Great mod!

[AqD]

Thx for this great mod; It's one of a few mods that are both interesting and playable to me

And here are some suggestions:
- Silk and mines should bring much more $$$ (more than $5,000 per city) - there should be a few cities much more valuable than others.
- All units take 0 or 1 turns to train; the numbers of units are only limited by city populations and upkeep cost => great idea from SPQR mod
- Archers have lower attack skill but add armour-piercing capability, to make them not-so-useless against heavy-armoured units.
- Cataphract/armoured cavalaries add armour-piercing capability for spear/lance (idea from EB) and double cost
- Cavalaries without horse armour get no armor/shield at all because reasonable attackers would just kill the horse
- Mercenary units have higher upkeep cost and low morale level (but not low training or low discipline).
________
real estate for sale Pattaya

[Scutarii]

I agree with the silk roads, but if recruitment time is changed to 0 turn, takes away from the meaningness of each stack. If I lost a stack now, it takes a while to recuperate and regenerate the stack, but on 0 turn mods (like SPQR), If I lose 1, its extremely easy to make another one. 0 vs. 1 turn is a matter of preferance, but I greatly prefer 1 turn.

Also, some of that stat changing stuff would unbalance the precarious balance that XGM has striven to create among factions.

[Dom9127]

I agree with Scutarii on those points and adding armor piercing to the archers is pointless because historically the arrows were not armor piercing, and also slingers in XGM do that job already

[Stoneface]

Thx for this great mod; It's one of a few mods that are both interesting and playable to me

So far I agree wholeheartedly.

- Silk and mines should bring much more $$$ (more than $5,000 per city) - there should be a few cities much more valuable than others.

I disagree, because late game economics are too easy anyway. Problem is the ai would not build the right things and not strategically target these settlements. The player would. A mining income bonus from your government building if gold or silver are present could be a good idea though.

- All units take 0 or 1 turns to train; the numbers of units are only limited by city populations and upkeep cost => great idea from SPQR mod

I am against 0 turn recruitment for most units. I even think that many of your more elite units should take more time to train. Once you build one urban barrack you can easily build armies of sacred band. Having a few low level (e.g. Peltasts) unit with 0 turn to train might be interesting.

- Archers have lower attack skill but add armour-piercing capability, to make them not-so-useless against heavy-armoured units.

I think this is a very bad idea. First low attack but armour piercing is the domain of slingers. Second missile units with lots of ammo tend to get lots of experience. I remember a campaign when gastraphetes still had 80 men per unit. These guys could slaughter the few Carthaginian elite units (including elephants) easily before they were close.

- Cataphract/armoured cavalaries add armour-piercing capability for spear/lance (idea from EB) and double cost

But a lance is not armour piercing and the charge should take care of any armour anyway.

- Cavalaries without horse armour get no armor/shield at all because reasonable attackers would just kill the horse

Honestly, I am not sure how the engine handles mounted units and I would like to keep things vanilla style until I know. It is also a balancing thing. Normal cavalry would die to easily under missile fire without their armor and shields.

- Mercenary units have higher upkeep cost and low morale level (but not low training or low discipline).

At the moment mercs are the same units as auxilias, who should not have a low morale. Also do not trust Machiavelli on mercenaries. Once in battle they were usually not the first to rout.

[AqD]

I disagree, because late game economics are too easy anyway. Problem is the ai would not build the right things and not strategically target these settlements. The player would. A mining income bonus from your government building if gold or silver are present could be a good idea though.

A strong economics is needed when you and your enemies get a 0 turn recuritment

I think this is a very bad idea. First low attack but armour piercing is the domain of slingers. Second missile units with lots of ammo tend to get lots of experience. I remember a campaign when gastraphetes still had 80 men per unit. These guys could slaughter the few Carthaginian elite units (including elephants) easily before they were close.

That's only for low-quality bows. Good bows (such as longbows and mongol bows) together with well-trained archers could pierce armour in close range.

BTW gastraphetes/crossbow is a different thing, I tested and found it's only because the "bp" (body-piercing) attribute makes them so terrible. Without "bp", most of their bolts would be stopped by the shields of enemy infantries.

Honestly, I am not sure how the engine handles mounted units and I would like to keep things vanilla style until I know. It is also a balancing thing. Normal cavalry would die to easily under missile fire without their armor and shields.

It doesn't count the ridden horse/camels (elephants are counted though). And yes, unarmoured cavalry should die easily under missile fire if they're trying to charge enemies directly from the front, as happened in the Battle of Taginae.
________
Evia

[Stoneface]

That's only for low-quality bows. Good bows (such as longbows and mongol bows) together with well-trained archers could pierce armour in close range.

BTW gastraphetes/crossbow is a different thing, I tested and found it's only because the "bp" (body-piercing) attribute makes them so terrible. Without "bp", most of their bolts would be stopped by the shields of enemy infantries.

I have some silver chevrons and gold weapon upgrade Syrian archer in my armies in my current campaign. Those guys are quite able to shoot down heavily armoured troops at not so close range. Normal armour is at least as good at stopping arrows as it is at stopping swords therefore arrows should not be armour piercing.

BTW my gastraphetes came from a pretty old version of xgm so I am not sure they were "bp" then.

[Cymera]

Normal armour is at least as good at stopping arrows as it is at stopping swords therefore arrows should not be armour piercing.

Later on, when arrows had bodkins (Right? Am I mixing something up?!) coupled with high speed, that could pierce armor far better than a sword. The sword would just not have the kinetic energy behind it to get in as deeply. It might do more damage, but it would get as deep I would think.

If it is wooden tip-less arrows,then yes, good armor should be able to take quite a few without damage.

[Scutarii]

Well, I find pretty much all un-shielded horses die under fire anyway, even armoured ones, such as Companions. In custom I have killed 2 units of Companions with 2 archer units (concentrated fire). The un-armoured ones (like HA's, light lancers, Greek Light cav) that also don't have a shield die under fire like crazy, you can get 5 per volley, and more on HA's.

[AqD]

Well, I find pretty much all un-shielded horses die under fire anyway, even armoured ones, such as Companions. In custom I have killed 2 units of Companions with 2 archer units (concentrated fire). The un-armoured ones (like HA's, light lancers, Greek Light cav) that also don't have a shield die under fire like crazy, you can get 5 per volley, and more on HA's.

Hmmm that's weird. Were your archers shooting from the enemies' back?
________
Sarahyt live

[cherryfunk]

I agree with the silk roads, but if recruitment time is changed to 0 turn, takes away from the meaningness of each stack. If I lost a stack now, it takes a while to recuperate and regenerate the stack, but on 0 turn mods (like SPQR), If I lose 1, its extremely easy to make another one. 0 vs. 1 turn is a matter of preferance, but I greatly prefer 1 turn.

Same here, I just can't play 0-turn...

[Unknown Soldier]

Iron arrow heads won't penetrate quality steel plate no matter the velocity of said arrow - head will deform on impact or shatter! Science has proved this.

Myth of agincourt - arrows didn't kill the french knights. English archers just mopped up the exhausted french chivalry on foot using the old long knife through the armour joint, eye slit etc.

[Hurlbut]

Myth of agincourt - arrows didn't kill the french knights. English archers just mopped up the exhausted french chivalry on foot using the old long knife through the armour joint, eye slit etc.

Correction: the majority of the french knight casaulties happened when they were executed while being prisoners of the english army. The terrian at Agincourt was really that bad and allowed a great number of the french knights to be captured while the rest were killed in heat of battle.

[Cymera]

So the arrow head was not strong enough? Has there ever been an experiment with both armor and arrow head being of the same "quality"? I agree that the kinetic force would do something, I just didn't think it would bust the arrow!

At any rate, my archers still get AP!

[Balikedes]

I watched this thing on the History Channel not too long ago. They tested several different kinds of arrows (including bodkin) shot by a replica English long bow against several different kinds of armor.
Anything designed with linen didn't stand a chance, scale armor was somewhat effective whereas plate armor bent the arrow tips and shattered the shaft.

Some archaeologists found what they think was Trojan era heavy armor, so they wanted to compare that armor against 100 Years War era armor and their arrow stopping abilities.

[AqD]

I watched this thing on the History Channel not too long ago. They tested several different kinds of arrows (including bodkin) shot by a replica English long bow against several different kinds of armor.
Anything designed with linen didn't stand a chance, scale armor was somewhat effective whereas plate armor bent the arrow tips and shattered the shaft.

ok no piercing for plate armour. But what about chainmail armour? And what happened to the man wearing the plate/scale armours?
________
SecretSmile

[Unknown Soldier]

Yeah so the french didn't die like (RTW) selucids in armenia porcupine pin cushion stylee!

[Hurlbut]

chainmail armour are more resistant against slashing than anything, the armour is full of "holes" so it is a bit more vulnerable to arrows than other armours. A weak chainmail armour is more easily penerated than a strong one.

[Balikedes]

chainmail armour are more resistant against slashing than anything, the armour is full of "holes" so it is a bit more vulnerable to arrows than other armours. A weak chainmail armour is more easily penerated than a strong one.

That's exactly what they found, sometimes the scale armor stopped the arrow but most of the time the arrow would find a hole. Too bad for the guy wearing it. It also depends on how tight or loose the links are and what direction the arrow is coming in.
Shot from a distance the arrow is coming at a downward angle which allows the scale to protect better. During the demonstration, the guy was shooting from like 20-30 yards away at a straight angle.

[Hurlbut]

Er, for easy identification; the scale armor is like small and flat pieces of metel attached to each other or to a backing like a linen or leather cloth.
Chainmail is the "ring" armor; rings attached to each other.

[lankylars]

Question: I can see, given Balikedes and others' comments on arrows and armor, that perhaps archers shouldn't be armor-piercing. But how on Earth, then, are slingers? Whipping rocks through the air doesn't seem a way to cause anything but severe blunt trama.