Spears are very unbalanced

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Am I the only one who realised that the new stats have made Spearmen so terribly overpowered? I mean, the balance in EB 0.81 was very nice and EB 1 has some excellent features, but the new skins and the unbalanced stats are making me mad. Basically, what I've seen is that the developers have overpowered to much anything holding spears, including most Greek units such as the hoplites and the Makedonian pike phalanxes.

But most of the Romani stats are screwed, now. The awesome and professional Roman Legions from EB 0.81 have turned into a bunch of weaklings, and that includes the Cohors Evocata. Their attack wasn't upgraded to reflect the new balance changes, and their defense even got lower. Now I'm having to trouble to defeat a bunch of hoplites with a Cohors Evocata!

I say that we must return to the old balance. Spears are very overpowered, to a degree that lacks any realism. Were they so strong, then why would Ancient peoples such as the Celts and the Romans bother to make expensive swords to their nobles and professional infantry? Indeed, many times a spear is weaker than a sword, less maneuvarable than many shorter swords, and many times it lacks the punch of a longsword manned by a professional warrior.

Plus could anyone give me details on how to get the old Roman legionary graphics? I have nothing against the new ones, except that their faces, well, for my personal taste they don't look as good as the tough old Roman face. Plus they're bigger and have no proportion with most other Romani units. They were a fine idea, except for a few tweaks I would make for myself, but then wouldn't be better to wait 'till all other soldiers are reskinned?

Apart from that, they are good and all... But the old graphics were fine. Just remove the trousers from the Cohors Imperatoria, the Imperial Itallic Helmet from the Evocati, and it was fine. At least it did have some similarity with the other Roman skins, and all were very good works of art.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Quite the opposite. In fact the spears were underpowered.

Let me remind you that if any unit was overpowered it'd be the Romani Legions. I mean, it's not like they were any better than pezhetairoi as far as we can judge. Still they were statted if they were some kind of elite soldiers; which again they are not. Now they are not a "bunch of weaklings" but they aren't an elite unit either. Perhaps, then, for the very first time you'll have to rely on brains; or take our advice and not play on anything more difficult than M (for battles) to win a fight against equally strong opponents?

I suggest you try some other factions as well; see if you still think that the Legions are a bunch of weaklings now.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Quite the opposite. In fact the spears were underpowered.

Let me remind you that if any unit was overpowered it'd be the Romani Legions. I mean, it's not like they were any better than pezhetairoi as far as we can judge. Still they were statted if they were some kind of elite soldiers; which again they are not. Now they are not a "bunch of weaklings" but they aren't an elite unit either. Perhaps, then, for the very first time you'll have to rely on brains; or take our advice and not play on anything more difficult than M (for battles) to win a fight against equally strong opponents?

I suggest you try some other factions as well; see if you still think that the Legions are a bunch of weaklings now.

Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites, and EB 0.81 did well; Legionaries were strong, but not excessively overpowered.

Rome did have war-winning troops. Why aren't the Evocati elite anymore? They are supposed to be, but now what's the worth in recruiting them? The Romani are underpowered now, in fact.

I really would like to know why such changes were made. Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors. Rome was the first to have a stable and permanent system capable of training solid soldiers, and the legionary infantry was the most superb not only in tactical capability but also in unit strenght. That's why Rome conquered the whole world; many had economical links with many places, but only Rome was able to effectively conquer a lot thanks to their superb military machine. And that's not represented well now.

Wait until a Romani Member sees this.

Because they were. Not. Fine. By any means. At all.

Sorry, but apart from the minor historical innacuracies, I liked them. I found them one of the best legionary graphical mods, really.

[The Wizard]

Indeed, many times a spear is weaker than a sword, less maneuvarable than many shorter swords, and many times it lacks the punch of a longsword manned by a professional warrior.

