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

[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.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

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?

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.

[Cyclops]

Is this one of those situations where people confuse the name peltast (medium javelin armed skirmishers carrying a pelta type shield) with a peltast (any unit carrying a pelta type shield)?

I find the whole pelta-theuro-dory-hoplon nomenclature thing occasionally confusing. Is their an agreed harmonisation for ancient military terms? The EB nomenclature seems reasonably consistent, perhaps its that the source material is a bit loose with its definitions sometimes.

[-Praetor-]

@Cyclops. Here's a small explaining on the name, from the February preview:

The need of heavy, steadfast and sufficiently mobile assault troops in the Hellenistic kingdoms was fulfilled by units like the Peltastai Makedonikoi. This unit's name ressembles that of the unarmoured and pelte-equipped Thracian skirmisher of the fifth century. However, these troops, aside from their name, have little in common with that extremely mobile light infantry unit. They were equipped with reinforced linen and leather thorakes, a heavy shield 60cm in diameter, richly adorned helmets, greaves, good quality blades and a clutch of javelins.

These units were richly adorned, and were made up of the best men the kingdom had to offer: noblemen's sons in their prime physical condition, relentlessly trained to become an elite special unit.

Mindful of the fact that such a heavily outfitted, highly trained unit could not run around the battlefield performing the simpler task of the older Peltastai, the Strategos of the Diadochoi utilized these troops in fortress assaults, where their javelins could pepper wall defenders and their equipment enabled them to fight in such lethal environments. They were also utilized to carry out special tasks, such as exploiting gaps in the enemy line and hitting the enemy hard from their rear or their flank. They were some of the best assault troops available, and could be used as such if the situation called for it.

However, these troops were not as heavily armoured as their cousins, the Hypaspistai, and while both were considered as Agema and belonged to the Basilike Ile or royal squadron, it should not be confused as to what function corresponds to who in the battlefield.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kO1LYrMa1w

Peltastai does not nominally refer to the shield, but to their extreme mobility. They evolved from being an elite skirmisher, to an extremely mobile assault troop.

[MeinPanzer]

Is this one of those situations where people confuse the name peltast (medium javelin armed skirmishers carrying a pelta type shield) with a peltast (any unit carrying a pelta type shield)?

I find the whole pelta-theuro-dory-hoplon nomenclature thing occasionally confusing. Is their an agreed harmonisation for ancient military terms? The EB nomenclature seems reasonably consistent, perhaps its that the source material is a bit loose with its definitions sometimes.

I'm not sure about this. They used a shield of similar dimension as the phalangites and also the latters was often called pelte although it had nothing to do with the light peltai of the psiloi peltasts. I think at least partly they were called peltastai because of the use of a pelte styled (but massive) shield. It would be consistent as the hypaspists were also called after their shield type.

It's a case of the shield changing but keeping the same name. Classical peltasts used the classic pelte which seems to have been introduced by the Thracians- a light, crescent-shaped shield. The form apparently changed throughout the Classical period, so that when Iphicrates made his reforms, his men were called peltasts after their shields (according to Diodorus), which at that point (early 4th c. BC) may still have been crescent shaped (but that all depends on how you interpret Diodorus' comment, as he calls them "symmetrical"), but were otherwise quite heavily armed. In the Hellenistic period, pelte came to refer to the so-called Macedonian shield, which was the small, shallow, rimless shield about 60 cm in diameter, as it probably resembled what the pelte turned into at the end of the Classical period. Units bearing this shield - phalangites and some elite units - therefore came to be called peltastai or peltophoroi.

[geala]

And as far as I know "peltastes" was also more or less a synonym for "mercenary" in the 3rd and 2nd century what gives ground to many speculations about gear and fighting.

A question: when were the hypaspistai called peltastai? A hypaspist for me is someone "under/behind the aspis", the elite unit was named after the big shield which they often used instead of the smaller phalangite pelte. I didn't know that this changed later.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A question: when were the hypaspistai called peltastai? A hypaspist for me is someone "under/behind the aspis", the elite unit was named after the big shield which they often used instead of the smaller phalangite pelte. I didn't know that this changed later.

FYI: Hypaspistai means "guards". Consider it the Greek equivalent of Praetorians (in the original meaning of soldiers-who-guard-the-general's-tent).

[Africanvs]

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.

I would say the Hypaspistai are the "creme da la creme," and if they aren't petastai, why are they called peltastai? [1] At any rate, that is how I use them and they work quite well for that purpose. That is, harass enemy flanks with javelins then charge in to the flanks or rear. Any time I have tried to use them as "elite assault infantry" I find that even though they have nice stats their small unit size makes them less useful than many other units, especially considering their high price.

[1] Posted this before I read k raso's message. Interesting post.

I have always wondered why EB chose to make elite units have such a small number of men. Surely there would be less units of them in an army, but would a unit of them be so much smaller? I find it almost eliminates the purpose of recruiting them. Even though they are better troops, they are always so outnumbered it seems to make little difference in the end.

[Rilder]

I'm surely not completely wrong since they are less effective on a smaller scale. Also, didn't you say you hate using cavalry?

If you had read my post you'd see that Even though I hate using calvary, there is no effectiveness lost by being on large unit size, they are absolutly devastating.