advanced logistics - better troop concentration ability

[Hannibalus]

advanced logistics - better troop concentration ability
As I explained by a former discussion I think a key element of roman military success was their better logistic ability, so they could more quickly concentrate more troops as the enemy did.
So even if the enemy was superior in number globaly, they could put more soldiers on the battlefield as the enemy did.
Shurely part of the reason of this logistic performance was the better road system. But even on the same terrain with the same road the romans had a better logistic.
So with 47,000 soldiers may be they needed to beat 25.000 gauls 4 times.
Would it be tehnically possibly to implement something like this.
For example by every faction in every period to limit how much troops they could bring maximum on the battlefield.
For example romans 3x20 troops, germans and gauls 2x20 troops, cartaginians max 50 troops in 3 stacks and so on.
Or to limit the max nr of troops in astack by some factions on 18, 19 ?
Please don't argue against the numbers they are just examples.
What I am asking if the principle could be implemented and would bring more realism ?
What do you mean ?

[sirfiggin]

tobe honest sir it is quite unclear what you mean at the moment...

[Foot]

advanced logistics - better troop concentration ability
As I explained by a former discussion I think a key element of roman military success was their better logistic ability, so they could more quickly concentrate more troops as the enemy did.
So even if the enemy was superior in number globaly, they could put more soldiers on the battlefield as the enemy did.
Shurely part of the reason of this logistic performance was the better road system. But even on the same terrain with the same road the romans had a better logistic.
So with 47,000 soldiers may be they needed to beat 25.000 gauls 4 times.
Would it be tehnically possibly to implement something like this.
For example by every faction in every period to limit how much troops they could bring maximum on the battlefield.
For example romans 3x20 troops, germans and gauls 2x20 troops, cartaginians max 50 troops in 3 stacks and so on.
Or to limit the max nr of troops in astack by some factions on 18, 19 ?
Please don't argue against the numbers they are just examples.
What I am asking if the principle could be implemented and would bring more realism ?
What do you mean ?

No, neither of these elements can be restricted. In EBI we represented logistics through reduction of morale over time while in enemy lands. It will likely be the same in EBII.

Foot

[Watchman]

And besides, even allowing for the usual exaggeration in the reported numbers, it's quite clear Rome's opponents had little trouble bringing very large armies/warbands/whatever to the field. It's a different question entirely if those armies could and would stay in the field for extended periods - one recalls Ariovist evading the Gallic alliance facing him in the wilderness until the latter plain ran out of supplies and had to disperse, then defeating them piecemeal - but have fun trying to model *that* other than maybe by tweaking the supply-problem traits the generals accumulate...

[nopasties]

I totally concede better judgment to the makers of europa barbarorum but you should check out Point Blank's work in Real Recruitment/Real Combat http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=197224 the balance of troop levels is dealt with quite well. He's also working on the third age total war mod. The conclusion's are totally yours but the calculation's Point Blank did brings a brilliant balance to the game.

[Hannibalus]

Yeah
RR/RC souds very good - I read the description
Unfortunatelly SS is very unstabile by me and from 10 tries only 1 time I succed to start it. I think with a submod it wouldn't work at all.
Actually only 'ultimate AI', what I tried extensively worked by me without a single crash. (on MTW+Kingdoms)
Deus lo Vult, DLV Europe, Broken Crescent, Expanded America, Sicilian Vespers, TLR, DarthMod, Schwert und Speer,CAE all are unstable or doesn't work at all.
The Magyar mod was is also working but I tryed it only shortly.
On RTW all final versions worked fine.
EB1.2 also but the submod Alexander EB is crashing to desktop by start.
Hopefully EB2 will work.

