Missile weapons, in need of nerfing?

[Daqin]

While we're talking about archery and cataphracts, will there be any change in the number of arrows cataphracts carry? As it is they carry like 2-3 arrows a piece, making their missile ability practically useless. Of course shooting isn't their primary function, but it seems kind of pointless to even carry bows into battle if you're only going to bring a couple of arrows.

[Sardaukar One]

They didn't just increase in absolute numbers, though. They increased in relative numbers.

Sure.

Not sure offhand, but they clearly had heavy cavalry capable of at least acting in a minimal shock capacity by Alexander's day. IIRC, it was awhile into our period before they developed true cataphracts, though.

I'm sure you are right. So did the Cappadocians have some heavy cavalry. Some pretty damn good heavy cavalry as Craterus found out.

No, I think the general consensus is that Antiochus picked up the idea from the Bactrians while he was out east, since there's no evidence of Seleucid usage till he came back.

I have espoused this same view a number of times here. And I think its likely that Antiochus probably did get a look at cataphracts in Bactria. But I don't think you can completely discount that me might have gotten a look at them from Armenia or Parthia. Parthia in particular.

Right, but again, I think the Sogdians provided heavy cavalry classed with the Bactrians and Armenians during Alexander's day.

Sure. Though I would add that Seleucus was apparently only able to bring a few thousand heavy cavalry to Ipsus.
Is it not possible that the influence of the Macedonian military had a ripple effect on these territories?
And that it took some years to take effect?

I would agree that true cataphracts weren't prevalent at the time, hence my planned reforms. But I think proto-cataphracts had developed in the areas abutting the steppes by then. Basically, think the heavy Persian cavalry, but substantially up-armoured. Remember, these guys are reported as being heavily-armoured, but lacking the long spears to fight the Thessalians or Companions effectively.

I think you are probably right about this.

No disagreements here about his lousy leadership. Honestly, though, I don't think cataphracts would have done that well head-on against a phalanx. You can't just expect a horse to charge into that, no matter what it's wearing. And the kontos was long, but so was the sarissa (especially by Panion).

I have stated the same re cataphracts vs a phalanx head on. We don't know what happened at Panion, but my guess is that the Ptolemaic phalanx got a good dose of cataphracts to the flank and rear.

If cataphracts were that useful, why did it take the Romans 200 years to adopt them? I mean, the Romans first encountered them at Magnesia, and they'd shown impressive flexibility in the previous century as far as adopting new equipment (chainmail, gladius, etc.). Why wouldn't they start using cataphracts?

The Romans never got confused about what made them superior on the battlefield i.e. their infantry.
The Romans were not a very cavalry orientated people at this time. Did they even have enough horses to field this much cavalry? Plus cataphracts are kind of a speciality item. They were primarily used to deliver a death blow to opposing heavy infantry. The Romans could do this already.
You had to set cataphracts up for success a bit. As Magnesia showed.
The Romans were very simplistic in some ways. In the naval war against Carthage, they didn't win because they were better seamen or sailors, they won because they turned naval battles into land battles with boarding parties.

I forget where I read this, but when the Romans started to match their enemies in arms and equipment, they gave up what had been their main advantage over their enemies e.g. their superior infantry.
This didn't happen overnight, and it took time, but eventually their armies were not much different to the armies of their enemies.

[Daqin]

I forget where I read this, but when the Romans started to match their enemies in arms and equipment, they gave up what had been their main advantage over their enemies e.g. their superior infantry.
This didn't happen overnight, and it took time, but eventually their armies were not much different to the armies of their enemies.

A lot of that can be simply attributed to the expansion of the empire; as it grew, they naturally became more and more dependent on auxiliaries, who even after being "Romanized" to some extent still retained much of their native cultures and styles of warfare. This would have happened even without significant external threats because the Roman Empire was never an homoginous entity. Throw in external threats and defending distant borders naturally falls primarily on local peoples, resources, etc. And as for the power of infantry, potent as the legions were, infantry was not the best troop type for just any situation or terrain.

[JaNuZ99]

I'm sure you are right. So did t
I forget where I read this, but when the Romans started to match their enemies in arms and equipment, they gave up what had been their main advantage over their enemies e.g. their superior infantry.
This didn't happen overnight, and it took time, but eventually their armies were not much different to the armies of their enemies.

late empire i think, which is beyond our timeframe, but yeah it was a sad decline, as mobility became the name of the game and heavy armament common, heavy calvary became more and more important effectively phasing out the popularized legions that everyone associates with the roman empire, and of course mercs began to soon become a common component of the empire, some times (if i remember correctly) outweighing the number of "regular" troops in ratio within the legion

[Quinn Inuit]

That's true, you do only see Romans fielding cataphracts on the less-wooded periphery for the first hundred years or so.

