javelin V phalanx

[Sarkiss]

been playing as and against Successor States and what i really dont understand is why javelins are such useless against phalanx.
it is really frustrating to see 240 javelins fly into phalanx formation without inflicting a single casualty! how is that possible? what is the reason for such an outcome? phalanx being attack from the rear with the same, 240 javelins will only suffers somewhere between 2 and 10 loses! why?
imo it is really unrealistic and unbalanced.
any explanations?

[NeoSpartan]

what difficutly where u playing in?????

Phalanxes are given strong defensive points for frontal attacks, while having lower defensive points for side or rear attacks.

[Sarkiss]

what difficutly where u playing in?????

Phalanxes are given strong defensive points for frontal attacks, while having lower defensive points for side or rear attacks.

playing o Medium battle difficulty.
it is obvious that frontal defence should be and is better, but not to a degree when they are completely invinsible, super men.

[Charge]

Thats becoz of a very low javelin' atack IMO. And yes , phalanx gains very big bonus against missiles coz of "spears, which beat off missiles", in any direction, btw. From rear they only haven't shield defence.

[mcantu]

There is also a defense bonus just for being in the phalanx formation

[Ludens]

Neither difficulty nor defense will influence missile effectivenes, only the armour and shield values do. Phalangites generally are well-armoured have increased shield values to simulate the deflective abilities of their formation. They are somewhat lower in defense than similarly trained and equiped troops, though, but that does not influence the current situation.

Also, javelins are rather weak in EB: historically they were more an irritative weapon than a killing one. Frontal javelin attacks at phalanxes are not very effective: you have to get to their unshielded side or their back in order to do serious damage, and even then don't expect a single unit of peltasts to be able to cripple a phalanx unit,

[Bootsiuv]

I think the phalanx missle defense is excessive. I also agree that javelins are too weak. IIRC, most javelins have the same missle damage as arrows. Perhaps there are gameplay reasons for this, such as not wanting overpowered skirmishers.

[TWFanatic]

Phalanx doubles the shield value of a unit. Thus, attacking phalanxes head on or at their left (where they carry shields) with missiles is not as effective as assaults to the rear or right flank.

[Sarkiss]

a single unit? i dont think even 4 units will be able to achieve that.
javelins imo way too underpowered. first 2,3 volley are of no use whatsoever.
it is just bizzare to see 240 and more javelns being completely obserbed.
would make more sense if the unit was of a smaller size with the same killng ratio. why is it so large anyway?

[Bootsiuv]

I think a good workaround for overpowered skirmishers would be to give them only 2-3 javelins (IIRC skirmishers have something like 5-10 right now), but increase javelins missle damage by a good margin. That way, just one volley will be fairly devestating, but they won't have the ammo to wipe out entire armies.

[Ludens]

Phalanx doubles the shield value of a unit. Thus, attacking phalanxes head on or at their left (where they carry shields) with missiles is not as effective as assaults to the rear or right flank.

How have you tested that?

[Sarkiss]

I think a good workaround for overpowered skirmishers would be to give them only 2-3 javelins (IIRC skirmishers have something like 5-10 right now), but increase javelins missle damage by a good margin. That way, just one volley will be fairly devestating, but they won't have the ammo to wipe out entire armies.

but we do not have overpowered javelineers
reducing ammo for skirmishers? hm. iirc infantry have something around 3,4 so skirmishers should definitely have at least twice the amount.
what seems reasonable to me is reducing unit size (is there a reason for them to big so huge? they are only secondary, supportive troops after all) for light skirmishers form 240 to 160 and for heavier types from 160 to 120 leaving current "killing" ratio the way it is. that why you wouldnt scratch your head wandering where all those hundreds of javelins flew.

[Bootsiuv]

You might have overpowered javelineers if you raised the missle damage for javelins....this is what I meant. Skirmishers are underpowered currently IMO.

[Sarkiss]

You might have overpowered javelineers if you raised the missle damage for javelins....this is what I meant. Skirmishers are underpowered currently IMO.

i dont think raising missile damage by the smallest margin would make tehm overpowered. either that or reducing number of men (skirmishers) per unit ...
as it is now you dont have to bother to field them at all and can entirly rely on your impenetrable phalanx which is nowhere near to reality. Battle of Lechaeum is a great example of phalanx vulnerability which is forgotten...

[Charge]

What needs to be done : skirmisher unit size - lower, ammo - lower, attack - higher.
(of course no one will take care of it, as always)

[Watchman]

Missile lethality is always a round 1, AFAIK. Hardcoded.

