Aeimnestus Ancient Naval Warfare & Realistic Combat mod (Current version 1.5)

[PhallosMaximus]

All men can hold and carry a sword and a shield and wear heavy armor too, but does that make them elite infantry?

Slingers and bowmen needed A LOT of training to become good at this - those are by no means "cheap".

Really, you need to read about ancient times.

Swords and armour was very expensive items,- no peasants would have these things. Only the Chieftain and some of the Nobles in a tribe would be able to afford this. So "All men can hold and carry a sword..." is just BS.

How do you think slingers and bowmen came to be in the first place? Because they were used for hunting. Do you really think a Chieftain paid his warriors to train bowmanship in order to kill Romans? Again, read some books.

Of course the Testudo was invented to prevent casualties from missiles. But does that make missiles the most important weapon in Ancient times? Of course not!

In fact, you can not find one battle in Roman times where the use of missiles were the deciding factor on the battlefield. And Plutarch says in your quote that the Testudo actually made the missiles completely USELESS because they "just glance off it".

My advice, read up on Ancient Warfare before you make claims like that.

[m.minkov]

I admit I'm far from expert on Ancient warfare, as my interests are in medieval warfare, but you need to learn to read and understand what you read.

Swords and armour was very expensive items,- no peasants would have these things. Only the Chieftain and some of the Nobles in a tribe would be able to afford this. So "All men can hold and carry a sword..." is just BS.

Where did I said, that swords and armor were not expensive? Of course it were, as the iron ore was much more expensive than the wood.
But yes - all men and women can hold, carry, use to an extent a sword, shield and armor if they take 1.

The power of a weapon it's not in the weapon itself, but depends on the skill of the user.

I can bet my house, that you(and I) can't beat even with the finest sword some shaolin monk using a stick.

Of course the Testudo was invented to prevent casualties from missiles. But does that make missiles the most important weapon in Ancient times? Of course not!

Indeed it was, is and probably will be in the future as well - 1 word - evolution.

Slings ->Bows/Crossbows ->Arquebus/Muskets etc. -> modern automatic rifles/Snipers

Let's see melee weapons:

Swords/Spears/Axes/Hamers etc.(from different materials through the ages) -> lighter cavalry and inf sabers -> very rarely used modern combat knives and bayonets

You see - if melee wpns were that superior to missile wpns as you think, the evolution was going to be much more different.

In skillful hands both missile and close combat wpns are very deadly, but the later have the disadvantage of needing to be close to the victim and the 2nd have disadvantage when being close.

Also let's not forget Atila the Hun and all other "Horse Archer heavy(light troop heavy )" tribes and nations, who were great threat to the Roman Emire.

However my point was - if Aeimnestus want realism = missile as deadly as melee wpns in most cases(depends on training, quality of bow/arrow and quality of armor/shield), if you let them shot at you from effective range(roughly 2x less than it's max range).

[PhallosMaximus]

I admit I'm far from expert on Ancient warfare, as my interests are in medieval warfare, but you need to learn to read and understand what you read.



Where did I said, that swords and armor were not expensive? Of course it were, as the iron ore was much more expensive than the wood.
But yes - all men and women can hold, carry, use to an extent a sword, shield and armor if they take 1.

The power of a weapon it's not in the weapon itself, but depends on the skill of the user.

I can bet my house, that you(and I) can't beat even with the finest sword some shaolin monk using a stick.



Indeed it was, is and probably will be in the future as well - 1 word - evolution.

Slings ->Bows/Crossbows ->Arquebus/Muskets etc. -> modern automatic rifles/Snipers

Let's see melee weapons:

Swords/Spears/Axes/Hamers etc.(from different materials through the ages) -> lighter cavalry and inf sabers -> very rarely used modern combat knives and bayonets

You see - if melee wpns were that superior to missile wpns as you think, the evolution was going to be much more different.

In skillful hands both missile and close combat wpns are very deadly, but the later have the disadvantage of needing to be close to the victim and the 2nd have disadvantage when being close.

Also let's not forget Atila the Hun and all other "Horse Archer heavy(light troop heavy )" tribes and nations, who were great threat to the Roman Emire.

However my point was - if Aeimnestus want realism = missile as deadly as melee wpns in most cases(depends on training, quality of bow/arrow and quality of armor/shield), if you let them shot at you from effective range(roughly 2x less than it's max range).

Ok, this will be my last answer in this discussion, I'm not wasting any more time on this subject.