For the record, the only reason some units have only a couple of arrows is that the AI will use them as horse archers and tire them out, then be unable to use them properly as cataphracts. In fact, that reminds me, I may need to tell it that those are javelins. I'll check that out. It's an AI thing--players won't notice anything besides the wrong cursor.

[Daqin]

For the record, the only reason some units have only a couple of arrows is that the AI will use them as horse archers and tire them out, then be unable to use them properly as cataphracts. In fact, that reminds me, I may need to tell it that those are javelins. I'll check that out. It's an AI thing--players won't notice anything besides the wrong cursor.

Ah, that makes sense then, thanks for the clarification.

[Carados]

Everything needs a melee weapon, and we can only use two weapons max.

[Boom S]

how does the game decide if a soldier is hit by an arrow ? if it is by mimicking physics using a statistical spread then the probability of being hit anyway decreases if you are a long distance away so this aspect is mostly taken care of. in my experience this seems to be the case.

btw, the low damage at long range is due to instability, not necessarily a significant loss of speed, so there is still a chance that an arrow can reach its target right side down ! in which case it is still potent.

[Daqin]

how does the game decide if a soldier is hit by an arrow ? if it is by mimicking physics using a statistical spread then the probability of being hit anyway decreases if you are a long distance away so this aspect is mostly taken care of. in my experience this seems to be the case.

btw, the low damage at long range is due to instability, not necessarily a significant loss of speed, so there is still a chance that an arrow can reach its target right side down ! in which case it is still potent.

Can't answer the first part, but about the second, when arrows are fired, they are typically launched into the air at an upward angle for several reasons. The increase in range and ability to shoot over friendly troops or fortifications are obvious ones, but in addition to this, assuming the arrow's flight isn't severely altered by weather conditions, poor construction, etc., then the path of the arrow will form an arc. Its upward thrust is primarily dependent on the archer himself and his bow, but when coming down, gravity takes over. Now, when an arrow is fired at a proper trajectory (relative to the target's distance), the arrow will hit its target at a downward angle approximately the same as the angle at which it was fired (say 45 degrees for simplicity). The arrow loses speed during its upward flight, but regains momentum as it falls. If the momentum gained is sufficient enough, then the arrow can come down on its target with a significant amount of force.

[Carados]

how does the game decide if a soldier is hit by an arrow ? if it is by mimicking physics using a statistical spread then the probability of being hit anyway decreases if you are a long distance away so this aspect is mostly taken care of. in my experience this seems to be the case.

btw, the low damage at long range is due to instability, not necessarily a significant loss of speed, so there is still a chance that an arrow can reach its target right side down ! in which case it is still potent.

The actual formulae elude me but it's all taken care of and all hard coded
Damage does increase the closer to the target you are... I'm just not sure to what extent this is, nor have I bothered to find out through play tests. Nor am I sure about the impact on accuracy.

One other thing about the potency of arrows: it wouldn't be uncommon for people to suffer non-lethal arrow wounds during the course of a battle, and yet still be unable to fight as a result. An arrow wound to an arm or leg, especially if located near a joint, could easily be dehabilitating and take a soldier out of the fight, even if he were to recover fine once treated and given time to heal.

Casualty recovery should cover that. Usually, since missiles are fired before infantry lines clash, the units that get the most recovery are those that have been shot - because they are the ones that suffer the casualties first.

I have an idea that could be applicable to some cultures, although I'm not certain whether or not this could be implemented into the game other than just by stats (though that would be sufficient): poisoned arrows. The significance would be a higher mortality rate among those hit even when the arrow itself doesn't deliver a lethal blow. As well armored as many of the troops were, particularly Roman and Greek, they did not wear head to toe plate: there was exposed skin and other areas (particularly joints) that were lightly protected and certainly not impenetrable. A poisoned arrowhead would only have to pentrate the skin, not cause significant internal injuries in order to be effective. How fast it works obviously depends on the poison in question, but there were plenty of known poisons known in the Mediterranean world, mostly derived from plants. I'd have to do some research to get into specifics, but I think it might be something worth investigating.

Strictly speaking they are envenomed arrows. Poisons are things that are breathed in or absorbed through the skin and so forth. Venoms are those that enter through a direct physical wound, such as snake fangs.


There are a whole multitude of venoms and toxins, all with different effects, mechanisms of action, time before it takes effect, symptoms, half life, blah blah. Neurotoxins would be the most natural toxins to coat them with. You would need specific knowledge to extract some of these toxins (and not kill yourself in the process), so they might not be all that common. Certain races/nations/ethnic group/whatever may also have resistances to these toxins as well. Have the victims already been exposed to these toxins? Also, the purity of the toxin itself is important.

