Why are slingers so good?

[antisocialmunky]

Why are the slingers in EB so good? I'm wondering if they were historically that good, especially against heavily armoured units with decent sized shields? I would think intuitively that small and heavy rocks would have high lethality but low penetration against decent armour. However as it stands right now, they can badly maul even heavily armoured units. Since EB 0.81, it seems that hey have gotten even more strong(I'm not sure if its the unit size or something else). I can't get normal missile units in range before they start getting shredded by small rocks. I've almost given up on anything without long range for my missile units.

They've become the bane of my EB game and its at the point where I automatically focus all my missiles on those slingers before they start whittling down my elite units. Even from the front, I've seen them able to inflict 10% casualities on heavy infantry before they are able to close. When I use them, I have destroy whole units of heavy phalanxes by flanking them and killing 5+ per volley. They have the ammo to do it and its really mind boggling to me. I never had this problem before...

Were they really THIS good at THAT kind of range?

[mcantu]

Slingers are not just using rocks. They generally used shaped stone or lead bullets. Many also have the 'effective against armor' trait which lowers a units armor rating by half

[Domitius Ulpianus]

Ummm I don"t know....I know some people were complaining about Missiles effectivenes during 0.80 but I think now they are a bit too powerful in my humble opinion...but what do I know anyway...

[Gazius]

Your probably fighting with greek slingers, or those from the region who evolved to counter the phalanxes, because I believe eastern slingers don't have the vital 'effective against armor' trait which allows them to pound down even the best infantry. Of the missle units, slingers require the most training, and are able to crush heavy armor. The baelaric, spelling looks wrong on that, slingers were especially well known for using large stones compared to those used by other slingers. Essentially, yes. Though I'm sure someone who knows more about slingers can give you a better answer. A search might provide more information, I know slinger discussions have come up several times recently.

[Watchman]

These days the exact only slinger unit in the game that doesn't have the AP attribute is the Komatai Sphendonetai. Anyway, slings are in some ways surprisingly deadly things; of that native ranged weapons, they were the only ones the Conquistadors were actually wary of, because the sheer concussive blunt trauma of a head hit could cause lasting injuries or death even through good steel helmets. And those were rocks, far as I know. In the Mediterranean region lead bullets, denser, heavier, harder hitting, were favoured for serious work since quite early on.

[Fondor_Yards]

Taken from slinging.org

The length of the sling offers greater mechanical advantage than ones arms - projectiles can be slung over 1500 feet (450m) at speeds exceeding 250 miles per hour (400 kph).

So just think, a small, hard lead ball hitting you at 400 kph. Or several of them hitting you. Major ouch

[Sygrod]

... and yet they just bounce off the Gaesataes' naked bodies. hmmm. Perhaps, since the slingers are so danged lethal, their price should go up to dissuade mass formations like the ones I use?

[Watchman]

That wouldn't mesh too well with the fact the main recruitement base for slingers was shepherds and similar dirt-poor commoners - it was long a common practice in many agrarian societies for even little children to carry slings, with which they'd chase off birds from the fields etc. and hopefully every now and then bring small game home for the pot.

Ceteris paribus a good bow may give you a better combination of range and killing power than a sling, but as cost-efficiency goes the sling is hard to beat.

[Domitius Ulpianus]

Well actually after playing a little bit more with Cretan Archers and Greek Slingers...Im pretty sure something changed because before .81 It was very hard for me to kill with them and now they are pretty strong specially against heavy cavalry and heavy infantry other than phalanxs...As for the historic accuracy of this change I wont say a thing, because I am not nearly as informed as the EB team on these matters. Im just stating that in my opinion there was a change.

If it was up to me I would reduce a lilttle bit their effectiveness just because the Ai does not abuse this as much as we players do...I Just destroyed the Maks and my slingers played big role. I will probably house rule this if I find they are too unbalancing.

Thanks all

[antisocialmunky]

It used to be I'd use them to kill other skirmishers because of their range. Now I find myself using them almost exclusively.

In one battle as the KH against the Maks, I positioned my slingers on a high slope and completely obilerated the initial army of Phalangite Deu(however you spell it) and Hoplitai Haploi exclusively with three slingers and one Kretan.

When their reinforcements arrived, I cut apart half another unit of Phalangites and a unit of Thessalian Cavalry(general). The stupid thing about the Thessalian Cavalry was that they ended up charging my slingers and engaging my slingers hth. However, I ordered them to shoot the horses. 5 of the 15 surviving horses fell instantly and they ran off and were killed by my slingers. Their whole army proceeded to run off all the while being killed by my slingers.

AND they still had ammo left over at the end of the battle.

At this point, I don't even bother with the Kretans, 1 valour Spartan slingers are more than enough to repace them.

To be honest, I think its more an issue of range and accuracy than of stopping power. I don't know what the effective range of a sling is but perhaps a combination of fast moving and less range than an archer would be better for them. It wouldn't be so bad if archers could hit them before they completely destroy the archers.

Right now, its not so much that I'm trying to abuse them its that when an enemy has them you are going to take lots of casualties unless you counter with your own slingers. I'm going to try an all slinger army just for fun eventually.

[Lucidus]

I also find them unbalacing,my Saba slingers....

[Sygrod]

"It wouldn't be so bad if archers could hit them before they completely destroy the archers"

I would tend to agree. Gamewise, that is. With Balearic slingers, I don't even bother with recruiting Cretan archers any more. The slingers have longer range and greater killing power. Mind you, My merc Balearic slingers met their superior in the Celtic slingers of the Aedui. They have a longer range and the only way to deal with them is to gang up 3-4 slinger units on them. The celtic slingers become 1st priority target, since they shred my front line.

All comparisons of range and lethality apart, there must have been a reason why archers have dominated warfare over slingers for thousands of years. Anyone know why?

[abou]

Probably because archers can fire indirectly whereas the sling follows a comparatively straight trajectory. Also, archers can use their weapon in a smaller space and fire while on horseback.

I am sure there are others, but those are the first three that came to mind.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

A question that I have wondered for a long time:
Why did slingers fade into unuse? Too greek for the Romans? Urbanizing of the Roman world led to less shepherds? Levy archer vs. levy slinger = slinger wins; but trained archers always better that slingers? Or was it something stupid, like all the lead was used up in making plumbing and to drive Emperors insane?

As far as exploits: You can limit the number of slingers you use (my house rule is missile units can only be 1/5 my army at most (exceptions being horse archers when going against other horse archers)) and you can do what I do and kill off enemy slingers first thing. You should be able to get a good many when they are forming ranks.

[abou]

I read about it somewhere, but I'm not sure why they fell from use. I know the Romans used them extensively when they could and Legionaries often carried slings as a tertiary weapon besides the pugio.

Maybe it was the preparation of sling bullets? Arrows seem like they could be manufactured with relatively the same process every time - almost mechanically. However, if lead or clay bullets aren't available, rocks must be shaped individually in order to be used effectively. Also, if during the process a piece of the arrow breaks you can just get a new shaft or head, but if a bullet cracks... well, now you don't have anything to salvage.

I'm probably way off though.

[antisocialmunky]

"It wouldn't be so bad if archers could hit them before they completely destroy the archers"

I would tend to agree. Gamewise, that is. With Balearic slingers, I don't even bother with recruiting Cretan archers any more. The slingers have longer range and greater killing power. Mind you, My merc Balearic slingers met their superior in the Celtic slingers of the Aedui. They have a longer range and the only way to deal with them is to gang up 3-4 slinger units on them. The celtic slingers become 1st priority target, since they shred my front line.

All comparisons of range and lethality apart, there must have been a reason why archers have dominated warfare over slingers for thousands of years. Anyone know why?

Dear God, that makes me want to avoid the Gauls at all cost... and I thought the normal hellenic ones were bad.

[khelvan]

I will let one of our missile experts comment, but the main reason that the bow surpassed the sling in usage was because of the incredible amount of training that it required to use the sling effectively. Individually, with two trained users, the sling will outperform the bow in most aspects. It takes years of training to use a sling well, but not so with a bow.

I hope our missile folks will drop by, but I am not even sure if they're still entirely active.

[Thaatu]

Celtic slingers are like a firing squad, especially since AI has like four of them per full stack. Made me want to scream.

[MiniMe]

I will let one of our missile experts comment, but the main reason that the bow surpassed the sling in usage was because of the incredible amount of training that it required to use the sling effectively. Individually, with two trained users, the sling will outperform the bow in most aspects. It takes years of training to use a sling well, but not so with a bow.

Well, if they required years of practice, then perhaps it'd be better to limit their amount back to 60 (like it was in 0.80), and increase number of turns they require to build.
Also I find very strange that greek slingers have 40 ammo. It is a bit too much, I suppose.

[Ower]

as mentioned, one of the disatvanteges of the slingers, is they cant't fire over own troops, there for killing their own comrads.

[Sygrod]

There is an idea. How about reducing number of slingers per unit and perhaps increasing number of archers per unit?

As Qart Hadast, I can't recruit regular slingers, but have to get them as mercenaries. ATM, 1/4 of my entire army consists of slingers. and since I can't recruit any archers, slingers are my only missile troops.

/Sygrod, who just can't keep his nose out of things.

[O'ETAIPOS]

the 80 men units of greek slingers are probably a bug. I'm 80% sure those should be 60, like other missle units.

[Kugutsu]

Also I find very strange that greek slingers have 40 ammo. It is a bit too much, I suppose.

Shot takes up very little space compared with arrows. Its only logical that a slinger will be able to carry a fair quantity of shot. Not to mention that if he runs out, at a pinch he can probably pick up pebbles and sling those too...