Still, IMO as well them javelins are a wee bit underpowered. Not that I particularly miss them vanilla RTW days, but I understand those things did put enough mass and momentum behind a narrow point to be a real source of worry for anyone who wasn't decked out in pretty good defensive gear.

Heck, IIRC the unit description of those axe-swinging Dahae skirmisher cav it specifically says there that the javelin was sometimes preferred over the bow because of its better armour-piercing qualities, even among the archery-crazy nomads... which IIRC the relevant stats manifestly fails to be the case, as the HAs actually had a higher base missile attack on top of way greater range and deeper quivers.

[Charge]

In EB they have no ap... stupid. Even good bow should have it.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

In EB they have no ap... stupid. Even good bow should have it.

Tully the expert comment...

[Tellos Athenaios]

No they shouldn't. Consider a very simple case: one layer of plate steel (a simple modern can will do (note that the material is aproximately 0.8mm thick) and shoot an arrow at it with an iron tip. Sure when you are standing very close to your target that won't be much good armour, will it?

But now try again from some 50 metres distance. If you can hit the can, well done: look at it -- it will be bend, but not pierced. Look at your arrow tip: that too will be bend!

Finally you might argue: why, they didn't use steel back then for body armour did they? Well, most of the time no they wouldn't; but then again their armour wouldn't have been a mere 0.8mm thick and neither would they have allowed you to stand at some 50 metres distance shooting arrows at them at you leisure...

Given the lethality rate of missiles it would lead to some serious overpowered missile units if each and everyone of them had AP attribute. It would yield especially ridiculous results against heavy cataphract-style armoured units.

Actually before 0.81a people used to complain about overpowered missile troops; and even then the Phalanx was pretty much as good against missiles as it is now. - And back then many of them missiled did have AP attribute, but that is IIRC.

[jhhowell]

a single unit? i dont think even 4 units will be able to achieve that.
javelins imo way too underpowered. first 2,3 volley are of no use whatsoever.
it is just bizzare to see 240 and more javelns being completely obserbed.

In my experience, what you are complaining of is only true for frontal attacks. Phalanxes melt away very quickly when a skirmisher unit or two gets behind them and starts unloading. A single Numidian/Akontistai/Peltast unit won't kill a phalanx, but two will rout it as surely as a cavalry charge. If the tactical situation allows, I'd much prefer to have a javelin unit or two firing into the backs of a phalanx rather than using hastati or principes to surround the phalanx. That hard-coded lethality of 1 really racks up the kills quickly, preserving more men in the unfortunate unit facing the front of the phalanx.

To be fair, the units I've destroyed this way were almost all Klerouchikoi Phalangitai, so perhaps the really high end ones (Basilikon Agema, Epilektoi Hoplitai, Argyraspidai, etc.) have enough armor that even javelins from the rear do as little as you claim. But there's always the cavalry charge or surround-with-infantry tactic for those rare cases, if so.

[Charge]

A single Numidian/Akontistai/Peltast unit won't kill a phalanx, but two will rout it as surely as a cavalry charge

How then I can't route surrounded unit of medium phalanx??? Because of *many stars* general? Funny thing happened yesterday, when battle was almost won, 2 men of hippoakontistai had eager morale while fighting my ~80 peltasts...

No they shouldn't. Consider a very simple case: one layer of plate steel (a simple modern can will do (note that the material is aproximately 0.8mm thick) and shoot an arrow at it with an iron tip. Sure when you are standing very close to your target that won't be much good armour, will it?

But now try again from some 50 metres distance. If you can hit the can, well done: look at it -- it will be bend, but not pierced. Look at your arrow tip: that too will be bend!

Parthian surely can. And so huns,mongols,... english longbowmen have managed this against medieval knights! And you say 50 meters...
And while javelins/archers are underpowered, slingers are extremely overpowered!
Few volleys should be enough to kill 200 unarmoured skirmishers...

[Watchman]

Parthian surely can. And so huns,mongols,... english longbowmen have managed this against medieval knights! And you say 50 meters...

Did not. Heavily armoured cavalry developed on the steppes specifically to counter the ubiquitous archery there; the whole point was to render the elite shock cavalry as blow- and missile-proof as possible.

The English archers had major issues inflicting actual damage on knights even at Grecy, and back then most knights didn't wear much more than mail which isn't even particularly arrow-proof as armour goes. They could wound the unprotected horses, sure, and savage lighter-equipped support troops, but the knights themselves were quite well able to repeatedly charge home against the English heavy troops - what now the archers caused enough confusion and disorder in their ranks the impact was greatly lessened.

