Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 78 of 78

Thread: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

  1. #61
    MatrixStorm's Avatar Kei kihei
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,953

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navajo Joe View Post
    MatrixStorm,

    I am playing as Byzantine Empire, so I would recommend Late Campaign, Gracul AI, BGR2, Assim Script, G5 Battle AI and Perm Watchtowers, naturally with RR. You won't look back, its the best campaign I have ever played
    Thanks for the tip, but before I'm even able to do that, I'll first have to get rid of the damage the Compilation sub-mod caused (see 'strange problems...' thread in the Technical Help section).
    It makes my generals unable to recruit mercenaries and places corinth in an ahistorical place...

  2. #62
    Iratern's Avatar Kabe difendā
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Scholarii (cataphracts) and Athanati (immortals) were the last remains of the 10th century glorius armies.
    Varangians were Rus (sweden vikings that settled in Novgorod and later Kiev and ruled OVER Slavs).
    Later Danes,Norwegians and Swedish vikings joined the Guard side by side with Saxon Huscarls after the qonquest of England in 1066AD.
    The Slavic mercenaries of the empire were mainly Serbian heavy infantry (spearmen) and later in 14th cent Serbian knights.

    That is the most inaccurate statement ever.
    Half of Medieval Roman armies (byzantine) were profesional (payed through land incomes) espesialy ALL horsemen.
    Stratiotae (in other eras known also as Cavalarii),Acritae ,Pronoiarii (large land owners) were some of them.
    Also ALL imperial units (that stationed in Constantinople) were profesional.
    In real Medieval Romans (Byzantines) merged the armies of the Republican and Imperial Eras.
    The provinces had both millitias-as citizen soldiers-and profesionals and the capital had 100% profesional troops.
    If you do not mind to lear please read this.
    I the SS timeframe there were more profesional troops than millitias than those described there.
    Oh sorry about the misunderstanding about the Varangians I did know they were Rus, but while writing I had slavic in my mind for some reason (Probably was thinking about the OP's comment about using slav mercenaries lol ) . Anyway thank you for writing that out explicitly and not letting people read wrong things

    Also when I was talking about professionalism I was speaking relative to the ancient Roman Empire. Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was that since the Roman Empire of old no other nation relied on such a professional army. Although it is true that during its golden age the Eastern Roman Empire was comparable to the old Empire so I am sorry about putting it in that way (but not exactly in this particular timeframe ). Well anyway my point is that the Eastern Roman Empire used mercenaries extensively, also I must say that when I was talking about professional troops I was referring to those that would live a life as a soldier (in a barracks) and dedicate their life to training for war (Such as a legionary would).

    Also is a citizen soldier closer to a militia or to a professional warrior? (Since during history it appears that they are in between? such as the early Camilian era legions or the hoplites for example?).


    Also one of the reasons the legions fell out of favour was that there where much more efficient ways to deal with nomadic and arabian armies. I mean infantry would be decimated and exhausted campaigning in the steppe against nomadic horse-based armies. So horsemen gained huge prominence in Byzantine.

  3. #63
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Dομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    18,483

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    There is nothing to ask sorry for my friend!
    In general.
    Imperial Roman Empire : Fully profesional infantry (minimum cavalry).
    Medieval Roman Empire:
    Phase 1 [6th-7th cent]: Strong profesional cavalry weak "medium" infantry, a lot of mercenaries.
    Phase 2 [7th-9th cent]: Multi role profesional cavalry ,strong infantry with almost no mercenaries.
    Phase 3 [10th-11th cent]: Strong infantry with additions of new weapons ,strong profesional cavalry with many additions of very heavy cavalry ,some mercenaries.
    Phase 4 [12th-14th cent]: Very weak infantry,profesional cavalry of all types in less numbers ,huge numbers of mercenaries.
    Phase 5 [15th cent]: Actually no armor at all!

    Nottice that every time a write about cavalry i add the word profesional because horsemen were full time soldiers just like the imperial era infantry.
    Infantry im medieval empire were soldiers/citizens like in clasic greek era and like the time of the republican era of the Roman Empire.
    Watch the TGC's features revealing videos here.
    There are times in which a nation must, if it wants to stay great, be capable to fight .Even with no hope of victory. Only because it has the "duty" to fight!.

  4. #64
    Ferdiad's Avatar Legatus Legionis
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Limerick, Ireland
    Posts
    27,059

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Phase 2 and 3 appear to be the height of Roman Arms then.

  5. #65
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Dομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    18,483

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdiad View Post
    Phase 2 and 3 appear to be the height of Roman Arms then.
    Yes!
    Watch the TGC's features revealing videos here.
    There are times in which a nation must, if it wants to stay great, be capable to fight .Even with no hope of victory. Only because it has the "duty" to fight!.

