My Modified EDU

[torongill]

I often speak in my posts about my (heavily)modified EDU. It's meant to be played with EB: BI 1.6, not the 1.5 RTW The modifications in it are based on unit calculations and historical precedent, as well as various conclusions and attempts at more challenging play Here it is:

Off the top of my head, its most glaring differences with the original EB EDU are:

cavalry is mostly 160 soldiers, with some units being at 80 and a few at the original 100;
ap properties for gladius;
lowered costs for navy units;
lowered range of javelins as well as lowered range of charge_distance for attempted more realistic feel;
lowered number for precharge thrown javelins;
lowered recruitment and upkeep stats for most of the units, except romani ones(to ensure more enemies );
heavy cavalry general bodyguards are 24 at default;
Some elite foot units have 120 strength, instead of 160;
lowered shield stat for the phalanx units
body radius changed for many foot units, especially units that can form shieldwall(to cease the constant shuffling and fidgeting of the soldiers in the formation);
most light units suffer cavalry penalties and for the most part should stay away from roaming enemy horse(credit for that goes to the creators of the SPQR mod, although horse -16 is pretty harsh imho);
added pushing weight for a lot of units, although the effect in some cases has not been tested sufficiently - for example the Gaesatae and the galatian naked fanatics have 1.9 pushing weight, compared to 1.15 for the hastati and 0.95 for velites. This makes them great for breaking up enemy formations and is consistent with their description(see the Gaesatae at Telamon). Accordingly, units with more pushing weight have more difficulties with keeping formation, which is mostly consistent.

I'll be glad to hear from you, creative criticism is encouraged

[Faramir D'Andunie]

-I wouldn't give gladius AP properties myself, or I would have to go around and giving it to a wide variety of infantries as well.
- Doesn't the money script make sure AI factions have the cash to support their units anyway?
-Cavalry change is interesting, tempted to change it as well
-I see a lot of debate around the shield stat on phalanxes, personally I never find it a problem.


I would like some details on how your solution works concerning cavalry and light infantry. I am mostly curious.

[torongill]

I changed the cavalry after I did some calculations. Turns out that if you want to represent a Polybian legion with one stack and historical proportions, you need 2 Hastati, 2 Hastati equivalent(Bruttian infantry), 2 Principes, 2 Principes equivalent, 1 Triarii(or 2 at 1/2 strength), 1 Triarii equivalent(classical hoplites). This is your heavy infantry. The light infantry should also be 2+2 and be equal in number to the 2+2 Hastati. With huge settings that makes 320 Hastati. But the Roman Equites were 1/4 of the hastati, i.e. 300 men to 1200 hastati. That means that the Roman Equites unit should be 80 men. Then of course comes the next step - the allied cavalry was 3 times the Roman and of these allies 1/3 were Equites Extraordinarii. So The Extraordinarii = Roman Equites = 80 men. The rest of the allied horse can be either 1 unit of 160 or 2 units of 80. But if I make it 2*80, that means I'd have 4 units of cavalry, 5 if you add the FM general. AI stacks do not often include more than 4 units of cavalry and we know of countless battle narratives that the Romans usually were outnumbered in cavalry. So an AI stack has to have at least 5-6 units of cavalry, but that means that the stack will have less infantry than the romans, which is no good at all. The other option was to make all the generic cavalry 160, with some elite units numbering 80, like the cataphracts, carthaginian sacred band cavalry, Hetairoi, etc. I tested it and suddenly the Romans had to rely much more on their infantry to win their battles. The cavalry usually could hold its own, but could not be the decisive arm.

About the cavalry and the light infantry: Historically light infantry usually could not resist cavalry charges, usually they panicked and ran. But that's not possible to implement in RTW. The rtw light infantry retreats and when you're pursuiting them they just turn back and charge you. Also in EB the main advantage of cavalry is their charge. Take away the charge and you have units that cost like crazy and hit like militia(3-5 attack). So what happened is that you could attack a unit of basic velites with your 100+ general bodyguards and your bodyguards would start dying like flies. The problem was that the horses in RTW are more of a nuisance. They're passive, the only time they do something is when they rear and the rider cannot use his weapon. Not historical at all. In RL the cavalry horse is a big beast, it can kill you with a kick, it kicks, bites, rears, stomps what's beneath it and in general deals much more damage than the rider. That's why I took a page of the battle-oriented SPQR mod and gave almost all the light infantry cavalry penalties. Some, like slingers and archers got the maximum penalty, whereas others, who because of their description and/or armament are more "cavalry resistant" received less penalty. Some, like the thracian peltastas(although in reality these are medium infantry) even got a tiny bonus against enemy horse.
I'm off to bed, seeing that it's 01:31 local time; if needed I'll explain my other modifications tomorrrow