[nopasties]

Yeah
RR/RC souds very good - I read the description
Unfortunatelly SS is very unstabile by me and from 10 tries only 1 time I succed to start it. I think with a submod it wouldn't work at all.
Actually only 'ultimate AI', what I tried extensively worked by me without a single crash. (on MTW+Kingdoms)
Deus lo Vult, DLV Europe, Broken Crescent, Expanded America, Sicilian Vespers, TLR, DarthMod, Schwert und Speer,CAE all are unstable or doesn't work at all.
The Magyar mod was is also working but I tryed it only shortly.
On RTW all final versions worked fine.
EB1.2 also but the submod Alexander EB is crashing to desktop by start.
Hopefully EB2 will work.

sounds like your system is having problems

[Hannibalus]

I tried it again.
DLV Europe was with 90% crash.
SS 6.1 was almost OK but RR/RC was total CTD.
So I am sorry I cannot try it, but after the description it seems interesting.
- bigger army size in later era seems to be interesting and may be avoids that will be to many troops
- AOR system is shurely a good idea
- more importance to stamina management seems to be a good idea

Horse Archery
---------------
HAs are much undervalued by the most mods and may be here also.
I've studied horse archery because of personal and national reasons and my brother in law is historian and is making practical presentations in public with a small group of horse archers.
He says that after newest founds and researches the key of the HAs succes was not only their skill but also their high technology in fabricating bows.
The best hun and mongol reflexbows where reconstructed after some founds and descriptions and they was much superior by the same weight and drawing force to the bows fabricated today from modern steel or carbon fiber.
HAs where shuting up to 60 m in gallop because they shut fast (at least 11 shuts in 10s) and draw the bow only up to half. But it doesn't mean they couldn't shut so far as a foot archer. If standing with the horse and with different arrows they could shut at more than double distance but much slower.
So I am convinced that the HAs with the best reflexbows shut at higher distance than a longbow.
A good reflexbow was made of wood and many thin layers of horn during 1-2 years, where a bowyer with a helper could make about 10 bows at the same time.
The longbow was a more simple and cheaper construction.
Even light HAs should be represented statistically(even if not in the animation) with shield and armor because they was able to use their horse as living shield and each HA had a couple of horses in reserve.
HAs had also more arrows in reserve on open field (not if the foot archers where in a city).
However a good HA was much more expensive than a good foot archer.
(because of the long training, 5-6 horses/HA, 2 very expensive bows, a lot of different arrows)

[Mediolanicus]

A few notes on the horse archers.

- HA's are really, really powerful in EB (like in easily winning 20:1 odds), so you can't complain on that.

- The Mongol army was far from effective because of horse archery alone. Their military structure, tactics and command played a very large part in that.

- Hun and Mongol reflexbows aren't per se the same as Scythian and Sarmatian bows.

- In EB Eastern bows already shoot farther than any other bow.

- The in-game stats don't make a difference between shooting at full gallop or standing still AFAIK.

- About the reserve arrows and stuff... Infantry had those too, but the Total War Engine makes it hard to implement anything like this.

- Living shield... yes well if your living shield is hit, you aren't a horse archer anymore. All right in real life the archer still lives (unless he gets under the horse and then trampeled by the other horses), but please remember it is a game engine we're talking about.

- Good horse archers cost a lot more than foot archers in EB.

[Ludens]

He says that after newest founds and researches the key of the HAs succes was not only their skill but also their high technology in fabricating bows.
The best hun and mongol reflexbows where reconstructed after some founds and descriptions and they was much superior by the same weight and drawing force to the bows fabricated today from modern steel or carbon fiber.

In addition to Mediolanicus' comments, the exceptional quality of Hun and Mongol reflex bows is hardly news to me, and these bows would not have been used in EB's world.

[nopasties]

just to bring up among alot of things in Point Blank's mod he made use of skirmishers as a sub category of ranged units, the skirmisher units have different values then the more lon range units

this is a page of discussion during the sub-mods development, not the best but diddn't feel like going through the hundreds of pages to find the best one anyways PB and Jam have detailed discussions on alot of issues regarding medieval weaponry. I'm sure the EB team has similar discussions but just saying in my experience this is the most complete implementation of modding for the Medieval engine so far

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...97224&page=143

I attached these files and bringing this up not because I expect the EB team to use point blanks work as a template or anything. As I fan of both mods I'm just making a friendly comment that point blanks work is well fleshed out, creative and meticulous along the lines I'm sure EB will come to resolve.

[Hannibalus]

Of course I didn't complain about EB HAs, I had just the impression that in RR/RC they are undervalued (only from the description - but practically may be is OK).
In the early roman era the bows where on the other side still not on the same level what they arrived by the huns and mongols.
The saddle was also sill not invented by the scythans at this era(EB early era) so they could use their horses as living shild only very limited.