Results 1 to 30 of 49

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    amrtaka Member machinor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Austria 'n Italy
    Posts
    464

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

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by NickTheGreek View Post
    "Dahae always ride single file to hid their numbers, these tracks are side by side. And these arrow wounds, too accurate for Dahae, only Pahlavi Zradha Shivatir are so precise..."
    <-- My "From Basileion to Arche - A Makedonian AAR" Memorial Balloon.

  2. #2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by machinor View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Involuntary Gaesatae Member The Celtic Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the heart of Hyperborea
    Posts
    2,962

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Drewski View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drewski
    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.
    Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 03-24-2009 at 16:17.

  4. #4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
    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 ;)

  5. #5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Βασιλευς και Αυτοκρατωρ Αρχης Member Centurio Nixalsverdrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Γερμανια Ελευθερα
    Posts
    2,321

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

    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.
    Last edited by Centurio Nixalsverdrus; 03-24-2009 at 21:31.

  7. #7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus View Post
    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 ;)
    Last edited by Drewski; 03-24-2009 at 22:58.

  8. #8
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

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

    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.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  9. #9
    Sage of Bread Member Rilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    EB Tavern, Professing my superiority.
    Posts
    932

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Rilder; 03-25-2009 at 09:38.

  10. #10
    Βασιλευς και Αυτοκρατωρ Αρχης Member Centurio Nixalsverdrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Γερμανια Ελευθερα
    Posts
    2,321

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rilder View Post
    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.
    I'm surely not completely wrong since they are less effective on a smaller scale. Also, didn't you say you hate using cavalry?

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Don't let yourself be misled by their name. They are not Peltastai. They are an elite assault infantry, the creme da la creme. I imagine they fare pretty bad as Peltastai.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO