Missile fire underrated and some proposal for balancing that issue

[4th Regiment]

First I want to say that this is overall great mod and all the people involved have all my gratification. Only serious issue I have noticed is overall unrealistic effect of missile fire. Examples

1. My 1+ valor javelin skirmish unit was trowing its javelins in the back of enemy advanced phalanges unit and average kill rate was no more than 2-3 per volley. I real life volley of javelins in backs would cause massacre

2. My 2 macedonian stile pikes, were attacked by rebel army of 10 horse archers and 2 archers units. I put my pikes in phalanges formation in typical defensive position on the hill in the corner of the map. Relatively smart AI did not charged but unloaded most of its arrows on me but I did not lost more than 15-20% of army after prolonged heavy rain of arrows. Again, in the real life, macedonian stile pikes with small shields would be massacred only after few volleys of arrows. And many other examples, like volley of arrows on unprotected men (no shield no armor) kills only few of them on large scale of units.

So, I can change missile fire parameters by my self, unit by unit, but I want to improve game play balance for everybody. So, this rate of killing should remain for protected units but for unprotected or relatively unprotected with small shields should be much higher. Big shields were essential for missile protection, so I propose that we rise missile effects but also rise shield modificators. Let say for small shield it should remain 3 but for big it should be not 6 but 15-16 maybe even more, because heavy armored infantry has something like 20 modificators for armor, but big shield covering most of the body would protect man behind it even better than good armor-which still can be penetrated especially with javelins.. In short-rise missile fire modificators but also rise big shield modificators. It also would give substantial advantage in defense for big shield unit in melee, which is also realistic. Of course, big shield should, like in real life, tire men much much faster.

[4th Regiment]

Also one more thing. Men can not carry more than 2 heavy javelins in the battle but for some reason if you stop unit before charge they can fire few times that 2 heavy javelins. Also, no more than 4-5 light javelins can be careed...One in the throwing hand, and no more than 4 in another. But in the game, it is about 10 or something. So, few javelins but with much much higher killing rate. Like in the real life, it was shock missile weapon, after good volley on unprotected enemy most of them would break.

[Frost, colonel]

Also one more thing. Men can not carry more than 2 heavy javelins in the battle but for some reason if you stop unit before charge they can fire few times that 2 heavy javelins. Also, no more than 4-5 light javelins can be careed...One in the throwing hand, and no more than 4 in another. But in the game, it is about 10 or something. So, few javelins but with much much higher killing rate. Like in the real life, it was shock missile weapon, after good volley on unprotected enemy most of them would break.

I thought peltasts or similar would carry a quiver for their javelins?
Like you I sometimes think that javelins seem to be a little dissapointingly ineffective in EB!

As for the fact that slingers are many times more potent in the average battle kill rate(3-4x) in my scraps, and they can keep up effective fire for so much longer making them easier regarding battlefield management regarding ammo. I am not sure as to what is realistic or not regarding the lethality of the sling(including lead shot)over the bow. I don't see why a sling is not also a nuisance weapon like the bow is suppossed to be except both weapons into unarmoured men/side/rears.

Apart from pretty fire arrows and attempting to make my Seleukid armies look balanced I am not sure why I even bother with foot archers over slingers, apart from A.O.R of course!

[stalin]

I think missiles are still way too powerful, my slingers (roman with attack of 1) massacre the opposition if i can get them to fire from behind or shieldless side. Not sure about real life though never been part of a phallanx...
(Today i decided to have opinion on everything)

[Stalins Ghost]

I havn't played EB lately but as far as I can remember, its just about right really. In reality ranged weapons were rarely that lethal, and were more designed to disrupt and hinder advancing forces. From the front, phalanxes really were not vunerable to missile fire, since mass of pikes, coupled with the defensive ability of the average phalangite (shield, helmet and at least padded armour normally) would have prevented lethal wounds. From the rear it would be a different story I guess, but I would pin this down more so on the limitations of the engine- i.e. you can designated front/rear/side values that easily (apart from the manipulation of the shield statistic). Basically ranged weapons should not kill really. The game engine should really force units to slow when coming under fire, but it simply does not support this.