Once true plate came about - partly in response to the longbow actually - the bow was well on its way out. Top-grade full plate tended to bounce musket balls at reasonable distances, and already in the early 1500s or so military writers began lamenting the fact even the heavy, fully developed lance had great difficulties killing anyone when two forces of knights met at full tilt...

Few volleys should be enough to kill 200 unarmoured skirmishers...

Open-order skirmishers hava actually had a tendency to be annoyingly hard to kill with missiles; too much empty space for the projectiles to fall into, and the nimble fellows tended to have a habit of simply dodging the slower ones like javelins.

[konny]

How have you tested that?

Try it at siege, for example. When the enemy has a phalanx, or anything else with a good shield, behind the wall, place your slingers in range: they won't do any damage frontal or when the enemy is turning right (presenting you his shield arm) - but as soon as he is turning left or about face you will very well see the difference.

Therefore: Do not place your archers, slingers etc. behind the enemy, because you will hit your men as well; place them on your left wing and let them rip through the unproteced right side of the enemy.

[Watchman]

That's something I've been doing a long time whether the enemy is phalanxes or not - why batter at the shield when you can go around it ?

[Spoofa]

Try it at siege, for example. When the enemy has a phalanx, or anything else with a good shield, behind the wall, place your slingers in range: they won't do any damage frontal or when the enemy is turning right (presenting you his shield arm) - but as soon as he is turning left or about face you will very well see the difference.

Therefore: Do not place your archers, slingers etc. behind the enemy, because you will hit your men as well; place them on your left wing and let them rip through the unproteced right side of the enemy.

no, I think he meant how did he know that it have them 2x as much protection with phalanx mode.

[Sarkiss]

imo eastern archers, horse archers too should be slightly stronger. volley after volley with no effect whatsoever is a bit over the top.
i didnt mention them and only highlighted javelineers exclusively because the later's quantity versus quality issue (240 skirmishers to 160 archers) is more puzzling...
gents, remember, we are not talking about actuall killing ratio, but merely ability to inflict casualties that would cause disability to carry on fighting. this soldiers might be easily healed in the after battle scroll hence imo, improving missile attack just one slight bit will make it good and improve over all balance.

[Sarkiss]

[QUOTE=Tellos Athenaios]No they shouldn't. Consider a very simple case: one layer of plate steel (a simple modern can will do (note that the material is aproximately 0.8mm thick) and shoot an arrow at it with an iron tip. Sure when you are standing very close to your target that won't be much good armour, will it?

But now try again from some 50 metres distance. If you can hit the can, well done: look at it -- it will be bend, but not pierced. Look at your arrow tip: that too will be bend!
[QUOTE]
there is nothing similar that protectes Macedonian style phalangit from the shield up. espacially those in the first few lines. any direct shot in the face, neck whether it is 50 or 100 metres could be deadly.

[konny]

no, I think he meant how did he know that it have them 2x as much protection with phalanx mode.

OK. In that case please forget my answer. I have read of the phalanx bonus somewhere myself, but cannot say that I had wittnessed any difference in survivabilty against missle fire depending on the selected formation.

[blank]

IIRC, the "240-man" skirmisher units are nearly all low-class peasant scum equipped with whatever crap they could get their grubby hands on. Now if you imagine those units in battle, they would just want to quickly get rid of their javelins and then retreat back to safety - i doubt they would even aim their shots, they'd just throw randomly and then run. Also their javelins would be crap - rough sticks with low-quality tips.

The better javelin units tend to be 160-man size, and some do have the AP attribute i think

[Dram]

i never understand these sort of complaints. i have always found ranged units, especially peltasts and slingers, to be very powerful when used properly. foot archers not so much.... they are rather lacklustre.

i remember as the romans I used some merc sarmatian horse archers in my armies against the selucids, who where pumping out elite silver shields and hypaspistai left and right, and even the horse archers with no AP or exp where killing at least 10 men per volley from behind, on large unit size (120 silver shield phalanx per unit). Usually when the phalanx was at 120 men they would kill 15 in the first volley, this was with 2 units of horse archers.

peltasts are very nasty against exposed sides. when playing as a barbarian faction im always careful to have eneough cav to deal with the peltasts, as even from the front they can kill alot of unarmoured men. with armoured infantry it isnt as big a deal, but you still have to deal with them before or during the time your lines meet, otherwise they do attack the flanks, and they ARE deadly even agianst armoured units, as long as they attack from the rear or non-shield side.

i have never encounted a unit that hasnt taken significant losses when attacked from the appropriate direction.