Roman Soldier Mount Effect

[Cybvep]

This is gonna be an endless moot point if some things aren't clarified. Firstly, we (or, more precisely, the EB team) should decide what we expect from particular unit(s) on the battlefield, given the limitations of MTW2 engine.

Then, however, it must be decided what we want from the game in terms of overall balance in the singleplayer mode, which accounts for the greatest part of average player's gaming experience. And singleplayer mode means facing AI opponents. In such case, those are bad opponents, even if better than RTW ones.

If we introduce impenetrable heavy infantry from the front (I'm not saying that it should be the case, as it's just an example), human player would be smart enough not to use his/her cavalry in a suicidal manner. AI, however, cannot be taught this. Handling the cavalry would be one of the trickiest things to do on the battlefield, as they could only be used to flanking manuevers, something which on MTW2 engine will always be much easier to perform for a player than for the AI. Therefore, if we want some challenge from sp game, we must make a compromise of sorts and such compromises are present in EB1 (some are better than others).

A good example would be the balance of primary and secondary weapons of "lancers" in EB1. They are full of compromises. Their primary weapon is perfect for charging, but it should be really effective only when charging from the flank or rear and it shouldn't be that great in prolonged melee. However, in EB1 AI can't switch to secondary weapon, so the lancers must be able to fight with their primary weapons with at least average efficiency, as they do in EB1. Also, the lancers should retain their ability to cripple enemy with flanking charges, as they do in EB1. Switching to secondary weapons should also be possible and at least useful in some situations, e.g. when fighting lightly armed opponents with swords (so that players can utilise this) and that's the case in EB.

This impressive balance is achieved by utilising weapon delay attribute (so lancers are not overpowered in melee), low attack value (see above), very high charge (so the lancers are much more powerful when charging) and lethality values (so they are not underpowered in charges from the flank or rear and in melee in general, for the AI's sake) and armour-piercing attribue (so units with high armour value are not immune to flanking attacks). Secondary weapon, in case of swords, have much higher attack value, no weapon delay and lower lethality, so they are perfect when fighting opponents with high defence and low armour rating. Of course, the balance is not perfect, even because of existance of experience stat (which can throw the balance of in many parts of EB1 combat system). Also, as pointed out, sometimes lancers are too good versus armoured opponents in melee and it's not practical to change to secondary weapons. Personally, I would give "area" stat to swords and decrease number of soldiers in an unit to remedy this problem, but that's another topic.

Long story short - there are many things to consider when balancing the statistics and things that look realistic on paper aren't always the best ones in practice.

[antisocialmunky]

If you read my posts, they are about makign a compromise to not make Legionaires suck unrealistically and considering that the AI has a pretty bad habit of frontal charges, you're probably going to run into that problem if you actually get to Marian, haven't conquered the world, and Parthia has taken over everything in the East.

If you're going to balance for singleplayer, you should take Phalanx out completely because the AI cannot handle it at all. :-p Lets just make units balance realistically and leave it at that.

[Cybvep]

If you read my posts, they are about makign a compromise to not make Legionaires suck unrealistically and considering that the AI has a pretty bad habit of frontal charges, you're probably going to run into that problem if you actually get to Marian, haven't conquered the world, and Parthia has taken over everything in the East.

If you're going to balance for singleplayer, you should take Phalanx out completely because the AI cannot handle it at all. :-p Lets just make units balance realistically and leave it at that.

Concerning phalanx - that's why they are not as susceptible to attacks from the flank or rear as they should be.

Besides, when I was talking about a compromise, I didn't mention "totally screwing history and going for gameplay fun"...

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Does anybody have every played Med2 online ? Cavalry is totaly overpowerd, it doesn't matter wether in vanilla or mods which even changed the unit states significantly. Even light cavalry is able to defeat heavy infantery from the front with some charges and retreats. Heavy cavalry is almost unstoppable, except against pikes but even spears are kinda useless for some reason.

I really hope that there is some way to change this. Heavy cavalry is also strong in Eb but a joke if compared to Med2.

