Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: weren't javelines more affective

  1. #1

    Default weren't javelines more affective

    hi just woundering why the javeliners have such low attack points as they won some victorys on there own not sure what battle but athens deverstated a spartan army with them and the macedons made up an army of just skrimies and a few horsemen I think to send at the greeks

    can get qutoe if needed

  2. #2
    Texan Member BigTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
    Posts
    1,187

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Quote Originally Posted by king hannibal
    hi just woundering why the javeliners have such low attack points as they won some victorys on there own not sure what battle but athens deverstated a spartan army with them and the macedons made up an army of just skrimies and a few horsemen I think to send at the greeks

    can get qutoe if needed
    The basic peasant miltia's armed with javelins suck. But the peltastai, which seems to be what your refering to are quite effective in game. They can decimate light infantry by the dozens and can stand their ground against heavy infanty. The thracian peltasts are simply amazing though, they will destroy almost any other medium infantry, and even some heavy infantry.
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  3. #3

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    I find them extremely effective -- even just levies with javelins. If possible, get flanking or rear shots -- this can totally brutalize even top notch infantry or calvalry.

  4. #4
    Member Member Thaatu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    In reality one effect of javelins was that you couldn't use a shield that had one stuck in it, at least not without great difficulty. It is a little hard to emulate in RTW, but I do believe javelins should make more damage than arrows.

  5. #5

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Playing as Saba, which has mostly javelin users, I think that indeed they don't do a lot of damage. Example: Fighting the Seleucids (treacherous scum, they betrayed me while I was trying to help them against the monstrous Ptolemies), I had three units of King's elite throwing a rain of javellin against a phalanx and they killed 4-5 men.

  6. #6
    fancy assault unit Member blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tallinn, Estonia
    Posts
    1,273

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    maybe the ap attribute should be added to the javelins?
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullheadhq View Post
    Now I can even store my dick in EB underwear

  7. #7
    Member Member Thaatu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Quote Originally Posted by blank
    maybe the ap attribute should be added to the javelins?
    That would change the situation. Slingers with AP projectiles sometimes do serious damage even to heavy phalangites.

    At the moment I use archers to counter enemy missile units, slingers against enemy armoured units, and skirmishers... well they just kind of hang around. I play with general camera so it's not often that I have time to personally lead skirmishers to attack the enemy from behind, so...

  8. #8
    EB2 Baseless Conjecturer Member blacksnail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,074

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Quote Originally Posted by Vorian
    I had three units of King's elite throwing a rain of javellin against a phalanx and they killed 4-5 men.
    Well, there's your problem.

  9. #9
    EB TRIBVNVS PLEBIS Member MarcusAureliusAntoninus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The State of Jefferson, USA
    Posts
    5,722

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Quote Originally Posted by blacksnail
    Quote Originally Posted by Vorian
    I had three units of King's elite throwing a rain of javellin against a phalanx and they killed 4-5 men.
    Well, there's your problem.
    Indeed, the phalanx is basically immune to all missiles from the front if formed with spears down.


  10. #10
    EB Token Radical Member QwertyMIDX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Providence, Rhode Island
    Posts
    5,898

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    You have to get around the unshielded flank or the rear. Then you'll kill plenty, and crush their morale. As an added bonus they break and are effectively surronded by your troops who can finish off the whole unit with ease.
    History is for the future not the past. The dead don't read.


    Operam et vitam do Europae Barbarorum.

    History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another. - Max Beerbohm

  11. #11
    Elephant Master Member Conqueror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the Ruins of Europe
    Posts
    1,258

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Quote Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
    You have to get around the unshielded flank or the rear. Then you'll kill plenty, and crush their morale. As an added bonus they break and are effectively surronded by your troops who can finish off the whole unit with ease.
    Very true, that. There was one battle where I had an Elite African Infantry unit lure a Klerouchigon Agema to chase it so that my Kretan archers could fire at their backs. I was pleasantly surprised at the sort of damage that was inflicted, very different from shooting at them from the front.

    RTW, 167 BC: Rome expels Greek philosophers after the Lex Fannia law is passed. This bans the effete and nasty Greek practice of 'philosophy' in favour of more manly, properly Roman pursuits that don't involve quite so much thinking.