I would say increasing the lethality value ever so slightly would solve the issue, but missile weapons aren't affected by changes in the value so we can't do that. Leading to, of course, an increased attack. Is it worth the extra attack though? I think, as a whole, we shouldn't bother ourselves too much with biological warfare. Though in some cases, like the Mauryans, we could make an exception and try to make a point about it. A quick look on wikipedia says Alexander had problems in India.. Re-reading what you've wrote again, it seems you mentioned "...some cultures" so we're all good

[Daqin]

Strictly speaking they are envenomed arrows. Poisons are things that are breathed in or absorbed through the skin and so forth. Venoms are those that enter through a direct physical wound, such as snake fangs.

Yeah, yeah Technically, how you classify it depends on the source. The word "venom" implies an animal source, though; a toxin derived from a plant would not be classified as venom.

There are a whole multitude of venoms and toxins, all with different effects, mechanisms of action, time before it takes effect, symptoms, half life, blah blah. Neurotoxins would be the most natural toxins to coat them with. You would need specific knowledge to extract some of these toxins (and not kill yourself in the process), so they might not be all that common. Certain races/nations/ethnic group/whatever may also have resistances to these toxins as well. Have the victims already been exposed to these toxins? Also, the purity of the toxin itself is important.

I would say increasing the lethality value ever so slightly would solve the issue, but missile weapons aren't affected by changes in the value so we can't do that. Leading to, of course, an increased attack. Is it worth the extra attack though? I think, as a whole, we shouldn't bother ourselves too much with biological warfare. Though in some cases, like the Mauryans, we could make an exception and try to make a point about it. A quick look on wikipedia says Alexander had problems in India.. Re-reading what you've wrote again, it seems you mentioned "...some cultures" so we're all good

If this were to be implemented in a future version of the mod, then of course it would only apply to factions with documented and relatively common usage. For instance I've found brief references to Armenians using "poisoned arrows" against the Romans during the Third Mithridatic War, but no significant details to substantiate it, so based on that alone, I certainly wouldn't say that Armenian archers should have them. From what I can tell, the practice of poisoning arrows (by whatever means) seems to have been more common in E/SE Asia, including India.

As for how or if you put it in the game, I have no clue, that's up to you modders. Its just an idea I thought worth mentioning. I did find a reference to a book called Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. That piques my curiosity...I may check that out.

[Carados]

Yeah, yeah Technically, how you classify it depends on the source. The word "venom" implies an animal source, though; a toxin derived from a plant would not be classified as venom.

Very true. I would suspect the better toxins come from animal sources though. The Mauryans apparently used the toxins from a viper for their arrows.

If this were to be implemented in a future version of the mod, then of course it would only apply to factions with documented and relatively common usage. For instance I've found brief references to Armenians using "poisoned arrows" against the Romans during the Third Mithridatic War, but no significant details to substantiate it, so based on that alone, I certainly wouldn't say that Armenian archers should have them. From what I can tell, the practice of poisoning arrows (by whatever means) seems to have been more common in E/SE Asia, including India.

They would come from areas which have greater access to jungles, because thats where the most lethal animals are. India has/had a lot of forest coverage and would be riddled with all many of nasty creatures. I heard the South Americans use a neurotoxin that stops the diaphragm from contracting, thus suffocating the victim. They would obviously have to extract the stuff from a local source - i.e. the Amazon rainforest.

As for how or if you put it in the game, I have no clue, that's up to you modders. Its just an idea I thought worth mentioning. I did find a reference to a book called Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. That piques my curiosity...I may check that out.

Oooo. That sounds interesting. Apparently, Hannibal threw snakes to enemy ships and is, supposively, one of the first documented cases of biological warfare. The Xiongnu threw dead cattle into water sources to poison the rivers so as to stop the Han from resupplying with water.

I might try and find that book myself.

[Daqin]

Very true. I would suspect the better toxins come from animal sources though. The Mauryans apparently used the toxins from a viper for their arrows.

I imagine the toxin of choice would be one proven to be effective, readily available, and (relatively) easy to harvest. And India certainly has no lack of snakes.

The Xiongnu threw dead cattle into water sources to poison the rivers so as to stop the Han from resupplying with water.

Oh yeah, I'm very familiar with Sino-Xiongnu relations. The irony of the aforementioned event was that the Xiongnu suffered more from the contaminated water than the Han. I recall that the Egyptians who oppossed Julius Caesar during the Alexandrian War tried to defeat the Romans by dumping salt water into their water supply. If I remember right, Caesar countered this by having his men dig wells.

