Roman Soldier Mount Effect

[antisocialmunky]

Tellos

Cool. I think I was abit annoyed by other responses previously that suggested I was asking for an impossible third weapon. At the end of the day, I'm just glad I got some feedback from the EB TEam.

Here is the full situation:

I can't say too much about "beating Cataphracts with Archers on VH" as my experience with these problems come from onlines play. I can say that there is a general consensus that Rome is extremely weak versus cataphracts and the matchup is nearly unplayable post Polybian.

The problem with Rome vs Cataphracts is that you need a combination of decent cavalry and infantry to defeat Catanks. AP units wouldn't hurt either but Rome doesn't have those and spears + 8 attack against cav is usually good enough. The problem with Rome is that any cavalry without the AP lance is completely worthless. Rome has nothing like that post Polybian so their counter is incomplete and their infantry will take hits because of it. The best they can do is ward cataphracts off as the cataphract player looks for a angle to attack which eventually they will get.

Now, if you can buy enough time against the cataphracts to kill the rest of his army, it would be fine but Legionaires as a rules of thumb completely fail as assault infantry due to the 'jack of all trades' mentality that seemed to go into their design. They are indeed decent against everything but good at nothing so pretty much enough units in guard mode will hold them off unlike their polybian counterparts who are actual decent assault infantry.

The Roman won't be able to flank to get an advantage because they are using more untis to counter the cataphracts than there are cataphracts and it would put a chunk of the army in an exposed position. Unlike Greeks, Romans can't offer a high theat level against cavalry unless 2/3rds of your army is spear mercs or aux.

So the Roman army is a giant sitting duck. It can't break through the front due to guard mode and it can't maneuver due to the cataphracts. Its an unwinnable situation if you're playing against a human. You can't use Rome trademark flexibility to outflank the opponent and you can't break through the front. Eventually your army will be tired out and won down and your anti-cavalry combined arms operation will fail or be out maneuvered.

The General

1) I misunderstood your statement on frontal charges.
2) In an engagement of fresh Legionaires vs Cataphracts, Cataphracts lost 30 and legionaires lost a large amount. I came in from a large frontal assault and left the cataphracts there for about 10 minutes and htey were completely fine at wading through fresh legionaires.
3) You don't leave cavalry in melee with infantry as a rule of thumb.... Especially with anything with a spear. Sotaroas are archers with spears. Cavalry-Infantry relationships are still a little RPS.
4) It should apply to all infantry.
5) No they don't, the best anti-cav weapon in the game is that ridiculously fast attacking AP lance. On units with AP secondaires the lance os usually slightly better but only slightly and not much so its not balance breaking.

[The General]

1) I misunderstood your statement on frontal charges.
2) In an engagement of fresh Legionaires vs Cataphracts, Cataphracts lost 30 and legionaires lost a large amount. I came in from a large frontal assault and left the cataphracts there for about 10 minutes and htey were completely fine at wading through fresh legionaires.
3) You don't leave cavalry in melee with infantry as a rule of thumb.... Especially with anything with a spear. Sotaroas are archers with spears. Cavalry-Infantry relationships are still a little RPS.
4) It should apply to all infantry.
5) No they don't, the best anti-cav weapon in the game is that ridiculously fast attacking AP lance. On units with AP secondaires the lance os usually slightly better but only slightly and not much so its not balance breaking.

1) Glad to have that corrected.

2) Can't say anything here (not being there, duh), but could provide you with examples of cavalry failing at charge and/or getting butchered in melee.

3) The "melee" lasted maybe 5 seconds, counting from the point units made contact, before I pulled out my cavalry. I was just flabbergasted 200 ultra heavy cavalry were losing so clearly (7 casualties vs ~20) to 120 unarmored Sotaroas who got charged into the back, spears or not.

