Can/should a skirmishers carry more than 4 javelins?

[Mithridates_Eupator]

Let's talk about ammunition size for skirmishers. How many javelins did they realistically hold? I can't imagine them taking more than four or five onto a battlefield, unless the missiles were the size of large arrows. But it seems that if they were changed to carry realistic amounts of ammo, they would be much less useful than they are now, except for maybe the elite skirmishers that can double as light swordsmen. Also, even if the human player wanted to be realistic, could the AI handle the change? What do you guys think?

[Krasnaïa Zvezda]

Javelins could be reused and battles were also fought with servants and slaves that would resupply the fighting men with water, food and ammo when necessary.

Unfortunately, this can't be represented IG other than give skirmisher units a fixed amount of ammunition.

[zonabalona]

Realistically units are never so strictly divided into different categories like they are in the game. There is no such thing as strictly melee cav, shock cav, strictly archer, art, general or what ever, and no such thing as "If you are archer you only good at shooting, everything you are useless". Obviously each unit type always had and will have their purpose and way to perform on the battlefield, but at the end of the day everyone was infantry and they were all thrown into melee combat.
No javelin men can effectively skirmish on the battlefield with 10 javelins in his hands, its just gonna look clumsy and retarded.
If you want reality, you have to add melee skills to every unit. Every unit will have to have ability to some what effectively perform in melee combat. Javs essentially will have to be light infantry that covers up their poor training with something to throw. Slingers will have to replace javs and act as close skirmishing force, which i believe what they were and how they fought as there is no other way to effectively use mass slings in mids of the battle chaos. Archers will stay as areal unit until they run out of ammo, after which they will join melee.

But real life is real life, and game is game.
AI would no be able to handle due to the fact that it does not have thinking ability, it has no logic, it doesnt know how to react, it doesnt know how to initiate and then react based on your reaction, it has no idea what flanking is, what counter flanking is, zero , none... AI is a zombie, all it knows is frontal charge. Only reason it ever outflanks you is because they attack with massive numbers and there is just not enough space for all of them to fit in front so they start pouring from the sides.

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

That and often the skirmish phase could last for hours or even days with the skirmishers retiring back to camp periodically. Often this phase was used to prove enemy defenses or to start a battle as many time armies would be drawn up in strong defensive positions and would only give battle if they believed they could win, or had to fight due to food, enemy reinforcements, or other circumstances. Unfortunately this can't be represented in game... However, if the skirmishers were screening an advance during the actual battle they would probably be somewhat limited on ammunition. Once they fell back though, the probably had reserves although by then the battle was being decided by the infantry and cavalry.

One area where I do think missiles should gain more ammunition is in siege defense. Often the besiegers would make multiple attempts at assaulting if they assaulted at all, which again can't be represented. But in the event of an all out attack the defenders would certainly use all their reserves of missiles. It is somewhat stupid that javelin men in their own city only have four shots and then are completely useless in the defense.

[Mark of Calth]

Certainly javelin-armed cavalry could have had a bag holding more than 4 javelins as well, but presumably they'd keep those when they dismounted in-game. Re the siege point, it may be possible to give the defenders more ammo through automatic tech bonuses. In vanilla WoS, some of the techs increase ammo for siege defenders only.

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

Javelin units sould have 4 javelins, And so sould it also be in-game realistic ammo counts for all type of units. That way you need to think where you use what unit for and what units you keep in reserve.

Vae Victis did a great job with realistic ammo counts and its way more fun and DeI also need to do something like that for 1.0.

[Butan]

Since lots of works has already been done in terms of battle balance for the 1.0, its highly unlikely that you would see such a thing for then. Part of the damage equation of ranged units is the maximum ammo they transport, so everything would need to be re-balanced if it was changed.

With scarce ammo for javelineers, the problem arise with the accuracy/ammunition equation: you can easily waste most of your precious ammo on the ground and on shields.
Low ammo would also make javelineers "melee units" (0 ammo left) more time, their melee stats are actually horrendous (except some average ones) so they would be fodder during that phase.

And if javelins, and per extension, ranged units, are not a "profitable" unit to use on the battlefield (in terms of casualties done on the opponent relative to how much they cost and how easy/hard they can be used) then we largely remove them from the armies of Rome 2.


That being said, I would like it if we found a solution to have realistic ammo count and keep the precious balance of battle.
One remark though, dedicated skirmishers could certainly transport more than 4 javelins at times. Is 8 or 12 javelins per men that unrealistic? (not all in their hands of course, but in bags for example, if such a thing existed already back then )

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

Since lots of works has already been done in terms of battle balance for the 1.0, its highly unlikely that you would see such a thing for then. Part of the damage equation of ranged units is the maximum ammo they transport, so everything would need to be re-balanced if it was changed.

With scarce ammo for javelineers, the problem arise with the accuracy/ammunition equation: you can easily waste most of your precious ammo on the ground and on shields.
Low ammo would also make javelineers "melee units" (0 ammo left) more time, their melee stats are actually horrendous (except some average ones) so they would be fodder during that phase.

And if javelins, and per extension, ranged units, are not a "profitable" unit to use on the battlefield (in terms of casualties done on the opponent relative to how much they cost and how easy/hard they can be used) then we largely remove them from the armies of Rome 2.