Anyway, those are very different types of biological warfare, and I agree about not wanting to worry too much about that in this game. As for toxic missiles...I do know that the Chinese often used poisoned bolts in their repeating crossbows (though I don't know what toxin); their single shot crossbows had good pentrating power, but the repeaters weren't quite as potent. To compensate the bolt tips would be dipped in some sort of poison so that they could still be lethal as long as they pierced the flesh of their targets, even if the the wound was no more than a scratch. And I think that this was probably the basic concept behind using such weapons by any culture--its a way to make a weapon more deadly without altering the design or using something else entirely. Regarding the lethality of such weapons, the majority of toxins used wouldn't cause instant or near instant death (probably because anything that lethal couldn't be safely handled or harvested): the result would be a case of more people dying from wounds they'd otherwise likely survive. So if this were implemented into the mod, a realistic representation would be more along the lines of a reduced casualty recovery rate among the infected rather than more deaths on the battlefield itself. And I don't know how or even if that could be put into the game.

[Daqin]

I have an idea that could be applicable to some cultures, although I'm not certain whether or not this could be implemented into the game other than just by stats (though that would be sufficient): poisoned arrows. The significance would be a higher mortality rate among those hit even when the arrow itself doesn't deliver a lethal blow. As well armored as many of the troops were, particularly Roman and Greek, they did not wear head to toe plate: there was exposed skin and other areas (particularly joints) that were lightly protected and certainly not impenetrable. A poisoned arrowhead would only have to pentrate the skin, not cause significant internal injuries in order to be effective. How fast it works obviously depends on the poison in question, but there were plenty of known poisons in the Mediterranean world, mostly derived from plants. I'd have to do some research to get into specifics, but I think it might be something worth investigating.

One other thing about the potency of arrows: it wouldn't be uncommon for people to suffer non-lethal arrow wounds during the course of a battle, and yet still be unable to fight as a result. An arrow wound to an arm or leg, especially if located near a joint, could easily be dehabilitating and take a soldier out of the fight, even if he were to recover fine once treated and given time to heal.

[Boom S]

Daqin, of course ! that is high school physics, whichever direction you fire a projectile, it follows a parabolic arc. however an arrow does not behave like the idealised projectile you describe, air drag plays a significant part, as does the aerodynamics of the arrow and weight distribution on the arrow.
there are 2 ranges applicable to any archer unit, maximum distance and effective distance.
at max ranges a not so aerodynamic arrow would start to wobble such that when it finally reaches the target it is nothing but a random stick with a sharp end. while for a well made arrow the effective range would be very close to the max range.

what I mean to say is, an well made and balanced arrow would cover even the longest possible distance without a significant drop in air speed. and archers always fired their arrows within the effective range so as not to waste ammunition. since here the archers anyway have different ranges, it stands to reason that we assume that they are always firing within effective range.
IOW, there is no need to simulate a weak long range shot simply because the archer won't fire one.
if you think the range is still too great, you can simple decrease the range of all archers across the board by a fixed %.

[Daqin]

Daqin, of course ! that is high school physics, whichever direction you fire a projectile, it follows a parabolic arc. however an arrow does not behave like the idealised projectile you describe, air drag plays a significant part, as does the aerodynamics of the arrow and weight distribution on the arrow.
there are 2 ranges applicable to any archer unit, maximum distance and effective distance.
at max ranges a not so aerodynamic arrow would start to wobble such that when it finally reaches the target it is nothing but a random stick with a sharp end. while for a well made arrow the effective range would be very close to the max range.

what I mean to say is, an well made and balanced arrow would cover even the longest possible distance without a significant drop in air speed. and archers always fired their arrows within the effective range so as not to waste ammunition. since here the archers anyway have different ranges, it stands to reason that we assume that they are always firing within effective range.
IOW, there is no need to simulate a weak long range shot simply because the archer won't fire one.
if you think the range is still too great, you can simple decrease the range of all archers across the board by a fixed %.

I didn't mean to suggest that arrows follow an ideal trajectory, and there are too many things to list that can affect an arrow's flight path and subsequent damage potential. I'm simply talking about how an arrow at the edge of its effective range is still potent, and how it can potentially achieve a significant effective range. In short its an argument against decreasing said range.

[Quinn Inuit]

I don't think we can implement a negative casualty recovery bonus. The game doesn't do well with negative bonuses of any sort. I suppose we could try, though.

I'm not sure I like the poison idea in general, though. Those units would have to be extremely expensive, just because of the quantity of poison you'd need for that many arrows.

[Sardaukar One]

Can you implement poison as a form of upgrade? Like an armory upgrades weapons?

[Quinn Inuit]

No, you can only upgrade attack with those upgrades, or swap units out entirely.

[Boom S]

frankly, I agree with Quinn that implementing the poison thing does not add much to gameplay considering the effort that will be needed to put it in place. if needed a small hit on morale may be added to the normal arrow.

btw, don't know why you think it would be very expensive. all it needs is half a dozen men per battalion to catch and look after snakes which can then be milked for the lifetime.