. My lecturer Nick Sekunda is one of leading pro .

Greeks were using equipment similar to "romans style" even in VII cent BC(round shield, 2 jav/throving spears and sometimes sword), it was later replaced by hoplites.

Later (Vcent BC)Thrakian peltasts came in service and after some time almont shape shields replaced crescent shaped Thrakian pelta - it is the origin of Peltasts.

After celtic invasion(278BC) celtic thureos shield were adopted - this is the shield Thureophoroi, Iphicrates hopltes, Thorakitai, and few others are using in game.

problem with pheraspidai/hypaspistai (in fact one unit, divided due to RTW engine limits) is that in game period they were less used 9r even not used at all). Texts mentioning hypaspists refer rather to an office than military unit. But they may hide under name peltasts used in those texts.

[Watchman]

Heh. Sounds like the case of the religious quoting the exact same scriptures for entirely different ends, as often seems to happen particularly between the conservative and progressive elements.

Anyway, I was more interested in how EB approaches it. At least thus far I haven't seen a trace of the "copies", so I've been assuming the various factions' "homegrown" dudes-with-javelins-and-armour replace the vanilla's imitation legionaires as far as the mod is concerned.

[khelvan]

EB's approach is that other militaries developed along the same lines as the Romans, finding certain tactics and equipment more useful, but that these were not meant to be "copies" of the Roman system, only that the Romans termed them as such due to their similarity.

We've modelled units that we can find evidence for, but in the end it doesn't matter if these units became similar by converging design or by imitation; they are similar in the end, but not identical.

[Watchman]

Mm. That's what I thought. Well, I like the buggers anyway. They're certainly more interesting than a palette swap of basic legionaires...

Incidentally, would it be reasonably correct to think of the Peltastai as the Heavy Peltasts of the vanilla, if one wants to make comparisions ?

[khelvan]

I'm not sure how you mean. EB's unit roster is completely different from vanilla; what exactly do you want to compare?

[Watchman]

Well, I mean, if I try to think in terms of which units resemble each other in overall tactical niche, ability and placement in the "tech tree", and also roughly which units the somewhat generic vanilla ones represent (as I tend to consider EB the more detailed and accurate of the two...). I like to be able to do such comparisions. The Thureophoroi line wouldn't seem to have any equivalent in the vanilla (which doesn't have any javelin-toting spearmen I can recall anyway), but the Peltastai as "heavy skirmishers" would seem to be roughly the equivalents of the Heavy Peltasts by cursory examination.

What now a fair bit better looking.

[econ21]

The Thureophoroi line wouldn't seem to have any equivalent in the vanilla (which doesn't have any javelin-toting spearmen I can recall anyway), but the Peltastai as "heavy skirmishers" would seem to be roughly the equivalents of the Heavy Peltasts by cursory examination.

I always thought vanilla's "heavy skirmishers" were thureophoroi and their peltasts were, well, peltasts. EBs conception of the peltast as almost a legionnaire - and giving their thureophoroi an anti-cav spear - is all news to me, but this may speak only to my ignorance. Both units are certainly a whole lot more functional in EB than they were in RTW.

[Watchman]

What the vanilla calls "peltasts" (ie. unhappy peasants with a bunch of javelins) seems to go by the name "akontistai" (for the Hellenic factions, anyway) in EB. I've read the term "peltast" went through some pretty convoluted phases in the Hellenic era, but by that time had come to signify troops of rather high level of training.

[Trithemius]

Hellenic era, but by that time had come to signify troops of rather high level of training.

Peltast is a very over-used, and often mis-used, term; even Anna Comnena uses it to describe bow-armed troops during the 11th and 12th centuries A.D..

[Watchman]

Well, the Byzantines themselves used the term "helopolis" for about three of four more or less entirely different devices inside some four hundred years. Fatimid lexigraphers complained nobody in their times knew anymore what an old word (actually meaning a type of mace) used only few centuries earlier meant. And good luck finding out what different types of swords (or, God forbid, polearms...) were actually called in 14th-century Italy and England...

Military terminology obviously wasn't very static, or the object of great pedantism outside the circles of hapless lexographers and historians. Kind of annoying for researchers though.

[Trithemius]

Military terminology obviously wasn't very static, or the object of great pedantism outside the circles of hapless lexographers and historians. Kind of annoying for researchers though.

I don't know if we are much better now really - what with having several names for the production model of something, and then seperate designations for its use within different service branches - even within the same country!

At any rate, ancient military research people (at least in my experience) seem to love the scope for pedantry and argument that the confusion brings, so I guess there might be some benefits as well as all the problems. :)