4) Now we're talking, however, thread title/original post talk specifically about Romans... And I don't like it when people appear to be whining about one faction's ability to defeat a specific unit or other such minuscule game balance "issue". If you're worried about the overall performance of heavy infantry against cavalry, you should've introduced it as such, as I too am curious as to how the EBII team intends to balance this aspect of the game, as vanilla M2:TW's cavalry charges can decimate enemy units even better than vanilla R:TW cavalry charges did. (Though, they do have my confidence in that they intend to prevent such.)

5) I specifically mentioned AP maces/axes/swords as secondary melee weapons, and also mentioned as a reason why I use them that I found it unrealistic to have cavalrymen playing Duel from American Gladiator with those barge-poles of theirs. Personal preference, just like I don't like to have 10 FMs in my armies or whatnot.

[antisocialmunky]

1) Good we have that cleared up.
2) Yes, just not against legionaires, 10 attack swords don't cut it against that much defense. Its too late tonight but I can dig up some replays if you really care so much...
3) Yeah, its even worse against Numidian Archers. Baktria found out about their AP clubs the hard way... This only highlights the MASSIVE difference between ANYTHING with a spear or AP and something without... Infact one of most annoying things for Cataphracts is just a wall of crap units in loose with AP or spears. They might be crap but if oyu charge it its not going to be work it.
4) Most factions, even Gauls or Saba can deal with cataphracts to some extent with combinations of tactics. No other faction is in the unique position of being so disadvantaged against Cataphracts as Post Marian Rome is. Partially because the infantry is numerous but not great at much and their cavalry is obscenely overpriced.
5)No problem, I'm jsut saying that gameplay wise it doesn't make much of a difference though the unit using the secondary tends to lose...

[Dunadd]

On heavy pila used against cavalry i'm sure they'd be better than a short-sword, but i doubt they'd be nearly as good as a spear - both light and heavy pila were primarily throwing weapons and i don't know of any account of heavy pila being used as spears against cavalry before Caesar's invasion of Gaul, which is fairly far into the EB period, which starts in 272 BC (?), so maybed you could give it to Marian and Imperial legionaries, but not Camillan or Polybian (who had Triarii with spears to hold off cavalry and were mainly scared of being outflanked or hit by cavalry javelins with longer range than their pila - though most of their generals didnt use Triarii against cavalry - strangely even Scipio Africanus (one of their best generals) used light infantry mixed with cavalry (maybe two men to a horse till they got into melee, as triarii were maybe too slow and too easily avoidable - though i'd have thought having them on the flanks would have scuppered Carthaginian cavalry attacks on the flanks a fair bit)

(On cataphracts - they shouldnt be that great in melee anyway. According to WRG Palmyran cataphracts got exhausted very quickly in hot climates, couldnt deliver a particularly devastating charge as their armour weighed the horses down too much (ancient horses weren't medieval warhorses) and were beaten in melee by unarmoured Palestinians armed with clubs.

That might only have been Palmyran ones though - maybed Parthian and nomad ones were better, though it was probably the combination of horse archers and cataphracts that was deadly with them.)

[Prussian to the Iron]

now im by no means a historian but:

I thought that Pila were meant to bend once they hit a target, so as to be un-usable? wouldnt that mean that trying to spear a galloping horse with it would definitely either break it or bend the lead?

which would mean that it would simply be better for the pila to get an anti-cavalry bonus, rather than the actual soldiers themselves, and then once thrown they're on their own.

I'm not questioning whether or not Romans used the Pila as a spear sometimes, but I am questioning whether it would have been effective after a stab or 2.

[A Very Super Market]

That isn't the point of using polearms to ward off cavalry. The key term is "ward off" here, as horses simply won't dash headfirst into a bunch of pointy things. In an actual melee, having a spear against a horse doesn't give much of an advantage.

[Prussian to the Iron]

well....isnt a bunch of shiny gladius' pointing out being thrusted back and forth to scare them enough to keep them away?

and if it is only for scare, then why should they have the bonus?