  12. #12
    Member Member Thaatu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    BUT archers and slingers are much more effective when flanking than skirmishers, because skirmishers have fewer javelins and shorter range. Why did armies have skirmishers to soften the enemy before a charge, if the javelins generally had no effect on the enemy?

  13. #13
    EBII Mapper and Animator Member -Praetor-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    3,760

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Quote Originally Posted by Thaatu
    BUT archers and slingers are much more effective when flanking than skirmishers, because skirmishers have fewer javelins and shorter range. Why did armies have skirmishers to soften the enemy before a charge, if the javelins generally had no effect on the enemy?
    Because something is better than nothing.

    And you could always find a good use for cannon fodder...

  14. #14
    Professional Lurker Member Bava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Somewhere with a cold Augustiner in my hands
    Posts
    360

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Just use them as a target for slingers/archers or as "shield" against the enemy´s cav.

    Poor chaps...

    P.S. Dont do this with thracian skimishers (they rock!)....
    "Well, whenever I'm confused, I just check my underwear. It holds the answer to all the important questions." - Grandpa Simpson

  15. #15
    Come to daddy Member Geoffrey S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach
    Posts
    4,028

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Quote Originally Posted by Thaatu
    BUT archers and slingers are much more effective when flanking than skirmishers, because skirmishers have fewer javelins and shorter range. Why did armies have skirmishers to soften the enemy before a charge, if the javelins generally had no effect on the enemy?
    Basic skirmishers have less training than slingers and archers, both of which need a lot of experience to be effective in battle.
    "The facts of history cannot be purely objective, since they become facts of history only in virtue of the significance attached to them by the historian." E.H. Carr

  16. #16
    Member Member Thaatu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,117

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Quote Originally Posted by k_raso
    Because something is better than nothing.
    The second one is usually the effect at the moment, except against levy infantry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bavarian Barbarian
    Just use them as a target for slingers/archers or as "shield" against the enemy´s cav.
    I try not to be evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
    Basic skirmishers have less training than slingers and archers, both of which need a lot of experience to be effective in battle.
    Fair enough, though it doesn't resonate that well in game (understandably).

    I'm just questioning the tactic of micromanaging your skirmishers to flank the battleline and throwing their javelins at the enemies' back. It's an RTW engine... I wouldn't say exploit, but my vocabulary is limited.
    I use my skirmishers to "soften" the enemy battleline, but because 500 javelins only kill about one or two of their targets, it's nothing more than a waste of time. But I still want to keep the historical army composition intact, at least I try...

  17. #17
    Civilizator Member Barigos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Russia, Sauromatae steppes
    Posts
    58

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    I think that soldiers get wounded anyway,even if nobody dies.So it is better to fight with injured men then with fresh and healthy ones
    In Vino Veritas!

  18. #18
    Member Member geala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    465

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    I concur that javelins are not effective enough. But on the other hand an increase in javelin efffectiveness would change the whole balance of EB.
    The queen commands and we'll obey
    Over the Hills and far away.
    (perhaps from an English Traditional, about 1700 AD)

    Drum, Kinder, seid lustig und allesamt bereit:
    Auf, Ansbach-Dragoner! Auf, Ansbach-Bayreuth!
    (later chorus -containing a wrong regimental name for the Bayreuth-Dragoner (DR Nr. 5) - of the "Hohenfriedberger Marsch", reminiscense of a battle in 1745 AD, to the music perhaps of an earlier cuirassier march)

  19. #19

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Increase Javelin power, but decrease range slightly and make cavalry hurt them more perhaps? I've always thought that a big pointy stick (javelin) should do more damage than a smaller pointy stick (arrow).... but of course i'm not taking the "propulsion" device into consideration hehe.
    Posted by John_Longarrow
    Plus there is just something fricking cool about fricking elephants with fricking cannons on their heads.

  20. #20

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Javalins are nasty to lighter troops like the Gauls. If they were more effective light infantry would be chewed up and spat out before the fight starts.

  21. #21

    Default Re: weren't javelines more affective

    Quote Originally Posted by Sdragon
    Javalins are nasty to lighter troops like the Gauls. If they were more effective light infantry would be chewed up and spat out before the fight starts.
    That's true. A roman army with legionaries and Velites can easily kill 15-20% of the barbarians before they even get to close combat.
    New World:Total War

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