FACTION PREVIEW: The Roman Empire

[Bull]

Awesome preview!!

One question though, is the Menaulatoi Anti-Cavalry Infantry really going to be effective against cavalry? As we known in MTW2 javlins were thrown sporadically instead of a volley (like in RTW), and my guess is that only a few javlins will be thrown before the cavalry charges down the Menaulatoi.

Another big problem is that because the Menaulatoi is likely to be still throwing its messiles when being charged by cavalry, their SPEAR attribute which reflect charge-related damage back to the cavalry would not work. This would be the same as cavalry-archer charge.

Or perhaps this is meant to be a javlin unit that still have some use after the javlins were exhausted?

[Konsul Gando]

This Preview is just awesome...OMG too bad that I cant recreate the WHOLE Roman Empire with this Units!

[Giorgos]

While i agree with Candelarius on the shield comment, they can be allowed some artistic freedom. Its their mod after all, not a historical argument.

[General Store]

Very very nice.

I have a question about the ERE archers, its a general question and not aimed at this roster, if the main threat the ERE faced was the Turks and this threat had horse archers as their main weapon, one would of thought that they naturally would of developed better and better archers? Did this occur in reality? It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out that you need loads of archers at a superior or at least equal range/firing rate to your enemies?

Just curious...

[Armatus]

Well I've decided which faction to play now

[gary]

personally i love the shield i agree that some artistic license should be accepted...Who is to say that that never panted such things on there shield? you just have to look at some of the roman cavalry shields....with very exotic images.
I say the shield looks really cool.

[Armatus]

personally i love the shield i agree that some artistic license should be accepted...Who is to say that that never panted such things on there shield? you just have to look at some of the roman cavalry shields....with very exotic images.
I say the shield looks really cool.

Stuff like the shield isn't going out on a limb I mean this was a fairly colorful culture anyway with lots of icons and symbolizing I say too keep the shield for say a general though.

[Strelac]

@Antonius
I like your findings: “...In very crucial situations paintings with the images of Christ or His Mother were used as leading banners(the paintings) like the 1st siege of Constantinople by the Avvars”
Sounds like

Desperate situations call for desperate measures

@Whyy
You actually knew some of them???

@General Store
ERE fielded mercenary horse archers, for purpose of fighting bullet with bullet.
Infantry archers, would not be of great use against fast movable horse archers.

@Bull
Menaulatoi work as legionary unit, not regular javelin unit. They fire javelin if situation permits and brace for attack or defense.

[AnthoniusII]

@Antonius
I like your findings: “...In very crucial situations paintings with the images of Christ or His Mother were used as leading banners(the paintings) like the 1st siege of Constantinople by the Avvars”
Sounds like

@Whyy
You actually knew some of them???

.

If you were orthodox and knew how religion worked on greeks wou would know how the "holly painting issue" worked and the valliew it had for them!!!!

[General Store]

@Infantry archers, would not be of great use against fast movable horse archers.

Wouldnt they? Infantry archers would have a greater range and a faster rate of fire, so horse archers would get shot to pieces, the challenge is in protecting infantry archers against the potential cavalry charge. Horse archers cant spread out to much because they will in each others way.
They would be harder to hit, but surely the archers wouldnt be aiming at where they are, but rather mass volleys on the area that they are occupying. Their light armour would mean huge casualties.

I am just curious thats all

[Ahiga]

Yeah, historically the two best methods to defeat horse archers would be massed foot archers or for the more rich heavy-horse archers behaving just like massed foot archers would. "but rather mass volleys on the area that they are occupying" Such mass volleys from heavily armored horse archers was originally a Persian practice adopted by the Eastern Romans and the Arabs [And through the Arabs the Turks adopted it] to deal with light horse archers.

I hadn't thought about it before, but speaking Purely as an individual and not a member of the team, one option could be to develop a dual system in regards to foot & mounted archers, as by and large a faction with respectable archers (Everyone but the ERE & Jerusalem) either was known more for its foot archers or its mounted archers. They certainly used both, but may have relied more on one or the other. Ghazni for instance made a major use of their foot archers, while Armenia was famous for its light infantry archers. Whereas the Seljuks' infantry archers were really just those too poor to afford a horse.

• Those who were known more for their foot archers (Armenia, Ghazni, Makuria, Rajputs, Oman) could have more men in their archer's ranks, yet less in their horse archers.
• Those who were known more for their mounted archers (Seljuks, Kypchaks, Khwarezm, Ayyubids, Rum Turks), could have less men in their foot archer ranks but more men in their horse archers.

[General Store]

Thanks Ahiga, that makes perfect sense and explains quite a bit. Appreciate that.

This also goes back to my original point that the ERE would of figured this out and started pumping resources into improving the quality of their ranged attacks, which would in turn lead to better archers. So where as the concept of Byz. Guard Archers might be ahistorical, there surely existed such a thing?

I guess the bottom line is with the resources of the ERE, one couldnt be blamed for thinking that they, over time, developed a more advanced infantry archer as the vanilla MTWII roster implied

Just had a look here http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dba...neVariant.html and saw that they make reference to quite a few different archers, which implies a hierarchy of archers. I am not suggesting you change the roster, because it does look great and it gives more flavour to the disadvantage, but I just wanted to check if it was truly like that

[Ahiga]

Thanks Ahiga, that makes perfect sense and explains quite a bit. Appreciate that.

This also goes back to my original point that the ERE would of figured this out and started pumping resources into improving the quality of their ranged attacks, which would in turn lead to better archers. So where as the concept of Byz. Guard Archers might be ahistorical, there surely existed such a thing?

I guess the bottom line is with the resources of the ERE, one couldnt be blamed for thinking that they, over time, developed a more advanced infantry archer as the vanilla MTWII roster implied

Just had a look here http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dba153/ByzantineVariant.html and saw that they make reference to quite a few different archers, which implies a hierarchy of archers. I am not suggesting you change the roster, because it does look great and it gives more flavour to the disadvantage, but I just wanted to check if it was truly like that

I think it was truly like that, but I think such a transition came at the cost of their other heavy infantry. Those lists are very empty of any other infantry, and make a note that the spearmen which were used were largely unarmored. The later Byzantines following the fall of Constantinople in 1204 seemed to be based around knight-like cavalry, light horse archers, and light archers. Ours reflect the earlier ERE, with a much different focus into heavy infantry and cavalry.

In general when a nation begins to focus on improving their archers they are giving up the use of offensive-infantry. The Ghaznavids did this and fielded mostly spearmen and armored archers, and even though the English's infantry were using offensive gear (swords and maces and Bills) their role was to protect the archers. Much like the spearmen of the later ERE did.

But you're right - the need for heavy infantry and the financial strain of them was becoming null. The need for archers, both light and armored, was growing. The mistake which some make (You aren't. ) is that they assume the Eastern Roman Empire kept the older practices while adopting the new, which is like thinking that England in the 100 year's war would be fielding Fyrd Shield-walls and Huscarls and Norman Knights and Welsh longbowmen all at once. Even with our Roster we're making that 'mistake' a little, as a few units probably never saw a return, but were too cool to not bring back (Kataphract's with mace and javelin come to mind)

[Rodrico Stak]

Very nice! I can't wait to crush them under my Rajput Elephants!

[Keravnos]

Thanks Ahiga, that makes perfect sense and explains quite a bit. Appreciate that.

This also goes back to my original point that the ERE would of figured this out and started pumping resources into improving the quality of their ranged attacks, which would in turn lead to better archers. So where as the concept of Byz. Guard Archers might be ahistorical, there surely existed such a thing?

I guess the bottom line is with the resources of the ERE, one couldnt be blamed for thinking that they, over time, developed a more advanced infantry archer as the vanilla MTWII roster implied

Just had a look here http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dba...neVariant.html and saw that they make reference to quite a few different archers, which implies a hierarchy of archers. I am not suggesting you change the roster, because it does look great and it gives more flavour to the disadvantage, but I just wanted to check if it was truly like that

Besides those lists have a big disadvantage...

2x 3Cv (Byzantine Cavalry)
2x 3Kn (Frankish mercenaries) or 2Ps
1x 2Lh (Vlach Cavalry)
1x 2Lh (Bulgar or Albanian)
1x 4Sp (Byzantine or mercenary spear) or 2Ps
3x 2Ps
2x 2Ps or 3Bw

Those are the troops of the Despotate of Epeiros 1204-1318. Where are the native Epeirote troops exactly?

[Candelarius]

Anyway, about the shield, I'm grateful that some of you recognized my comment as it was intended: well meaning constructive feedback. Of course the shield looks cool, just like the rest of your units. I just thought it sorta stuck out as one piece that didn't quite fit with the rest in terms of pure historical realism. A modelled brass helmet fitting for a prince is, of course, perfectly the norm, indeed, most nobles had some sort of decorative ornamentation on their helmets. But, rarely would such an intricate drawing have appeared on a shield, though, like someone said, a banner wouldn't be unlikely. Allowing for artistic freedom though is a perfectly acceptable explanation for me, afterall, ornamentation was an "artform" with the Byzantines (pun intended). The mod looks awesome and I again congratulate the modders on a fine piece of art...can't wait to play! :-)

[Fenix_120]

They would be the byzantine calvary and the Byzantine/merc spears.

Epeirote and Greece itself produced very good spear men if I remember correctly.

[Keravnos]

Well, ERE spearmen won't be any less good than you are accustomed to.

[IrAr]

Well, ERE spearmen won't be any less good than you are accustomed to.

What's that supposed to mean?
In Vanilla, Roman spear units are terrible!

[Ahiga]

Yeah. CA was kind of peculiar in their rendition of the ERE in Vanilla, although they, the Turks, and the Russians got some of the best treatment (The Byzantine's were made primarily of meshes nobody else got. The Rus got quite a few unique meshes, and the Turks had the Janissaries). Poor spearmen, a redundant amount of swordsmen...

Suffice to say, our ERE are much more a spear-based faction. They get the Heavy Swordsmen and Emperor's Guard which are more than a match for just about any other swordsmen, but Armenia and Georgia get a much better selection of rank and file swordsmen.