To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

To butt in for a moment, that may (note may) hold true for single combat, but definitely isn't true when you're talking massed formations of men. The spear was probably the most cost-effective, useful weapon in the ancient world when it came to massed warfare: just stick the pointy end in the enemy's direction and keep it there. It was anything but weak and ineffective.

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.

[The Wizard]

And that doesn't mean it was weak and ineffective before. However, with the strenght it has now, it really makes me doubt why many units have switched to swords in the period, or why many sword-armed infantry won the day against spears, or why many elites had swords instead of spears.

Swords were a weapon for the elite -- the few. Only the best and richest warriors of a Celtic clan or tribe had one. They were prestige weapons, and thusly designed for the best of the best, be that in society circles or among warriors.

Meanwhile, spears, because they were far cheaper (took less metal to forge, and involved little to no balancing work while forging, either) and easier to make as well as easier to learn to use (unless we're talking exceptions like Shao Lin spear styles), were the weapon for the masses, the plebs, the common man. In fact, if you look past appearances, you could easily argue that a Roman maniple or cohort was (far) more a phalanx with really tiny spears than it was a formation of sword-wielding muscle men from the Atlantic seaboard.

So, yeah, the majority of units used spears, and one of the most disctinct military formations of the period functioned as one that did. I haven't had the chance to play EB 1.0 yet, but what I can say is that if spear-wielding infantry is effective, that isn't unrealistic.

[mcantu]

Just know that the stats can be missleading. Spear units get an attack penalty against other infantry

[Sakkura]

Cohors Evocata seem to have been nerfed. Their stats are almost exactly identical to Cohors Reformata, but with a higher cost. The only difference is they are better with the pilum, and have one man less.

In 0.81 they had a lot more armor than Cohors Reformata, so a reduction was okay; but I think it may have been reduced too much, so that they are now useless.

[abou]

Wrong. Legionary Cohorts had full-time professional, tough training and excellent equipment. Really above even the Pezhetairoi and only inferior to the Elites...

Pft... bollocks. When you spend most of your time building your night camp you don't exactly get the training that people think you do.

[blank]

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them. Just in case, i'll say this: the Romans were NOT super mega fighters 1 on 1. They were inferior to most Celts or Germanics in that matter. Their strength lied in their tactics, not their big muscles. See?

If you take 250 Roman legionaries and pit them against a phalanx of 250 man on even ground then i would put my money on the phalanx...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So would I, and btw I'm in a good mood guys, so this is coming from the head. Generally when the Romans won in our period someone else screwed up, they weren't that great and Evocata Cohorts were sat on their backsides twiddling their thumbs until recall.

Only under Augustus did the army become professional, the Makedonian or Seliukid soldiers were more than a match one-for-one before that.

[mighty_rome]

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them.

And I get tired of people saying this kind of thing when all we want is more realistic stats for the Romani faction. I'm not a "Roman fanboy" by the way, I am an "Ancient world fanboy". I love playing as KH, AS, Carthage and Baktria. When I play against Rome I want it to be a challenge to defeat them. When I play as them I want them to have the stats they deserve. I'll say it again: EB 0.81 seems to have been more balanced, in my opinion.

[Sakkura]

Jesus... i get so tired of all the Roman fanboys that want uber 1337 stats for them. Just in case, i'll say this: the Romans were NOT super mega fighters 1 on 1. They were inferior to most Celts or Germanics in that matter. Their strength lied in their tactics, not their big muscles. See?

If you take 250 Roman legionaries and pit them against a phalanx of 250 man on even ground then i would put my money on the phalanx...

Asking for balance doesn't make people Roman fanboys. The fanboys would just stay with vanilla RTW and love it.

I for one don't see the reason why Cohors Evocata are almost exactly the same as Cohors Reformata, yet cost substantially more. You'd think veterans would have better morale and perhaps slightly better melee fighting skills.

