light spear balance (vs. swords) in 1.2

[PraetorFigus]

conversely the pseudo-phalanxes could be given a higher attack rating like the high attack rating of the Carthaginian elite spearmen units (don't remember there names).

What about this option? In a KH campaign, Carthage is spamming these two units, the armies are getting lots of chevrons so the attack is unusually high on top of their default value.

Ekdromoi, Akontistai, Sphendonetai, Toxotai and Haploi are not enough to keep Emporion and Massalia that rebelled to me after Carthage took spain and parts of gaul!

...and screw, say, the Classical Hoplites' ability to fight other infantry, something they were noticeably rather good at...?

Though, I do intend to continue looking into the radius thingy and how it could be used, picking up from where I was before going AWOL for three months. The infantry vs. infantry tests I did back then looked quite promising (and made the individual soldiers' behaviour in the line of battle rather interesting), but I never got around to seeing what the effects would be for foot versus horse match-ups (and if it would be a good idea to shrink the horses' radii as well)...

I understand the concern with lowering the attack for hoplites, I was under the impression that Classical Hoplites were on the decline through the EB period so it could have been historically feasible to have them slightly less effective, I've been playing KH and Seleukids most recently and the units still earn significant experience points.

If not then maybe for the pseudo-phalanxes with 0.3 radius and higher attack value then they would be more effective.

As for cavalry, they should also benefit from a lower radius.

When spearmen have the -4 attack, cavalry last a little longer in melee, but still need to be managed in battle, the AI seemed to better manage them because I've noticed that the cavalry stay engaged in melee until the charge bonus ends and they disengage and recharge! so with vanilla EB stats, cavalry gets chewed up faster then with the -4 attack, which was another reason I proposed a -4 for spearmen.

light_spear still gives +8 defense, so cavalry still takes losses either way, just the AI seems to do better with cavalry.

I forgot to include cavalry when I was bringing up adjusting radius in the other post.

Cheers

[mcantu]

i'd like to suggest this simple solution:

1. keep light_spear
2. remove the +4 attack that spear units currently have
3. add the spear_bonus_4 attribute (this applies only vs cav)
4. leave all lethality values as they are

[Laza]

i'd like to suggest this simple solution:

1. keep light_spear
2. remove the +4 attack that spear units currently have
3. add the spear_bonus_4 attribute (this applies only vs cav)
4. leave all lethality values as they are

What do u mean with "spear_bonus_4"? I thougt there are only the attributes pike, spear and light spear. oO

[Hippocleides]

In my opinion the best solution would be to remove the +4 attack and remove light_spear altogether and use anti-cav bonuses, . The problem is that light_spear gives a significant penalty against sword infantry and a significant bonus against cavalry, although the exact numbers are uncertain. So no matter what the attack and defense of a spear unit is statted to it will always have a huge difference in performance between fighting sword infantry and cavalry. If a light_spear unit is statted to fight equally with sword infantry it will absolutely destroy cavalry, and if it is statted to fight equally with cavalry it will lose miserably to sword infantry.

If anti-cav bonuses can be given in different amounts that is even better. The range of a spear is a certainly an advantage against cavalry but it isn't the only advantage. As Watchman has pointed out multiple times before, the most crucial point is that the infantry are trained and determined to stand and fight in close formation. So some trash skirmisher that just happens to use a very short spear as a melee weapon would get no bonus or only a small one. Dense spear infantry like hoplitai or triarii would get a moderate bonus. And eastern spear infantry like Sparabara that actually are specialized against cavalry would get a high bonus, which would make up in part for their abysmal stats.

The advantage of this system is that it allows spearmen to have their attack standardized with the sword infantry, which will prevent less experienced players from constantly jumping to the conclusion that spearmen are too strong against sword infantry, when in fact they are quite equal.

[Watchman]

And then what do you do with the units that carry *both* spear and some kind of sword, axe or w/e ?

[mcantu]

And then what do you do with the units that carry *both* spear and some kind of sword, axe or w/e ?

what i've done with the RTR stats is to give spears the spear_bonus_x (where x is any even number from 4 to 12) attribute. this way the spear attack bonus applies only to that weapon and not to any sword/axe/javelin the unit may have. i leave the light_spear attribute for non-phalanx units, as i believe the defense penalty makes sense and i like the pushing effect

[Hippocleides]

At Watchman:
I think the infantry with 2 different melee weapons should get the bonus against cavalry because you would assume that they would use spears against cavalry, even though the engine often causes them to use the wrong weapon, especially if the sword is the primary weapon and the spear is secondary. Even for spear primary infantry that switch to swords after being knocked down it makes sense, since you could imagine the second and third rows of the formation stabbing at the cavalry with spears after the first row switched to swords.

