Paeninsula Italic Suggestions and Comments

[mcantu]

just a general comment on hoplites...

most hoplites were levy/militia grade, not professional soldiers. in these EDU discussions, i get the impression that they are being made more powerful than they should. this in all IMO of course...

[Aper]

Other thing on Hoplites:
Now that you increased the number by 50%, they should cost also 50% more for training and upkeep, imo. ... this also would reflect their superior position in the society, and anyway their superior stats.

I agree. I have thought more on the matter, here my ideas :
Why to give hoplites 50% more men (apart the flanking issue)? isn't this unbalancing?
I think not. Historically the greatest strenght of hoplites was simply that they can fill a battleline with more fighting men than "barbarians" = in game, less space between men, smaller man radius, greater unit size.
But why can't you make unit size and costs smaller and let the AI-player train more units?
Because a smaller hoplite size make the battle line of the single unit too short and make it be encircled easily by swordmen even in head-to-head fighting.
There are other good reasons. A greater unit size means the AI-player have to train less units at a greater cost in money and men = less flexibility of hoplite-based armies, that have less "moving parts" than swordmen-based armies ; and this make coffers and manpower of hellenic cities to be depleted faster : both the battlefield and the strategic drawback are very historical, and they will portrait perfectly the difficulties of southern-italian hellenes against natives.

[Aper]

just a general comment on hoplites...

most hoplites were levy/militia grade, not professional soldiers. in these EDU discussions, i get the impression that they are being made more powerful than they should. this in all IMO of course...

You are right, but we are forced to raise their stats to stop them flanking enemies.
Luckily, the AI doesn't consider the attack delay value, and luckily again, it have an enourmous impact on the performance of units, so it's a powerful tool to balance battles.

[Aper]

The main issue is that they are quite immobile, just slow. The other main thing is, they can't, also cause of the quite static formation, react properly in the chaos of a battle. Only, what filters this, is the extra def bonus.

Err... but these were its historical issues too!

[Hister]

Good argumentation Aper!

Today, I'll put together the internal new patch with your old edu. Your new edu can be included for the public release if you'll make it on time - I think you will.

[mcantu]

You are right, but we are forced to raise their stats to stop them flanking enemies.
Luckily, the AI doesn't consider the attack delay value, and luckily again, it have an enourmous impact on the performance of units, so it's a powerful tool to balance battles.

why is flanking a bad thing? most players consider having the AI trying to use some type of tactics a good thing to happen...

[DaVinci]

just a general comment on hoplites...

most hoplites were levy/militia grade, not professional soldiers. in these EDU discussions, i get the impression that they are being made more powerful than they should. this in all IMO of course...

This is true for every unit in this timeframe, except real mercs.

Nonetheless, i think Hoplites were, besides mounted units, the most wealthy inhabitants of a region in the hellenic societies, so a quite high cost structure for them is imo. correct.

[Aper]

why is flanking a bad thing? most players consider having the AI trying to use some type of tactics a good thing to happen...

It's very good, but not for hoplites :
1) historically, they never tried to flank anyone, because
2) the attempt ends in a total mess and the formation goes to hell

In game they start flanking when they are very near to the enemy, so he obviously attack and catch the hoplites during movement, with the consequences you can imagine

[Aper]

About shield-wall, maybe I've found a compromise solution:
- hellenic hoplitai have shield-wall
- non-hellenic hoplitai don't
What do you think? seems very good IMHO

[Hister]

About shield-wall, maybe I've found a compromise solution:
- hellenic hoplitai have shield-wall
- non-hellenic hoplitai don't
What do you think? seems very good IMHO

Not a good solution since Luciano made all non Greek hoplites as such due to their hoplite style deployment - they learned the craft from the Greeks!

[Zenith Darksea]

It's very good, but not for hoplites :
1) historically, they never tried to flank anyone, because
2) the attempt ends in a total mess and the formation goes to hell

On hoplites, I would recommend a very good scholarly book by Hans van Wees of University College London, Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. On the two points that you raise, my comments would be:

1) Yes, they did use flanking manoeuvres historically. Marathon is a famous (though rather early) example of this, when the Greek flanks broke the Persian flanks and turned in on the Persian centre from the sides. At the Battle of Mantinea the Spartan army had to rearrange itself because of the fear of being outflanked. It wasn't so common perhaps, but it did happen occasionally.

2) Hoplite formations often did go to hell anyway. It is something of a myth that all hoplite phalanxes were well-drilled and maintained cohesion. As van Wees demonstrates in his book, many hoplites - especially citizen militias that did not have the 'professional' ethos of Spartans or mercenaries - broke formation quite easily, especially when preparing to clash with the enemy head-on. In the fourth century it is true that hoplite armies were becoming much better-trained, but nonetheless the discipline of many of the famous Greek hoplites such as Spartans or Athenian ephebes was certainly not universal.

[mcantu]

On hoplites, I would recommend a very good scholarly book by Hans van Wees of University College London, Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities.

thanks for that recommendation. i'm picking it up on my lunch break...

[DaVinci]

On hoplites, I would recommend a very good scholarly book by Hans van Wees of University College London, Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. On the two points that you raise, my comments would be:

1) Yes, they did use flanking manoeuvres historically. Marathon is a famous (though rather early) example of this, when the Greek flanks broke the Persian flanks and turned in on the Persian centre from the sides. At the Battle of Mantinea the Spartan army had to rearrange itself because of the fear of being outflanked. It wasn't so common perhaps, but it did happen occasionally.