[konny]

I agree that the Evocata isn't worth its money. As veterans they should have a higher attack and defense value as if they had a chevron or two. I can't see the point in making their pila stronger

Most Greek and barbarian spearmen weren't even full-time warriors.

Now, that's for sure not correct: Most of the Greek and Barbarian warriors were in fact mercenaries and by this professionals.

I also do not agree that the Roman Legionar was superior to his opponents. The Roman military machine was, but not the single soldier.

[artavazd]

I dont mind trained spearmen being good, but here is the biggest issue which I think needs balanceing.

A lot of spear armed units have a lethality of 0.123, and many sword units have a lethaity of 0.1


Now the basic spear armed levies are more lethal, than the medium sword infantry. Also in the case of Armenia, the noble infantry uses a spear and a sword. The spear does damage of 14 with lethality of 0.123 and the sword does I think 10-12 with lethality of 0.1 why would the player switch to the sword, when the spear does more damage, and has higher lethality?

The medium sword armed infantry for Armenia has damage of 11, with lethality of 0.1 the peasant spearmen have dammage of 13-14 with lethality of 0.123

THis issue is universal in the mod, and is not only a case with Armenia.

I think, that levied spearmen should be given a lethality of 0.1 with damage of 9-11. and the more trained swordsmen given a lithality of 0.123 with damage of 10-13

[Tellos Athenaios]

But the old graphics were fine.

Wait until a Romani Member sees this.

Because they were. Not. Fine. By any means. At all.

[Hooahguy]

But most of the Romani stats are screwed, now. The awesome and professional Roman Legions from EB 0.81 have turned into a bunch of weaklings, and that includes the Cohors Evocata. Their attack wasn't upgraded to reflect the new balance changes, and their defense even got lower. Now I'm having to trouble to defeat a bunch of hoplites with a Cohors Evocata!

so why dont u go into the EDU and change them? i did that for .81 with the antesignani...... and a few other units

[the_handsome_viking]

I personally like the fact that spears are more powerful now, but what people need to remember is that you should look at these weapons in the sense that you would look at various tools for different kinds of jobs. The sword, at least the long sword typically is a very fast, versitile weapon that actually does require a high degree of skill to effectivly use which is probably why its such a famous weapon, the spear on the other hand by its very design is fairly straight forwards that said there is many many many ways to use a spear or polearm, but it is understandable why the spear is typically seen as the weapon of the lower classes but this is probably more of a material thing rather than a reflection of the skill level of most people.

To jump out of the time frame for a second, many Frankish infantry, though heavily armored, often are depicted as fighting with spears instead of swords, the spear type they often had has a very long protected shaft and something that looks like double headed hammer just under the neck of the blade which implies that they used the spears in the pole arm sense for parrying and thrusting and whacking at their oponents, arguably they could also pull cavalry down with the mor melee orientated parts of the spear. So clearly the spear can be a weapon of the elite and was undoubtably one of the more successful weapons in history.

That said, it's a long range weapon, that is its strength and its weakness in many ways, the sword on the other hand is a chaotic, fast and versitile shorter ranged weapon that, if used up close, usually will get the upper hand over a spear user, its that simple, so it really depends on the formation used by the spear warriors to stop swordsmen from getting too close.

I've argued before that what made the Romans very good on the battlefield was that they basically learned to take a lot of damage from the enemy and keep standing, they also would get in darned close and rotate their troops to keep fresh soldiers up at the front lines during combat, this technique right here was basically one of the major factors for their success on the battlefield, their short swords on the other hand obviously were an ideal weapon for up close and personal combat, and the best way to represent this would really be to give the Legionaries high defencive skill and also high armor ability, this should at least be able to counter the arguably more realistic spear stats.

I would also say that swords should be generally faster weapons, as in the attack animations should quite simply be faster than that of the spear users due to the simple fact that its much easier to swing a sword around wildly and quickly than it is to repeatedly thrust a spear at an enemy, this should level out and represent the differences in capacity of the two weapons types effectivly.