We are taking about what was vital in Roman times, not the evolution of missiles. The invention of bayonets and rifles are not relevant in this time-period at all.

Every time the Romans fought an missile-unit heavy army on the battlefield, they beat the snot out of them, even when massively out-numbered!
That shows that the missile-weapons of the day was not effective against heavy-melee infantry, and certainly not a battle-winning weapon.

THAT'S why it's wrong that light missile-weapons are so effective in the game, when they were NOT in reality.

The reason the Romans met missile-heavy armies in Gaul, Britain, Spain, Africa, Egypt and other places was NOT because the were superior weapons, but because ill-equipped missile-troops was CHEAP and EASY to raise. And easy to defeat...

If missile-weapons were so effective, how come the Romans beat them with Heavy Infantry almost every time?
And how come the Romans never tried to develop their own highly trained slingers and archers?

Because they were not VITAL on the battlefield,- heavy infantry was!

When Ceasar was campaigning in Gaul, he chose to hire Baleric slingers from Spain and archers from Gaul because he did not value those support-troops highly enough to be Romans. Furthermore, Rome had no strong traditions in missile-weapons and regarded them as second-rate in battle.
And Imperial Rome continued that trend with hiring local missile-troops and only train the superior Legions.

Anyway, believe what you want, I don't really care.

I won't be responding to this thread anymore, so bye, bye....

[Aeimnestus]

Let me interject for a moment. Some of the missile changes I made did not yet end up in this version as they required further testing on my part and I didn't want to wait any longer with the release.

I'll briefly explain the related mechanic in Rome 2:

Units have hitpoints, principes for example have 15
Weapons have 2 damage statistics: normal and AP
For example, an arrow may have 15 normal damage, and 8 AP damage

The normal damage is reduced by armour. The AP is not.
What this means is that when 2 arrows hit a Principes with 15hp, he dies. Even if he had 10 inches of welded steel in front of him, he'd still die. This is also the reason the testudo feel so ineffective.

In the latest version of the mod which I'm testing atm, all ranged weapons have had their armour penetrating value significantly reduced. Arrows for example now have only 1 AP, Slings have 0, javelins have 4. To compensate, normal damage has increased slightly. As a result, armoured units are more resilient to missile weapons, but will still get worn down eventually. It's tricky to balance, because reducing the AP would make missile units too weak if not compensated by an increase in normal damage. However, too much of an increase in normal damage will make missile units overpowered vs lightly armoured units. It's a fine line between making missile units overpowered or too weak.

The 2 minutes of invulnerability as hitpoints slowly drop followed by men dropping like flies when hitpoints start reaching 0 is still there, its simply how Rome 2's new hitpoint system works. Changing it would require a complete combat mechanic overhaul, reducing all units hitpoints to 1, and then completely rebalancing armour, missile and melee stats to prevent super fast kills.

[Aeimnestus]

Current version 1.4


Version 1.4 changes:

Land changes:

Missile changes:
- Implemented further changes to missiles, reducing their effectiveness versus armoured units.
- Increased effectiveness of the testudo.

Combat changes:
- Further reduced melee hit chance to slow down units breaking due to casualties sustained.


Naval changes:
- Implemented the 1.3 naval changes for Sparta, Epirus and Athens. Next in line are the Macedonians and the successor states scheduled for 1.5, followed by the eastern kingdoms in 1.6, and finally the barbarians in 1.7
- New ship for Epirus roster, the septireme (7) with a contingent of hellenistic royal guard.

Download version 1.4 here: http://www.fileswap.com/dl/OfU5CXclfA/

[Master Necromancer]

I think I will restrain from downloading until 1.7 but please do continue your great work!

[Kristoff]

Aeimnestus, something seems to be wrong with 1.4 - whether i use ModManager or not the mod doesn't seem to work (i.e. all "magic" abilities are "on", there are no new ships), even when I don't use any other mods (anyway, I've used only those changing skins or removing victory points so there should be no conflicts). Earlier version - 1.3 - was working like charm.

[Aeimnestus]

Strange indeed. I've tested it by trying the version I posted and ran into the same issue. Changing it to movie format and then back to mod format fixed the issue for me. In any case I'll release version 1.5 in a couple of hours. I'll be sure to double-test it before posting a link.

The mod is compatible with patch 1.3 btw, although my units overwrite those from 3.0, so you don't get the improved hitpoints on units that patch 1.3 brings (Which is good!! The hitpoints system sucks, and the less hitpoints units have the better!)

