Is it me, or are slingers still a little too strong?

[justicarab]

well i have late tier roman inf. and they always get destroyed by slinger, even in tesdusdo. i noticed that archer fire isn't too much of a worry when it comes to tesdudo nor javelins, but slingers chew up my inf no matter what, and I've noted that most slingers 1v1 light Calv pretty well. is this something ca will address or am i dumb and small rocks slung 40 meters away always penetrates a reinforced wooden shield and steel armor?

feedback would be nice, cause i feel like if ca hasn't done anything to nerf them enough to only be good vs light units, then it must be me.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Take a Legionnaire 1v1 vs the strongest Slinger in the game. Because slinger HP is raised significantly, cavalry has a harder time killing them.

[justicarab]

Take a Legionnaire 1v1 vs the strongest Slinger in the game. Because slinger HP is raised significantly, cavalry has a harder time killing them.

wait, so are you telling me that a Legionnaire counters slingers? the singlers are much faster and they just skirmish back and fire everytime and eventually destroy my unit without causuties, unless my leg. fire 1 or 2 volleys of pilums but still wont win

[Fanest]

it all depends how slingers/legionnaires are positioned most of the time if they face to face slingers wont do much damage.

[Slaists]

Unless you leave your infantry standing in cross-fire, slingers don't do much nowadays. They used to be much deadlier several patches ago.

[JaM]

slingers in vanilla game are ridiculous... they have utterly high damage, its like they have muskets or something... light 40g rocks thrown at 30-40m/s would do minimum damage to armored men, you would have to hit them in weak spots like face to deal serious damage, and while it was not that uncommon to hit somebody in the face, it was as well not a common feat.. frontally, slingers would have no chance to deal any damage against heavy infantry like Legionaries, who are protected with 1.2m long and 70cm wide shield. yet in vanilla, few salvos and men in front rank lie dead, like they had armor and shield made from paper..

[Slaists]

slingers in vanilla game are ridiculous... they have utterly high damage, its like they have muskets or something... light 40g rocks thrown at 30-40m/s would do minimum damage to armored men, you would have to hit them in weak spots like face to deal serious damage, and while it was not that uncommon to hit somebody in the face, it was as well not a common feat.. frontally, slingers would have no chance to deal any damage against heavy infantry like Legionaries, who are protected with 1.2m long and 70cm wide shield. yet in vanilla, few salvos and men in front rank lie dead, like they had armor and shield made from paper..

Are you talking about the vanilla game as it is now or many patches ago? On the release and for quite some time after, I agree, slingers were machine gunners. A balearic slinger unit could rack up several hundred kills per battle. Slingers have been seriously nerfed since then though. I play on legendary, and AI's slingers rarely do any damage to me (usually, at the end of the battle they have 0 to a few kills per unit) nowadays. On my side, I rarely use slingers nowadays; archers are much more efficient and javelin-men are deadlier.

[DeliCiousTZM]

it all depends how slingers/legionnaires are positioned most of the time if they face to face slingers wont do much damage.

Exactly the point im trying to make, it is situational.

[justicarab]

slingers in vanilla game are ridiculous... they have utterly high damage, its like they have muskets or something... light 40g rocks thrown at 30-40m/s would do minimum damage to armored men, you would have to hit them in weak spots like face to deal serious damage, and while it was not that uncommon to hit somebody in the face, it was as well not a common feat.. frontally, slingers would have no chance to deal any damage against heavy infantry like Legionaries, who are protected with 1.2m long and 70cm wide shield. yet in vanilla, few salvos and men in front rank lie dead, like they had armor and shield made from paper..

I COMPLETELY AGREE, I HAVE PLAYED THIS GAME FOR MORE THAN (cap lock sry) 420 hours, and the only balance that still is very concerning is slingers, now yes, they're better than before, but they are still too strong,

you guys refer to vanilla, is there any mods that nerf slingers? i would love to know if you know.

[Destin Faroda]

you guys refer to vanilla, is there any mods that nerf slingers? i would love to know if you know.

If you're interested in historical authenticity, give Rome II Total Realism a try. They have slingers that use different stone types.

[justicarab]

If you're interested in historical authenticity, give Rome II Total Realism a try. They have slingers that use different stone types.

i mean i do understand that slings are deadly and should do good damage vs anything without shields or armor, but like i said, if some 1 removed a huge chunk of arm pen from slingers in a mod i would love to know, cause this is highly inaccurate

[Caligula's_Horse]

I don't have much trouble with slingers in this current patch.
High tier cavalry goes through them like wet tissue paper, and low tier cavalry still gets the job done with minimal casualties, they just take longer (assuming you're not having one unit of cavalry go after four units of slingers or something; hard counters don't trivialize a crushing numerical inferiority). Chasing slingers down with melee infantry remains impractical as it should be, but if your counter slinger strategy is to chase them down with heavy infantry, you deserve whatever losses you take.

Slingers can be dangerous if you just sit there and let them fire volley after volley at you, especially from the flanks or rear (due to how shield bonuses work), but with proper tactics, the slingers should be trodden under your horses' hooves before they can do any real damage, especially with an AI opponent that doesn't defend his skirmishers properly.
Look to adjusting your tactics before adjusting the game.

As for the historical accuracy side of things, its true that the game's slingers do too much damage, but that's (also incorrectly) compensated for by their low numbers (3/4's of a usual infantry unit), and too high a cost (the sling's primary advantage was that it was dirt cheap). A proper historical accuracy mod might actually make slingers more effective, not less; each one will do less damage, but there'll be quite a few more of them running about.

[justicarab]

I don't have much trouble with slingers in this current patch.
High tier cavalry goes through them like wet tissue paper, and low tier cavalry still gets the job done with minimal casualties, they just take longer (assuming you're not having one unit of cavalry go after four units of slingers or something; hard counters don't trivialize a crushing numerical inferiority). Chasing slingers down with melee infantry remains impractical as it should be, but if your counter slinger strategy is to chase them down with heavy infantry, you deserve whatever losses you take.

Slingers can be dangerous if you just sit there and let them fire volley after volley at you, especially from the flanks or rear (due to how shield bonuses work), but with proper tactics, the slingers should be trodden under your horses' hooves before they can do any real damage, especially with an AI opponent that doesn't defend his skirmishers properly.
Look to adjusting your tactics before adjusting the game.

As for the historical accuracy side of things, its true that the game's slingers do too much damage, but that's (also incorrectly) compensated for by their low numbers (3/4's of a usual infantry unit), and too high a cost (the sling's primary advantage was that it was dirt cheap). A proper historical accuracy mod might actually make slingers more effective, not less; each one will do less damage, but there'll be quite a few more of them running about.

wow, that is good advice, i guess i got greedy with infantry and have a standard of only 2 calv per stack, maybe i should add 1 or two more because yes, i would send 1 or 2 at 3 stacks. i guess in the game balance sence you make a good point, thank you!

[PointOfViewGun]

Just tested one Egyptian Slingers against one Legionary Cohort unit. The Roman unit just sat there head on facing the Egyptians. Once the Slingers ammo was over there were still 108 soldiers standing. I believe there would be much less casualties if they were in testudo formation.

Slingers seems to be a weird weapon as they don't have that deadly look but they can be. The point of using them is not to pierce the enemy but to take them out of fight. A Roman soldier with his shield won't get knocked out or pierced by slingers or archers. However, if you get hit on the face, legs, arms, or your body in general you're likely to be out of fight. Your armour, other than your shield, won't be much of a help as it would be dented inside into your flesh. You might recover later on if you get medical attention but your bones will likely be broken and that would be a hard wound to recover from. Slingers also used lead bullets and not just stone. That would provide a much better force. I have no idea how they would exactly play out in real life though.

[14182]

What battle difficulty are you playing? They should be ok in normal
Ranged units become more and more like modern troops with the extra bonuses coming with higher difficulty levels

[Tenerife_Boy]

It's not about damage at all, it also counts that they are way too much...I mean, if infantry soldiers are 160 in a unit, how the hell are slingers 120 soldiers????? in proportion they should be 40 or 80 as much so they don't supose any advantage in combat, as it was in reality. (cavalry suffers a lot while charging against slingers with skirmish mod not activated.

Maybe putting 40-80 soldiers but increasing the reload time would fit perfectly in scalation.

Take the numbers as AN ORIENTATION. and don't start saying " aaahhh that would nerf a lot slingers because suck low number bla bla bla...."

[PointOfViewGun]

It's not about damage at all, it also counts that they are way too much...I mean, if infantry soldiers are 160 in a unit, how the hell are slingers 120 soldiers????? in proportion they should be 40 or 80 as much so they don't supose any advantage in combat, as it was in reality. (cavalry suffers a lot while charging against slingers with skirmish mod not activated.

Maybe putting 40-80 soldiers but increasing the reload time would fit perfectly in scalation.

Take the numbers as AN ORIENTATION. and don't start saying " aaahhh that would nerf a lot slingers because suck low number bla bla bla...."

Why 40 or 80? How do they have an advantage in combat with 120 soldiers? Most infantry or cavalry units won't have any problems with routing them.

[Tenerife_Boy]

Well welcome to a skirmisher reality....In wetern civilization they MOSTLY weren't a significant part of the army. Western civs main characteristic is IN-FAN-TRY. in all periods of history. Unlike easterns whose main forces were skirmishers.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well welcome to a skirmisher reality....In wetern civilization they MOSTLY weren't a significant part of the army. Western civs main characteristic is IN-FAN-TRY. in all periods of history. Unlike easterns whose main forces were skirmishers.

If you think that's the case then just use one unit of slingers. I asked why one unit should consist of 40-80 soldiers.

[DeliCiousTZM]

The only problem that slingers pose are the insanse HP they have. Now you guys are being bothered because you are playing against the AI who outnumbers you on occassion and whittles you down using slingers. I know it is annoying, but if you matched their armies there would be no problem.