  6. #66
    Iratern's Avatar Kabe difendā
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    I guess so, but Phase 1 IMO would be where the amazing cavalry armies were in existance (as far as I know, an example would Kataphractoi). I guess after fighting the Arabian armies the Empire reworked it's cavalry to the phase 2 (as you so simply categorized ) multi-role army.

    Yes, Cavalry would have to be professional (since there was no European style feudal system, although I believe that feudalism is an inferior system to almost all eastern systems of land and military arrangement) since not many commoners would be able to afford a fully equipped war horse . And before the Turkish incursion the empire was living a time of military expansion and was funding an amazing fully equipped standing army.

    But also SS starts in 1100 (for early campaign) so we're only considering phase 4 and 5, which in terms of the game is not too badly represented (well at least for me).

    Quick question though wouldn't the Scholarii be a general purpose medium cavalry that we should be able to field in large numbers (enough to be the mainstay of our cavalry forces and/or army in general?). I mean shouldn't there be other types of cavalry representing the heavier cavalry forces of the empire?

    In the game scholarii are like the most elite cavalry force (save the BG) in our arsenal?

  7. #67
    Ferdiad's Avatar Legatus Legionis
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Limerick, Ireland
    Posts
    27,059

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Scholarii are meant to bbe super heavy cav not medium.

  8. #68
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Dομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    18,483

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdiad View Post
    Scholarii are meant to bbe super heavy cav not medium.
    Exactly.
    Watch the TGC's features revealing videos here.
    There are times in which a nation must, if it wants to stay great, be capable to fight .Even with no hope of victory. Only because it has the "duty" to fight!.

  9. #69
    Jambat's Avatar Taihō no heishi
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Third rock from the Sun.
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    I think the Roman roster is pretty balanced and never understood the overpowered threads that pop up from time to time. I think the reason they zerg and dominate in Early is pretty simple: Money. They have tons of it. They can pump out army after army, especially with the computer monetary assistance, and have an opening edge in armed forces compared to their neighbors - which was historically accurate. They just had too many political factors holding them back from a unification like in the game - that they kind of form a snowball effect. As they pick steam up going down that mountain, they get bigger, the armies get larger, and by the time the troops are showing age it's too late: Four romans for every enemy is more than enough to trample and conquest.

    I wonder, is there a way to start the computer army off in massive debt, but not hamstring a player choosing the faction? I wonder what that would do to them if it would take a decade or more to get into the black. It might give the computer a fighting chance against them if they can't swarm from turn one.

    I do have two questions about the roster:
    *Akontistae, Kontaratoi,etc... the 'low' end of the roster. Shouldn't they be worse? Like, some of the worst in the game comparatively speaking? I always understood it that the guys like those units were really bad, and really underprepared, while the higher end of the soldiers like Skout and Spath's were super trained, equipped, and true-blue fighters.
    *Why can they recruit Saxons for the first 100 years only? Not a complaint game wise, or unit wise, but I can't recall anything that says why they are so limited.
    I see the better and approve; I follow the worse.

    If you liked my post or thought I was helpful, hit that +rep and leave your name so I can keep an eye out for when you deserve some. Unless you suck. Then you aren't getting crap. Ever.


  10. #70
    Judeman266's Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Newark, DE
    Posts
    954

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    @Jambat

    If you want the Byzantines to start out in debt go to SS6.3\data\world\maps\campaign\imperial_campaign. Open descr_strat and find this section:

    faction byzantium, trader napoleon
    ai_label default
    denari 11000
    denari_kings_purse 1400

    Change the 11000 to a negative number. Make sure it's enough because the Early Era Byzantine economy is very strong. If you start them off bankrupt you neighbor factions a chance to develop for a little bit.

    An easy way to do this is to start a Byzantine campaign and end the turn without doing anything. Read the report of how much money was made that turn
    then you can calculate approximately how many turns it would take for them to get out of the red. There is a problem though; if you look at the campaign_script factions get money if they go broke. It is variable depending how much in debt they are. If Byzzies treasury goes lower than -40000 they get about 60000 denarii. A lot of people complain about the AI factions getting money but the way it is scripted it is only to keep them viable, and when they get too much money there is money subtracted from them. Anyway depending upon how many turns you want them to be in debt, calculate them making 60000 per turn.

  11. #71
    Ferdiad's Avatar Legatus Legionis
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Limerick, Ireland
    Posts
    27,059

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Perhaps a more effective edit would be increasing the cost of every Roman by unit by half.

