Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Skirmishers, light units and their influence on the strategic map

  1. #1
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Skirmishers, light units and their influence on the strategic map

    In fact, do you want to take this to a dedicated topic of it's own?
    Your will, my hands.




    I've stated that in other threads on the topic, the main problem of the skirmisher units is that the Total War series simulate pitched battles and not even the complete battle, but the final advance before contact. Heavy infantry and heavy cavalry sprint, negating the "speed is armor" theory, archers and slingers deal much more damage comparatively while costing just as much. One major bug, which nerfs the skirmishers is the fact that cavalry can sprint through friendly units without even breaking stride, which means that the enemy general can charge through his advancing heavies and skirmishers and engage your skirmisher unit. Fix that, force cavalry to use clear paths, and it will help - a lot.

    From read both here at twcenter and at the .org the team is aware of the problem and is trying to fix it. For the time being however, QuintusSertonius' submod is the best solution. It takes care of the most glaring problems of the battle side of the game. One more solution would be to tweak the capabilities of units on the battle map, for example not allowing cavalry to be able to operate on steep terrain.

    However, skirmishers, both foot and mounted, should have influence and impact beyond the battlefield, as they did historically. Light units gathered supplies, guarded the supply lines, harassed the enemy and his supply lines, they were also the advanced guard and the scouts of the army, which without them was practically blind and vulnerable. Right now most of these capabilities are awarded randomly to generals just for being alive, and frankly ridiculous ancillaries. When/if we manage to transfer those to the skirmishers in the army, we'd be on the right path.

    One last thing, as always. Currently the bane of skirmishers are missile units and cavalry. It's simple really - when you have say one types of javelineers, but two types of slingers and two types of archers, all of which cost roughly the same and refill the recruitment pool at the same rate as the javelineer unit, you'll be four times more likely to recruit a missile unit due to sheer availability. Add survivability (archers and slingers normally operate from behind the battle line, javelineers in front of it) and it becomes even more lopsided.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    As before, I'm very keen to see what can be done in this area; I agree attaching them somewhat randomly to the general's traits and ancillaries is not very realistic at all.

    There's the potential to introduce a very nice (and realistic) dichotomy here. You need light troops (infantry and cavalry) on the campaign map, they ensure you are well-supplied, move quickly and aware of what's going on around you. However, you need heavy troops (infantry and cavalry) on the battle map, since they will bear the brunt of the fighting. It's not an option to just take one and not the other, but instead a question of how you strike the balance between the two.

    Talking of logistics, one of the things you could dodge in EB1 was logistics, by moving your army under a Captain, rather than FM, since that was all attached to their traits. This is less viable a tactic in EBII due to loyalty issues, but is still possible. Can the logistical traits also be moved to units, rather than the FM leading them?

    Hellenistic factions at least have somewhat more balance in this regard, for example you have both Akontistai and Euzonoi for "basic" javelineers (plus regional ones like Illyrian Peltastai), then Kretan Peltastai and Peltastai Logades for elite versions. Though what's available may change with the implementation of the Thureophoroi reform event. But your point still stands, there are many more types of archers and slingers, who are death to unarmoured javelineers, thus more cost effective. There's currently no reason beyond an attempt at realism to recruit javelineers over archers/slingers.
    This topic is the fruit of the discussion posted above. It will be used as a sort-of work in progress. The goal is to make javelineer skirmishers and light infantry/cavalry valuable and necessary to the player and the AI both on the battlefield map and on the strategic map as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  2. #2

    Default Re: Skirmishers, light units and their influence on the strategic map

    I wholeheartedly support this initiative. I think it adds both realism and depth to both campaign and battle, by making recruitment more than just "get the best of whatever you can afford". It also makes all-elite armies useless in the main, since they tend to be heavy. Sure they'll smash anything they run into, but they'll also be starving, blind and slow.

    My only concern is how you get the AI to recruit properly so that it too benefits from bringing lights along. I'll admit I've no idea how the CAI prioritises recruitment, and whether it can be done to the level of specificity that says "make sure you include at least 1 foot skirmisher and 1 light cavalry". Though to be honest I consider it an ancillary concern, making the game harder for the human player is not something I have an issue with, especially when the challenge increases the realism and historical accuracy. It would just be nice for the AI to be under the same constraints, if possible.

  3. #3
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Re: Skirmishers, light units and their influence on the strategic map

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    There's the potential to introduce a very nice (and realistic) dichotomy here. You need light troops (infantry and cavalry) on the campaign map, they ensure you are well-supplied, move quickly and aware of what's going on around you. However, you need heavy troops (infantry and cavalry) on the battle map, since they will bear the brunt of the fighting. It's not an option to just take one and not the other, but instead a question of how you strike the balance between the two.
    That's my idea as well, although if we manage to root out or at least minimize the effects of the limitations of the engine, it would be awesome.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Talking of logistics, one of the things you could dodge in EB1 was logistics, by moving your army under a Captain, rather than FM, since that was all attached to their traits. This is less viable a tactic in EBII due to loyalty issues, but is still possible. Can the logistical traits also be moved to units, rather than the FM leading them?
    Of course, that's the real way to go. To avoid exploitation, the traits that depend on the light units and that give bonuses to the whole army would need to have some sort of limitation, for example only available to family members. Something else we can do is lower the global movement points for all units and then compensate them with traits and ancillaries. Alternatively, all characters on the campaign map can suffer the limitations, if a trait can be a hidden one and applicable to all characters, not just family members.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Hellenistic factions at least have somewhat more balance in this regard, for example you have both Akontistai and Euzonoi for "basic" javelineers (plus regional ones like Illyrian Peltastai), then Kretan Peltastai and Peltastai Logades for elite versions. Though what's available may change with the implementation of the Thureophoroi reform event. But your point still stands, there are many more types of archers and slingers, who are death to unarmoured javelineers, thus more cost effective. There's currently no reason beyond an attempt at realism to recruit javelineers over archers/slingers.
    One way, one realistic way would be to lower the recruitment rate of the archer units. Historically, at least in the Mediterranean missile units like slingers and archers were not widely spread. The reason is simple - training and specialization. It takes far shorter time to become a proficient thrower - and then the javelineer is a jack of all trades - he's a missile trooper, a light infantryman, a raider and a pillager.

