Overpowered barbarian units and stupid levy troop simulation

[Spartan999]

back of course, fire arrow may be inaccurate, but they do have a killer moral effect

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Do you even read before you type? You say 'we', who are you referring to aside from yourself? Where are your sources aside from your self-proclaimed historical facts? All this time, I was saying that barbarian infantry were not all heavily armored like it is in the mod. How is that unhistorical? Was every barbarian rich enough to buy armor? HUH? I don't even wanna start on where you found the idea of super horsemen when I was arguing that sword infantry are weak vs cavalry in this mod during the entire discussion. Stop and think before you insult someone on the forum. Oh and read the discussion from the beginning when you get the chance. Thanks for your attention.
Like I said before, EB does pretty good job simulating cavalry vs infantry fights.

Oh yes, always - I write from study, research and knowledge. When I don't know (like I've never played EB and am now rather interested in your cavalry experience - see below), then I query and learn. As to my sources, well next to me I have: Asclepiodotus; Polybius; Livy; Dio Cassius; Josephus; Suetonius; Tactitus; Aelian; Ammianus; and Vegetius; plus the Byzantine Tactical Manuals. But, I also watched the first couple of those History channel programmes (erroneously identified as BBC productions, which they are most certainly not, and voiced by terrible pontification simply repeating statements and putting modern spins on them), confirmed that I had seen one or two before - and can absolutely confirm that the re-enactment scenes are mostly rubbish! A good deal of personal research over the last couple of years, plus over 40 years of studying military history and formal training in tactics, operational planning and logistics - and I'm happy to share what I've learned.

I didn't argue about your statement on barbarian types, but explained why it was as it was. You, however, threw out statements quoting the superiority of the Roman due to tactics and used such things as 'rotating ranks'; and then backed it up with 'History Channel'. If that's the source of your own knowledge, then be corrected from those who actually wrote about it and not pretty comic pictures produced for entertainment! The Greeks/Successors and then the Romans did not fight like individual gladiators.

The Romans almost NEVER faired well against Cataphracts or the Parthians in general. Yes, they beat them on occasion. And yes, they eventually defeated the Parthians soundly, after several tries and thousands of lost men. But powerful cavalry was, for a long time, and historically, Rome's 'achilles heal'. That's why they used so many merc cavalry units and archers as well. It wasn't until the Late Empire that Rome finally adapted to this issue by deploying its own Cataphract units, and even then, it was only in the Eastern Empire.

You'll also find that the Seleucids had to adapt to this threat as well, because they were getting creamed by enemy cavalry. So like it or not, these cavalry units were effectively the BC era 'tanks' of the time. Yeah, they're a real bugger...but as I said before, RS2 was not made to be easy.

Well, dvk', if EB is 'better' at this, then it would be worth a real re-look - for what you have written above is dangerously wrong. Cataphracts weren't and never could be compared to 'tanks'. The whole idea of armoured cavalry being so superior is indeed a myth. Indeed, as you know, I am never that fond of dear old Wiki' when it comes to explaining facts - but the page on Carrhae is pretty damn good - and here's a direct quote:

"The Battle of Carrhae was one the first major battles between the Romans and Parthians. This battle also created the myth that Rome's legions could not combat the Parthian army. This myth was not dispelled even when the Parthian capital was sacked several times and the several defeats that Roman armies inflicted to the Parthian ones. It was this belief that led Parthia to invade Syria and Armenia several times, always unsuccessfully."

I will also point out that the vast majority of the Roman casualties and the loss of the Eagles was after the battle.

In all my testing I concentrated on the Romans and I am happy to say that battles in the West are pretty damn good, especially now they are longer (this, btw, is the main issue with 'games' - for battles are long and mostly tedious affairs, which gamers don't often have the patience for. Infantry battle lines should be pushing and shoving for 'hours' in reality, often with breaks.) However, if cataphracts are as over-powered as is suggested, then they could do with a major overhaul! I suspect that charge bonuses are the major culprit.

[Iskandar]

@ur-Lord Tedric

I do agree that cataphracts were not overpowered, yet I am of the mind that they were indeed superior.

