Divide et Impera (Divide & Rule) - Main Thread

[Krasnaïa Zvezda]

there has to be a middle ground. i still cant agree hastati should be classed as heavy infantry because of the armor that they could afford. i say make them medium infantry with armor values between that of light and heavy with shield wall ability.

speaking of the shield wall ability.. is there any way to make it so i can stretch out their lines or is it just a hardcoded limitation of the formation?

Infantry types are defined by the role they accomplish on the battlefield rather than the armour they wear (or not) so Hastati, being first line infantry enter the heavy infantry type.

Don't remember where I read that, probably an Osprey book but thought I'd let you know.

[Post Hoc]

This looks great!

[lesterthenerd]

i found a very interesting source of information in regards to how effective the pilum was which you might consider using to determine how powerful they should be in this mod :

quite fascinating.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Pilum Volley

The pilum volley may be one of the more confusing parts of Roman fighting. In on-line discussion groups there are quasi-serious suggestions that the rear ranks threw their pila over the heads of those in front, and even that the right during the charge the entire century came to a halt and each rank rotated to the front to throw their pila. Most descriptions of battle assume that the entire first line fought with swords after the initial charge.

There is evidence that all of these ideas are incorrect.
Certainly, the pilum was used differently in different situations. If the army stood its ground, as Pompey's did at Pharsalus, then their pila would be thrown from a stationary position. But the usual course was for the army to charge vigorously and to throw their pila while running. Caesar's narrative makes this quite clear.
Which ranks threw their pila? The usual unspoken assumption is that they all did. Can this be correct? The illustration below shows the trajectory of all 8 ranks if they all threw at exactly the same time. Each rank is separated by 7 feet to allow enough space between them for the pila to be used. Even in this idealized "best case" example it is clear that only one or two ranks could reach the enemy effectively and that the rearmost ranks would actually be a danger to their own front ranks. It thus seems pretty clear that not all of the ranks could throw their pila during the charge.



How many ranks might have actually thrown their pila? The first rank, certainly. The second, probably. The third, just possibly, but not likely. Ranks 4 through 8, almost certainly not. There would be good reason for the second rank to have thrown their pila during the initial charge. The pilum volley was an important part of Roman tactics. Surely they would have maximized the number ofpila thrown at this point. If two ranks could have thrown effectively, then they likely would have. Also, once contact was made the second rank would be expected to support and replace first rank soldiers as needed. In this close-in fighting a pilum would be less use than a sword. They would not wish to drop a pilum on the ground where it could cause someone to trip or turn an ankle. Therefore it would have been good for the second rank to throw their pila during the charge and have sword in hand when close-in fighting began.
Just how effective was the pilum volley? This is where battlefield casualty statistics are helpful. Gabriel and Metz, From Sumer to Rome, present casualty figures for 10 Roman battles for which somewhat reliable information exists. The casualty rates for victors run from a high of 11% to a low of 1.4% with an average of 4.6%. The defeated army often suffered casualty rates of 30% or more, but these are thought to have come after the army turned and ran. While both armies stood and fought it seems that only about 5% were killed and a similar number wounded. This places a limit on the effectiveness of all weapons, including the pilum.
Since battles could last some hours one would expect the casualties to be spread out over the entire duration of the fighting, with, perhaps, a somewhat higher frequency attributed to the initial clash. If there were a total of 5% killed and 5% wounded during the entire battle it might be reasonable that 1/5 of all casualties occurred initial clash; that is, 1%.

Assume, as a starting point, that all of these initial casualties were either directly or indirectly attributable to the pilum. Consider a legion of 4,800 men arranged in a triplex acies formation with 4 cohorts in the first line and each century arranged in 10 files and 8 ranks. The legion has 240 men in the front rank of the front line. A 1% casualty rate is 48 men out of the legions total of 4,800, 96 total casualties. If two ranks threw their pila then the 96 total casualties were the result of 480 pila being thrown, a 20% effectiveness ratio. 8 out of 10 pila thrown did not cause an injury.
Further assume that 2/3 of the casualties occur to men in the front rank, the remainder to those behind them. In the opening phase of the battle, then, 64 (2/3 of 192) of the 240 men in the first rank were killed or wounded. The casualty rate for first rankers would be 27%. This is a casualty rate for that rank to have regularly suffered. 1% is probably too high a number to assign to the initial pilum volley. But the analysis does provide a starting point for trying to understand the weapon's effectiveness and to visualize how this attack phase might have looked. If the real number were 1/2% or even 1/4% the numbers can be correspondingly halved or quartered.
At the other extreme we have some evidence that a pilum volley might not have been very effective at all. Caesar claims to have lost only 300 men at Pharsalus. Pompey fielded 11 legions and probably had about 1,800 men in the first rank of the first line. If two of his ranks threw their pila then those 3,600 pila could hardly have caused more than 60 deaths and, perhaps, a similar number of injuries. 97% of the pila thrown would not have been effective at causing injury or death.
Furthermore, assuming that Pompey used a triplex acies and fully committed at least his first two lines to the fighting, then during the course of the battle at least two of Pompey's lines would have thrown all of their pila at Caesar's men. each other. Pompey's two lines would have held at least 30,000 men. Caesar's dead were listed at 300. Since he was the victor let us say that many of the wounded were saved so that overall his casualties were 1,000 killed and wounded. Some casualties were certainly caused by sword fighting; one should think at least half, leaving maybe 500 to have been caused by pila. We really do not know, but, no matter what casualty figure one projects, it is a relatively small number compared to the 30,000 pila thrown -- 1.5% to 3%.
The pilum would appear to have had less than 3 chances in 100 of actually doing any damage.

