A Simple Guide for Complaing about Unit Stats

[Watchman]

Far as I can tell the "spear" attribute is (outside phalanxes natch) virtually entirely restricted to the secondary weapon of "sword-and-spear" units like Hypaspistai and the assorted Celtic elites (a fair few others with the same combination don't have the attribute for their secondaries). Since the primary weapon in all cases is a sword, and one with the whopping 0.225 lethality and in most cases but one point less attack than the secondary spear (which has the usual infantry overhand lethality of 0.13), I must wonder - how is the secondary weapon having the "spear" attribute in any way particularly relevant to an unit "performing poorly" (especially as it sidesteps the issue AI has with secondaries), and were it removed (or lacking to begin with, as with eg. the Gastiz and their ilk), what reason would anyone have to ever use the units' secondary weapons ?

To me at least it would make sense to use the secondary overhand as a specialized "anti-cavalry" weapon to emphasize the versatility of these high-end units; certainly if it were stripped of any such factors, the only reason to ever use it would be for the sake of appereances...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I just changed the "stat_sec_attr" from "spear" to "no" for both Hypaspistai and Galatikoi Kuruathoroi. I hope they'll perform better.

Btw, I always wondered why Pheraspidai have defence ability of 12, while Hypaspistai have 8? I know Hypas and Pheras were both members of the same corps, equipped and trained to serve in a different role. So why should Pheraspidai be 50% better in defence than Hypaspistai, when they are virtually the same? Or is it just to equalize the 14 armour of the Hypas with the 10 armor of the Pheras? The same goes for the Kuruathoroi. They have exactly the same stats as Hypaspistai, but shouldn't they have an armour value of ca. 12 instead of 14, wearing mail armour while the Hypaspistai wear a bronze cuirass?

[mAIOR]

It could be a mobility issue being that the peraspidais armor allowed better mobility than their hypaspistai counterparts...


CHeers...

[Watchman]

The only real difference between the two in equipement I can see from the UI pics on the site is that the Hypas wear muscle-cuirasses for body armour and the Pheras something else, depending on faction - and given that none in any case restrict arm movement meaningfully, and one of the latter is a thigh-lenght mail hauberk (which weighs a ton and is AFAIK heavier than the muscle-cuirass), I don't really think the mobility argument holds.

In practice the difference between the two is that the Pheras have had 4 points of armour shifted over to defense skill. Personally I'm willing to shrug that off as a somewhat arbitrary but acceptable way to keep the two even (since they are after all effectively the same guys in different outfits) within the confines of the sometimes unwieldy RTW unit-stat mechanics.

Although frankly, it seems to me the Pheras' armour level is on par with the Thorakitai - wouldn't it really make more sense to use their armour value 12 instead, as the harnesses are pretty much comparable ? Just wondering.

[russia almighty]

could we get an SN of this elusive spear stat ? I need to know what the target looks like before I can kill it.

[mAIOR]

I talked about mobility beacuse mail allowed for more rotation of the Torso.
Also, I think that because of the EB stats system, Pheraspidai should have 12 armor instead of 10.


Cheers...

[Watchman]

I talked about mobility beacuse mail allowed for more rotation of the Torso.

Not really - the stiffer forms of cuirasses (which most of the Phera skins wear in any case) just rotate around the body like the outer shells they are. Mail does tend to allow more bending than most other types though, particularly that "long" form of infantry muscle-cuirass with the extension to shield the lower abdomen which AFAIK makes it next to impossible to properly bend at the waist.

I have a suggestion: use "accuracy_vs_units" value (it's quite unique - the lower the better) in descr_projectile_new.txt for standard projectiles (arrows, javelins etc.). By that you can eg. make western archers less accurate than their eastern counterparts. I've tested it, and it works. Just another thing for stat-balancing and such (and without the "lethality" value for missile units it's quite useful, I think...).

There's such a detail ? Neat, that opens up all kinds of possibilities. I've seen it mentioned in more instances than I care to even try to count that thrown spears, while quite powerful as such, had a bit of a problem due to being highly visible in flight and not the fastest projectiles around, with the due result that a man with room to move had an easy time dodging them (and close-order troops duly just having to put up with it)...

[NeoSpartan]

Far as I can tell the "spear" attribute is (outside phalanxes natch) virtually entirely restricted to the secondary weapon of "sword-and-spear" units like Hypaspistai and the assorted Celtic elites (a fair few others with the same combination don't have the attribute for their secondaries). Since the primary weapon in all cases is a sword, and one with the whopping 0.225 lethality and in most cases but one point less attack than the secondary spear (which has the usual infantry overhand lethality of 0.13), I must wonder - how is the secondary weapon having the "spear" attribute in any way particularly relevant to an unit "performing poorly" (especially as it sidesteps the issue AI has with secondaries), and were it removed (or lacking to begin with, as with eg. the Gastiz and their ilk), what reason would anyone have to ever use the units' secondary weapons ?

To me at least it would make sense to use the secondary overhand as a specialized "anti-cavalry" weapon to emphasize the versatility of these high-end units; certainly if it were stripped of any such factors, the only reason to ever use it would be for the sake of appereances...

hum.... I like to use the overhead spear when I put them in HOLD formation. Once I take HOLD off then I have them fight with swords.

BTW... is just me, or do spear units preform MUCH better when in HOLD??

[Ludens]

Just to make sure: the spear attribute should be removed from all units, phalanx and non-phalanx troops alike?

[Watchman]

The phalanx formation requires the spear, short_pike or long_pike attribute to be present AFAIK.

[Ludens]

The phalanx formation requires the spear, short_pike or long_pike attribute to be present AFAIK.

Sorry, do you mean that they need spear and short/long pike, or just one of the three?

[Watchman]

I've seen it mentioned "short_pike" is bugged in some fashion; in any case EB doesn't use it so that point is moot. Anyway, looking at the EDU (*cough*hinthint*cough*) all phalanxes have at least "spear"; pikes have "long_pike" on top of that.

[Pharnakes]

Eb does use the short pike, for the ipracrathous hoplotai, no?