[Ower]

As Qart Hadast, I can't recruit regular slingers, but have to get them as mercenaries. ATM, 1/4 of my entire army consists of slingers. and since I can't recruit any archers, slingers are my only missile troops.

Actualy you dont have to relly on mercaneries, although its diffccul to get them to the front line. As you can build a 2 or 3. level mic on the balears an have cheaper balearic slingers for use, but have to transport them to the front.

[Domitius Ulpianus]

There is an idea. How about reducing number of slingers per unit and perhaps increasing number of archers per unit?

As Qart Hadast, I can't recruit regular slingers, but have to get them as mercenaries. ATM, 1/4 of my entire army consists of slingers. and since I can't recruit any archers, slingers are my only missile troops.

/Sygrod, who just can't keep his nose out of things.

Umm I dont know...the problem as far as I can see is not only the slingers but archers too...I find missile troops too powerful...but I will do more tests.

In the meantime I will limit myself with the missile units...they are stealing the fun and the glory from my infantry troops hehe

or...if someone can come up with a file edit to "nerf" the missile troops...Im up for that too... Thanks!!

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Once my army, composed of a single glorious Sphendonetai unit, was attacked by an enemy force of one unit Prodromoi, and one unit Javelin Horseman, I think Thrakians. I thought this was the end. I put my Slingers on a hill, in a quadrant formation, with skirmishing mode off, auto-fire and guard-mode on.

So the enemy approached. Already on a long distance, my brave slingers started firing, and killed about five men per volley. Soon the path of the enemy was marked with cadavers. Then the Prodromoi started to charge, and it was quite impressive seeing a handful of riders fall, while in full charge - a bit like Hollywood. When they crushed into the files of my troops, half of them were already dead.

But they didn't manage to overcome them, and returned to prepare for another charge. My Sphendonetai kept on firing on and on, killing the enemy from behind, while the javelin horsemen started volleying missiles with almost no effect on my troops. The Prodromoi returned then for a final attack, but were driven back once more - they were already reduced to about 30 each unit. That was enough - the enemy lost his courage and decided to flee, where of course another dozen was killed.

So I gained a heroic victory, while sustaining 12 losses, of whom four recovered and went back to service again. So there was nothing with I guess.

Btw, I don't really think slingers are too strong. 160 well trained lifetime slinger users firing, and 5 enemies dying per volley, that's OK. After all, there's a real reason for light cavalry now.

[Watchman]

'Sides, aside from taking the AP attribute off them (or twiddling with their range settings) there's not much you can do to nerf the slingers - their current base attack skill range is 1-4...

[Vorian]

I also experienced this in my KH campaign. I really liked Cretan archers and expected to use them very much in the game, since their reputation (and the fact that my mother is Cretan), made them really good in my eyes. Still, I see that slingers are much more effective and cheap, so I started to use them exclusively

Btw, are Rhodian slingers in? I can't recruit them in Rhodos yet and I have no generals there, so I can't see if they exist as mercenaries.

PS: I lost an important number of Hippeis against a unit of sphendonitai...What the hell?

[Southern Hunter]

I have to agree with those posters who say missile troops, and slingers in particular, are too powerful. Very a-historically so!

Missile troops in this period of history, were afterthoughts, not the central killing mechanism. They just futted about a bit at the start before the 'real troops', ie hoplites, legionaries, etc got stuck in and had the battle.

As it is, playing to take advantage of the availability of these troops, every battle is a firefight, and most a clearly one - sided one, where my units of slingers and cretan archers destroy whole formations before they engage.

The point has already been made about Slingers that it takes a lot of skill to use them, and there would have been few people trained in their use. Certainly, herdsman trained from a young age, where culturally this occurred (Balearic Isles, Rhodes, etc). But there were not enough of them to form whole armies. Remember Alexanders army had a single unit of Cretan Archers and a single unit of slingers, maybe 500 each at most, in an army of 35,000.

To fix this ahistoricity, imho, EB should greatly reduce the AVAILABILITY of such troops, as mercenaries and largely abandon their availability as trainees. It was not the case that they COST a lot to recruit or maintain, but it was never an option to have many of them.

As it is, I can have entire 20 unit armies of Cretans. And I can train enormous numbers of slingers and maintain them cheaply.

Also, skirmishers in general should have lower morale. If charged by cavalry, or any proper formed troops, they would rout and never come back into the battle.

The Persian slingers had larger rocks than the Rhodians, but the range was correspondingly much smaller, and they were pretty much ineffective.

All praise to the team for a stable and largely enjoyable 0.81.

Hunter

[Teleklos Archelaou]

As long as the AI isn't spamming them, I don't see what the problem is. EB gives you the platform - use tons of slingers ahistorically if you want, or try to stick to a reasonable number included in your armies. If you choose the latter, you will get good results. Especially if you can let them loose on unarmored units like Drapanai or archers, and when you can get them around to the sides or back of other units. If they are especially deadly against those units and in those circumstances, then that seems pretty reasonable. Look for more slingers in EB in the future too btw.