At mcantu:
I'm confused about your description of spear_bonus_x. Isn't it already possible to give different attack values to primary and secondary weapons? Or is it possible to give a bonus that takes into account both the weapon being used and the enemy being attacked?

[king of thracia]

Of interest might be this passage:

Your servant has also heard that in military strategy and tactics three things are important. First there is the nature of the ground, second the training of the troops, and third the advantageous use of weapons.

According to the Ping Fa, where there are waterways fifteen feet wide, chariots cannot pass. Where rocks are piled up among the mountain forests, and rivers circulate between hills covered with woods and thickets; there the infantry arm comes into its own. Here two chariots or two horsemen do not equal one foot soldier. Where there are rolling hills, wide open spaces and flat plains, there chariots and cavalry find their use, and ten foot soldiers are not as good as one horseman. Flat places intersected with gorges, and abrupt declivities affording wide outlooks - commanding positions such as these should be held by archers and crossbowmen. Here a hundred men armed with hand-to-hand weapons are not equal to one archer. When two forces oppose one another on a plain covered with short grasses they are free to manoeuvre back and forth, and then the long halberd is the right weapon. Three men with swords and shields are not as effective as one so armed. Among reeds and rushes and thickets of bamboo, where the undergrowth is rich and abundant, short spears are needed. Two men with long halberds are not as good there as one with a spear. But among winding ways and dangerous precipices the sword and shield are to be preferred, and three archers or crossbowmen will not do as well as one swordsman...

Excerpt from a memorial by Chhao Tsho to the emperor of Han, 169 BC

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Of course, you could argue that a crossbow could be worth three halberds on an open field, and indeed it was. We could also glance at how much China was better than the rest of the world at 169 BC, using halberds, crossbows and iron lamellar cuirasses - A little more and they would invent the blast furnace - While the Romani and Greeks had linen, leather and bronze combined with self bows and shortswords. The best Greek crossbow was only a toy.

[Watchman]

Iron mail.
Longswords.
Composite bows.
Highly advanced artillery.
And, oh, IIRC the Chinese had only rather recently gotten onto the iron bandwagon, almost a millenia or half after western Eurasia.
And the western Eurasians had *abandoned* lamellar a few centuries earlier presumably for no other reason than not having liked it and junk.

lol fail, or troll

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Iron mail.

Known but not adopted by the Chinese.

Composite bows.

Do you really want to get me started into Nomadic Cavalry and styles employed by the Chinese?

Longswords.

Huh, so the Romans did not use longswords in a large scale. Either because they found to tactical application to it, or because they "didn't know it"... You know where my money is.

Highly advanced artillery.

LOLWUT?

Teh Wiki, your fastest source evah, knows it:

The Chinese also developed catapults and siege crossbows very early. The earliest documented occurrence of ancient siege artillery pieces in China was the levered principled traction catapult and an 8 feet (2.4 m) high siege crossbow from the Mozi (Mo Jing), a Mohist text written during the 3rd - 4th century B.C by followers of Mozi who founded the Mohist school of thought during the late Spring and Autumn Period and the early Warring States period. Much of what we now know of the siege technology of the time came to us from Books 14 and 15 (Chapters 52 to 71) on siege warfare from the Mo Jing. Recorded and preserved on bamboo strips, much of the text is unfortunately extremely corrupted now. However, despite the heavy fragmentation, Mohist diligence and attention to details which set Mo Jing apart from other works, ensured that highly descriptive details of the workings of mechanical devices like Cloud Ladders, Rotating Arcuballistas and Levered Catapults, records of siege techniques and usage of siege weaponry can still be found.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ary_technology

Don't get me started on fortress work: Moh-Ti also wrote about highly advanced defensive fortifications.

And, oh, IIRC the Chinese had only rather recently gotten onto the iron bandwagon, almost a millenia or half after western Eurasia.

Don't know it... Where is the source?

And the western Eurasians had *abandoned* lamellar a few centuries earlier presumably for no other reason than not having liked it and junk.

