Paeninsula Italic Suggestions and Comments

[DaVinci]

just a general comment on hoplites...

most hoplites were levy/militia grade, not professional soldiers. in these EDU discussions, i get the impression that they are being made more powerful than they should. this in all IMO of course...

This is true for every unit in this timeframe, except real mercs.

Nonetheless, i think Hoplites were, besides mounted units, the most wealthy inhabitants of a region in the hellenic societies, so a quite high cost structure for them is imo. correct.

[Hister]

Good argumentation Aper!

Today, I'll put together the internal new patch with your old edu. Your new edu can be included for the public release if you'll make it on time - I think you will.

[Zenith Darksea]

It's very good, but not for hoplites :
1) historically, they never tried to flank anyone, because
2) the attempt ends in a total mess and the formation goes to hell

On hoplites, I would recommend a very good scholarly book by Hans van Wees of University College London, Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. On the two points that you raise, my comments would be:

1) Yes, they did use flanking manoeuvres historically. Marathon is a famous (though rather early) example of this, when the Greek flanks broke the Persian flanks and turned in on the Persian centre from the sides. At the Battle of Mantinea the Spartan army had to rearrange itself because of the fear of being outflanked. It wasn't so common perhaps, but it did happen occasionally.

2) Hoplite formations often did go to hell anyway. It is something of a myth that all hoplite phalanxes were well-drilled and maintained cohesion. As van Wees demonstrates in his book, many hoplites - especially citizen militias that did not have the 'professional' ethos of Spartans or mercenaries - broke formation quite easily, especially when preparing to clash with the enemy head-on. In the fourth century it is true that hoplite armies were becoming much better-trained, but nonetheless the discipline of many of the famous Greek hoplites such as Spartans or Athenian ephebes was certainly not universal.

[mcantu]

On hoplites, I would recommend a very good scholarly book by Hans van Wees of University College London, Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities.

thanks for that recommendation. i'm picking it up on my lunch break...

[DaVinci]

On hoplites, I would recommend a very good scholarly book by Hans van Wees of University College London, Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. On the two points that you raise, my comments would be:

1) Yes, they did use flanking manoeuvres historically. Marathon is a famous (though rather early) example of this, when the Greek flanks broke the Persian flanks and turned in on the Persian centre from the sides. At the Battle of Mantinea the Spartan army had to rearrange itself because of the fear of being outflanked. It wasn't so common perhaps, but it did happen occasionally.

2) Hoplite formations often did go to hell anyway. It is something of a myth that all hoplite phalanxes were well-drilled and maintained cohesion. As van Wees demonstrates in his book, many hoplites - especially citizen militias that did not have the 'professional' ethos of Spartans or mercenaries - broke formation quite easily, especially when preparing to clash with the enemy head-on. In the fourth century it is true that hoplite armies were becoming much better-trained, but nonetheless the discipline of many of the famous Greek hoplites such as Spartans or Athenian ephebes was certainly not universal.

One more reason (for me at least) to not realise the shield wall for all of them.

Perhaps it is a good idea to have shield wall for the Hoplite Mercs and the Spartan Hoplites. And then conclusive: make a significant difference between these 'professional' Hoplites and the militia Hoplites in the whole stats.

Not a good solution since Luciano made all non Greek hoplites as such due to their hoplite style deployment - they learned the craft from the Greeks!

Well, they learned the style of fighting and equipment, but not the same ethos and same kind of drill, that Hellenic Hoplites, respectively and especially Hoplite mercs and merely Spartans and Athenians had.

-> If the goal is to reflect the Hoplite thing as accurate as possible, then i strongly recommend to make differences.

[Aper]

@ Zenith Darksea
I'm not speaking of defeating a flank of an army and then attack the centre, I'm speaking of hoplites that try to run around enemies to attack them on the back : this is a cavalry job, not for hoplites.

The problem is that on custom battles 1 hoplites vs. 1 swordmen, the hoplites, very near to a faster and more verstile enemy, try to turn around them to attack on a flank, that is utterly ridicolous because the enemy will always turn to face them faster than they can move, and during the attempt the hoplites become an amorph and very vulnerable mob. I don't call this "AI that try to use tactics" I call this "bad issue to solve".

About shield-wall : about this I will do whatever the PI team want, but IMHO it's not a bad idea to mark a difference between italic copies and real hoplites, or between city militias and professional mercenary : the discussion is open ...

[mcantu]

@ Zenith Darksea
I'm not speaking of defeating a flank of an army and then attack the centre, I'm speaking of hoplites that try to run around enemies to attack them on the back : this is a cavalry job, not for hoplites.

The problem is that on custom battles 1 hoplites vs. 1 swordmen, the hoplites, very near to a faster and more verstile enemy, try to turn around them to attack on a flank, that is utterly ridicolous because the enemy will always turn to face them faster than they can move, and during the attempt the hoplites become an amorph and very vulnerable mob. I don't call this "AI that try to use tactics" I call this "bad issue to solve".

About shield-wall : about this I will do whatever the PI team want, but IMHO it's not a bad idea to mark a difference between italic copies and real hoplites, or between city militias and professional mercenary : the discussion is open ...

again, why are stats being changed to try and get a desired result in custom battles that will not be applicable in campaign battles? why not try hoplite vs hoplite custom battle or hoplite vs (a stronger unit)?

[Aper]

again, why are stats being changed to try and get a desired result in custom battles that will not be applicable in campaign battles? why not try hoplite vs hoplite custom battle or hoplite vs (a stronger unit)?

I just want hoplites engage frontally swordmen, what's wrong in it?

And all the discussion about hoplites superior stats is quite pointless, because a little +2 in attack delay make them equal in performance to apparently inferior units. The only purpouse of some boni of hoplite is to persuade them they are stronger than the enemy, so that they don't try nonsensical moves.

About Romans : I never said I will not raise their stats, you guys JUST DON'T GIVE ME THE TIME. I've a real life too. And if it's good to give some sec HPs, that have no effect on played battles, to units currently underpowered in auto-calc, why it's so bad use the same principle to give roman units stronger fangs in AI vs. AI wars? To make them perform better than their neighbours in the strategic map? Romans were not paticularly superior to their enemies in economy culture or whatever AFAIK, they had better armies, but simply give their units a point or two in some stats it's a quite unpredictable way to portrait this superiority IMHO, and the AI idiocy can waste this advantage, so it's easier to use the method explained by Aradan in the EDU guide : give all units some sec HPs, and a bit more to units you want perform better in autocalc (legionaries for example), a bit less to units that in autocalc are overpowered (like phalanxes).

About my work : I first tweak the stats of unit, THEN test them in 1 vs. 1 custom battles, THEN test the balance of the campaign. If you know a way to make the testing work faster, please tell me, thanks. Otherwise, why speak of multiple versions or minimods when the basics stats of units are still in discussion??

And since it's a waste of time and energy to have many people doing the same work each in his own way, WHO actually is that is improving EDU? If you want to wait, try and judge my tweaks I'll do this, otherwise if someone else is willing to take this responsibility, I'll comfortably wait the release and if I'll be not satisfied I'll do my mini-mod ; just to not waste precious time that I have no more.

[Hister]

I agree but how would lanceari and hoplite units differ between each other then?

[Aper]

I agree but how would lanceari and hoplite units differ between each other then?

I can give them inferior mass and normal unit radius, that will make their behaviour on the battlefield very different (and inferior) from hypotetical Italic Hoplites without shield-wall.

About professionals and mercs... tweaking a bit stats, especially attack delay that is quite high for normal hoplites to make them less powerful, I can improve greatly the performance of drilled soldiers without change anything else.

[DaVinci]

I agree but how would lanceari and hoplite units differ between each other then?

What'd i say ... the so-called 'professional' Hoplites get better stats and shield wall, just superior to the Italic "copies", but also, pure militia Greek Hoplites get other stats than the Italic ones (tag better), and inferior to the 'professional' Hoplites (mercs and Spartan). It's just more work, but worth the efforts, i think, if the combat balance shall reflect historical backgrounds.

On that matter of historical background in combat stats:
I observed in my last playtest as the Rhaeti (played them to observe the AI in Italy etc.), that the Romans don't stand a chance, they lost in about 12 turns 2 settlments and Roma was just besieged and as well Capua as i quitted the playtest. It was obvious, that they go down to their knees within around 5 years. That was on H/H.

The reasons are mainly:
- Inferior stats of the Roman troops.
- Encircled by potencial enemies.
- No extra balance to support he Romans on their way to expand historically.

This btw., although i gave the Romans some little advantages, that i posted a few posts above (edu and some other) ... no way, that these tweaks helped ... conclusive: Roman troops need far better stats as they have now, or they will disappear very soon from the map.

Edit: Better stats as now present ... this can be only a first approach in the edu discussion, ie. also troop costs for Hastati, Principes and Triarii need to decreased, i did this in my edu above, but not enough, i guess. It needs far more balancing work to make them what they were in history. Especially, descr_strat shows atm. the same settlements for every faction. This can't stay imo., Romans need a better starting economy than their neighbors ...

[Hister]

Not necessarily true DaVinci! You haven't played the new patch which has economy. We can give Romans only some income bonus without having to raise their stats unrealistically!

[DaVinci]

Not necessarily true DaVinci! You haven't played the new patch which has economy. We can give Romans only some income bonus without having to raise their stats unrealistically!

I'll see if i playtest the patch ... i very much doubt, they can be a major player, or the major player in Italy with the current system, despite the patch changes ... .

How do you define unrealistically stats?

For me unrealistic stats are, if the Romans are inferior in the campaign outcome ... again i'll see it if i playtest the Rhaeti again with the patch applied.

[mcantu]

On that matter of historical background in combat stats:
I observed in my last playtest as the Rhaeti (played them to observe the AI in Italy etc.), that the Romans don't stand a chance, they lost in about 12 turns 2 settlments and Roma was just besieged and as well Capua as i quitted the playtest. It was obvious, that they go down to their knees within around 5 years. That was on H/H.

The reasons are mainly:
- Inferior stats of the Roman troops.
- Encircled by potencial enemies.
- No extra balance to support he Romans on their way to expand historically.

This btw., although i gave the Romans some little advantages, that i posted a few posts above (edu and some other) ... no way, that these tweaks helped ... conclusive: Roman troops need far better stats as they have now, or they will disappear very soon from the map.

Edit: Better stats as now present ... this can be only a first approach in the edu discussion, ie. also troop costs for Hastati, Principes and Triarii need to decreased, i did this in my edu above, but not enough, i guess. It needs far more balancing work to make them what they were in history. Especially, descr_strat shows atm. the same settlements for every faction. This can't stay imo., Romans need a better starting economy than their neighbors ...

i too have noticed the hyperactive AI. maybe there needs to be more rebel settlements to act as buffers between the factions (as in EB). i think across the board recruitment cost increases may help also. maybe also adjust the factions aggressiveness towards each other in descr_strat

[Aper]

Actually there's a very easy and effective way to make roman units powerful vs. AI without raising their stats : give them some secondary HPs

[mcantu]

Actually there's a very easy and effective way to make roman units powerful vs. AI without raising their stats : give them some secondary HPs

thats about the most unbalancing thing i can think of.

[DaVinci]

i too have noticed the hyperactive AI. maybe there needs to be more rebel settlements to act as buffers between the factions (as in EB). i think across the board recruitment cost increases may help also. maybe also adjust the factions aggressiveness towards each other in descr_strat

maybe also adjust the factions aggressiveness towards each other in descr_strat

I did this in regard of Romans. Also my edb has much higher costs for buildings and longer constr. times. This is only a basement.

No, it is actually the thing that the Sabine, Sabelli and Samnite factions do everything to crush the Romans from the start. Only a balance helps that Romans can afford proper armies to fight them back. Even the Etruscans allied to the romans in this playtest, so this superior faction weren't the threat for them.

This has nothing to do with unrealitic unit stats, this is campaign balancing.


EDIT

Actually there's a very easy and effective way to make roman units powerful vs. AI without raising their stats : give them some secondary HPs

True. But not the right way to give the Roman human player still a challenge.

No, the Hastati, Principes and Triarii, which were just the line (manipel) infantry need just better stats, and lower costs - this is an easy balancing in the edu file. Other finetuning in camp balancing needs to be done anyway with the time.

[Hister]

Sounds neat Aper! On teh shieldwall matter I propose we wait for Luciano to say the last world.

[Hister]

Okey, everything else but not making more rebel areas! Current situation is representation of what regions those factions actually controlled at the time.

[mcantu]

oh, sorry. i thought you were talking about primary HPs...whoops