Should the pilum get changed up?

[Cheomesh]

I think the armor piercing property should probably be retired. As is, sometimes I can obliterate entire armies without the need for hand to hand.

M.

[Fridericus Rex]

A solution would be to reduce the number of spears they have available; or disable their use as "fire at will", probable the best way to deal with this issue.
But do not reduce their effectiveness to make it more realistic for the game; they were a very effective weapon.

[Quinn Inuit]

Sorry, moving those posts didn't work out quite like I'd hoped. For the record, Post 4 should be the first post in this thread.

[Carados]

I think armour piercing should be done away with based on the apparent lack mention whilst against more heavily armoured foes.

If we were to take a more practical approach to this, then my reasoning is that (for the pila at least) the spike bit is long enough that, should it penetrate the shield, it is long enough to hit at the body of the target. The "neck" however prevents it from going all the way through a shield, and so if the target was to be wearing armour then I think the impact is then lost and the damage neligable - though a hinderence to the enemy.

Therefore I think the pila should be strong enough to overcome all shields, but then lack the power to cause damage to heavily armoured troops.

It's a different matter altogether with the Iberian and Germanic versions. They definitely have serious armour piercing and damage ability. They also have different methods of construction, some being made entirely of iron I believe.

[Quinn Inuit]

That makes sense for the pila and soliferrum.

I'm not so sure about the framea. It sounds like that was mostly a stabbing spear, though it could be hurled. Instead, the Germans appear to have used wooden javelins with fire-hardened points as their spam missile.

[GraaEminense]

Most of the troops with pila or other auxiliary thrown weapons (as in, not primary missile troops like peltasts) should have the number of missiles halved, and the range seriously decreased. This would include the Roman infantries as well as the Germans.

The problem with these units' pila/framea is that the game engine allows the whole unit rather than just the front ranks to use their missiles, and so they are able to produce a hail of missiles that can cripple an enemy unit. With the Fire At Will ability turned on, a battleline of these troops can shatter an advancing enemy line by panicking key units and then crippling the rest of the line when it tries to reorganize. Something is clearly wrong when these mainline infantry units are best treated as short-range missile troops that the enemy can't easily ride down.

I've won battles against equally strong enemy armies with hardly a melee fought, because of the power of the javelineers. That's just wrong.

Don't get me wrong -the pila/framea were popular at the time for a reason. They should pack quite a punch, and Fire At Will should be allowed to represent the flexibility these auxiliary weapons give a unit. Reducing ammo and range would relegate these units to their proper role as mainline combat units, relying on swords and spears to carry the day.

From the Gauls and Swords thread:

I think it was also demoralizing, distracting, and decent for killing people. I mean, I imagine it wouldn't have been so popular if it weren't reasonably effective.

Part of our problem, though, is to make the javelin useful in-game in a way that approximates its usefulness IRL. So not only do we need to figure out what the darn things did, we need to figure out how to replicate it.

From what I figure, the pilum would have had numerous uses. The threat of a ranged weapon would be enough to limit the enemy's actions on an individual basis, but that's below the scope of the game. More interestingly, a rain of pila would shatter the cohesion of an advancing line as some fell, some hid behind their shields, and some charged on regardless. This would allow the 'javelineers' to deal with an enemy piecemeal, and quite possibly take the initiative and counter-charge or counter-push, and with the importance of initiative in determining the morale of both sides as well as the effect of the physical impact of the lines meeting, this should be extremely effective. When advancing, the pila would reduce cohesion of the enemy line in the same way, and seriously hinder any enemy attempts at counter-charging.

In sum, the pilum (or equivalent weapon) seem like an ideal tool to gain, keep or regain the initiative. In game terms, significant effects on Morale and Charge Boni (bonuses? bonusi?) if possible seems right to me, in addition to casualties of course. But it should give an edge in the ensuing combat rather than win it by itself.

[Quinn Inuit]

Most of the troops with pila or other auxiliary thrown weapons (as in, not primary missile troops like peltasts) should have the number of missiles halved, and the range seriously decreased. This would include the Roman infantries as well as the Germans.

Well, the Roman legionaries only have 2 pila, which is what they had historically, and I'm pretty sure I gave the Germans the historically appropriate number of javelins. (Of course, given that their javelins had fire-hardened wood tips, their attack may be too high.) I'm pretty sure everyone else has an appropriate number, too. I did a javelin systematization a year or so ago. Most melee infantry should have 2, and most skirmishers should have 4-6.

The problem with these units' pila/framea is that the game engine allows the whole unit rather than just the front ranks to use their missiles, and so they are able to produce a hail of missiles that can cripple an enemy unit. With the Fire At Will ability turned on, a battleline of these troops can shatter an advancing enemy line by panicking key units and then crippling the rest of the line when it tries to reorganize. Something is clearly wrong when these mainline infantry units are best treated as short-range missile troops that the enemy can't easily ride down.

I've won battles against equally strong enemy armies with hardly a melee fought, because of the power of the javelineers. That's just wrong.

I agree. That's definitely a problem.

Don't get me wrong -the pila/framea were popular at the time for a reason. They should pack quite a punch, and Fire At Will should be allowed to represent the flexibility these auxiliary weapons give a unit. Reducing ammo and range would relegate these units to their proper role as mainline combat units, relying on swords and spears to carry the day.

With the exception of the Samnite LI, which was an error on my part, most units look to have the correct javelin number. I agree that range needs to be cut, though.

The range of most archers also needs to be cut (had a long discussion with Orthanner about this), and I think we need to make slingers only available in low-population provinces. I'm trying to replicate the technological and social issues that made javelins so popular throughout the Mediterranean.

From what I figure, the pilum would have had numerous uses. The threat of a ranged weapon would be enough to limit the enemy's actions on an individual basis, but that's below the scope of the game. More interestingly, a rain of pila would shatter the cohesion of an advancing line as some fell, some hid behind their shields, and some charged on regardless. This would allow the 'javelineers' to deal with an enemy piecemeal, and quite possibly take the initiative and counter-charge or counter-push, and with the importance of initiative in determining the morale of both sides as well as the effect of the physical impact of the lines meeting, this should be extremely effective. When advancing, the pila would reduce cohesion of the enemy line in the same way, and seriously hinder any enemy attempts at counter-charging.

In sum, the pilum (or equivalent weapon) seem like an ideal tool to gain, keep or regain the initiative. In game terms, significant effects on Morale and Charge Boni (bonuses? bonusi?) if possible seems right to me, in addition to casualties of course. But it should give an edge in the ensuing combat rather than win it by itself.

That's a good suggestion, but I'm not sure I can do much with it. There's no way Unit A can affect Unit B's charge bonus, and the morale effect of missile weapons is hard-coded.

Reducing overall morale might help with this, since it will make the relevant impact of a missile weapon greater. Otherwise, I'm not sure what we can do. I'd rather not give units with missile weapons more of a charge bonus, since that bonus will be constant and not tied to whether they have missiles left.

[GraaEminense]

Well, the Roman legionaries only have 2 pila, which is what they had historically, and I'm pretty sure I gave the Germans the historically appropriate number of javelins. (Of course, given that their javelins had fire-hardened wood tips, their attack may be too high.) I'm pretty sure everyone else has an appropriate number, too. I did a javelin systematization a year or so ago. Most melee infantry should have 2, and most skirmishers should have 4-6.

The number of javelins may well be historically correct, but I seriously doubt the number of shots in a volley is. I was thinking that reducing the number of pila would go some way towards correcting the actual impact of the weapon.

Reducing range would do much though, effectively making it a one-shot weapon before combat. EDIT: which it should be.

That's a good suggestion, but I'm not sure I can do much with it. There's no way Unit A can affect Unit B's charge bonus, and the morale effect of missile weapons is hard-coded.

Reducing overall morale might help with this, since it will make the relevant impact of a missile weapon greater. Otherwise, I'm not sure what we can do. I'd rather not give units with missile weapons more of a charge bonus, since that bonus will be constant and not tied to whether they have missiles left.

Well, it wasn't so much an actual suggestion as informed speculation in response to your question -hard-coding being what it is, I agree there's not much we can do. Overall reduction in morale would probably do a lot though, as well as benefiting the game in numerous other ways.

[Carados]

Slight problem though. 1 is not a viable number of ammo for a unit. Reducing range to an appropriate level would be the best way to deal with this. You're right that it would reduce things to being a one-shot weapon but to be fair, are you likely to get two shots off at about 20 metres AND brace yourself for the charge?

[GraaEminense]

You're right that it would reduce things to being a one-shot weapon but to be fair, are you likely to get two shots off at about 20 metres AND brace yourself for the charge?

Nope, I agree. Typo.

[Ramiro]

The range of the hand hurled weapons is a problem indeed, Sometimes, units quite far, running away of the legions got murdered by a late volley that strucks them in the back from a distance that could be easily more than 50 metres in the game scale.

I also always have the suspicion that there is something very odd with the cavalry´s javelin. It is something wrong in the idea of the cavalry trowing javelins from almost the same distance than the infantry. I just can not picture how the rider could do the trowing. Do anyone have any idea?

[Quinn Inuit]

The number of javelins may well be historically correct, but I seriously doubt the number of shots in a volley is. I was thinking that reducing the number of pila would go some way towards correcting the actual impact of the weapon.

Reducing range would do much though, effectively making it a one-shot weapon before combat. EDIT: which it should be.

Let's try reducing the range first and see how it goes.

Well, it wasn't so much an actual suggestion as informed speculation in response to your question -hard-coding being what it is, I agree there's not much we can do. Overall reduction in morale would probably do a lot though, as well as benefiting the game in numerous other ways.

Ok. I think it will, too.

The range of the hand hurled weapons is a problem indeed, Sometimes, units quite far, running away of the legions got murdered by a late volley that strucks them in the back from a distance that could be easily more than 50 metres in the game scale.

That is annoying, but I can tell you why it happens. The game seems to lock the javelins on when a unit starts "reloading." Once that happens, they _always_ hit the target, regardless of the range at time of throwing.

I also always have the suspicion that there is something very odd with the cavalry´s javelin. It is something wrong in the idea of the cavalry trowing javelins from almost the same distance than the infantry. I just can not picture how the rider could do the trowing. Do anyone have any idea?

Not me. I don't know much about the art of mounted combat.

Hmmm...that could be a problem. If we lower javelin range too much, I'm not sure how the cavalry AI will react. I'll give it a try, but that could be a problem.

[Cheomesh]

Javelin's were popular in a variety of armies for a number of reasons.

1) They take next to no skill to throw. It's a mass fire weapon, us at them.
2) They don't take much room to deploy. This allows you to keep your formation fairly tight.
3) They're capable of good range and power without much wind up.

There's your conditions :p

So yeah, just flicking off armor penetration would probably help a bit.

M.

[Carados]

Standard javelins: 6
Pila/Framae etc.: 7
Soliferum: 8

Infantry ranges:
Unarmoured: 35
Armoured: 30

Mounted ranges:
Unarmoured: 40
Armoured: 35


????

[Fridericus Rex]

As said before, the only effective weapon the Germanic tribes (in the time frame beween 100BC and 100AD) had was the framea.
According to Tacitus, each warrior had two:
One was used for "throwing over large distances" and "were very effective even against Roman armor"; hence, forcing the Romans to change their legions' armor.
The other framea was used as thrusting weapon in close combat.

Conclusion for the Mod, if possible:
1. Reduce number of frameas for throwing to two, but keep it highly letal and accurate.
The distant should be longer than for the Roman pillum.
2. Keep the Warband as primarily spear units slightly less effective than the sword units.
3. Make The Germanic sword unit more expensive to allowing the recruiting of less units for the AI and the player.

Any other changes will be unrealistic!


Sorry, I realized to late that there is a Pillum Thread.

[Quinn Inuit]

(I moved your post for you.)

Given the lower overall defenses, those numbers make sense. Lower morale will also help make sure the morale hit from the bombardment actually matters.

As far as the ranges go, those sound fine, but we'll need to watch how the AI behaves with them in battle. Making the range too short occasionally breaks it.

I thought I read that the Germans appear to have fought with the framea, but threw javelins that were tipped with just hardened wood. (They didn't have much metal.)

[Cheetor]

Actually that makes sense a wooden tip javelin would have the same effect as a metal tip one against barbarian troops with no armor and small shields. But of course much cheaper and lighter probably, wich means they can field a lot more due to low cost and low weight in transportation (a soldier can only cary so many in battle) .
So the way it is now is realistic enoug for the germans, the ones I have a proplem with is the roman, historicaly they did not kill most got tangeled up in the shields, wich practicaly disables the soldier in that battle, unfortunetly the game engine does not suport that and kills manny soldiers wich after the battle don't come back, as they historicaly would have with a new shield.
The problem is made worse for the elite samaller units like cav, agema, hyspas, chaeonian agema, spartan hoplites, general hoplites etc, this guys are only 80-160 strong and two AP volleys would reduce them 40% in some cases, totaly unrealistic I think, elite units would know to protect themselves behind the shield, dodge and stuff, just like a elite infantryman today knows not to get hit by shrapnel and a conscript does not. I sincerly doubt that an elite unit would have been decimated in souch a way as an conscript unit as it hapends now with Legionare Ap javelins.

[Fridericus Rex]

Quinn - let's make it clear, we are talking about Germanic warriors in the Augusta era, not the earlier tribes. Many people report on equipment from different time periods.

Body Armor:
No armor or very little. No helmets, but fragments of Roman chain mail were found. The only type of protection that is attested in large amounts comes in form of shields. About 60% of warrior graves proved to contain a metal shield boss. Most of them were conical and ended in a spiked point, which suggests an offensive use as well. The bearer could thrust forward with the shield an thus cause blunt trauma injuries to his opponent. Rivets held the shield together; the handle was metal. Shield shapes were mostly round, although hexagonal and long-oval shields were also used. The shield boards were mostly alder (hardwood), but some fragments have shown the use of oak, fir, beech and birch. The whole wood construction was held together by rawhide facing on the out and probably also inside.
Offensive Equipment:
Main weapons were the spear and the javelin. The spearhead was always metal, contrary to other beliefs here. The spearhead was 15 cm long and had a thickness of at least 1.1 cm. the smaller javelin heads had usually two barbs; the shafts were made from ash wood. Javelin shaft were often tapered from their barycenter outward in both directions improving greatly aerodynamic and handling. Shafts were often decorated with markings. Large leaf shape spearheads suggest that they may have been used not only as thrusting weapons but also as slashing weapon. This is a speculation! Solid spear, the framea, was used for thrusting in close combat. It was a multipurpose weapon and was used for throwing and thrusting. Only over the next 2 centuries did this change and the differentiation between thrusting and throwing spear/javelin took place.
Most goods were found in the area of the Treveri tribe (Trier region); they date back to 40-50 AD.
There were no "wooden tip" spears used at that time period or later.

Let's face it, the framea was a very a effective and lethal weapon and superior to the Roman pillum. It could be thrown over great distance with great accuracy by a worrier who used it in raids and daily practice. It penetrated Roman chain-mail; hence, forcing the Romans to change armor.
In game, in comparison to the Roman pillum the framea (for throwing) should take out 10 to 15% more of the opponents.

[Incomitatus]

Offensive Equipment:
Main weapons were the spear and the javelin. The spearhead was always metal, contrary to other beliefs here. The spearhead was 15 cm long and had a thickness of at least 1.1 cm. the smaller javelin heads had usually two barbs; the shafts were made from ash wood. Javelin shaft were often tapered from their barycenter outward in both directions improving greatly aerodynamic and handling. Shafts were often decorated with markings. Large leaf shape spearheads suggest that they may have been used not only as thrusting weapons but also as slashing weapon. This is a speculation! Solid spear, the framea, was used for thrusting in close combat. It was a multipurpose weapon and was used for throwing and thrusting. Only over the next 2 centuries did this change and the differentiation between thrusting and throwing spear/javelin took place.
Most goods were found in the area of the Treveri tribe (Trier region); they date back to 40-50 AD.
There were no "wooden tip" spears used at that time period or later.

Let's face it, the framea was a very a effective and lethal weapon and superior to the Roman pillum. It could be thrown over great distance with great accuracy by a worrier who used it in raids and daily practice. It penetrated Roman chain-mail; hence, forcing the Romans to change armor.
In game, in comparison to the Roman pillum the framea (for throwing) should take out 10 to 15% more of the opponents.

I've dealt with early German spearheads and I can say I'd not want to be on the receiving end, that's for sure. But, I have to point out one problem... namely, the fact that we haven't found archaeological evidence for fire-hardened all-wood spears is not surprising, and not evidence against their use. Wood does not survive being buried for millenia, all that well, unless it's in a very dry climate, ie. not Germania. Also, if I'm a German warrior and I have two metal tipped spears and 20 all-wood spears and I die, I'm probably going to want to be buried with my finest, so's I can impress the lads up in Valhalla or wherever, and I'll leave the wooden spears to nephew Hwrolf, whose just learning how to stick pointing things in the tribes enemies.

Not that I'm saying they DID use all-wood javelins, I don't know Quinn's source and I certainly haven't read anything on the matter one way or the other... I'm just pointing out that a lack of physical evidence is not conclusive either way in this case.

[Quinn Inuit]

Carados: Wait, defense skill won't matter against missile weapons. How does the current overall armour level compare with before? That's the key. Shield stats also matter, but those seem to be about the same.

FR:
Nice post.

I'm ok with the two taking out roughly the same number of opponents, actually, to make up for the fact that the pilum was so good against shields. It sounds like the framea (unlike the pilum) should be AP, though.

What you're suggesting is a pretty major overhaul of the German fighting style. Right now they focus on a rain of light javelins, followed up by an attack. If we switch to two framea a person, we have a much heavier and shorter initial missile barrage followed by more of a spear-based, heavier attack. I'd rather not change the weaponry so substantially without really good evidence. Could you find me some sources to back this suggestion up?