http://garyb.0catch.com/fighting1/fighting1.html

[Selea]

Interesting. So many contrasting opinions on the matter.

Almost all the articles I've read say exactly the contrary.

[lesterthenerd]

Interesting. So many contrasting opinions on the matter.

Almost all the articles I've read say exactly the contrary.

i suppose due to the lack of key historical information on roman warfare its just open to interpretation.

[zeroFreeze]

i suppose due to the lack of key historical information on roman warfare its just open to interpretation.

It'd be interesting, as a means of contrast, for finding figures on pilum against non-roman enemies. The Caesar vs Pompey seems like a very good example of the effectiveness of pilum against a better armoured enemy such as romans or the greek phalanx. However, it should not be a means to an end conclusion. However as you said, the historical information can very much be open to interpretation, and that was a good find for furthering insight into the pilum. I did read somewhere that when the hastati were engaging an enemy, the principes would throw their pilum over the heads of the hastati, deep into the stationary ranks of the opposing force that were waiting for the turn to fight. This was so by the time they would come up to fight, they would also be at a disadvantage through shock, or ineffectiveness of their shield, or injury.

[callmeflipper]

i suppose due to the lack of key historical information on roman warfare its just open to interpretation.

I agree, lets not forget that Romans historians have read usually used propaganda about their ideallistic Great Legion. But when we look at the history from the other point of view - Hannibal used in Italy mostly Iberian troops, Gauls, Samnites - as his core army (Romans thought of them as a lesser soldiers).... but Hannibal won every battle with bigger numbers of Romans agaist his side. So how good were Roman troops in killing actually? I know Hannibal was a good strategist, but he could not have done so many if Roman tactics and discipline was so legendary as Romans like to say.

[jethro]

I agree, lets not forget that Romans historians have read usually used propaganda about their ideallistic Great Legion. But when we look at the history from the other point of view - Hannibal used in Italy mostly Iberian troops, Gauls, Samnites - as his core army (Romans thought of them as a lesser soldiers).... but Hannibal won every battle with bigger numbers of Romans agaist his side. So how good were Roman troops in killing actually? I know Hannibal was a good strategist, but he could not have done so many if Roman tactics and discipline was so legendary as Romans like to say.

Hi Flipper, the point is not fighting skills; on average, the legionary of the pre-Marian Republican Age was a militian with very good training and excellent fighting skills... the reason behind the repeated defeats against Hannibal is a tactical affair.

Both in Trebbia river and Cannae Romans succeded in "piercing" the enemy center (almost in Cannae, not completely though), thanks to mass and fighting skills, yet they could't manoeuvre effectively due to the limited tactical skills of the troops and their commanders on the field.

Somehow Romans look quite "dumb" at tactics in the first phases of the Second Punic war...

Anyway the core of the Annibalic Army in Italy was represented by the African (Libyan) Carthaginian and Hispanic heavy infantry (seasoned veterans with unsurpassed combat skills) and heavy (Carthaginian) and light (Numidian) cavalry, while Gauls, Samnites and lesser Iberian units were used as "cannon fodder" to fix the Roman effort, while veterans inflicted the fatal blow...

In Cannae battle the Romans were defeated while they thought they had achieved their goal: overwelming the center of the Carthaginian Army, thanks to brutal thrust and sheer combat ability.
The majority of the Romans in Cannae battle were recruits, yet their real weak point wasn't hand to hand combat, but manoeuvering skills and as their commanders knew it well, they tried to win using just thrust and killing power of closely packed maniples, and we all know how it went...

[Spartan 666]

Congratulations for this mod, i'm giving it a try this week end!

One question though, is there a reason why you've made a single big pack instead of individual smaller packs (like Radious', which has both the AIO package and the separate mods)? Wouldn't it be simpler for the community to get updates of the single packs instead of downloading the whole mod everytime? Just asking though..

[phraetorian]

Texture team, i don't know if you notice but the description of thorax hoplite stated that they wore bronze armor because of status and hoplon, completely different from the look of the unit. Just something to consider. All the best.

[Meneros]

Texture team, i don't know if you notice but the description of thorax hoplite stated that they wore bronze armor because of status and hoplon, completely different from the look of the unit. Just something to consider. All the best.