[antisocialmunky]

Concerning phalanx - that's why they are not as susceptible to attacks from the flank or rear as they should be.

The AI is incapable of utilizing that though. They also can't do bridge battles or fight up hills.

Besides, when I was talking about a compromise, I didn't mention "totally screwing history and going for gameplay fun"...

I didn't mention "totally screwing history" either, just figuring out how ot represent it better.


@FB - Actually from what I've seen from most mods, the mechanics are quite moddable, also cavalry STOPS after it runs into any unit so its not possible to charge through your own mans. As long as cavalry does MAD onto spears, you're winning the cav fight.

[Cybvep]

The AI is incapable of utilizing that though. They also can't do bridge battles or fight up hills.

I don't get your point. Phalanx should be very susceptible from the rear or the flank (much more than it currently is in EB1) and they don't always collapse because it helps the AI tremendously, especially if it's not outnumbered.

AFAIK nothing could be done about the bridge battles in EB1. Small fords were much better, but unfortunately when roads improved, so did the fords and they became the bridges...

N/c about fighting uphill.


We must see what the EB team will achieve in MTW2, with new combat system being developed. However, I don't think that heavy cavalry will be made completely useless when attacking heavy infantry from the front and giving bonuses to single units (e.g. legionnaries) are not justified unless they are really needed because of limitations of the engine. As pointed out by some people in this thread, when you give a bonus to one unit, you must consider other untis, too. Otherwise, one must state why legionnaries should be better or worse at repelling heavy cavalry than other heavy infantry in the first place. Why not give skirmishers bonuses against cavalry? They have pointy sticks, too.

I think that a much more interesting topic is the one of giving all units which should have "third weapon" or working secondary weapon certain bonuses in order to better depict them, e.g. hoplites or cataphracts. That would be an interesting topic, indeed.

[antisocialmunky]

Oh wait, nvm. I misread your post as I often do...

But at the rest, what are trying to get at? Its very confusing.

Anyways, I think that it would be a reasonable policy to give ALL heavy infantry should have some sort of minimum ability to resist cavalry via mass to account for their denser formation..

[The General]

Oh wait, nvm. I misread your post as I often do...

But at the rest, what are trying to get at? Its very confusing.

Anyways, I think that it would be a reasonable policy to give ALL heavy infantry should have some sort of minimum ability to resist cavalry via mass to account for their denser formation..

I'm curious how that would affect charges to the flanks and rear, though. If the mass is simply greater, won't they resists charges from all sides?

[Cybvep]

If the EB team wants it, then it will be possible to design stat system in such way that charges from the flank or rear will be devastating. We have, after all, three types of defence + mass + weapon attributes + horse mass etc.

[Ludens]

If the EB team wants it, then it will be possible to design stat system in such way that charges from the flank or rear will be devastating. We have, after all, three types of defence + mass + weapon attributes + horse mass etc.

It's certainly possible, but I am afraid that it would mess up something else. Also, you need to take into account how the A.I. will deal with these changes. It probably will ignore them, thus giving the player a major advantage.

[Cybvep]

Yep, just as I've said... But it's hard to add anything without knowing what the team wants to do.

[Parallel Pain]

I still say in EB1 at least if my tiny little bowmen armed with knifes, no shields and no armor can kill cataphracts of any kind in a VH game vs the AI, your legionaries in any era can do the same and better

[antisocialmunky]

I'm curious how that would affect charges to the flanks and rear, though. If the mass is simply greater, won't they resists charges from all sides?

To a certain degree: yes but its the difference between massive damage and slightly less massive damage. You can still attack the weakspot for massive damage(relatively).

@Parallel Pain, you want to see the replays?

@Ludens, you know... after playing TATW for the past week, I have no faith in the AI department at all. Its such a terrible mess. I hope they have some ideas on how to fix BAI.

[Parallel Pain]

@Parallel Pain, you want to see the replays?

Well if you have a replay of a campaign battle (taken with xfire or something i guess) in which the AI somehow overruns your legionaires headlong with a cataphract charge sure.

[antisocialmunky]

Why is everyone wanting singleplayer 'balance'? If you're playing the AI, its already imbalanced and if you try to balance, it would overpower the AI to make it reasonably challenging. People are going to be playing both sides so what people have been advocating: this so called 'Campaign Balance' is confusing.

Have you guys been playing Kingdoms? The AI is terriiiiiiiiiiiible and would completely fail.

And yeah, I just ran some tests against the AI. Its not particularly fair since they have a bad habit of running away.... also learned that me as the cataphracts makes legionaires about as effective as pantos... :-\ Also lost 60 pantos or 100 legionaires playing against the cataphracts without using any super cheesy tactics.

[Parallel Pain]

Why is everyone wanting singleplayer 'balance'? If you're playing the AI, its already imbalanced and if you try to balance, it would overpower the AI to make it reasonably challenging. People are going to be playing both sides so what people have been advocating: this so called 'Campaign Balance' is confusing.

Because both unit cost and upkeep and stats and recruitment turns and stuff have been balanced with history and single player in mind and because only a small percentage of EB players regularly play multiplayer or play multiplayer more than singleplayer

[antisocialmunky]

Balanced with history is fine, balanced versus each other is fine. Just don't throw 'balanced using the single player AI' into it and its fine.

[tarem]

making the pike traps available for all/most factions (modified to look like something less anachronistic) seamed like a good idea to me. say most heavy infantry could deploy some sort of hedge (with variable success) to ward off front cavalry charges.

i've been playing EB1 1.2 for several months now but since most of my campaigns were in the east i did not experience the sword equipped infantry being an easy target for cavalry charges. true as a helenistic power, my infantry usually consists of 4-5 phalanx units and 4-5 spearmen/hoplite units, while the helenistic cavalry is very good on its own on the flanks and i never really faced cataphracts as opposition in significant numbers. also i did not went to war with the romans untill 8-9 turns ago, although i did win suprisingly easy against 4-5 full roman stacks of mixed composition, mostly because the AI's unwillingness to recruit any cavalry and because i was on the defensive and fought them on my own terms/favorable ground. still i did not win by charging them (camilian and polibian cohorts) but rather by ambushes and flanking. still, they just got their first marian cohorts, so i'll see how they perform against against heavy armored phalanx and helenic heavy cavalry.

[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?

[A Very Super Market]

A gladius is too short to intimidate a horse. Besides, even if they don't charge into you, they could hang around and lop off your arm or something.

Units need the bonus because the game engine allows you to throw cavalry straight into pike phalanes without them simply turning around and trotting back to your lines.

[Julianus]

is there not already a bonus for javelin vs mounted anyway? and besides the game's engine not being able to make this an option anyway (fighting with pilla or pilum in melee, forgive me any insult to romani lovers or historians alike i love history but i was taught in a public school in the boonies.) from what i learned the pilla and pilum were made specificaly to bend after impact to hinder the enemy infantry and make using shield or paring a good throw limb unwieldy/inopperable? does not make sense to me to save my short throwing spear for a frontal charge when it is meant to bend/break so as to not be used again. it could be counter productive for all i know.

and that is my two cents

Pilum could be used as short spears against cavalry, at least Caesar taught his soldiers to point their pilum against the beautiful faces of Pompey's horsemen and successfully scared and routed all 7,000 of them.

But I think it's a little despicable.

[Ludens]

Pilum could be used as short spears against cavalry, at least Caesar taught his soldiers to point their pilum against the beautiful faces of Pompey's horsemen and successfully scared and routed all 7,000 of them.

That sounds like Roman prejudice against easterners to me. Unless they were completely green it is unlikely that Pompey's horsemen had never faced spearmen. They came from cultures that would have had ample experience with cavalry vs. spearmen combat, too. Also, the version of events that I have read said that Caesar equipped his troops with proper spears, which makes more sense when it was a planned action. A normal spear is better suited for anti-cavalry work.