[4th Regiment]

Missiles are relatively unlethal to protected troops but I was speaking for unprotected ones, there should be much bigger difference there, which was point of my post. Imagine mass of densely packet men with very limited protection. If you fire volley of arrows in that mass, every second arrow would hit something. For relatively unprotected unit every second of those would hurt or kill. It is not like in Hollywood movie, like heroes with arrow in the body keep fighting. Man with arrow in his body is out of combat that day. Ever cut finger with knife? Now, try to penetrate any part of your body with that knife at least some 6-7 cm. Imagine javelin in the body. Now imagine javelins throwing in the back of the unit = massacre, not only 2-3 out of combat in large unit scale. Main point of my post again- raising big shield modifications to to simulate differnce in the missile protection which is now like-1 kill for highly protected units against 2-3-4 for units with no shield and almost no armor.
PS. Slingers did much damage in your game because their almost unlimited ammo…50 times 2 kills = 100 kills

[hsimoorb]

Holywood similarly overestimates the accuracy and killing power of arrows. Archers in the west could rarely expect to hit a target at beyond 100 yard, unless they were firing in vollys. The arrows were not that deadly, you would be lucky to penetrate the rib cage of a fit man, especialy if they were wearing any kind of armour, even the linothorax. Javelins were not usualy tipped in hard steel. Sometimes they were iron, more often than not, they were wood, tampered in fire so they woulnd't shatter. Realisticaly, the sling was potentialy the most powerful ancient ranged weapon, since it didn't rely on penetration, like arrows did. A rock didn't have to hit a man just so to would him; blunt trauma is a far more reliable means of injury.

Further, I think you're understating the effect of missiles. And "unprotected" unit in this game will simply melt in fact of good missile fire. Units like Peltastai are not unprotected, units like Akontistai are. Aim some slingers at those guys and you will se 20+ guys go with each volley. And the deal about phalanxes, against, Pikemen were fairly well armoued. A javelin would have a harder time wouding a man than you'd think. Look at some of the battles the romans had against the Parthian empire, where units of the roman army would come under missile fire for days at a time while they marched through the desert, with (relatively) light casualties.

[stalin]

If anything missile fire should be nerfed even more. Horsearchers/archers were way overpowered in vanilla. The fact that AI just stands there and lets them shoot doesn't make it better either.

[Blizzard]

I think missile fire should be nerfed (maybe just a little) and also the armor values of some units reconsidered. Can't remember which units (akontistai? if I'm not mistaken) but I remember I saw in the game many units that had absolutely no armor or helmet having armor values of 2 or higher which is unfair taking in count that other units like darapanai for example have absolutely no armor values.

[Stalins Ghost]

I was scanning through a book I'm using for my history investigation, when I came across a section related to the "killing power" of ranged weapons. Admittedly its based on the 3rd Century AD legions, but the same principles are the same:

Julius Africanus writing in the early third century complains of poor marksmanship on the part of the Roman Army as they were only able to achieve one kill per ten javelins thrown. This however, to miunderstand the purpose of the javelin; it was not specifically a marksman's weapons, but designed to be used en mass on the battlefield

I would have liked to have read the exact source, but I've been unable to find it.
It also had another other interesting statistic:

Battle of Maida, 4th July 1806. 3,780 round in 3 volleys- 430 casualties = 8.7 rounds per hit

Clearly if anything, Julius Africanus was underestimating the effectiveness of a 1 in 10 kill rate. In my experience thats roughly how things go in game.

[Blizzard]

Romans were a pragmatic nation so if javelins weren't effective they would never had them carried all over reducing their speed and wasting precious resurces and time manufacturing them.
Since romans used this style of fighting since the birth of the empire till it's end it's very clear that it was very effective.

[Frost, colonel]

Stalins Ghost,
I presume that the example you are drawing from is the Roman Legionary, where as I was thinking more about javelin specialists like peltasts.
From reading abit about Alexander(earlier period I know) he used a force of 500 Agrians(spelling?) who were very accurate javelin/darts men. So should we be making a distinction in the hit ratio between the various types of troops?

I remember reading of one Roman scrap when they beat off a large force of Celts mainly by forming up on a hillside and unleasing volleys upon them.

I have not really given the Romans a good go in EB, has anyone found that a decent volley from all or most of your Legionaires has a dramatic initial effect upon the enemies serried ranks?

[4th Regiment]

Stalins Ghost,
if we take your math and sources that one in ten javelins would kill, that makes, on the large unit scale of 120 aconistai, 12 kills per volley, but as gave example I got only 2-3, with throwing in back of the phalanges. I would be more than satisfied with 12 kills. On the other hand, source you have say 1/10 kills, but how many out of combat. Men with javelin/arrow in the leg for example will not fight that day.

Also, about slings. In the game slingers have bigger range than archers which is ridiculous. Sling is medium range missile weapon. First you pepper enemy with arrows, than slings, and finally javelins. Effective range of the sling is no more than 70-80m due to the very fast losing of speed of the missile, because of aerodynamic turbulence-the same goes for crossbow bolt. Both are more deadly than arrow on medium distances but have much shorter range. Arrow, on the other hand have much better aerodynamic, and effective range is at least double than sling.

[Khelvan]

Depending on shot, slings had by far the best range of any ancient or classical hand thrown/fired missle weapon, and that includes the eastern recurve composite bows.

[hsimoorb]

What Khevalan said. I made my own sling one day, more like one ten minute period of free time I had. I was able to sling a rock further than 100m aften the 4-5 shot. Not with any degree of accuracy of coarse...

Romans were a pragmatic nation so if javelins weren't effective they would never had them carried all over reducing their speed and wasting precious resurces and time manufacturing them.
Since romans used this style of fighting since the birth of the empire till it's end it's very clear that it was very effective.

I agree, but by most accounts, missile fire, especialy javelins, weren't meant to kill. Thier effectiveness came from the effect they had on the enemies morale. Meaning that the romans would continue to use them, even if they were near useless for causing casualties.

[Frost, colonel]

I agree, but by most accounts, missile fire, especialy javelins, weren't meant to kill. Thier effectiveness came from the effect they had on the enemies morale. Meaning that the romans would continue to use them, even if they were near useless for causing casualties.

When you say most accounts, is there any need to identify/make any distinctions between any particular type of javelin, ie:light/heavy(including the extra heavy close range all iron types some of the Iberians used)or the type of troops using said weapon?

Certainly the average massed close range volley of the Legionaires pila can't come under the term of the light skirmishers 'harrassing fire'
and remember that a previous posts cited example of a complaint made about a low hit ratio within the roman army was indeed a complaint, so what would a Roman general have been aiming for(pun intended)regarding what was an exceptable hit ratio?

I agree with 4th reggiment that a unit of peltasts against the enemies unshielded/flank rear should have a more serious impact.
At the moment I use peltasts incase some Nellies appear and I like using them as part of a historicaly balanced army, but from a Javelin effectiveness point of view I don't know why I bother with them as they seem to lack lustre(do didly squat)!

[Shaggy1973]

What bugs me about missiles is how they suddenly start going through armour when your unit moves up in experience. In my own little mini-mod i've been making i start all missile troops with 9 experience and nerf their stats/morale accordingly. armour ratings never go up with experiene, why the hell should missiles? that was you cant train a level 9 uber unit of slingers who take out heavily armoured infantry.

in fact starting all troops with some expereince i find stops the player steam rollering. how can a game be balanced for the start and end game when there are 9 levels of experience to completely cock up any balanced set of unit stats

[Frost, colonel]

What bugs me about missiles is how they suddenly start going through armour when your unit moves up in experience. In my own little mini-mod i've been making i start all missile troops with 9 experience and nerf their stats/morale accordingly. armour ratings never go up with experiene, why the hell should missiles? that was you cant train a level 9 uber unit of slingers who take out heavily armoured infantry.

in fact starting all troops with some expereince i find stops the player steam rollering. how can a game be balanced for the start and end game when there are 9 levels of experience to completely cock up any balanced set of unit stats

Interesting point sir,

How about capping if possible experience chevrons, afterall it is nice to gain a few vets.
As for missile troops gaining more killing power with chevrons, this could partly be put down to vet units being crack shots?

[stalin]

armour ratings never go up with experiene, why the hell should missiles?

Not the armor ratings but the defence skill does.

[4th Regiment]

Hsimoorb, maybe you can get100m with sling but what is effective distance? Ask hunters what is effective range of modern day shotgun, no more than 100m. Now imagine-instead of powder force from shotgun barrel you use you arm to propulse led ball. Moreover, in order to take opponent down, you must hit him in the head. Anywhere else, he will get nasty bruise, but still will be able to charge towards you, which can not be said for arrow, not to mention javelin.
But main point of my post was not this discussion about sling. It was about significantly increasing shield modificators (and missile fire in the same time) in order to make significant difference between missile fire effect on protected and unprotected troops which is now +-1 or 2 kills on large unit scale. As I said volley of missiles on no shield unit would be a massacre and for good protected units no more than 1 or 2. For example Roman units have 3 modificator for scutum shield but 7 for (relatively bad quality) armor of hastati. Pardon me, but scutum give at least (if not much better) protection than amour.