After the Sassanids took over the Parthian Empire, they shifted the general army composition and favored strongly super heavy cavalry. In fact, mounted archery went into decline until the wars against the Hephtalites in the 6th century, after which the more all-purpose cataphract emerged - armed with bow, lance, mace/sword, and even wearing a shield. Up until then, it was heavier, less mobile, more armored. Why would the Sassanids favour such direction for 4 centuries if it was not effective? War, more than anything else, weeds out impracticality.

The "cavalry charge myth" myth. Modern day horses are not bred for war, nor trained for it. It's understandable they would shy away from solid objects (or pointy ends sticking out of them). But what about a horse selected for its size, strength and aggression, trained over and over in charging solid mass of men (or something similarly immobile), in and out of formation, while being covered in full or partial armor? A horse, drilled over and over to charge when its rider's lance is pointed forward, and showed again and again that this particular circumstances would take care of the pointy objects in front of it (which is why we have the greater length of the lance) and thus learning that it's not immediate death? Most ancient sources use exactly that word - "charged", not "trotted up to the enemy lines, pranced about trying to scare the enemy, poked a few times and turned back". There are accounts of 2(!) men pierced by a single cataphract lance. Yes, cataphracts were something like tanks - in the sense that they were geared for a devastating impact and well-armored in order to allow for effective close-quarter combat after that impact.

Cavalry charging mostly other cavalry - the Roman/ERE army was still predominantly an infantry one. Yet, for 4 centuries the Sassanids battled them and their standard battle order was Savaran in the first line, infantry in the second, foot archers in the third. Why would you pit horse units against well-formed infantry, if they could/did not charge it and did not have any chance of breaking them? Yes, the charges should be wisely decided upon and executed, because a good horseman and his horse cost a small fortune and long time to train and maintain. But they still did happen.

During that conflict, the Roman/Byzantine doctrine gradually shifted towards more cavalry-oriented approach. Yes, Mesopotamia is quite an open terrain, so more mobility would be welcome. But they did not switch entirely to cavalry-only armies. They recognized the value of the catapract/clibanarii and tried to incorporate it in their own military doctrine (one of the strong suits of the Roman military). If the effect of heavy cavalry was mainly a psychological one, training and exposure would have taken care of that. If it could be countered only with infantry, why would the Roman army change, and maintain that change?

For 4 centuries, the Savaran went toe-to-toe against Roman infantry and cavalry and at the end almost broke them. They could deliver a devastaing impact, they could hold their own in the close quarters after that and were very mobile, both tactically and strategically, that's why I say cataphracts were superior. Were they overpowered? Most certainly not.

The problem is with the RTW engine, which tries to model all the complexities of mounted warfare by using only a few simple values and calculations (charge imapct, armor, defence and offence values).

p.s. It occurs to me now that the battle of Magnesia is an example within our time frame depicting cataphracts charging directly into infantry and routing them. And that was not the Pergamene allies, which were on the Roman right; it was the Roman left, meaning it was either a Roman legion or an Allied one(which by then had similar training and weaponry). Nor was cavalry, which was mostly stationed on the Roman right.

[Black_Baron]

It seems that the barbarians got themselves Getafix's recipe.Now they all can make romans fly in the air.

[Spartan999]

However, if cataphracts are as over-powered as is suggested, then they could do with a major overhaul! I suspect that charge bonuses are the major culprit.

Yeah Charge bonus have gone from 50 to 60, I wonder if that would change much?

[dvk901]

Oh yes, always - I write from study, research and knowledge. When I don't know (like I've never played EB and am now rather interested in your cavalry experience - see below), then I query and learn. As to my sources, well next to me I have: Asclepiodotus; Polybius; Livy; Dio Cassius; Josephus; Suetonius; Tactitus; Aelian; Ammianus; and Vegetius; plus the Byzantine Tactical Manuals. But, I also watched the first couple of those History channel programmes (erroneously identified as BBC productions, which they are most certainly not, and voiced by terrible pontification simply repeating statements and putting modern spins on them), confirmed that I had seen one or two before - and can absolutely confirm that the re-enactment scenes are mostly rubbish! A good deal of personal research over the last couple of years, plus over 40 years of studying military history and formal training in tactics, operational planning and logistics - and I'm happy to share what I've learned.

I didn't argue about your statement on barbarian types, but explained why it was as it was. You, however, threw out statements quoting the superiority of the Roman due to tactics and used such things as 'rotating ranks'; and then backed it up with 'History Channel'. If that's the source of your own knowledge, then be corrected from those who actually wrote about it and not pretty comic pictures produced for entertainment! The Greeks/Successors and then the Romans did not fight like individual gladiators.




Well, dvk', if EB is 'better' at this, then it would be worth a real re-look - for what you have written above is dangerously wrong. Cataphracts weren't and never could be compared to 'tanks'. The whole idea of armoured cavalry being so superior is indeed a myth. Indeed, as you know, I am never that fond of dear old Wiki' when it comes to explaining facts - but the page on Carrhae is pretty damn good - and here's a direct quote:

"The Battle of Carrhae was one the first major battles between the Romans and Parthians. This battle also created the myth that Rome's legions could not combat the Parthian army. This myth was not dispelled even when the Parthian capital was sacked several times and the several defeats that Roman armies inflicted to the Parthian ones. It was this belief that led Parthia to invade Syria and Armenia several times, always unsuccessfully."

I will also point out that the vast majority of the Roman casualties and the loss of the Eagles was after the battle.

In all my testing I concentrated on the Romans and I am happy to say that battles in the West are pretty damn good, especially now they are longer (this, btw, is the main issue with 'games' - for battles are long and mostly tedious affairs, which gamers don't often have the patience for. Infantry battle lines should be pushing and shoving for 'hours' in reality, often with breaks.) However, if cataphracts are as over-powered as is suggested, then they could do with a major overhaul! I suspect that charge bonuses are the major culprit.

Ah my friend, how I would love to be able to sit down with a few brews and discuss all this face to face. It is so hard to drag out true meanings when trying to communicate in print...especially when I am time constrained as much as I am lately. But let me explain....

It is evident that the Romans were 'worried' about cataphracts. I remember reading a while back that the Romans were SO worried about them that they took special measures to ambush and surprise them in one battle (in Asia Minor against the Armenians, I believe) and succeeded so well that the cataphracts panicked and stampeded into the enemy army and routed the whole army!

I would have to 're-find' the source for this, but I'm relatively confident that in this case the Romans used special tactics to deal with a threat they either feared or didn't really want to deal with. The question is: Why? You don't formulate special tactics and plans on the battlefield, or before a battle, to deal with something that isn't a pretty serious threat, so where I'm coming from on the issue of these cataphracts is that the Seleucids and the Romans saw them as a serious enough threat that they either began using themselves, or adopted tactics to deal with them in lieu of having them.

So enter into the equation that the cataphract cavalry was seen as a threat to be dealt with.

Now, also enter into the equation that every faction in this game needs 'something' that makes them special, and our gives them an advantage against others. The Nomads and Parthians have, admittedly, the worst infantry in the game.....and this follows a historical truth. They were not infantry based cultures, they were cavalry based...relying on massive numbers of cavalry of all types, to respond speedily to threats and enemies over a pretty vast area of land. In a game that was written to favor infantry by a long shot, you really have to give other cultures such as these 'something' that makes them dangerous and a powerful foe. Enter, the Cataphract cavalry and archers....which are the 'elite' units among these cultures.

Now, also enter into this equation the fact that by the time you, as a Roman or a faction from the western area of the map, get over to the east and start actually facing the Cataphracts of Parthia or others, you also have a pretty vast empire already, and there are a limited number of things that can challenge you at all. Parthia's infantry is a pushover, as would be the Sarmatians. But when you see a bunch of cataphracts....'overpowered' or not....now you start thinking: "Hmm...this is not going to be easy". And it isn't, because they will give you a black eye every time.

So what I'm saying is that the statistics and configurations of RS2 are not 'just' a matter of unit stats and abilities. A vast amount of thought and testing was done to create balance...'behind the scenes'.....so that at least some of the time, certain factions would do what they historically did when played by the AI. And, to at least attempt to provide the player with opposition that is worth fighting.
I'm reminded of the Saxon General in 'King Arthur' who, upon meeting Arthur for the first time said, as he walked away:"Finally! A man worth killing!"

Yes...if you want to 'just' compare apples and oranges and crunch numbers with no other considerations...the Cataphracts are most likely a bit over the top. But so are other units in RS2, and they are so for the same reasons. The same could and has been said by players of barbarian factions when facing Roman units, for example, or Spartan ones. We have 25 or so different campaigns set up in different folders for the simple reason that we could 'slant' the stats and economic factors against the player. We could've just had one big mod like most others, with one campaign where you could play all the factions...but this makes it extremely difficult to 'customize' and tailor campaigns against the player...who mostly wins, wins, and wins again anyway.

[dvk901]

@ur-Lord Tedric

I do agree that cataphracts were not overpowered, yet I am of the mind that they were indeed superior.

After the Sassanids took over the Parthian Empire, they shifted the general army composition and favored strongly super heavy cavalry. In fact, mounted archery went into decline until the wars against the Hephtalites in the 6th century, after which the more all-purpose cataphract emerged - armed with bow, lance, mace/sword, and even wearing a shield. Up until then, it was heavier, less mobile, more armored. Why would the Sassanids favour such direction for 4 centuries if it was not effective? War, more than anything else, weeds out impracticality.

The "cavalry charge myth" myth. Modern day horses are not bred for war, nor trained for it. It's understandable they would shy away from solid objects (or pointy ends sticking out of them). But what about a horse selected for its size, strength and aggression, trained over and over in charging solid mass of men (or something similarly immobile), in and out of formation, while being covered in full or partial armor? A horse, drilled over and over to charge when its rider's lance is pointed forward, and showed again and again that this particular circumstances would take care of the pointy objects in front of it (which is why we have the greater length of the lance) and thus learning that it's not immediate death? Most ancient sources use exactly that word - "charged", not "trotted up to the enemy lines, pranced about trying to scare the enemy, poked a few times and turned back". There are accounts of 2(!) men pierced by a single cataphract lance. Yes, cataphracts were something like tanks - in the sense that they were geared for a devastating impact and well-armored in order to allow for effective close-quarter combat after that impact.

Cavalry charging mostly other cavalry - the Roman/ERE army was still predominantly an infantry one. Yet, for 4 centuries the Sassanids battled them and their standard battle order was Savaran in the first line, infantry in the second, foot archers in the third. Why would you pit horse units against well-formed infantry, if they could/did not charge it and did not have any chance of breaking them? Yes, the charges should be wisely decided upon and executed, because a good horseman and his horse cost a small fortune and long time to train and maintain. But they still did happen.

During that conflict, the Roman/Byzantine doctrine gradually shifted towards more cavalry-oriented approach. Yes, Mesopotamia is quite an open terrain, so more mobility would be welcome. But they did not switch entirely to cavalry-only armies. They recognized the value of the catapract/clibanarii and tried to incorporate it in their own military doctrine (one of the strong suits of the Roman military). If the effect of heavy cavalry was mainly a psychological one, training and exposure would have taken care of that. If it could be countered only with infantry, why would the Roman army change, and maintain that change?

For 4 centuries, the Savaran went toe-to-toe against Roman infantry and cavalry and at the end almost broke them. They could deliver a devastaing impact, they could hold their own in the close quarters after that and were very mobile, both tactically and strategically, that's why I say cataphracts were superior. Were they overpowered? Most certainly not.

The problem is with the RTW engine, which tries to model all the complexities of mounted warfare by using only a few simple values and calculations (charge imapct, armor, defence and offence values).

p.s. It occurs to me now that the battle of Magnesia is an example within our time frame depicting cataphracts charging directly into infantry and routing them. And that was not the Pergamene allies, which were on the Roman right; it was the Roman left, meaning it was either a Roman legion or an Allied one(which by then had similar training and weaponry). Nor was cavalry, which was mostly stationed on the Roman right.

Well siad. My point exactly...and better spoken.

[SD_Man]

back of course, fire arrow may be inaccurate, but they do have a killer moral effect

What other unit types are suggested? I really would prefer an easy, fast (archerless) battle rather than to sacrifice my legionaries. Noticed the hat change BTW.

[nz61287n]

Shouldn't the mod take account of discipline and tactics then? As far as troop morals go, those heavy barbarian spearmen have about the same level of morality if not more. Tactics..I can only think of quincunx formation. And that's only for flexible movement during battles. As far as fighting goes, legions beat barbarians. Period. Historically, during a fight vs Macedon, Roman flanks got beat by hypaspists, but roman main force pushed through the macedonian battle lines. I don't see that happening in the mod. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Romans fought fair and square and still beat their enemies. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that such brute fighting style was their specialty. Yet, in RS2, my legions melt down to those barbarians. The only reason Germans, Picts, and Iberians held so well vs Romans is because of their hit and run tactics. Their major confrontations vs Romans didn't end too well so they had to rely on skirmishing. As far as cavalry fight goes, I agree, legions weren't too good vs cavalry. But as far as infantry is concerned, I seriously think that barbarians need nerf or legions need buff.

You might want to check out the Teaching Company's courses on Rome and Ancient warfare (they are really good introductions to these issues and debates). In terms of the balance of units in this mod, I personally don't have any complaints (the attention that the mod pays to detail and history blew me away when I first played it). You should keep in mind the fact that the quality of the Legions through history can vary widely and even within the same time period some were better than others. The quality of your Legions is for the most part dependent on how you use them and your tactics, call it a crisis of leadership (not overpowered Barbarians).

[Spartan999]

What other unit types are suggested? I really would prefer an easy, fast (archerless) battle rather than to sacrifice my legionaries. Noticed the hat change BTW.

Um kill the general in the battlefield, they will route faster (although that might be hard thanks to the fact they have 15 cavalry units).

Thank you for the compliment, although I changed the pic again

[Kirasy]

Fascinating discussion please do continue.

[Black_Baron]

The only thing that bugs me is low stamina wich is also reg very slowly.It is easy with skirmishers to wear down heviest of troops.That is so far but i only installed the mod resently

[High Fist]

I've found they're really slow to tire, unless you're running them all over the map like an eejit. :

[ur-Lord Tedric]

..............It is easy with skirmishers to wear down heviest of troops.............

And that is exactly one of the roles in which skirmishers are supposed to excel. The genuine Roman tactics and troops to counter cataphracts - light infantry and light cavalry!

[SD_Man]

And that is exactly one of the roles in which skirmishers are supposed to excel. The genuine Roman tactics and troops to counter cataphracts - light infantry and light cavalry!

How do you beat cata-anything with light infantry? I just tried it and my infantry men were slaughtered, most of them on the charge! The only infantry that can beat them head-on are ap units. Also what do you mean by light cav? Skirmishers or melee cav because javelins seem to do nothing against them from the front? The only "genuine" Roman tactic against cataphracts is to run for the trees! I guess this is another reason why most suggest to give the legionaries the shield wall ability, i might try the pseudo-shield wall trick to simulate this.

[High Fist]

Does anyone actually use skirmishers on the front line?

I never do. It incurs too many casualties on them from enemy skirmishers when the infantry take next to no casualties at all. I always use them to run around the infantry fight and throw their missiles at the backs of the enemy.

It's effective, but not how skirmishers worked, right?

Any thoughts?

[SD_Man]

Does anyone actually use skirmishers on the front line?

I never do. It incurs too many casualties on them from enemy skirmishers when the infantry take next to no casualties at all. I always use them to run around the infantry fight and throw their missiles at the backs of the enemy.

It's effective, but not how skirmishers worked, right?

Any thoughts?

Limitations of the engine? You would think that a pelt of javelin fire would at least have a fatigue/morale effect on the infantry, or lower their hp, but i dont think that this can be replicated in-game. My advice, you could always just use them as meat shields or maybe just charge them right into the fray, giving your cohorts some time to unload all their pila while those poor velites can take one for the team.

[the man, the myth, the legend]

Does anyone actually use skirmishers on the front line?

I never do. It incurs too many casualties on them from enemy skirmishers when the infantry take next to no casualties at all. I always use them to run around the infantry fight and throw their missiles at the backs of the enemy.

It's effective, but not how skirmishers worked, right?

Any thoughts?

I basically do the same thing, i'll keep them behind the front line and after the fronts engage I bring them around and soften the heavies/phalanx up with a javelin shower before I use my flankers/cavalry charge. I guess I do the same thing with archers and slingers too. It might not be "historically accurate" but I just like think that my tactical genius is just much more advanced than all the military generals throughout history, well.... bar Alexander and Hannibal of course.

edit: I also agree that Cata's are not OP, I mean when you have over a hundred settlements as the Romans, you're gonna need some sort of a challenge by the time you reach Parthia. They're really not that hard to kill, pin them with some heavy spears or pikes and drill them from behind with javelins or slingers.

[SD_Man]

My heavy spears do nada against those cataphracts so I gave them an extra spear bonus along with my pikes. Im thinking of giving Rome some "legionary spear" units to both replace those ahistorical segmentata units and add some flavor the campaign.

A question, is there an easy way to also change the the legion names as I find them to be a bit counter-intuitive (repeating legion names/numbers, missing legios, etc.)

[ur-Lord Tedric]

How do you beat cata-anything with light infantry? I just tried it and my infantry men were slaughtered, most of them on the charge! The only infantry that can beat them head-on are ap units. Also what do you mean by light cav? Skirmishers or melee cav because javelins seem to do nothing against them from the front? The only "genuine" Roman tactic against cataphracts is to run for the trees! I guess this is another reason why most suggest to give the legionaries the shield wall ability, i might try the pseudo-shield wall trick to simulate this.

Ahhh - I meant real Roman tactics, not what is possible in game! Cataphracts can certainly drive off (and hence why the original Parthians have the two types of cavalry - very light and very heavy - the light arrows cannot easily pierce the well armoured horse and rider, but equally the light HA cannot be caught easily by the heavy's, when they would lose horribly) all light cavalry, but cannot catch them. The idea is to tire out the cataphracts. Once tired, then you hit them with light infantry, exploiting both their tiredness and their more limited visibility; use your agility to dodge the kontos'/sarissa's and hamstring the horses from underneath. Javelin-armed cavalry, for the javelin is better at armour penetration than arrows and will annoy them and then catch them on the hop. It's a bit of an all arms thing.

However, if it's 'you' that get's tired and worn down and then cataphracts can exploit that, you are in big trouble - a good read of Xenophon's retreat out of Parthian lands is interesting. What we lack in game is the real ability (lots of time and unlimited battlefield size) to properly use Parthian/HA tactics.

Does anyone actually use skirmishers on the front line?

I never do. It incurs too many casualties on them from enemy skirmishers when the infantry take next to no casualties at all. I always use them to run around the infantry fight and throw their missiles at the backs of the enemy.

It's effective, but not how skirmishers worked, right?

Any thoughts?

Actually, as the pictures in that old thread of mine show, I do - often to great effect (Velites and then Antesignanii), but it does depend which enemy I face. If the enemy have lots of javelin skirmishers or line infantry then my own skirmishers will indeed absorb and take a lot of casualties and thus my main line doesn't - however, the main thing to note is that after the battle, nearly all those casualties are returned and they suffer very few losses battle to battle.

The big thing is not to let them get caught in melée, for then things are bad - but they caa be very useful at enticing attacks, often cavalry, which then ends badly on the attacker as they bump into the main line.

It's their missile absorbing ability, followed by low post battle casualties that makes them very valuable.

In reality skirmishers are there to harass, sometimes pin, the enemy and they can often move faster. Mixing lighter troops with cavalry can often be effective, for once enemy cavalry are in melée and not charging, then the LI can devastate them - and this is a particular anti-chariot tactic that does work in game.