2) Hoplite formations often did go to hell anyway. It is something of a myth that all hoplite phalanxes were well-drilled and maintained cohesion. As van Wees demonstrates in his book, many hoplites - especially citizen militias that did not have the 'professional' ethos of Spartans or mercenaries - broke formation quite easily, especially when preparing to clash with the enemy head-on. In the fourth century it is true that hoplite armies were becoming much better-trained, but nonetheless the discipline of many of the famous Greek hoplites such as Spartans or Athenian ephebes was certainly not universal.

One more reason (for me at least) to not realise the shield wall for all of them.

Perhaps it is a good idea to have shield wall for the Hoplite Mercs and the Spartan Hoplites. And then conclusive: make a significant difference between these 'professional' Hoplites and the militia Hoplites in the whole stats.

Not a good solution since Luciano made all non Greek hoplites as such due to their hoplite style deployment - they learned the craft from the Greeks!

Well, they learned the style of fighting and equipment, but not the same ethos and same kind of drill, that Hellenic Hoplites, respectively and especially Hoplite mercs and merely Spartans and Athenians had.

-> If the goal is to reflect the Hoplite thing as accurate as possible, then i strongly recommend to make differences.

[Hister]

I agree but how would lanceari and hoplite units differ between each other then?

[Aper]

@ Zenith Darksea
I'm not speaking of defeating a flank of an army and then attack the centre, I'm speaking of hoplites that try to run around enemies to attack them on the back : this is a cavalry job, not for hoplites.

The problem is that on custom battles 1 hoplites vs. 1 swordmen, the hoplites, very near to a faster and more verstile enemy, try to turn around them to attack on a flank, that is utterly ridicolous because the enemy will always turn to face them faster than they can move, and during the attempt the hoplites become an amorph and very vulnerable mob. I don't call this "AI that try to use tactics" I call this "bad issue to solve".

About shield-wall : about this I will do whatever the PI team want, but IMHO it's not a bad idea to mark a difference between italic copies and real hoplites, or between city militias and professional mercenary : the discussion is open ...

[Aper]

I agree but how would lanceari and hoplite units differ between each other then?

I can give them inferior mass and normal unit radius, that will make their behaviour on the battlefield very different (and inferior) from hypotetical Italic Hoplites without shield-wall.

About professionals and mercs... tweaking a bit stats, especially attack delay that is quite high for normal hoplites to make them less powerful, I can improve greatly the performance of drilled soldiers without change anything else.

[Hister]

Sounds neat Aper! On teh shieldwall matter I propose we wait for Luciano to say the last world.

[DaVinci]

I agree but how would lanceari and hoplite units differ between each other then?

What'd i say ... the so-called 'professional' Hoplites get better stats and shield wall, just superior to the Italic "copies", but also, pure militia Greek Hoplites get other stats than the Italic ones (tag better), and inferior to the 'professional' Hoplites (mercs and Spartan). It's just more work, but worth the efforts, i think, if the combat balance shall reflect historical backgrounds.

On that matter of historical background in combat stats:
I observed in my last playtest as the Rhaeti (played them to observe the AI in Italy etc.), that the Romans don't stand a chance, they lost in about 12 turns 2 settlments and Roma was just besieged and as well Capua as i quitted the playtest. It was obvious, that they go down to their knees within around 5 years. That was on H/H.

The reasons are mainly:
- Inferior stats of the Roman troops.
- Encircled by potencial enemies.
- No extra balance to support he Romans on their way to expand historically.

This btw., although i gave the Romans some little advantages, that i posted a few posts above (edu and some other) ... no way, that these tweaks helped ... conclusive: Roman troops need far better stats as they have now, or they will disappear very soon from the map.

Edit: Better stats as now present ... this can be only a first approach in the edu discussion, ie. also troop costs for Hastati, Principes and Triarii need to decreased, i did this in my edu above, but not enough, i guess. It needs far more balancing work to make them what they were in history. Especially, descr_strat shows atm. the same settlements for every faction. This can't stay imo., Romans need a better starting economy than their neighbors ...

[mcantu]

@ Zenith Darksea
I'm not speaking of defeating a flank of an army and then attack the centre, I'm speaking of hoplites that try to run around enemies to attack them on the back : this is a cavalry job, not for hoplites.

The problem is that on custom battles 1 hoplites vs. 1 swordmen, the hoplites, very near to a faster and more verstile enemy, try to turn around them to attack on a flank, that is utterly ridicolous because the enemy will always turn to face them faster than they can move, and during the attempt the hoplites become an amorph and very vulnerable mob. I don't call this "AI that try to use tactics" I call this "bad issue to solve".

About shield-wall : about this I will do whatever the PI team want, but IMHO it's not a bad idea to mark a difference between italic copies and real hoplites, or between city militias and professional mercenary : the discussion is open ...

again, why are stats being changed to try and get a desired result in custom battles that will not be applicable in campaign battles? why not try hoplite vs hoplite custom battle or hoplite vs (a stronger unit)?

[Hister]

Not necessarily true DaVinci! You haven't played the new patch which has economy. We can give Romans only some income bonus without having to raise their stats unrealistically!