v 1.2 Macedonian Peltastai (Elite): assault role must be a joke, right?

[Slaists]

The description of these suggests they excel at killing opponents on city walls with their javelins. That must be a joke... At best, they are able to get a couple kills by throwing javelins up onto the walls (from a close range), missing most. I think, the game mechanics simply does not allow to use missiles for such a role.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The description of these suggests they excel at killing opponents on city walls with their javelins. That must be a joke... At best, they are able to get a couple kills by throwing javelins up onto the walls (from a close range), missing most. I think, the game mechanics simply does not allow to use missiles for such a role.

They excel in assault where their javelins can scatter defenders from breaches in defenses made by your siege engines.

(Emphasis added.)

So far I don't see any proposition of them throwing anything up, or onto anything else?

[Slaists]

(Emphasis added.)

So far I don't see any proposition of them throwing anything up, or onto anything else?

Ok, I might have misread it about these particular ones then. I will double check when home. I remember though one of the peltastai descriptions praising them for being able to pepper enemy covering behind/on walls. In either scenario javelin efficiency would be quite negligible.

Also, the only time javeliners would be able to do substantial damage THROUGH a breach in the wall would be if the enemy had turned their backs or the right side towards the breach. In other cases, the shields would be pretty effective protecting the defenders against the javelin rain (a few kills at most if the defenders were facing the breach from inside).

[Novellus]

Javelins never seem to take out as many soldiers as I thought they would. In general, even a division of Akonistai parked in the rear of an enemy deuteroi phalanx only seems to knock out a handful of phalangites, even after throwing all six. Sure, they're not elites, but one would expect more casualties on the enemy's part if they're being struck by a storm of javelins from the rear.

But when it comes to hand-to-hand combat, the Peltastai Makedonai are killers. They hack away at the famed Spartiartai and other infantry units as well. They're so threatening that I often send in phalangites to take care of them rather than risk my other infantry units including the elites. And on walls, these things are a terror. Factions such as KH don't have very many soldiers that can stand up to them.

[desert]

I dunno. On level ground, I've had a fresh unit of Akontistai kill half a unit of Argies through flank fire.

BTW, are we still doing that old Bartix thing?

[Cute Wolf]

Well, they are excellent when they man the siege tower....

[Rilder]

Javelins never seem to take out as many soldiers as I thought they would. In general

Unless your Romani and a single unit wanders in front of your army.

[Zarax]

Don't complain about javelin skirmisher efficency if you use them ahistorically.
They are supposed to harass troops in front of your phalanx, not act like human mortars...

[antisocialmunky]

But they hardly do anything. And the Macedonian Peltastai are pretty good, its just that most dedicated elite skirmishers aren't that great.

[Drewski]

But they hardly do anything. And the Macedonian Peltastai are pretty good, its just that most dedicated elite skirmishers aren't that great.

I'm beginning to surmise, that because of all the extra armor everything has in EB (to make battles longer etc., which is a good thing imo) all missile units need a re balance. They just can't get through the extra armor. And Archers are pretty much a complete waste of time (ok IF you manage to run some archers all the way around and shoot a unit point blank in the back, they will do at least some damage, but if you can safely flank with Archers, you've pretty much won anyways..AND I severly doubt Archers were ever really used in this way).

[Rilder]

. And Archers are pretty much a complete waste of time

From what I've seen archers are pretty good against light infantry and other missile units, not to mention the moral hurting flaming arrows. Also enemy ranged infantry tend to focus on your archers meaning less damage to your main line infantry. Remember Every enemy you kill at range is one less your men on the frontline have to face.

[machinor]

Battles lasting longer has more to do with lowered lethality of the various weapons. EB aims for historical accuracy in battles and in antiquity archers would not fight heavy infantry but missle troops and unarmoured skirmishers. That battlefield role they accomplish rather good. There is a historical reason, why in the Western Mediterranian there was not very much of an sophisticated archery tradition: in the West infantry tended to be better armoured (talking about Italy, Greece and Gaulk to a certain extent) and thus not that vulnerable to archers. Different combat doctrine.

[Zett]

What would happen if we give all archers a higher attack? Would the AI start to spam them in huge numbers only because they have a high attack and are cheap or would the army composition stay as it is now?

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Moros]

probably it will spam them.