[torongill]

I gave the gladius ap properties, because if you read the description of the polybian hastati and principes, "The gladius hispaniensis, adapted during the late 3rd century BC conflicts, is a great weapon for fighting in close formations. Its strong, unbending blade has a sharp point to penetrate heavy armour and can deal an effective blow with both edges. So it can be used for stabbing or slashing as well."
The celtic long swords do not have ap properties, but they have 50% more lethality and more attack points than the gladius, so the balance isn't really that tipped.
The script does allow the AI to keep its armies, but still even on VH there are not enough armies to go around, with the notable exception of "silver fever" Arche Seleukeia. I admit, though, I should have increased the recruitment and upkeep costs of the cavalry, seeing that they have 60% more soldiers. And I still intend to do it.
In the original EB the phalanx shields have 25% more defence than the approximately two times larger scutum, which was curved to lessen the force of enemy blows. It has been said that it is so because the raised pikes of the ranks provided a roof of sorts against arrows and slingshot. I'm okay with that, although the simultaneous decrease of attack for all projectiles in its essence diminishes greatly the casualties of all units. Still, the full protection of the pike hedge would be felt best by the last rank of the phalanx square, whereas the front five ones would have minimal such protection, if any. If you look carefully, the front five ranks thrust their pikes though the gaps between the men in front, so any plunging projectiles would have no problem hitting the men and in any case the phalanx units in EB are deployed six deep, not sixteen, so the roof of pike shafts is a moot point. I can further argue that a curved shield that is 60 cm wide(meaning it's curve is about 70-80 cm) and 1.2m high provides much better protection against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune than a circular 60 cm shield and the dubious cover of pikes. But combat is not only shooting arrows, despite what the parthians have to say about the matter. the 25% more shield defence is really felt during close combat and according to all accounts the phalangitai were not particularly good at it(the whole idea of 6m pikes is to AVOID close combat, after all).

On the subject of light infantry and cavalry: Cavalry is much more deadly against light infantry than it used to be. All this compells you to keep your lighties out of harm's way. Cavalry now is best met with cavalry or, failing that, spearmen. If you want to use your light units against cavalry, make sure the enemy horse is already engaged. That way you can surround and bog them down. Stationary cavalry is dead cavalry.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

I am more concerned for gameplay with adding ap to gladius weapons. Roman infantry is extremely strong, reliable infantry and cheap. Giving them AP makes them way too powerfull in my opinion, but it is your edu and you are welcome to change it whatever way you think reasonable.

For phalanxes I was toying with them, not with shield stat but with lowering the weapon's lethality to 0.1

[Knonfoda]

"The gladius hispaniensis, adapted during the late 3rd century BC conflicts, is a great weapon for fighting in close formations. Its strong, unbending blade has a sharp point to penetrate heavy armour and can deal an effective blow with both edges. So it can be used for stabbing or slashing as well."

Well, that is what has been said, but the author didn't specify what type of heavy armour its used against. As a re-enactor, I can tell you a sharp and pointed gladius, whether it be a hispaniensis, pompeii or mainz will not *usually* pierce ring mail, which I would say counts for pretty much all heavy armour in the game.

It is better used against scale mail, where a thrust at a certain angle can penetrate between the scales and pierce the armour, and is even better against leather armour. Thus, I would not say gladius enjoy any particular AP advantage.

What I do think is that roman legionaires should be given higher shield stats because their shields are marginally larger than those of their enemies, with a few exceptions, mostly being eastern infantry with similarly large shields. The bonus would not be very big, but it should be there.

[Argeus the Paladin]

Well, that is what has been said, but the author didn't specify what type of heavy armour its used against. As a re-enactor, I can tell you a sharp and pointed gladius, whether it be a hispaniensis, pompeii or mainz will not *usually* pierce ring mail, which I would say counts for pretty much all heavy armour in the game.

It is better used against scale mail, where a thrust at a certain angle can penetrate between the scales and pierce the armour, and is even better against leather armour. Thus, I would not say gladius enjoy any particular AP advantage.

What I do think is that roman legionaires should be given higher shield stats because their shields are MUCH larger than those of their enemies, with a few exceptions, mostly being eastern infantry with similarly large shields. The bonus would not be very big, but it should be there.

Fix'd. The Roman scutum is WAY bigger than a Hoplon/Lusotanian scutum, making it very very unwieldy as well. Perhaps that's why it has a low shield stat - too cumbersome to be used effectively in melee-a-trois?

[Knonfoda]

Fix'd. The Roman scutum is WAY bigger than a Hoplon/Lusotanian scutum, making it very very unwieldy as well. Perhaps that's why it has a low shield stat - too cumbersome to be used effectively in melee-a-trois?

Well, what I meant was it was marginally larger than some of the eastern kinds you find out there. But even then, take the celtiberian infantry scutum for example, its only a square version of that, which is already pretty big, pretty much an auxiliary infantry shield and even late roman infantry shield. So I would say maybe an increase in bonus, but not by a lot.

Also, despite it being unyieldy, the scutum is actually meant to be used as a weapon aswell. It has a bronze boss and bronze edging, and a usualy roman tactic was to noy only shove enemies away with their shield or disorientate them with it, and then strike with their swords. Another effective tactic was to lower your shield with its bronze edging onto the toes of an enemy in front of you.

Shields were not only defensive in nature in roman warfare

[torongill]

Well, that is what has been said, but the author didn't specify what type of heavy armour its used against. As a re-enactor, I can tell you a sharp and pointed gladius, whether it be a hispaniensis, pompeii or mainz will not *usually* pierce ring mail, which I would say counts for pretty much all heavy armour in the game.

It is better used against scale mail, where a thrust at a certain angle can penetrate between the scales and pierce the armour, and is even better against leather armour. Thus, I would not say gladius enjoy any particular AP advantage.

Would you consider the falcata/kopis to have ap properties, then? can the kopis really slash through mail armor? I'm asking, since I'm as far removed as reenactment as possible

[Knonfoda]

Would you consider the falcata/kopis to have ap properties, then? can the kopis really slash through mail armor? I'm asking, since I'm as far removed as reenactment as possible

I would say you have to look at the context those weapons were used in. Usually, the kopis was used by hellenistic, greeks, etc. What was the norm for armour in Greece and Magna Graecia? The linothoras, that is, a linen 'vest' which is sometimes reinforced with scale armour, and before that the bronze thorax. I would say a Kopis would deal a lot of damage to both.

However, it is worth noting that wherever Greek hoplites faced enemies with different sets of armour, such as in Massalia and in Syracuse, they also changed their swords, in Massalia and I think also in Syracuse the long spatha was adopted because it is better suited against mail, which was the predominant celtic 'heavy armour', but also because it dealt a lot of blunt trauma damage, ie you did not need to actually pierce the armour to kill the wearer.

As for the falcata, in Iberia armour was pretty much leather based, with bronze studs and plates attached where appropriate, and the falcata would enjoy 'ap' properties against such, but not against chain mail.

Sadly due to the game limitations, one cannot apply different bonuses for different types or armour worn, and as far as I know, the game doesn't recognize armour type anyway, only its value and its texture.

[torongill]

True, that's why IIRC I lowered the attack power of the gladius and I think I lowered their armor. I also advocate the use of allied units, which compensates the historical superiority of the roman infantry. I also lowered the costs for all units except the Romani, which should make things more even.

[ISA Gunner]

The thing with the phalanx is, if you lowered the shield value, then by the time they engage with your infantry, they will have lost quite a few men to projectiles. And the main thing that the phalanx units have going for them is numbers. Thats why they all have 240 men in a unit. They are slow, terribly hard to maneuver and are already at a disadvantage against infantry who can flank them and are much better in hand to hand combat. Once the phalanx loses it's formation or is forced to engage in sword to sword combat, it's effectiveness plumets dramatically. Thats why i feel that the high shield value is justified. The shield doesn' really do much in hand to hand combat anyway. It's defence skill that prevails there. A phalanx can still be mowed down if you flank it with infantry and cavalry. You can even flank them with your skirmishers or just attack them from their unshielded side. It really isn't that bad.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Actually they are soo slow moving when in formation that you can actually isolate them during the entire fight and avoid them completely.

[Argeus the Paladin]

That reminds me of a Diablo II Paladin. But wrong forum...