    The slinger and the archer need a much longer period to become proficient with their weapon, which means that by default there will be fewer of them. Much fewer, to be precise: When Hannibal started on his journey to Italy, his army of 90 000 included about 2 000 Balearic slingers. For comparison, a normal 20-unit stack of mostly heavy infantry(160 men per unit on huge or 320) would have a maximum of about 60 slingers, or just half of what is the current strength of a normal slinger unit - and there would be one single unit of those, not four.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  4. #4
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Re: Skirmishers, light units and their influence on the strategic map

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    I wholeheartedly support this initiative. I think it adds both realism and depth to both campaign and battle, by making recruitment more than just "get the best of whatever you can afford". It also makes all-elite armies useless in the main, since they tend to be heavy. Sure they'll smash anything they run into, but they'll also be starving, blind and slow.

    My only concern is how you get the AI to recruit properly so that it too benefits from bringing lights along. I'll admit I've no idea how the CAI prioritises recruitment, and whether it can be done to the level of specificity that says "make sure you include at least 1 foot skirmisher and 1 light cavalry". Though to be honest I consider it an ancillary concern, making the game harder for the human player is not something I have an issue with, especially when the challenge increases the realism and historical accuracy. It would just be nice for the AI to be under the same constraints, if possible.
    Currently the task is branching out to at least three separate groups of files:

    1. EDU to provide the marks which the traits and ancillaries would use, plus descr_projectile.txt.
    2. Export_character_traits.txt and export_ancillaries.txt and their corresponding text files which would use the marks in the EDU
    3. descr_building.txt and descr_mercenaries, which I think regulate the replenishment rate of all units.
    4. Possibly pathfinding, so that some types of units cannot handle steep slopes. Possibly and actually probably descr_mounts.txt in order to remove the feature of "gallop through friendly lines as if they're made of thin air.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  5. #5

    Default Re: Skirmishers, light units and their influence on the strategic map

    Quote Originally Posted by torongill View Post
    That's my idea as well, although if we manage to root out or at least minimize the effects of the limitations of the engine, it would be awesome.
    Indeed, and if it will make people recruiting all-Triarii or all-Pedites Extraordinarii or all Phalangitai armies quite suboptimal, that would be cool too.

    Quote Originally Posted by torongill View Post
    Of course, that's the real way to go. To avoid exploitation, the traits that depend on the light units and that give bonuses to the whole army would need to have some sort of limitation, for example only available to family members. Something else we can do is lower the global movement points for all units and then compensate them with traits and ancillaries. Alternatively, all characters on the campaign map can suffer the limitations, if a trait can be a hidden one and applicable to all characters, not just family members.
    Captains are characters; we know this because they can be assassinated, spied upon, bribed and (on the Armies summary) have a character screen with their own traits on it. So making logistics apply to them too shouldn't be difficult. I don't think they can have ancillaries (Admirals can, but I don't think Captains can), though, so it would have to all be handled with traits. I think making it global may be the simplest and most direct way to do it.

    How easy is it to script something along the lines of "get +10% movement (max +30%) for each javelineer unit", "+1 logistical unit per javelineer (max 3)" and "+1 line of sight for each light cavalry unit (max 3)" and so on?

    Quote Originally Posted by torongill View Post
    One way, one realistic way would be to lower the recruitment rate of the archer units. Historically, at least in the Mediterranean missile units like slingers and archers were not widely spread. The reason is simple - training and specialization. It takes far shorter time to become a proficient thrower - and then the javelineer is a jack of all trades - he's a missile trooper, a light infantryman, a raider and a pillager.

    The slinger and the archer need a much longer period to become proficient with their weapon, which means that by default there will be fewer of them. Much fewer, to be precise: When Hannibal started on his journey to Italy, his army of 90 000 included about 2 000 Balearic slingers. For comparison, a normal 20-unit stack of mostly heavy infantry(160 men per unit on huge or 320) would have a maximum of about 60 slingers, or just half of what is the current strength of a normal slinger unit - and there would be one single unit of those, not four.
    Slingers and archers, when they weren't professional soldiers, were usually poor men who needed their weapon to hunt and feed themselves. A slinger might be a shepherd in their everyday life, the sling being their means both to eat and protect their flock from predators.

    Quote Originally Posted by torongill View Post
    Currently the task is branching out to at least three separate groups of files:

    1. EDU to provide the marks which the traits and ancillaries would use, plus descr_projectile.txt.
    2. Export_character_traits.txt and export_ancillaries.txt and their corresponding text files which would use the marks in the EDU
    3. descr_building.txt and descr_mercenaries, which I think regulate the replenishment rate of all units.
    4. Possibly pathfinding, so that some types of units cannot handle steep slopes. Possibly and actually probably descr_mounts.txt in order to remove the feature of "gallop through friendly lines as if they're made of thin air.
    As above, I think the only thing needed in export_ancillaries.txt is to remove the effects that duplicate what you're doing here. Captains can't have ancillaries, so I think traits are the way to go.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •