Very Powerful Peltasts

[AMCG]

I have just started to play EB and am enjoying it very much. I have previously played RTR a lot and although EB is in many ways better, there is one thing I am struggling with. Peltasts are stronger than Hastati or Principes! Can this be right or have I got a bug in my system? The EB developers certainly seem to know their Roman history but surely peltasts were mostly unarmoured and carried just a pelte and javelins. They were light skirmishers. How can they be as strong as proper light infantry? Does anyone have an explanation?

[Ludens]

I have just started to play EB and am enjoying it very much. I have previously played RTR a lot and although EB is in many ways better, there is one thing I am struggling with. Peltasts are stronger than Hastati or Principes! Can this be right or have I got a bug in my system? The EB developers certainly seem to know their Roman history but surely peltasts were mostly unarmoured and carried just a pelte and javelins. They were light skirmishers. How can they be as strong as proper light infantry? Does anyone have an explanation?

Actually, I have two:

1) The term peltast meant different things over the centuries. At the time of the Peleponesian war peltasts essentialy were poor slobs with a few javelins and a wicker shield whose job was to keep the enemy occupied until the hoplites could decide the battle. However, by the time-frame of EB Hellenic armies had become more varied, and the term peltast now applied to hoplites or phalangilites who were equiped as skirmishers (and well-equiped skirmishers at that). The levied, poorly-equiped javelineers still existed, but are covered by the term Akontistai in EB.

2) A mistake in the stat-file gives peltasts (normal and mercenary versions) two more points of armour than was intended. They should be able to fight in a melee, but they will take more casualties.

Welcome to the Org, BTW .

[Dayve]

Yeah what Ludens said basically. By the late 1st century BC the Greeks were slowly realising that some form of light infantry was needed, and seeing as how the rest of the world had light infantry that always carried javelins for use before charging into melee, that's what most Greek light infantry does but they are named peltasts, whereas the peltasts we know and remember from vanilla RTW are called Akontistai...

...If only the Greek generals had figured out how light infantry and cavalry should be used with an army of slow moving, in-flexible phalanx troops.

But i have to keep pointing this out to make sure the EB team don't forget to fix it... Akontistai and other poor light skirmishing units are way too powerful with their javelins! They knock off a tenth of your unit with each volley and by the time they're done throwing your army is as thin as the leaves on a tree in winter.

[tk-421]

1) The term peltast meant different things over the centuries. At the time of the Peleponesian war peltasts essentialy were poor slobs with a few javelins and a wicker shield whose job was to keep the enemy occupied until the hoplites could decide the battle.

I've been reading Thucydides and The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan simultaneously and I have been getting the impression hoplites were not as important in the Peloponnesian War as they had been in the past or they would be in later wars. It seems to me that, outside of Delium and Mantinea, that hoplites decided the outcome of very few important battles. Peltasts, cavalry, and ships, to me, seemed to have been much more important in the war. In Aetolia light armed troops dominated the hoplites, the second Sicilian Expedition seems to have been decided more by the Syracusans' superior cavarly rather than the Athenians' better hoplites, and the major battles of the latter half of the war were mostly naval. Perhaps I am making the wrong assumptions about hoplites in what I read or am reading the wrong books (although I don't think I could go wrong with Thucydides).

[O'ETAIPOS]

I've been reading Thucydides and The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan simultaneously and I have been getting the impression hoplites were not as important in the Peloponnesian War as they had been in the past or they would be in later wars. It seems to me that, outside of Delium and Mantinea, that hoplites decided the outcome of very few important battles. Peltasts, cavalry, and ships, to me, seemed to have been much more important in the war. In Aetolia light armed troops dominated the hoplites, the second Sicilian Expedition seems to have been decided more by the Syracusans' superior cavarly rather than the Athenians' better hoplites, and the major battles of the latter half of the war were mostly naval. Perhaps I am making the wrong assumptions about hoplites in what I read or am reading the wrong books (although I don't think I could go wrong with Thucydides).

Peltasts, as mercenaries were more expendable than hoplites (mostly citizens at this time still), so they were more commonly used, especially in "small warfare", that was esential during Peloponesian war. Hoplites were fighting big battles that gave prestige and peltasts small fights that give loses.

[Ludens]

I've been reading Thucydides and The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan simultaneously and I have been getting the impression hoplites were not as important in the Peloponnesian War as they had been in the past or they would be in later wars. It seems to me that, outside of Delium and Mantinea, that hoplites decided the outcome of very few important battles. Peltasts, cavalry, and ships, to me, seemed to have been much more important in the war. In Aetolia light armed troops dominated the hoplites, the second Sicilian Expedition seems to have been decided more by the Syracusans' superior cavarly rather than the Athenians' better hoplites, and the major battles of the latter half of the war were mostly naval. Perhaps I am making the wrong assumptions about hoplites in what I read or am reading the wrong books (although I don't think I could go wrong with Thucydides).

You are right. I should have written Persian wars instead of Peloponnesian war. Still, I think the Peloponnesian war was a period of transition, where the Greeks moved from hoplite-dominated armies to something approaching a combined-arms force. This the reason why the hoplite performed less credibly during the conflict: armies had to adapt to their new-found weaknesses. But I admit I haven't read much about the military history of this period, so I am not sure about it either.

[NightStar]

But i have to keep pointing this out to make sure the EB team don't forget to fix it... Akontistai and other poor light skirmishing units are way too powerful with their javelins! They knock off a tenth of your unit with each volley and by the time they're done throwing your army is as thin as the leaves on a tree in winter.

I think it depends on what kind of units they are throwing their spears at. Every unit that has armor rating of 10+ and a shield is almost invulnerable to peltast from the front. Lightly armored troops are a another story altogether.....

But then again there are instances of Peltasts dominating the hoplite/phalangite, which is why the hoplite became more lightly armored so they could catch the peltasts, ironically at the same time the peltast started to use heavier armor

[Dayve]

Well, i haven't played EB for months, i love it and everything but i couldn't stand playing something half finished, so i'm waiting for the next build, but when i did play i always played as Rome and although archers and missle cavalry were not a big threat, it got to a point where i was actually dreading fighting an army with 3 or more units of peltasts... My front line was usually hastati with some unit on their flank, samnite spearmen or Mala Geroas (i think) which i could recruit from northern Italy... And peltasts would absolutely annihalate my first line ALWAYS... 3 or more units would kill off 8/10 of each unit... This isn't historically accurate...

Although early hastati are unarmoured apart from their helmet and greive, they have a huge shield, and when they are stood face to face with some peltasts 10 meters away with their shield raised, peltasts should do very little damage to a unit of hastati... Obviously some will fall, but their shield should stop most javelins... The Roman pila was designed to penetrate shields and go all the way through and penetrate the man stood behind it too, but the javelin of a poor homeless sap from Athens who's been drafted into the akontistai would not have anything but a simple javelin and from what i've read javelineers of the day were for harrassment purposes and to try and draw the enemy into the first charge.

[Slider6977]

Although early hastati are unarmoured apart from their helmet and greive, they have a huge shield, and when they are stood face to face with some peltasts 10 meters away with their shield raised, peltasts should do very little damage to a unit of hastati... Obviously some will fall, but their shield should stop most javelins... The Roman pila was designed to penetrate shields and go all the way through and penetrate the man stood behind it too, but the javelin of a poor homeless sap from Athens who's been drafted into the akontistai would not have anything but a simple javelin and from what i've read javelineers of the day were for harrassment purposes and to try and draw the enemy into the first charge.

Which is why Roman units have armor piercing trait, and normal skirmishers do not. You get the last laugh, especially with akontistai.

[Dayve]

But you can't always afford to waste your missles on lowly skirmishers... The early Roman units aren't really that uber as they are in vanilla and in other mods... They are defeatable... Early hastati, basically they suck balls... I only use them in my front line because it is historical... Early principes don't have a sword so aren'y ideal for fighting enemy infantry, especially phalanx units... And triarii are only there for reserve if direly needed, so those Pila that your Roman units have a precious.. You need to use them to wear down the main enemy units so your crappy infantry has a fighting chance... Not waste them on akontistai who are threatless after they have thrown all their missles.

[Sdragon]

If your playing historical, skirmishers shouldn't be a bother. Send out your leves(sp), to skirmish and keep them out till the enemy have used their javelins or battle is about to be joined. If need be get the Rorii stuck in as well. But make sure your slingers reduce the enemy skirmishers a little so you have the advantage. I always bring a decent number of these three support troop types. You need them to protect the rest of the army.

Also I've never found the Hastati to be all that bad. They can take on pretty much all equivalent light infantry. Anyway, historically they took the heavy casualties. Take pride that your fighting in a Roman manor as you watch them die. ;) Plus principes actually are better at killing infantry than Hastati, which I found pretty odd.

Keep in mind though I tend to play on VH/M

[Slider6977]

Your making a little too much of this.
1. You don't have to directly deal with them after several years in the game. Once you capture Rhegion and Taras, all you have to worry about is Carthage attacking you or if you expand past your north border. In both cases, your gonna have just as hard a time with your sh... crappy hastati than with skirmishers, since you will face better infantry armies. After I capture the south, I keep a small garrison outside of Rhegion and just wait there as I take the rest of Northern Italy. And since Rebels do not attack you unless on their territory, you are virtually immune to them until you attack sicily, which is all seiges and they are completely out of their element in enclosed towns.

2. Its a challenge. You are not suppossed to dominate every unit with any other unit. The whole point of this unit is to soften up the enemy, which they do by killing as many as possible. Every battle means loses, you have to deal with that, its Total War.

3. You can train them too when you capture southern italy and build a build a type 3 or 4 govt. So counter skirmisher with skirmisher. You can put them in your front line and let them soak up all the volleys, while at the same time soften the enemy up yourself. Do you not go into battle with nothing but infantry? If so, then many of your men deserve to get killed.

[Geoffrey S]

They're meant to be tough, I'd have thought. As was said earlier they consist of troops who may as well be hoplites for their skill and quality, but are less heavily armoured so as to be more mobile. Realistically they would be used on the flanks, to either outflank the enemy or to prevent the less mobile units in the centre of your line from being flanked themselves; unfortunately the AI seems to see things differently and uses them much the same as other skirmishers, namely in loose formation ahead of the main line.

In general skirmishers shouldn't be much use aside from harassing lines as they form up, and preying on vulnerable exposed flanks. As such, historically skirmishers would cover the main forces between the battlelines while making as much a nuisance of themselves as they could. They weren't usually a battle winning factor, but would give time to the main forces to form up and in the meantime keep the enemy on their toes. Again, the AI doesn't do this, but should people go online that's the way I'd imagine them to be used.

So, back to topic. Peltasts should be strong enough to hold their own against the enemy, although they may be slightly too powerful in the current build. But in the first place they're proper soldiers used as a more mobile force, not the weak poor skirmishers that some seem to view them as being.

[Sarcasm]

The thing is, I think, is that you have gotten used to absolutely steamrolling every single army the AI puts in the field, with negligible casualties. I know I did.

If I lost more than 200 men I'd consider it heavy casualties. EB evens things up a bit, though it's still possible to take advantage of the hardcoded AI.

[Kralizec]

Should peltasts be able to defeat hastati in 1on1 though?
Looking at their stats they should even be able to defeat standard thureophoroi. They have -1 defense, but better stamina wich makes a huge difference in a prolongued fight. The only real advantage of thureophoroi I can see is that they have an anti cavalry bonus.

[Sarcasm]

Of course they're slightly overstated now. Thureophoroi are spearmen so they're supposed to stand still and in guard mode until an opening appears. Peltastai will not win against a well ordered thureophoroi formation nor will hastati, I believe. Leave real flanking to the peltasts, akontistai and cavalry.

But really, I'd be *happy* to loose to the AI under any circunstances at this point. The AI will only win if they have a huge strategic advantage over me, and that, unless I'm either distracted or a total idiot, doesn't happen. On the tactical level, there's really no possible comparison.

[Dayve]

I barely ever seem to lose either... And when i do it is very usually against Gauls... There comes a point in every campaign where i get too cocky after many victories and just take for granted that i'll steamroll the next army that comes along... Then bam... I end up losing a legion entirely.

Always fun.

But how historical is it for Romans to use Greek peltastai once they have captured Tarentum and Croton and installed governments which allow you to recruit them?

[Trithemius]

I barely ever seem to lose either... And when i do it is very usually against Gauls... There comes a point in every campaign where i get too cocky after many victories and just take for granted that i'll steamroll the next army that comes along... Then bam... I end up losing a legion entirely.

Always fun.

But how historical is it for Romans to use Greek peltastai once they have captured Tarentum and Croton and installed governments which allow you to recruit them?

Historical? Why worry too much about that? Or are you planning on having your best generals murder each other sporadically from 87 BC until about 32 BC as well?

If you find yourself unwilling to slow your conquests and return to refit your armies with good Roman citizen-soldiers, then recruit locals and mercenaries and press on! I installed local allied rulers (type iv) and pressed on during my conquest of Greece and Macedonia; I only went back and installed more regular colonies (type ii) when things were secure. Just because the historical Republic expanded in one way does not mean you have to.

[Dayve]

I don't plan on doing in the next build of EB... Or maybe i will, i don't know...

But it would be great if my best generals started murdering each other for the #1 spot all the time... That would add much depth to my campaigns as the Romans.

[Cheexsta]

Actually, I agree - generals assassinating each other would be great it could be somewhat frustrating at times, but as long as you could take measures to avoid it then it should be fine.