Dismounted Byz Lancers...

[rvg]

These guys should be using some kind of a spear like the dismounted Sipahi Lancers do. Byzantine army doesn't need a useless byz infantry clone, but it would benefit quite a bit from an elite spear unit.

[Redtroll]

Yes I agree with you. I like to play the Byzantine Empire, but you really lack a strong infantry able to hold its ground against cav units.
It make sense that spear was the primary weapon, and dismounted byzantine cav should be able to hold the line against cav units.

[General Zhukov]

In defense of DBL, they do have Good Stamina, a trait which Byz Inf lacks. This really helps out when using DBL to storm cities. Also, DBL are sword units produced in castles, making them useful for racking up Swordsmith's points. That is, of course, if you don't want to pay or can't afford the outlay to get Dismounted Latinkon.

[Quillan]

They can get 3 armor upgrades; Byzantine Infantry can only get one. I agree, though. I think they should primarily be spearmen instead of swordsmen.

[econ21]

Revealing my ignorance, but I'd always assumed they would use their lances as spears when dismounted. I'm sad to learn they don't.

I keep hankering for a spear-armed dismounted English knight... Agincourt, White Company etc.

[General Zhukov]

Revealing my ignorance, but I'd always assumed they would use their lances as spears when dismounted. I'm sad to learn they don't.

Most other heavy cavalry in the game also wield swords when dismounted. D. Feudal, D. Chivalric, D. Norman, D. Latinkon. And a good thing, too. Otherwise, it would be very hard to get Swordsmith's points.

With Byzantium already starved for good assault infantry, it would be a cruel act to turn this one into a spearman, and force the Byz player to tech up to Citadel and the highest Barracks just to get some sword inf.

[Quillan]

They don't have to do that. Byzantine Infantry are available from a large city with the level 4 barracks. Constantinople starts as large, and I think only requires one barracks upgrade in order to start building them. Their stats are identical to the dismounted lancers; they just can't get as many armor upgrades and lack the good stamina trait.

Byzantium lacks good spearmen. Unlike the western factions, the Spear Militia doesn't even have the ability to form Schiltrom. You have to get the Byzantine Spearmen from a castle in order to get that ability. Of course, almost everyone lacks good spearmen because of how the game handles the swords vs spears bit and the shield bug. But Byzantium, from the actual Castle with the level 3 barracks recruits what is the equivalent of Spear Militia with 1 xp for any western European faction. Most of those factions get either armored sergeants or something equivalent at that level. Byzantium has to get to a level 4 barracks to get any decent melee infantry at all.

[General Zhukov]

They don't have to do that. Byzantine Infantry are available from a large city with the level 4 barracks. Constantinople starts as large, and I think only requires one barracks upgrade in order to start building them. Their stats are identical to the dismounted lancers; they just can't get as many armor upgrades and lack the good stamina trait.

I see what you're saying. It's a nice concession to be able to produce sub-standard sword inf from cities. However, they are not as effective on the assault as Dismounted Byzantine Lancers, nor do they contribute to the accumulation of Swordsmith points. Is Swordsmith's Guild really a big deal, you ask? It is for Byzantium. Combine the fact that its first decent assault infantry (DBL) is weaker than western equivalents, with the fact that Byz heavy cavalry is middling, with the lack of Tourneys and Crusader guilds. If DBL were converted to spearmen, Byzantium wouldn't be able to begin accumulating Swordsmith points until the Late period, and then only after a massive outlay.

Byzantium lacks good spearmen. Unlike the western factions, the Spear Militia doesn't even have the ability to form Schiltrom. You have to get the Byzantine Spearmen from a castle in order to get that ability. Of course, almost everyone lacks good spearmen because of how the game handles the swords vs spears bit and the shield bug. But Byzantium, from the actual Castle with the level 3 barracks recruits what is the equivalent of Spear Militia with 1 xp for any western European faction. Most of those factions get either armored sergeants or something equivalent at that level. Byzantium has to get to a level 4 barracks to get any decent melee infantry at all.

The difference in effectiveness between Spear Militia, S. Spearmen, and Armoured Sarges is largely cosmetic. A few points of armor and the rarely useful Schiltrom ability (in case you're a Schiltromophile, Byz Spearmen get that). But all three versions of the unit excel at their most effective use: attacking cavalry. Any spear, including Spear Militia, can scythe down entangled cav in my experience. As a Byzantine player, I would counter western knights by tying them up with my weak lancers, then moving in with Byz Spearmen, all the while harassing and flanking with horse archers. In this situation, my spears being down four armor and two attack is not that significant.

So, to sum up: as Byzantium, I don't want yet another Armored Sarge. clone, I want a unit that excels at taking cities, and one that accumulates points towards my only useful castle Guild. That unit is DBL.