  12. #72
    Point Blank's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,646

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    There is nothing to ask sorry for my friend!
    In general.
    Imperial Roman Empire : Fully profesional infantry (minimum cavalry).
    Medieval Roman Empire:
    Phase 1 [6th-7th cent]: Strong profesional cavalry weak "medium" infantry, a lot of mercenaries.
    Phase 2 [7th-9th cent]: Multi role profesional cavalry ,strong infantry with almost no mercenaries.
    Phase 3 [10th-11th cent]: Strong infantry with additions of new weapons ,strong profesional cavalry with many additions of very heavy cavalry ,some mercenaries.
    Phase 4 [12th-14th cent]: Very weak infantry,profesional cavalry of all types in less numbers ,huge numbers of mercenaries.
    Phase 5 [15th cent]: Actually no armor at all!

    Nottice that every time a write about cavalry i add the word profesional because horsemen were full time soldiers just like the imperial era infantry.
    Infantry im medieval empire were soldiers/citizens like in clasic greek era and like the time of the republican era of the Roman Empire.
    Hi mate,

    Based on this sort of info, in SS the early-era Skoutatoi are superior quality and 'disciplined' as well as 'trained', as well as 'hardy'.Is this a reasonable representation? Should they be hardy at all?

    Possible era-specific EDU/EDB's will likely take account of Phase 4/5 changes as you mention

    Cheers, PB

  13. #73
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Dομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    18,483

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    CBUR Komnenean scutatoi are "semiprofesional" soldiers like western armored sergeants.
    In fact in some cases they were better equipted.

    In fact Scutatoi in SS early era (Komnenean era) are "dismounted" stratiotae.
    That means that they have everything that they need as profesionals exept the horse.

    Edit: What makes the Roman army is that its "sergeants" (scutatoi) have more standard equipment
    thanks to the empire's incomes.
    Last edited by AnthoniusII; February 22, 2012 at 09:44 AM.
    Watch the TGC's features revealing videos here.
    There are times in which a nation must, if it wants to stay great, be capable to fight .Even with no hope of victory. Only because it has the "duty" to fight!.

  14. #74
    Point Blank's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,646

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    OK Thanks

  15. #75
    Ferdiad's Avatar Legatus Legionis
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Limerick, Ireland
    Posts
    27,059

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Standardisation is always a big bonus of proffessional Armies as opposed to Feudal ones.

  16. #76
    Point Blank's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,646

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    CBUR Komnenean scutatoi are "semiprofesional" soldiers like western armored sergeants.
    In fact in some cases they were better equipted.

    In fact Scutatoi in SS early era (Komnenean era) are "dismounted" stratiotae.
    That means that they have everything that they need as profesionals exept the horse.

    Edit: What makes the Roman army is that its "sergeants" (scutatoi) have more standard equipment
    thanks to the empire's incomes.
    Actually, based on your description of "CBUR Komnenean scutatoi are "semiprofesional" soldiers like western armored sergeants", I am wondering if I have them incorrectly categorised as Late Professionals, ie a standing army that the state decides it will requirea certain number of and recruits, trains and equips them. Instead perhaps they should be Early Professional, ie capable fighters but primarily raised only in times of war, or who would seek out areas of conflict where they might find employment,and with much of their equipment being their own or at least paid for by them.

    Perhaps they should have their own unique category?

  17. #77
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Dομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    18,483

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    Actually, based on your description of "CBUR Komnenean scutatoi are "semiprofesional" soldiers like western armored sergeants", I am wondering if I have them incorrectly categorised as Late Professionals, ie a standing army that the state decides it will requirea certain number of and recruits, trains and equips them. Instead perhaps they should be Early Professional, ie capable fighters but primarily raised only in times of war, or who would seek out areas of conflict where they might find employment,and with much of their equipment being their own or at least paid for by them.

    Perhaps they should have their own unique category?
    Trying to compare Roman armies with feudal ones is a big mistake.
    Low tier "citizens" were what you desribe as " raised only in times of war".
    Units like Kontaratoi (caution not the nikephorean ones),toxotae and acontistae.
    All the rest :
    Acritae
    Scutatoi
    Stratiotae
    Kastrophylakae
    are profesional soldiers having th emillitary service as their way of living.
    For scutatoi though i added the word "semi" because many of them were also part of Kontaratoi that served for 3-6 months per year and then returned to their civil life.
    Complicated?
    Yes i know...
    Watch the TGC's features revealing videos here.
    There are times in which a nation must, if it wants to stay great, be capable to fight .Even with no hope of victory. Only because it has the "duty" to fight!.

  18. #78
    Point Blank's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    10,646

    Default Re: Early Byzantine roster: poor? Why do people think they are OP?

    Ok great thanks, that's fine and pretty much how they are categorised now. Yes it was the 'semi-professional' that made me wonder.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •