Missile units

[Quinn Inuit]

Delvecchio inspired this thread with a question about missile units vs. phalanxes.

I've reduced phalangite armor relative to RTRPE to represent the fact that these guys are _not_ hoplites. They're a different kind of soldier, and a poorer one. Hoplites were middle class citizens who could afford the heavy armor and weapons of the hoplon.* Phalangites were a cheaper type of levy, for whom the spear length was the primary armor.

I'm concerned that missile units are too effective overall, especially against the now less-armored phalangites. What do you all think? For the record, I thought they were too weak in TIC.


*Hoplon != the shield, as it's commonly called. The shield is actually the aspis.

[Jamey]

I'm concerned that missile units are too effective overall, especially against the now less-armored phalangites. What do you all think? For the record, I thought they were too weak in TIC.

I like the way the missile units are in general. Unless I was playing Sarmatia, I couldn't use solely missile units to pick apart a reasonably armored army. Sarmatian HAs can pick apart an army due to their ability to position to get arrows into shieldless locations.

The possible exception to this is exactly what Delvecchio pointed out - phalangites are primary battle line troops which are relatively weakly armored. As are most barbarian troops. Here are some missile defense values for reference:

• Cataphract - Total: 22, Armor: 22, Shield: 0
• Principes - Total: 17, Armor: 9, Shield: 8
• Hastati - Total: 12, Armor: 4, Shield: 8
• Elite Hoplitai - Total: 16, Armor: 10, Shield: 6
• Hoplitai - Total: 13, Armor: 7, Shield: 6
• Levy Hoplitai - Total: 8, Armor: 2, Shield: 6
• Chalkaspides - Total: 8, Armor: 5, Shield: 3
• Germanic Spearmen - Total: 7, Armor: 0, Shield: 7
• Gallic Chosen Spears - Total: 13, Armor: 7, Shield: 6
• Warband (Gallic) - Total: 6, Armor: 0, Shield: 6

You have a spread of 6-17 frontal missile defense for some of the more common infantry used by the various factions. The fundamental problem you'll run into is that spread makes it difficult to keep the missiles useful against heavy units without making them devastate light units.

I think that the real problem might be that there are a few outlier merc units that you can recruit. Right now, a basic missile attack is 4. The base attack on the best missile units is 6 (not counting Sarmation faction-specific units, which have a 7 base). You can recruit Cretan, Rhodian, and Cyrtian mercs with +3 to +4 to that attack value due to experience. If you also add +1 or +2 due to improved weapons, you can get Cyrtians out of the box at a 11-12 attack. You can get Rhodians and Cretans at a 10-11 attack. The difference between a 6 and a 12 missile attack is enormous.

Obviously, a player with gold chevron elite missile units is going to have an unbalanced missile force regardless of what you do. Then again, most units with gold chevrons are pretty darn powerful relative to other units.

Possible Changes:
One approach would be to lower the attack values of missiles but add the armor piercing attribute to the missile attacks. The problem with this approach is that it will make experienced (or weapon upgraded) missile units substantially better against heavy units. I would be loathe to put AP onto missile attacks for anything other than truly elite units.

Another approach would be to remove some armor in favor of defense skill (e.g. cut the armor values to 2/3 of current while moving lost armor to defense skill) and reduce the attack values of missiles across the board. That would be a big change. It would have balance implications with existing AP units. I believe that it would also have manual vs. autoresolve balance implications because rear attacks only use armor for defense.

Conclusion:
I don't really have an answer on this one. It will take some thinking.

[Delvecchio1975]

not sure how this technically plays out, but currently i feel skirmishing units are too resistant too arrows, and phalanxes too vulnerable. I know phalangites were not the elite soldiers that hoplites were, but if i'm not mistaken, they used the sarissas as a porcupine kind of shield against incoming arrows? Shouldn't that also be reflected in armour value?
And how come peltasts are soo immune to arrows? Is it the running around frantically that does the trick?

[pannonian]

not sure how this technically plays out, but currently i feel skirmishing units are too resistant too arrows, and phalanxes too vulnerable. I know phalangites were not the elite soldiers that hoplites were, but if i'm not mistaken, they used the sarissas as a porcupine kind of shield against incoming arrows? Shouldn't that also be reflected in armour value?
And how come peltasts are soo immune to arrows? Is it the running around frantically that does the trick?

Loose formation. Hit them when they're in close formation, and a 4 unit band of Cretans will cut their numbers by half with one volley. Then they'll change to loose formation, which greatly reduces their casualties from arrows.

[AqD]

I like the way the missile units are in general. Unless I was playing Sarmatia, I couldn't use solely missile units to pick apart a reasonably armored army. Sarmatian HAs can pick apart an army due to their ability to position to get arrows into shieldless locations.

The possible exception to this is exactly what Delvecchio pointed out - phalangites are primary battle line troops which are relatively weakly armored. As are most barbarian troops. Here are some missile defense values for reference:

• Cataphract - Total: 22, Armor: 22, Shield: 0
• Principes - Total: 17, Armor: 9, Shield: 8
• Hastati - Total: 12, Armor: 4, Shield: 8
• Elite Hoplitai - Total: 16, Armor: 10, Shield: 6
• Hoplitai - Total: 13, Armor: 7, Shield: 6
• Levy Hoplitai - Total: 8, Armor: 2, Shield: 6
• Chalkaspides - Total: 8, Armor: 5, Shield: 3
• Germanic Spearmen - Total: 7, Armor: 0, Shield: 7
• Gallic Chosen Spears - Total: 13, Armor: 7, Shield: 6
• Warband (Gallic) - Total: 6, Armor: 0, Shield: 6

shield has double effects against missile. So real defense is like 25 for Principes and 14 for Germanic Spearmen. You may consider to reduce all of them by 1/4 or 1/3.

This is what I set in my mod:

• Cataphract - armour 24
• Principes: armour 7, shield 6
• Hoplitai: armour 6, shield 5
• Elite Hoplitai: armour 10, shield 5
• Bactrian Pezoi: armour 9, shield 3
• Pezhetairoi: armour 5, shield 3
• Chosen Spearmen: armour 9, shield 5
• German Warband: armour 0, shield 4

German or gallic cheap spearmen should not have good shields to counter missile. Their shields are big but probably poor in quality - it's mentioned somewhere that celtic or germanic shields can be easily pentrated by pila
________
Web Shows

[mcantu]

you could go the EB route and give all phalangite units the same shield value (in their case 5) to simulate the protection offered by the pikes against missiles...

[AqD]

but the effects are not confirmed (where do people get the idea??)
________
1Madonna4U

[mcantu]

what effects?

[AqD]

pike/sarissa can block or deflect missiles. I read it on several forums but nobody metioned a source.
________
FoxySelenex

[Wien1938]

I haven't ever run into a EB type factor that would confirm it, but I can confirm from game play that a phalanx in attack mode is much less vulnerable to missile fire.
It is tricky with phalangites and armour as most ancient depictions of the phalanx (meaning here phalangites) show them with much the same armour as hoplites (linin cuirass, greaves, helment and shield - albeit smaller). However there is evidence from the Tombs of Lyson and Kallikles in Macedonia that possibly the rankers were issued with an armour called "kotthubos", which appears to be a cross between a jerkin or a girdle as the linin part ends above the stomach, then long pteruges fall to below the hips. But there is no reason why Greek hoplites of the period would not be using kotthubos, since it was cheap.
My guess is that as things stand, the game works historically. Javelin skirmishers will irritate a pikes-levelled phalanx but only cause worrying losses over a long period, so long as the phalanx remains stationary. But then that might be half the value of the euzonoi!

[Quinn Inuit]

Interesting. So I probably shouldn't increase phalangite shield values, since the phalanx mode seems to offer some missile protection.

Why wouldn't the hoplites use heavier armour? Weren't they still paying for it? I was under the impression that hoplites continued to provide their own arms, while the Macedonian style was to have the arms provided centrally.

Good point about the mercs. That's a pretty easy way of getting disturbingly powerful missile units.

[Wien1938]

Quinn, re: hoplite armour.
The point is that Greece had been steadily impoverished since the 5th century BC and the numbers of hoplites had been declining. There is good evidence too that the weight of equipment had been slowly reduced. The pictorial evidence for hoplites and phalangites tends to show them wearing the same armour and certainly the evidence for Antigonid phalangites suggests similar equipment to the hoplite: sarissa, sword, shield, greaves, helmet and kotthubos.
I would say to revise an earlier statement, there is no descriptive evidence for hoplites using the kotthubos and that it was merely speculation on my part. Perhaps one of the advantages of the kotthubos was that it was lighter and easier to breath in than the full linothrakes (linin cuirass). However, we do not know yet whether the peltophoroi wore the kotthubos and it is possible that wealthier soldiers were able to substitute captured or purchased armour for the state-issued variety.
In sum, I would say that there was likely to be little difference in the armour between the hoplite and the phalangite.

