standardizing missiles per unit

[Quinn Inuit]

Here's a thread I've been meaning to start for some time. How many missiles should we give each type of unit?

Here're my suggestions, just to get the ball rolling:
Roman and Iberian heavy javelineers: 2
All other javelineers (incl. velites and caetrati tribesmen): 5
archers: 24
horse archers: 18
slingers: 30

[Jamey]

Here's a thread I've been meaning to start for some time. How many missiles should we give each type of unit?

Here're my suggestions, just to get the ball rolling:
Roman and Iberian heavy javelineers: 2
All other javelineers (incl. velites and caetrati tribesmen): 5
archers: 24
horse archers: 18
slingers: 30

I presume that we're not talking about making other adjustments, such as to the attack values of the missile attackers.

Horse Archers
If we want them to be usable as a primary attack force rather than in a supporting role, then horse archers need a lot more arrows than 18. They currently have 50 (using Parthia and Sarmatia as examples), which seems to be a reasonable ballpark because an experienced HA army, well handled, will be running low on ammo after killing off a hoplite or phalangite force with 50 shots. Regardless, it's hard to imagine that someone riding a horse can carry less ammo than someone walking around.

Javelins
Most primary skirmishers have 5 (heavies like theurophorai) or 6 (most others) javelins. That seems like a reasonable ballpark to me. 2 seems like a perfectly good number for a unit which is primarily a melee unit. I'd consider the argument that javelin cavalry should have more javelins, but I'd probably keep them at 5 or 6, which is where they seem to be currently.

Foot Missiles
From a game balance standpoint, I don't see a good reason to differentiate slingers and archers in terms of ammo. Their attack values, rate of fire, and range tend to be similar. I think the 30 ballpark should work well for both of them - I use Gallic slingers often and they tend to run out of ammo very fast with 20 shots. The Sarmatae Toxotai would be one of the exceptions I'd consider to this because Sarmatia is pretty dependent on them as garrison troops.

[Wien1938]

Horse Archers. I agree with Jamey. The advantage of horse archers is that they can also retire to collect more arrows - we simulate this by 50 arrrows for ammunition.

Others, excellent - I would also agree with Jamey, 5 for heavy skirmishers/6 for light skirmishers.

[Quinn Inuit]

Thread-surrection!

I've done some reading and apparently Thracians and Thureophoroi either were or were likely equipped with two javelins, in the case of the light cav and the thureophoroi with one for throwing and one for fighting.

I've also been thinking about javelin numbers. I just don't see how anyone could carry >4 in one hand, leaving the other free for throwing.

Also, anyone know how many framae spears the Germans carried? Plutarch (according to RS--double-checked on Dryden's translation) says two. I'm thinking that may be the limit for all but dedicated skirmishers.

[Caligula Caesar]

I don't see how a skirmisher could possibly throw 5-6 javelins before the enemy closed on him. They simply can't throw far or fast enough. I can only see them being able to throw three and then having to retreat very quickly to avoid the enemy, unless they have higher ground. Ingame I can normally only get them to throw one javelin before having to retreat, by the way.

[Wien1938]

There are a number of points to be made. We cannot compare skirmishers and heavy infantry on a man for man speed - the purpose of what I shall call "ranked infantry" (heavy) is to remain in line and defeat the enemy by mutual support. The skirmishers cannot afford get too close because a sudden rush would catch them.
However, the skirmishers are not tied into ranks and are free to move. Also they operate in pairs and in relays, so as one group runs back, another is shooting into the enemy, who will not want to go for the full rush because they'll be sheltering or advancing slowly behind their shields.
I believe we should slow the ranked foot down a bit to represent this. This would also make having your own skirmishers absolutely necessary, otherwise your foot will have to endure the attacks until the enemy run out of missiles.

[Quinn Inuit]

Hmmm, I think I'll give the skirmishers 4 and the actual infantry two, then.

The skirmishers are already a lot faster than the ranked foot. I think the speed difference is probably where it needs to be.

[lelouchx99]

Good solution to the Roman's overpowering pillums

By the way are the javelins / pillums stronger than the arrows?

And if you want to give the skirmishers 4, make sure you reduce their recruitment cost too.

[despot_of_rhodes]

Why? I don´t get it: Hastati and Princeps have only 2 in any mode or vanilla. It´s german troops i.e. wich have up to 6 javelines. The only roman infantry, that got more then 2 pila ( or are they javelines? ) are the Light Samnite Infantry - and it was their only real advantage in game ^^

[Iskandar]

4/2 javelins seems reasonable, it would make the skirmishers less of a threat, which is needed. I'm against reducing their cost though.

For HAs, I'd suggest 2x30 for Sarmatian/Parthian pure HAs and 30/40 for other mounted archers - cataphracts and such.

I'm not sure about the slingers ammo. Quinn,a little OT, but we discussed the AP attribute and you had an issue with not being able to differentiate well between the elite slingers and the regular ones. How about simulating that through range, as in more skilled units are still deadly at higher ranges? Also, even the regular range should beat that of a HA.

As far as javelin cav goes - some tarentines are depicted with 3 javs, but for gameplay reasons I'd suggest 4, like the infantry.

[Quinn Inuit]

Darn it, the cat deleted my first response (she stepped on F5).

Anyway, I like the HA ammo and slinger range idea, and I see your point about regularizing the javelin cav.

For slingers, what about 3 regular attack and 4 for elites, with AP? That makes them somewhat more effective (the Balearics in TIC really weren't), the difference between them is only 33% instead of 50%, and because of the smaller unit size I don't think they're unbalanced.

[Iskandar]

Sounds OK, let's test it!

[Quinn Inuit]

Ok, you've galvanized me to put the changes together. Here's an EDU with the aforementioned changes to the javelin units plus changes to HA range and substantial differences between bullet- and stone-armed slinger range (40 yards).

http://rapidshare.com/files/20703749...it_changes.zip

[lelouchx99]

Erm btw Quinn why is the Slinger's range farther than the archers? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

[Iskandar]

Erm btw Quinn why is the Slinger's range farther than the archers? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

Nope, (good) slingers can throw farther than an archer can shoot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)#Combat

Ok, you've galvanized me to put the changes together. Here's an EDU with the aforementioned changes to the javelin units plus changes to HA range and substantial differences between bullet- and stone-armed slinger range (40 yards).

http://rapidshare.com/files/20703749...it_changes.zip

The HAs have ridiculously low range. I tried it once in a battle, it's almost unusable. They should have at least the range of the foot archers, and the better ones at that. I think we talked about that in another thread.

[lelouchx99]

I agree HA should have the same range as archer. I don't know much about the accuracy though... Probably less than a standing archer? :hmmm:

[Quinn Inuit]

Here's that thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=216429&page=2

No general consensus was reached, but I remain firmly of the opinion that HA should have reduced range. 42 seems to be too low, though. I think I'll try giving them a little more range and less charging distance.

Ok, ran some tests. I recommend increasing range to 80, maybe 90, and reducing charge distance to 30. The AI simply can't handle less range.

[Antonov]

I'm thinking range and accuracy should not be based on the type of unit -- horse archer or foot archer, but should be decided for every unit individually. Let's employ that scaling technique -- we decide the properties for the best foot archer that will exist in the game and then scale down from this unit's properties for all the other lower-quality foot archers. That way we can better represent different levels of initial training, different weapon quality, etc.

[mcantu]

how about basing range on the type of bow used?

[Antonov]

Yes, that's what I'm thinking about. Maximum range depends on the bowman's training and weapon characteristics. Unfortunately we don't have historical background of this type for every archer we have in the game (I think..?)