[DioD2]

Great mod Aeimnestus, prefer it to all other battle mods out there by far (have tested all), great job, and keep up the good work, the end will be a total masterpiece.

[DramaBelli]

edited: silly question, sorry

[Aeimnestus]

Testudo vs massed archery in 1.5:

Hastati in normal formation after 4 minutes and 20 seconds of sustained arrow fire from 6 units (720 men) of germanic archers: (Note, archers run out of arrows around this time, so this is pretty much the max kills they can score.)



Result: 29 casualties



Hastati in testudo formation after 4 minutes and 20 seconds of sustained arrow fire from 6 units (720 men) of germanic archers:



Result: 19 casualties



Legionary Cohort in normal formation after 4 minutes and 20 seconds of sustained arrow fire from 6 units (720 men) of germanic archers:



Result: 17 casualties




Legionary Cohort in testudo formation after 4 minutes and 20 seconds of sustained arrow fire from 6 units (720 men) of germanic archers:



Result: 4 casualties

[Captain MacDuck]

1.4 Doesn't seem to be working for me. I tried with and without patch 3 beta. Everything seems to be vanilla.

[Kristoff]

Any chance for 1.5 tonight? :-D
PS. Your tests look very promising. Maybe even - considering huge number of archers in tests - casualties are now a bit too low?

[Aeimnestus]

Yes, I'll release 1.5 in 3 or 4 hours. Just need to tweak the parthian and pontic marine stats.

The casualties do seem low, but remember these are germanic archers, so not using the more powerful composite bows, and they are firing at long range at reasonably well armoured (hastati) to very well armoured (legionaries) targets. And they are firing from the front. They would do more damage if they had surrounded the romans, closed in, and much more if they were to be firing at other skirmishers or simply softer targets than roman heavy infantry.

[hobozero]

Did you remove AP damage completely from arrows for those tests? Good to see it can be done, but if 6 units of archers only kill 17 legionaries in 4:20 then archers might as well not be in the game. Or maybe you managed to make shields super effective. How do the results change when the archers fire into the back of the Romans?

[Aeimnestus]

Did you remove AP damage completely from arrows for those tests? Good to see it can be done, but if 6 units of archers only kill 17 legionaries in 4:20 then archers might as well not be in the game. Or maybe you managed to make shields super effective. How do the results change when the archers fire into the back of the Romans?

No, arrows keep 1 AP.
Slingers have 0 AP
Throwing spears have 3 AP.

Firing in the back of a unit legionary cohorts more than doubles the kills, eventually resulting in a unit of around 80 man left who will then break and rout. That does take the fire of 6 units of archers though, but then again, you are firing at one of the toughest units in the game with what are essentially peasants with bows.

I may dabble in shield values for a later release. It's all much trickier than it seems balance-wise, as increasing the effects shields have and then compensating for that by increasing missile damage so they become more effective from the unshielded rear/right side, means missiles will absolutely slaughter unshielded units.

As it is now, Javelinmen are the most effective vs armour (and elephants and cavalry). Slingers are the least effective vs armour, but the most effective vs archers and javelinmen. Archers are slightly more effective vs armour than slingers, and effective vs slingers and javelinmen but less than slingers.

None of the ranged units will be able to stand up to a unit of heavy infantry, or even do substantial damage to it, with the exception being horse archers of course. (though even those cannot wipe out heavy infantry on their own, but they carry more ammunition and are uncatchable)

[Indus_Valley]

No, arrows keep 1 AP.
Slingers have 0 AP
Throwing spears have 3 AP.

Firing in the..........and are uncatchable)

It sounds perfect. Waiting keenly for 1.5. I've got a big battle coming up.

[hobozero]

That does sound quite good. Your thoughts on shields sound right, no sense making them so good that ranged is completely ineffective from the front yet absolutely obliterating from the side. And your ideas for how javelins/slings/bows ought to compare sound right on.

Been having lots of fun with other melee combat mods like Close Combat or Lines of Battle, but it all kind of breaks down when I realize that vanilla missile units are just clearly more effective than my slowed-down, melee-nerfed heavy infantry. Going to see what your mod in 1.5 looks like.

Only obstacles I've found are the camera and a conflict with units_custom_battle_permissions with the All Factions Playable mod which is required for the Massalia Unit Pack. Just not a fan of the camera, it feels so twitchy to me and I can't get my scroll wheel to just move the camera up or down a small amount, has to go in huge chunks.

[Dunadd]

I like the general idea for this mod and a lot of what it does is good, but parts of it are either unrealistic or the exact opposite of historically realistic, so i won't be trying it at least in it's current form.

Reworked slingers and archers to be less deadly. Their main value is their added morale shock to units under fire, though over time ranged units will still rack up kills.
- Slingers do more damage than archers, but have lost armour penetration. Archers have retained some armour penetration, allowing them to eventually wear down armoured units, though they are not at all effective at it. Both archers and slingers have had their ammo count increased. Javelins are the most destructive ranged weapon when they hit, but have less ammo (7, down from 10, based on the historical accounts of velites carrying 7 javelins), far less range and are less accurate.

This just makes no sense. It's the opposite of realism. There are plenty of historical references to slingers being able to damage heavily armoured troops in both the ancient and medieval period, so making archers have higher armour penetration than slingers is just exactly the opposite of the reality. Sling shots (especially the commonly used lead ones) could cave in helmets and breastplates made of bronze or iron. It didn't need to go through the armour to break the bones of the person wearing it by caving it in. That's why slings should have armour penetration.

Balaeric slingers were the only Carthaginian foot skirmishers the Romans rated as good troops for a reason - they could wound and kill the heaviest armoured Roman infantry from a range way beyond that of any javelin.

- Transport ships have been greatly reduced in potency. They are still potentially dangerous, but slower and much more vulnerable to ramming.

That's good, but transport ships shouldn't have oars or rams at all - they were usually commandeered merchant sailing vessels and dead and sunk if they met enemy warships without oared warships of their own to protect them.

Also on the testudo being used in the early republic the only source i can find from googling is Livy - and his reliability here is in doubt given that he also claims the Gauls formed a testudo when they sacked the Capitol of Rome under Brennus in 390 BC. So if you believe Livy, the Italian celts and Gauls have to be able to form testudo too. If you decide Livy is unreliable then no pre-marian and possibly no pre-Imperial Romans used testudo. I'd say him even claiming the Gauls were using it in 390 BC shows he's completely unreliable on it and just claiming any close formation with overlapping shields is testudo - seems unlikely it was used until Imperial times.

[Dunadd]

PhallosMaximus wrote

Swords and armour was very expensive items,- no peasants would have these things. Only the Chieftain and some of the Nobles in a tribe would be able to afford this. So "All men can hold and carry a sword..." is just BS.

How do you think slingers and bowmen came to be in the first place? Because they were used for hunting. Do you really think a Chieftain paid his warriors to train bowmanship in order to kill Romans?

Very true. minkov does have a point that to get really large numbers of skilled archers or slingers you'd have to train them or bring in laws requiring all men to practice with them (like there were in Medieval England). That might be why slingers and archers rarely numbered more than a few hundred out of tens of thousands in many armies (though of course the Achaemanid Persians for instance had plenty of foot archers, so maybe it was a cultural thing about whether using bows and slings was seen as "cowardly" by most warriors or soldiers or not)

Every time the Romans fought an missile-unit heavy army on the battlefield, they beat the snot out of them, even when massively out-numbered!
That shows that the missile-weapons of the day was not effective against heavy-melee infantry, and certainly not a battle-winning weapon.

THAT'S why it's wrong that light missile-weapons are so effective in the game, when they were NOT in reality.

This is a huge exaggeration. The Carthaginian infantry the Romans rated most highly were Balaeric slingers. Numidian cavalry (primarily javelin armed skirmishers and totally unarmoured) helped win the battle of Cannae and won Scipio many of his battles in Africa when he outnumbered the Carthaginians in them. In the later Republic the Romans lost heavily to the Parthians in more than one battle - and the majority of the Parthian army were horse-archers.

Some of the toughest campaigns which the Romans fought and in which they took the highest casualties were against the Numidians and moors - pretty much all skirmishers armed with ranged weapons - bows, slings and javelins. The high casualty rate and little loot in those wars were one of the main reasons for the Marian reforms because the only way the Romans could make up their losses was by letting the very poorest who had no other options for advancement join the army.

Javelin armed velite skirmishers played a significant role in the Roman victory against the Italian celts at Telamon because the Celts had no javelin armed skirmishers of their own. Similarly for Roman campaigns against the Galatians - again the velites caused heavy casualties.

Javelins, slings and bows were all effective weapons. And the Romans themselves used pila (heavy throwing weapons) to great effect against Phalangites.