[Quinn Inuit]

Hoplite numbers were declining? If that's the case, then who was making up the main line of Greek armies?

Also, why were hoplites (who didn't live in Sparta, that is) using state-issue armour? I thought the hoplite purchased his own weaponry.

If Greece was getting poorer, should we model that by making the whole area poorer? In 3.3.3, there's a 40% tax penalty, and I've replaced it with a -2 trade income penalty in 3.3.4 which I think will have the same effect but better.

[Wien1938]

The armies were still largely made up of hoplites, but their numbers were a: fleshed out with mercenaries and b: the light armed troops were more important numerically than in the last century.
This was partly because of declining wealth in the yeoman farmers who made up the bulk of the hoplites, partly a result of the devastations in the 4th Century BC from inter-state wars and partly because rising population and civil strife effectively neutralised a lot of the landed wealth. However, the critical point (and I should have said this earlier, apologies) is that the armies themselves were smaller at the time.
I wasn't very clear before, sorry. I don't believe that any hoplites were state-equipped; what I meant was that for the purposes of discussing armour, the hoplite and phalangite were similarly equipped.
The problem for the Greek city states or even the leagues was that they lacked the central direction of the monarchies. The Macedonian kingdom's military was superbly regulated, even down to matters of recruitment. This meant that the kingdom could put proportionately more soldiers into the field and for longer than the Greek cities.

I don't think we need to fiddle with the income of Greece any longer. It needs quite careful economic management and lots of peace(!) to extract lots of money (other than from Athens).

[ezekiel2517]

eh, you probably all know this but, if you lower the armor too much, the fights will be faster... let's leave the blitzkrieg to the RTW Vanilla please

[Quinn Inuit]

I see. So, how would you change the army composition to reflect that? I fear our current setup may be archaic.

[ezekiel2517]

when it comes to melee, i like it fine the way it is. If it is going to change, i'd like it more if the fights were longer, and not shorter.

About missiles, i don't think all units should get a piercing bonus, only the elites (or the ones historically proved to have had them, Parthia for example), and archers do definitely seem over-powered if you compare how fast they kill with melee, since i am sure it's faster to kill a man with an arrow than with a sword in close-quarters. Elite heavy armored units should have a tough resist vs them, i mean, they are elite after all (and cost plenty to justify). If pierce arrows mop the floor with them, it is only the way it was and i don't see what is wrong with it.

The Huns and the Mongols (and others i am sure) did conquer vast lands with mainly arrows, so i don't think missiles are over-powered at all.

I can't play atm to test the things being said here, but for what i remember, arrows were very good, but only if you knew how to use them (shoot at the back or left of the enemy), otherwise i just heard them bounce off the phalanx line

About the sarissa line blocking arrows, try looking at your phalanx in formation, then put your camera above them, and try to guess how many arrows could they deflect

edit: I've only used Cretans and Toxotai with Epiros

[AqD]

eh, you probably all know this but, if you lower the armor too much, the fights will be faster... let's leave the blitzkrieg to the RTW Vanilla please

You can compensate it by lowering weapon lethality and increasing HP - both have greater and wider effects than armour or defense skills to slow down the battle, through they reduce the difference between high-defense units and low-defense ones.

I can't play atm to test the things being said here, but for what i remember, arrows were very good, but only if you knew how to use them (shoot at the back or left of the enemy), otherwise i just heard them bounce off the phalanx line

Yes but I don't think in most eastern battles arrows are supposed to be fired from enemy's back. It is very unrealistic if you have to do it to make them useful, and also unrealistic if they do make a lot of kills rather than wounds (most arrow shots are not vital). That is where you'd find multi-HP makes sense - javelins and arrows could reduce enemy HP (inflicting wounds), not killing them but make them weak in close combat.

About the sarissa line blocking arrows, try looking at your phalanx in formation, then put your camera above them, and try to guess how many arrows could they deflect

Yeah it's in game, but not confirmed in reality - can anyone provide a source for it?
________
Live sex

[Delvecchio1975]

Yeah it's in game, but not confirmed in reality - can anyone provide a source for it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa
[...]The back rows bore their pikes angled upwards in readiness, which served the additional purpose to deflect incoming arrows[...]
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/WarTech.htm
[...]the rest of the men held their spears skywards to deflect arrows or other projectiles. [...]

[Wien1938]

Also might I add that most bows were not terribly powerful at ranges beyond 100 yards, only certain bows such as those carried by the Huns. I don't think bows should have a piercing bonus, beyond say the Indian longbowmen because the weapons really did not have the effective long range against armoured troops.