Lamellar junk...? LOL I know who the troll is. The Romans adopted a fairly similar armour with the Segmentata, and it was still inferior to your average lamellar cuirass, which BTW did not reach Europe yet unless you could provide your source again.

[king of thracia]

Iron mail.
Longswords.
Composite bows.
Highly advanced artillery.
And, oh, IIRC the Chinese had only rather recently gotten onto the iron bandwagon, almost a millenia or half after western Eurasia.
And the western Eurasians had *abandoned* lamellar a few centuries earlier presumably for no other reason than not having liked it and junk.

lol fail, or troll

These two apply properly to China. The east and the steppe are missile dominated after all. This is probably the reason for lamellar as well, which is technically different from and superior to scale. Further down the passage, there is an interesting and revealing exposition of the merits of the Huns vs the Han armies and tactics.

In anycase, spear use is corroborated. We can see from the Romans themselves that they are unwilling to engage the phalanx in frontal assault.

[Kevin]

Does this count for units like the Celtic short swordsman? I imagine it being hard to reach a person with a spear using a tiny "dagger." Also, what about the secondary sword of phalanxes?

[Ludens]

I understand the concern with lowering the attack for hoplites, I was under the impression that Classical Hoplites were on the decline through the EB period so it could have been historically feasible to have them slightly less effective, I've been playing KH and Seleukids most recently and the units still earn significant experience points.

I see where you are coming from, but that is not how units are statted in EB. Unit stats are based on their equipment and training, in as far as can be determined. If you are going to include modifiers based on which units ended up popular or discarded, you throw the entire system of. I truly doubt that hoplite training decrease during EB's time-frame. Not when they suddenly found themselves having to compete with these new-fangled phalangites and legionaries.

Still, in EB they are surprisingly strong for their price/MIC level.

Of course! But then, how often enemy infantry IN EB runs away BEFORE cavalry charge hits them? Not very often, eh? Such is the engine of RTW. With current state of affairs, it means, that you can stop enemy hetairoi with most feeble pantodapoi, beacause they will not run away in fear of being trampled. And in melee they have a good chance to prevail, due to spear bonuses combined with innate high attack value. The latter would be ok, if the former actually took place. Hell, in RL any stationary cavalry is as good as dead if mobbed by infantry, spears or not.

But in EB infantry won`t run before the charge and cavalry will fight it stationary. I`m just trying to do something about it :)

I am not sure if I understand your solution. The problem is morale, not attack factor. Hetairoi are difficult enough to kill even with quality spear troops. Yes, light infantry is too strong against cavalry, but the same argument could be made for peltast in open formation. Lowering morale is not an option, and altering the combat stats of either light infantry or cavalry will affect combat performance with other units as well.

[Watchman]

i'd like to suggest this simple solution:

1. keep light_spear
2. remove the +4 attack that spear units currently have
3. add the spear_bonus_4 attribute (this applies only vs cav)
4. leave all lethality values as they are

That'd still screw the spearmen against other infantry, though. Which makes no sense when considering how popular primary weapons spears were with warriors who primarily fought other infantry (hoplites, the proto-Germanics...).

You'd arguably then be better off just taking "light_spear" entirely out and giving the relevant units a mount_effect bonus.

I understand the concern with lowering the attack for hoplites, I was under the impression that Classical Hoplites were on the decline through the EB period so it could have been historically feasible to have them slightly less effective, I've been playing KH and Seleukids most recently and the units still earn significant experience points.

Eh. Recall that the hoplite tactics and fighting methods were, at the core, very simple - as befited their longtime primary users, the part-time "Sunday soldier" citizen-militia of the Greek city-states, who could devote only so much time and effort into practice.
For that, they were also pretty effective.
The around only thing that could "decline" about them would be not having much meaningful training *at all*, as is the case of the Hoplitai Haploi and the like - but the Hoplitai unit, as well as its mercenary version, represent reasonably competent troops, be they now citizen militia or professionals who make their living selling their spears.

Also, even if we accepted the argument in the individual case of the hoplites on those grounds, that'd help us very little with all the other spear-carrying infantry, such as "barbarian" line spearmen or the Thureophoroi-type "Hellenistic legionaries" who weren't in anything like decay in the period. Or those sword-and-spear elite troops like Hypaspistai, whose training by default is topnotch.

[Laza]

Why are spear units screwed with the same "normal" attack values as sword and axe units? Increase the def value by 4 to counter the negative effects of "light_spear" and everything is fine. oO I don't know why ur arguing against these changes, watchman.