That's incorrect. The hoplite units in the game use a common, shared decription in the encyclopedia. What the description states is that hoplites during the greco-persian wars wore bronze cuirasses, linothoraxes or other similar types of armours. The era depicted in Rome 2 takes place two hundred years after those wars. The Thorax Hoplites aren't called Thorax Hoplites in this mod, but rather Thorakitai Hoplites which means that they're treated more as a hypothetical late-era hoplite. Because of this they are intended to wear mail armour, along with Thureos shields. Another reason why they do not wear bronze cuirasses is because we want to reserve that armour as a marker for elite units.

[jamiedp88]

That's incorrect. The hoplite units in the game use a common, shared decription in the encyclopedia. What the description states is that hoplites during the greco-persian wars wore bronze cuirasses, linothoraxes or other similar types of armours. The era depicted in Rome 2 takes place two hundred years after those wars. The Thorax Hoplites aren't called Thorax Hoplites in this mod, but rather Thorakitai Hoplites which means that they're treated more as a hypothetical late-era hoplite. Because of this they are intended to wear mail armour, along with Thureos shields. Another reason why they do not wear bronze cuirasses is because we want to reserve that armour as a marker for elite units.

Lets not forget that the linothorax was also cheaper and more effective as an armour as it was lighter, a big reason why so many hoplites and famously Alexander the Great adopted it.

[phraetorian]

That's incorrect. The hoplite units in the game use a common, shared decription in the encyclopedia. What the description states is that hoplites during the greco-persian wars wore bronze cuirasses, linothoraxes or other similar types of armours. The era depicted in Rome 2 takes place two hundred years after those wars. The Thorax Hoplites aren't called Thorax Hoplites in this mod, but rather Thorakitai Hoplites which means that they're treated more as a hypothetical late-era hoplite. Because of this they are intended to wear mail armour, along with Thureos shields. Another reason why they do not wear bronze cuirasses is because we want to reserve that armour as a marker for elite units.

I see. I just wanted to point out that the description of unit as stated on STEAM Greek States DLC. I just couldnt find any of those chainmail linothorax looking anywhere.

[dom385]

Is the roster overhaul going to include your mod meneros? I particularly liked your Illyrian and Thracian units.

[crawe1]

Is the roster overhaul going to include your mod meneros? I particularly liked your Illyrian and Thracian units.

I second this. Would be a shame not to use them.

[Meneros]

I second this. Would be a shame not to use them.

When we move into the phase of expanding rosters and working more on the campaign map elements we'll integrate my Illyrians and Thracians, along with the new buildings from my mod as well. We just want to make sure everything else is solid and polished before pushing out the next major features.

[Selea]

Divide et Impera v0.2e:
http://www.mediafire.com/?n8404nz8fa271f4

- Made formation attack much more effective; now the difference from having it off is much reduced and in many cases worse
- Made Shield Wall/Spear Wall/Fulcum more effective than before and making more of a difference, especially if timing it right (now if only I could find a way to make the AI use it...)
- Re-balanced units that have formation attack enabled for the changes above
- Re-balanced Pilum/Javelin once more and re-enabled the morale/shield defense penalties: it works better with them on; I tested these new changes extensively and now the damage should be just right
- Re-balanced Lybian Hoplites because historically they wore the same equipment as other strong hoplites and they were as weak as depicted by CA
- Corrected bug with Persian Cavalry that had Cantarbian Circle instead than Wedge formation
- Tweaked damage on slingers to be more effective but be less accurate
- Increased radius of Cavalry so they blob less
- Corrected wrong spacing on Royal Spartans

[Lenn the coward]

Whitch difficulty level is the best to play on with this mod if you have played total war since the first rome total war?

I play a campaign on hard now as romans and i cant figure out if im having a luck or if its just to easy on hard.
I noticed that the CAI doesnt do much, i scouted egypt,athens and spartas movements for some turns and all of them builds an army near full stack and then just wait for a couple of turns before they slowly move against the enemy.

Something else i noticed is some problems with the siege ladders where the units climbing up falls down when they reach the top and die. This happens when there is alot of enemies near the ladder. I dont think this happens in vanilla, maybe something that has to do with the decreased blobbing and unit formations in combat an all that.
Otherwise this mod is truly epic, great textures and BAI.

ps: can u use dubmod with this? I think that mod is the best when it comes to the CAI.

[Aethyr]

Hey Selea, can you elaborate on this;
"Made Shield Wall/Spear Wall/Fulcum more effective than before and making more of a difference, especially if timing it right (now if only I could find a way to make the AI use it...)".

[Selea]

Hey Selea, can you elaborate on this;
"Made Shield Wall/Spear Wall/Fulcum more effective than before and making more of a difference, especially if timing it right (now if only I could find a way to make the AI use it...)".

All those formations reduce fatigue increasing shield defense but at the same time also reduce melee attack.

The point to use them correctly is to enable them at the beginning and when the enemy is exhausted remove them so that the enemy fight worse while your units are still fresh and at maximum attack power. If you just leave the formation enabled you will not be able to capitalize on the exhaustion of the enemy given the much reduced attack potential.