[Carl]

The difference in effectiveness between Spear Militia, S. Spearmen, and Armored Sarges is largely cosmetic.

This may be true if when Shields are not working. However, with a shield fix in place the differences are dramatic and pronounced.

Here's a comparison based on what they can beat:

Spear Militia = Mailed knights, anything much above that and they simply vaporise when charged.

Armored Sarges = Knightly Orders, anything above that will beat them, but will suffer moderate to heavy losses (33-50%).

By beat, i mean line up, brace and then receive a head on formed Cav charge from the unit in question, and then continue to finish the fight in the subsequent melee, all without the help of any other units.

Thats a Huge difference.

Thus the fact that Byzantine spearmen, (even with 3 bronze chevrons and Silver Armour), are so much worse is a major issue as it really hampers the ability of the Byzantine foot units, they can basically be all made useless by the ability of any enemy heavy Cav to simply charge at will through the whole lot, thus reducing Byzantine to Little more than a HA/Cav force.

Your Swordsmith point I don't get, where is it written in stone that only S&S units can contribute, that seems a real dumb idea to me and has never made much sense and I hope CA changes it swiftly.

[Quillan]

Making spears is easier than making swords, by a long shot. As I read once someplace, it isn't easy to make a piece of steel hard enough to hold an edge while strong enough to be the small thickness required in order to be usable as a hand weapon and resilient enough to not shatter on contact. Whatever the truth, the game only allows certain units to accumulate points towards a swordsmith guild. I don't have the list, but I would have thought Byzantine Infantry would be on the list. Admittedly, since you'd be recruiting them in cities they wouldn't give you much benefit in accumulating points towards that guild in a castle.

[General Zhukov]

This may be true if when Shields are not working. However, with a shield fix in place the differences are dramatic and pronounced.

I'll not base my assertions on the results of a homebrew mod. It will be interesting to see how the new balance Lusted has hinted at turns out. But I dare say CA will not make the mistake of turning spearmen into McPikemen. Unmodded, the spear units remain very similar in horse killing ability, and very similar in their dying to charges ability.

Thus the fact that Byzantine spearmen, (even with 3 bronze chevrons and Silver Armour), are so much worse is a major issue as it really hampers the ability of the Byzantine foot units, they can basically be all made useless by the ability of any enemy heavy Cav to simply charge at will through the whole lot, thus reducing Byzantine to Little more than a HA/Cav force.

If spearmen are changed in future patches into fundamentally different units than they are now, or the overall balance is restructured in such a way that it favors spearmen more, then there may be a point to what you say here.

...where is it written in stone that only S&S units can contribute...

In the code. If you want to let all infantry contribute to the guild, add it to your rebalance mod. I'm about discussing the game as it is.

[Carl]

I'll not base my assertions on the results of a homebrew mod.

Based on lusted's comments his LTC 2.0 changes flip the balance even MORE in spearmens favor Zurkhov, thats the changes CA are looking at. Also, I was talking about how they do under Foz's 1.2 sheild fix, (where the melee performance against cav should be the same as with working sheilds from the front), not my own ProblemFixer which pushes them up a bit more so that they match the Advisorm, i.e. frontal charging spearmen is finnancially unsound, (allthough it can still work in desperate situations with re-charges, just donm't expect many spearmen to survive).

In the code. If you want to let all infantry contribute to the guild, add it to your rebalance mod. I'm about discussing the game as it is.

NOPE, the code simply specifiys specific units, some (but not all), 2-handers also contribute, but not all S&S units do, theirs no reason a specific exception couldn't be made for a high level spear unit. In fact IMHO an exception is going to HAVE to be made to balance the eastern and western factions with regads to swordsmith avalibilit anyway so...

@Quillian: I know that, but i'm talking pure balance here, real life dosen't enter into that or count very much.

Overall I don't think that the Lancers SHOULD become spears, i tink Byzantyine spearmen should be buffed by a couple of points of defence skill. But theirs ceartinlly plenty of argments to do it IMHO.

[General Zhukov]

NOPE, the code simply specifiys specific units, some (but not all), 2-handers also contribute, but not all S&S units do, theirs no reason a specific exception couldn't be made for a high level spear unit.

I was under the impression that all the units that do in fact generate points are sword wielding, either one or two-handed. Is that incorrect?

In fact IMHO an exception is going to HAVE to be made to balance the eastern and western factions with regads to swordsmith avalibilit anyway so...

It's a noble idea, wanting to give all factions a good shot at the mighty Swordsmith's Guild, but what if things were set up to give certain factions better odds at getting different guild HQs? For example, as it stands Europeans find it easier to develop SS Guilds. Muslim factions find it easy to develop Horsebreeders Guilds. Admittedly, Russia, and to some extent Byzantium, find it difficult to get either.

[pike master]

this is kinda related. according to what i read about the byzantines they would use a combination of heavy and light horse archer units and mostly all purpose infantry armed with bow and sword and that they carried on the tradition of the roman legions before them by fortifying the battlefield.

so why doesnt the trebezond archers have a stake capability?

[rvg]

Byz military as it stands right now is a one trick pony. The Vardariotai are nothing short of awesome, but that is pretty much all the Byz player gets.

Now, Latinkons and Kataphraktoi are okay, but I find little use for the Byzantine foot soldiers. For garrisons, yes, Dismounted Latinkon for City/Castle assault army, yes, but NOTHING for the field battles. Why? Because the Byz has no foot units to counter heavy cavalry. No, Byz Spearmen aren't good enough. Thus, at the moment my only choice is to counter Heavy Cavalry with Kataphractoi.
What am I complaining about? Lack of variety. I *want* to send out balanced armies with lots of infantry, foot archers, with some heavy cav and horse archers, just like in the good old MTW1 days. Right now I can't do that, since half a stack of western knights will mercilessly mow down a balanced byz full stack.

So yes, I want Dismounted Byz Lancers to wield pointy sticks AND form schitrom (sp?). Dismounted Latinkon and Byz infantry will provide me with all the swords I'll ever need, as for the guilds, I'll just take them from someone else.

[Callahan9119]

unless your talking about mp balance, byz should be weak, should be a challenge to play, they were on the ropes for hundreds of years, were lucky to last so long

look at the region they are based in, cav heavy....and u can buy what you dont have, just like they had to

i dont see any cav using lances when they are in melee, if an english knight was fighting on foot he didnt use his lance

[rvg]

Except that Byz are ridiculously easy to play...The Heavy Cav/Vardariotai combo kills pretty much everything up until good pike/musket combos begin to appear, and by then the Byz has either won the game or has become so big that nothing can stop them.

[Musashi]

The Eastern Roman Empire was not on the ropes for hundreds of years. At the time when this game starts, they were actually having their best period in a long time, under the Komnenos dynasty, who expanded their borders quite significantly. It wasn't until the Komnenos dynasty died out and was replaced by the next dynasty that they fell, and historians basically unanimously blame it on the dynasty that succeeded the Komnenos, not due to some supposed weakness in their military (Which was not weak at all).

[pike master]

the bad thing about the kataphracts is that they move slower and have a lower charge bonus then other comparable cav.

the slow speed means that almost everytime they will lose the charge.

all horses need to be tuned down and why no one thought the byzantines didnt have anti-cav infantry eludes me.

your talking about one of the places of the world where the greatest minds of the time gathered and they couldnt figure out how to use a spear or pike effectively. also it is only accurate that dual purpose infantry like trebizonds and byz guard should be able to fortify the battle field.

fortifying the battlefield was a big hallmark in roman and byzantine strategy. however even the english didnt just use stakes. they used trenches, hidden pitfalls, caltrops, wagons.

i think the byzantine trebizonds and guard should have a stake option.

[Carl]

@Musashi: Could I ask you to clarify actual history for me then as what you've said doesn't match up with my meager knowledge of history.

Now will admit, what I know is gleaned from a mixture of AOEII, a documentary that covered Byzantine as part of another subject, (can't remember what, might have been on Christianity), a few ambiguous hints in books and a few bit picked up on here.

Not the best sources I admit.

However it's my understanding that Manzinkart totally destroyed the military of Byzantine as the powerful force it had once been, with the loss of the outer provinces and the Cav they provided, the Byzantines lost their best troops. From their on in the only reason they weren't finished off was that the turks couldn't deal with Constantinople. Eventually when they got cannons to bypass the walls they did.

Where is my history going wrong their?

[KARTLOS]

@Musashi: Could I ask you to clarify actual history for me then as what you've said doesn't match up with my meager knowledge of history.

Now will admit, what I know is gleaned from a mixture of AOEII, a documentary that covered Byzantine as part of another subject, (can't remember what, might have been on Christianity), a few ambiguous hints in books and a few bit picked up on here.

Not the best sources I admit.

However it's my understanding that Manzinkart totally destroyed the military of Byzantine as the powerful force it had once been, with the loss of the outer provinces and the Cav they provided, the Byzantines lost their best troops. From their on in the only reason they weren't finished off was that the turks couldn't deal with Constantinople. Eventually when they got cannons to bypass the walls they did.

Where is my history going wrong their?

carl even just browsing on wikepdia would let you know that your understanding is a bit off

[Musashi]

At the start of the game you'll note that the Byzantine Emperor is Alexios Komnenos (Alexius Comnenus), who actually took the throne in 1081. This was after the civil war which followed Manzikert. He completely reformed the army, the currency, the economy, everything, and turned the Empire around. He stabilized the borders and even began taking land back.

He, his son John Komnenos, and his grandson Manuel Komnenos took back territory aggressively, both to the west and the East. They enjoyed successful actions against the Seljuks, taking back land as far as Antioch (And even a bit beyond).

Sadly, the Komenos dynasty was succeeded by the Angeloi. I'll simply give you wikipedia's summation of this disaster:

"The Komnenos dynasty was replaced in 1185 by that of the Angeloi. It is the universal verdict of history that the inaction and ineptitude of the Angeloi quickly lead to a collapse in Byzantine power on all fronts. Surrounded by a crowd of slaves, mistresses and flatterers, they permitted the empire to be administered by unworthy favourites, while they squandered the money wrung from the provinces on costly buildings and expensive gifts to the churches of the metropolis. They scatterred money so lavishly as to empty the treasury, and allowed such license to the officers of the army as to leave the Empire practically defenceless. Together, they consummated the financial ruin of the state."

You'll find few dynasties that historians so roundly and unanimously blame for the downfall of their nation.

The Komnenos Emperors were extremely energetic and effective rulers. You would be hard pressed to point to any man in history who managed to so completely turn a state around from devastating decline as Alexios Komnenos. Had there been one or two more Emperors like Alexios, John, and Manuel, there might still be a Byzantine Empire to this day.

[Carl]

Thanks for that, i was actually going to follow the advise of the previos poster and check wikipedia, I keep forgeting about that thing TBH.

As I said, my sources wern't comprahensive or reliabile, so I was more intrested in where things where wrong. As noted I was lead to belive prior to your sorrection that after Manzikert the Byzantine Empire was bassiclly littile more thatn a twitching corpse. I think people who mae games/documenteris need to check their history a bit better myself.

the real story is more intresting though, it is intresting to speculate on what migh have been, I wonder what they'd have made of gunpowder and Pikes?

[Musashi]

I suspect they'd have been eager adopters... The Roman Empire was always a very pragmatic beast, and the ERE was no different.

That's basically the basis of the mod I'm producing... If they ever get around to giving us the second patch, and mesh import/export capability.

[Carl]

I'll be looking forward to that mod then, would be very intresting I think.

Good Luck with it.

[StickShift]

not to over simplify things, but why not simply create a spear armed version of the Byzantine Infantry? these guys are reasonably well trained and equipped middle of the line infantry as it is, and as spearmen they would fit the bill well. in addition, you would be using preexisting models and (mostly) stats so the change would be able to be implemented quickly and painlessly.

you could imagine as these guys were brought into the army they all would go into basic training and get the same drills and armor but half would get a sword and the other half a spear.

i tend to think that a spear armed version of the Byzantine Infantry would be a better fit than to make the Dismounted Lancers spearmen. i get the impression that they were better equipped and more experienced than the basic Bzy Infantry, being dismounted cavalry after all and having better armor upgrades available.

[Musashi]

not to over simplify things, but why not simply create a spear armed version of the Byzantine Infantry? these guys are reasonably well trained and equipped middle of the line infantry as it is, and as spearmen they would fit the bill well. in addition, you would be using preexisting models and (mostly) stats so the change would be able to be implemented quickly and painlessly.

you could imagine as these guys were brought into the army they all would go into basic training and get the same drills and armor but half would get a sword and the other half a spear.

i tend to think that a spear armed version of the Byzantine Infantry would be a better fit than to make the Dismounted Lancers spearmen. i get the impression that they were better equipped and more experienced than the basic Bzy Infantry, being dismounted cavalry after all and having better armor upgrades available.

That would be great. But, again, we don't yet have the necessary tools to mod units to use different weapons.

[Carl]

not to over simplify things, but why not simply create a spear armed version of the Byzantine Infantry?

It allready exits if you look at the models. It's called Byzantine Spearmen who are simply a copy of Spear Militia.

[Lusted]

It allready exits if you look at the models. It's called Byzantine Spearmen who are simply a copy of Spear Militia.

Well you could always use the upgrde level models for the Byzantine spearmen and make a new unit called Skutatoi, or you could jsut boost their stats and rmeove the lowest levle armour upgrade sot hey always look like Byzantine infantry with spears.

[Carl]

Well you could always use the upgrde level models for the Byzantine spearmen and make a new unit called Skutatoi, or you could jsut boost their stats and rmeove the lowest levle armour upgrade sot hey always look like Byzantine infantry with spears.

I was simply pointing out they allready exist. IMHO it's just plain stupid to have 2 identical spear units in the same tech tree. In general I think they SHOULD be buffed as they provide a perfect opportunity for creating a excellent spear unit.