[Watchman]

For one thing, that's not the remedy that has been proposed here. For another, based on the practical tests I did with the two spear attributes, I'm not very convinced "light_spear" actually penalises defense against infantry - as mentioned, the test units with "spear" both killed enemies and died themselves at a clearly faster rate. Granted this could also be a side effect of the absurd "push" ability the attribute gives, but that doesn't alter the result.

On another note, *I* don't recall finding spearmen with the bonus overpowered. Generally the results of spear-vs-nonspear have been about exactly what I'd expect.

[Watchman]

The phalanxes, for the record, use a different scale for their pike values than other units.

[PraetorFigus]

Point taken with the hoplites. I'm glad we are keeping this discussion civil. (No pun or sarcasm intended)

At this point I won't argue for -4 attack, but the testing has shown me some interesting stuff I didn't really notice before.

the AI will charge cavalry into infantry and then disengage and recharge to use the charge bonus, with the vanilla stats they get chewed up and subsequent charges are thus depleted and less effective even the eastern heavy cavalry, so they'd be routing often unless they're a FM with lots of chevrons.

So I think something should be done to help cavalry a bit more so the AI can utilize them better in battle.

I'm going to be testing to see how cavalry performs with a modified radius.

Separately,

Watchman, you've mentioned before about a formula for stating units, I was wondering if you could explain a bit how attack is determined? I'm curious about the phalanx units why some are 17, 18?

I bring this up because some of the factions begin to spam elite armies (like the two units I had in the earlier post) and steam roll across the map.

Thanks

[Drewski]

i'd like to suggest this simple solution:

1. keep light_spear
2. remove the +4 attack that spear units currently have
3. add the spear_bonus_4 attribute (this applies only vs cav)
4. leave all lethality values as they are

Sounds a great idea, apart from why the cavalry bonus?

That'd still screw the spearmen against other infantry, though......

No, it wouldn't. They are screwed up WITH the artificial +4 attack that was left in to compensate for something that no longer needs compensation.

Light_Spear gives -4 defence NOT attack (for the last time, sick and tired of stating this), By adding 4 to attack in EB 1.2, all spear units kill much faster than was originally intended. By reducing all spear/phalanx units by 4 attack, restores the balance, it doesn't negate it. All light_spear units already have an inherent +8 defence vs cavalry, Infantry units don't. Any old spear unit will make mincemeat of cavalry pretty quickly as it is. The better ones hardly even blink.

Here's a paste from an earlier post of mine in this thread, re a Hoplitai:-

Thats a basic 14 attack against anything and 23 Def against other "Spear", 19 Def vs Inf and 31 Def vs Cavalry, and only 1367mnai to recruit, and 342 upkeep. Compare that to any Sword or Axe, and you need an Elite to get anywhere near 14 attack, with twice the upkeep and recruitment cost. So take away the +4 attack vs everything, and you have what is a well balanced low/medium cost allround unit. Good Def, and reasonable attack.

I have play tested this simple change for over (at a quick estimate) 250+ hrs now. It works.

EDIT: As Laza points out, the only question is whether or not to give light_spear some extra defence. But then they become too strong vs Cavalry to my mind...and the thought of giving yet more defence to phalanx units is too horrible to contemplate..

[Laza]

EDIT: As Laza points out, the only question is whether or not to give light_spear some extra defence. But then they become too strong vs Cavalry to my mind...and the thought of giving yet more defence to phalanx units is too horrible to contemplate..

Just reduce the shield ability by 3 points for levy/native and medium phalanx and 2 points for the elite guys and everything is fine. I cant imagine why the EB team gives phalanx units 10 shield points thanks to their ability while hoplites with their giant shields and shield wall formation have only 4 points.

[Watchman]

Their defskill gets penalised in return; helps screw them in the flanks. Also, that veritable forest of long pointy things they're holding makes for a really annoying thicked for missiles to get through without getting entangled, apparently.

I did say they had some special considerations going, no ?

[Drewski]

Just reduce the shield ability by 3 points for levy/native and medium phalanx and 2 points for the elite guys and everything is fine. I cant imagine why the EB team gives phalanx units 10 shield points thanks to their ability while hoplites with their giant shields and shield wall formation have only 4 points.

By Coincidence, I already did that (see one of the posts above)...works well, whoever's idea it was