Question about lethality on Roman units

[JeffBag]

From the export_descr_unit, it seems like the Camillian Hastati has a lethality of 0.1, while the Rorarii has a lethality of 0.125. Shouldn't it be the other way round, since Rorarii are just reserve troops, while Hastatis do at least form the battle line.

[econ21]

I'd also query the velites lethality of 0.04. It would seem to make them a major step down from leves, with a lethality of 0.125. This does not seem right from a gameplay point of view, where they are effectively an upgrade of leves.

You could rationalise it as deriving from their using a "knife". But the archer auxilia also have a "knife" and yet their lethality is 0.1.

[fallen851]

Yes it is quite odd how lethality is worked out, it may be randomly generated, however I'd venture to say that it might have to do with the quality of the weapons? The lethality takes a jump after the Polybian reforms to .13.

Also the animation speed may have to do with it, and the fact they have a much higher attack. Lastly the higher lethality may be to deal with cavalry.

I'd like to think EB has carefully balanced each of the units, so that you can't find out the effectiveness of a unit simply by looking at the numbers.

[Trax]

From the export_descr_unit, it seems like the Camillian Hastati has a lethality of 0.1, while the Rorarii has a lethality of 0.125. Shouldn't it be the other way round, since Rorarii are just reserve troops, while Hastatis do at least form the battle line.

As far as I understand the lethality is weapon based, for example short swords have lethality 0.1 (Camillan Hastati) and underhand spears 0.125 (Rorarii, Leves)

IIRC according to the unit description velites should carry short swords, but in edu they have knives.

[Atilius]

IIRC according to the unit description velites should carry short swords, but in edu they have knives.

It should be born in mind that this entry does nothing but describe the sound the weapon makes when it strikes something.

[Watchman]

Normal short swords have 0.1. The better Iberian type, which the Romans start using later, has 0.13.

[Trax]

It should be born in mind that this entry does nothing but describe the sound the weapon makes when it strikes something.

I mean they have lethality 0.04 (or had in .80, not played .81 yet), while short swords in unit description make me think that 0.1 may be more appropriate.

[Kralizec]

How does lethality work exactly? I always pictured that the attack stat deterines wether a stab/slash/strike would hit the target, and the lethality stat then determined wether the target would die or just be knocked over.
I have a feeling I'm horroribly wrong, though.

[JeffBag]

Yes you are right; lethality kicks in after the attack calculation has penetrated the target's defense, to see if the target dies or fall over.

[Quilts]

From the export_descr_unit, it seems like the Camillian Hastati has a lethality of 0.1, while the Rorarii has a lethality of 0.125. Shouldn't it be the other way round, since Rorarii are just reserve troops, while Hastatis do at least form the battle line.

Don't these values refer to 'Min (short for minimum?) delay between attacks'? The time between attacks.....in which case less is better. That's what it says in the 'guide' at the top of the export_descr_unit file.

I've heard people mention 'lethality' before and have always wondered where it was hidden. It seems, perhaps nowhere.....

Cheers,

Quilts

[Watchman]

Nah. Lethality is the last value in the string (the one that all EB melee attacks have under 1). Attack delay is the one before it - kontos lances have 200, for example.

[Kugutsu]

In my translation of Polybius theres a note saying that the bendy sword bit is very similar to Plutarchs account of Camillus battle with the Gauls in 377BC, and that it may simply be an ancient version of an urban legend. Like Watchman said there may have been a few crap blades which bent, but I doubt it would be anything near most of them.
The more important factor seems to me to be that the gauls were using long slashing swords, while the romans had short stabby ones. The romans simply pressed forwards and didnt give the gauls room to swing their swords.

[pezhetairoi]

I -thought- the short stabbing swords were far more lethal than non-phalangite spears. I mean, we have stories about how the phalangitai at Kynoskephalae were dismayed when the first casualties from the skirmishes before the battle came in and they were torn apart with gaping wounds so unlike the neat and often non-lethal puncture wounds of their spears... I mean, swords do major tissue trauma.

[antisocialmunky]

Some short stabbing swords also allowed for the most pressure to be focused on a single point than even more so than spears due to the way it was thrust.

[Sarcasm]

I -thought- the short stabbing swords were far more lethal than non-phalangite spears. I mean, we have stories about how the phalangitai at Kynoskephalae were dismayed when the first casualties from the skirmishes before the battle came in and they were torn apart with gaping wounds so unlike the neat and often non-lethal puncture wounds of their spears... I mean, swords do major tissue trauma.

That story was from a cavalry skirmish I think, not of dead phalangitai. So it wouldn't be wounds from gladi but instead of longer cavalry swords.

I think.