[Cambyses]

There are several threads on here describing the best way to use missile troops. They are far from useless! Of course they are weaker against heavy infantry, but that doesnt make them bad - just like cavalry charging at spearmen head on and losing doesnt make them bad.

Try using a horse archer faction - you will soon learn how to get the best from your range troops, and have more heroic victories than you know what to do with...

The balance is just fine how it is.

[Drewski]

Battles lasting longer has more to do with lowered lethality of the various weapons. EB aims for historical accuracy in battles and in antiquity archers would not fight heavy infantry but missle troops and unarmoured skirmishers. That battlefield role they accomplish rather good. There is a historical reason, why in the Western Mediterranian there was not very much of an sophisticated archery tradition: in the West infantry tended to be better armoured (talking about Italy, Greece and Gaulk to a certain extent) and thus not that vulnerable to archers. Different combat doctrine.

Sorry, but that isn't really accurate in game terms (while I agree with the historical notes). If you look at RTW base files, you'll find EB "equiv" units have on average 2 or 3 times the Defence of those. Some of the weapons have lower attack, but most actually are higher. Its the extra armor, defence and higher morales that are really responsible for longer battles.

An average Archer in RTW is 7 missile attack (Elites are up to 11). In EB, Archers are generally around 3 missile attack. Because even Skirmishers have (compared to RTW) pretty decent armor/ and or shield/defence, Archers even struggle relatively vs them. If the point was to make Archers ineffective vs most units, then its been accomplished, with venom. I just think they've been pushed too far to the side of becoming useless.

[The Celtic Viking]

Sorry, but that isn't really accurate in game terms (while I agree with the historical notes). If you look at RTW base files, you'll find EB "equiv" units have on average 2 or 3 times the Defence of those. Some of the weapons have lower attack, but most actually are higher. Its the extra armor, defence and higher morales that are really responsible for longer battles.

I'm afraid he's correct here. Lethality is not the same as the attack, it's two different things. Attack is how likely a strike is to hit, and lethality is how likely a hit is to kill the target (when it fails, soldiers are just knocked down). In vanilla RTW the lethality was 1 for all weapons - in EB only the missile weapons have that, and that's because of hardcoded limits. The others all have much less than that - and that's the main reason for longer battles, along with a much improved morale.

An average Archer in RTW is 7 missile attack (Elites are up to 11). In EB, Archers are generally around 3 missile attack. Because even Skirmishers have (compared to RTW) pretty decent armor/ and or shield/defence, Archers even struggle relatively vs them. If the point was to make Archers ineffective vs most units, then its been accomplished, with venom. I just think they've been pushed too far to the side of becoming useless.

They have not become useless, you just can't put them against armoured enemies. The attack for missiles have been put low because the missiles' lethality can't be changed. A higher attack would make them overpowered, as they already are after gaining a little experience.

[Drewski]

I'm afraid he's correct here. Lethality is not the same as the attack, it's two different things. Attack is how likely a strike is to hit, and lethality is how likely a hit is to kill the target (when it fails, soldiers are just knocked down). In vanilla RTW the lethality was 1 for all weapons - in EB only the missile weapons have that, and that's because of hardcoded limits. The others all have much less than that - and that's the main reason for longer battles, along with a much improved morale.

They have not become useless, you just can't put them against armoured enemies. The attack for missiles have been put low because the missiles' lethality can't be changed. A higher attack would make them overpowered, as they already are after gaining a little experience.

You partly right, that of course the lethality is much lower, but the higher def/armor and lower attack is also part of the equation too. It doesn't matter how
lethal an attack is, if it misses ;)

[delra]

I'm afraid he's correct here. Lethality is not the same as the attack, it's two different things. Attack is how likely a strike is to hit, and lethality is how likely a hit is to kill the target (when it fails, soldiers are just knocked down). In vanilla RTW the lethality was 1 for all weapons - in EB only the missile weapons have that, and that's because of hardcoded limits. The others all have much less than that - and that's the main reason for longer battles, along with a much improved morale.



They have not become useless, you just can't put them against armoured enemies. The attack for missiles have been put low because the missiles' lethality can't be changed. A higher attack would make them overpowered, as they already are after gaining a little experience.

On topic of archers:

I usually bring two to four units with me depending on the faction I'm playing and enemy. They always score 150-200 kills per battle (unless enemy brought an extremely heavy army) which puts them at the top of the list of killers after the battle. They also get experience very fast.

I position them on my flanks so they can shoot at enemy side. I also sometimes hold fire until enemy is in the right place so I don't waste ammo. In big battles there's usually no chance to manouvre them behind enemy line... but if enemy makes enough mistakes sometimes it's possible and in such cases they basically are screwed.

Finally, if enemy brings a very heavy army, I just shoot flaming arrows at them. Even morale tanks like Extraordinarii or Triarii after such a rain of fire start having second thoughts about the battle. It doesn't give many kills but the difference between enemy units that were shot with fire arrows and those who weren't is noticable.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Archers are indeed quite well balanced. Drewski, is it possible that you play on anything below huge unit size? On large or even normal, cavalry charges and ranged troops lose effectiveness significantly.

[Drewski]

Archers are indeed quite well balanced. Drewski, is it possible that you play on anything below huge unit size? On large or even normal, cavalry charges and ranged troops lose effectiveness significantly.

Unfortunately, my Graphics can't really handle Huge Unit size adequately. Tried it for a while, but the mid battle freezes/ lack of control was too frustrating. I also found, that the camera doesn't really pan out far enough to get a proper view of the battlefield (with huge units), and if you put a 20 stack Army in a straight line, it covers virtually the whole battlefield ! Which kinda gives the idea, that the game wasn't really designed to be played with huge unit sizes.

So in short, No ;)

[antisocialmunky]

Archers are great. :) Also, just so you gus know, all missiles have 1 lethality meaning if it successfully strikes a unit, it dies. So its a little different balancing these guys.

[Rilder]

On large or even normal, cavalry charges and ranged troops lose effectiveness significantly.

You are completely wrong about the calvary charges on that part, I hate using calvary and on large they are absolutely devastating if used right. Ranged units aren't too bad either, at least not the levy ones, like the Toxotai. And even Toxotai are useful early on as cheap range support.

[mosedavid]

blimey.... ive just fought a siege battle with those very same elite mak units attacking and they probably killed 4 to 1 against my light italian merc spearmen (the ones in white), routed a regular classic hoplite, some galatican swordmen etc etc. I won but there wasnt much left of my army. A force of those and some mak phalanx are pretty unbeatable. Brilliant morale. I'm playing as rome, seen off carthage and now against Macedonia its the first time in EB1.2 that i've been up against anything as good as those and the reformed phalanx. BTW, are phalanx units suposed to have such amazing attack stats? the ones I was fighting against had something like 19 attack and 30 something defense. And I have Camillian troops - at best :(. Can't be right can it?

[anubis88]

they must be extremely experienced troops

[theoldbelgian]

I found a rather practical use for archers in which slingers don't excel that much
assault battles against wooden walls
they keep other missile troops away from your ramming men or better kill every skirmisher that thinks about throwing a javelin at my elephants
for some reason they shoot better at walls then slingers
its propably the thing that when you sling a rock in a bow and it lands it doen't have thet much force anymore
but an arrow stays pointy no matter if its slowed down by friction

[Darth Stalin]

It's due to the ballistics - whatever is thrown from a sling, it's trajectory is rather flat, thus anything on its way can stop the missile/bullet. Arrows fired by archers have their trajectory more peaked, thus are able to fly over the wall and hit the poor guys behind it.

[Slaists]

It's due to the ballistics - whatever is thrown from a sling, it's trajectory is rather flat, thus anything on its way can stop the missile/bullet. Arrows fired by archers have their trajectory more peaked, thus are able to fly over the wall and hit the poor guys behind it.

well, it depends how far a slinger wants to shoot. i find it rather unrealistic how the game engine shows the slingers shooting stones over huge distances in straight line. gravity works on stones too... at such distances, unless aimed much higher, the stones would have hit the ground long time before reaching their target.

[Darth Stalin]

Nope; think about the stones/lead balls as ancient "armour-piercing, high-speed projectiles" - these being shot fro modern tank guns also have high speed and flat trajectory, while being able to fly on quite long distances (2-3 km) - due to high speed and horizontal acceleration.

[Africanvs]

I find the Peltastai Makedonikoi to be pretty good troops if you can afford them. I have found them to be a strong alternative to regular peltastai but due to their lower numbers, the unit seems to diminish quickly. I have not tried them in an assault role, such as storming walls. I usually use Agrianians for that. I'll have to try them out and see how they fare.