That being said, I would like it if we found a solution to have realistic ammo count and keep the precious balance of battle.
One remark though, dedicated skirmishers could certainly transport more than 4 javelins at times. Is 8 or 12 javelins per men that unrealistic? (not all in their hands of course, but in bags for example, if such a thing existed already back then )

I feel like rather than being a damage dealer javelin men in particular were a cheap, easy to train utility force. They could work together with cavalry to scout, screen and skirmish. I don't think they were ment to decimate units with a massive bag of javelins unless defending a fortified position. The problem is scouting, screening, and skirmishing doesn't play that much of a role in game. It would be interesting if skirmishers could hide your line so that they enemy can see an army behind them but isn't sure where the different troops types are exactly. I also wouldn't mind a much longer skirmish phase although the AI probably can't handle that.

Edit: forgot to mention that skirmishers could also hopefully tire and disrupt enemy infantry which I think would be a cool feature. The RTR cohesion system looks interesting and might be able to work with disrupting formations.

[Alu10]

That being said, I would like it if we found a solution to have realistic ammo count and keep the precious balance of battle.
One remark though, dedicated skirmishers could certainly transport more than 4 javelins at times. Is 8 or 12 javelins per men that unrealistic? (not all in their hands of course, but in bags for example, if such a thing existed already back then )

they surely knew how to make darn bags when they built huge buildings, siege machinery and other .

[zonabalona]

Of course skirmishers could use bags to carry 12 javs, but lets not forget their important feature - mobility. Even with a carry bag one would still look like a clumsy retard trying to skirmish with that thing on the battlefield. Also, keep in mind terrain conditions, most likely they would have to run through waist hight grass, forest that is impenetrable with bushes and what ever else. We are talking about very close range skirmish, so close that 2-3 throws and you will end up with enemy in your face. If you take everything into account, it is very very difficult to believe that those units had any luck in skirmishing, it had to be light infantry carrying extra javs and use them if opportunity permits.


As mentioned above, scouts was most likely their initial purpose. But scouting in Rome 2 is nearly useless option as every hidden unit is almost auto discovered a kilometer away.


Now lets looks reality in the eyes, AI not as sophisticated as we what him to be. At current state there is no way it can ever perform such sophisticated moves as mentioned above.

['Gunny]

I have adjusted Ammo amounts and damage in 1.0, and they are adjusted to scale to the battle length. 1.0 will not be like VV in that javelins will not have 1 or two shots, but be extremely hard hitting, rather it's the opposite: skirmishers have more ammo, yet do less damage due largely to accuracy and changes to missile properties. Therefore, skirmishers will be useful for the majority of the battle instead of at a brief moment at the beginning of it, after which one can easily swing their missiles around the back of the AI and decimate them, while the AI exhausts its ammo on units protected by shields and then charges into the fray upon exhausting their ammo. Rather, swinging your units around the back of the AI, whilst still effective, will not yield 1 or 2 super effective volleys, rather it will slowly help to whittle the AI down along a similar scale to melee kills. Similarly, the AI will be able to use their missiles for longer, though stupidly focusing their missiles on units with shields will always be a problem, at least now it will take longer before they decide to rush into melee, get killed, and assist an causing a chain rout on their side. I hope all that made sense

[Mithridates_Eupator]

I have adjusted Ammo amounts and damage in 1.0, and they are adjusted to scale to the battle length. 1.0 will not be like VV in that javelins will not have 1 or two shots, but be extremely hard hitting, rather it's the opposite: skirmishers have more ammo, yet do less damage due largely to accuracy and changes to missile properties. Therefore, skirmishers will be useful for the majority of the battle instead of at a brief moment at the beginning of it, after which one can easily swing their missiles around the back of the AI and decimate them, while the AI exhausts its ammo on units protected by shields and then charges into the fray upon exhausting their ammo. Rather, swinging your units around the back of the AI, whilst still effective, will not yield 1 or 2 super effective volleys, rather it will slowly help to whittle the AI down along a similar scale to melee kills. Similarly, the AI will be able to use their missiles for longer, though stupidly focusing their missiles on units with shields will always be a problem, at least now it will take longer before they decide to rush into melee, get killed, and assist an causing a chain rout on their side. I hope all that made sense

Well, I wish you had gone the other way, but you're right: the AI needs all the help it can get. If only there was a way to get them to use skirmishers effectively. It seems like right now the strategy is to have ranged units hang out behind the melee line. The melee hold the line while the missiles do the killing and morale damage. It's like hammer and anvil except the hammer is a buzzsaw and it's hiding behind the anvil.

Maybe you could fix the AI by fooling it into thinking javelin skirmishers worked like missile cavalry? Then it would try to use them for flanking maneuvers and occasional rear charges. That would at least get the skirmishers out front and to the side where they belong.

(also the high dmg/low ammo model seems to work realistically. with the health system, the initial javelin volleys would soften the melee units up, reflecting dmg to their shields, but not very many kills. once again it's getting the AI to do this and then retreat to look for flanking opportunities.)

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

Gunny, do missiles affect morale and fatigue? And can they affect cohesion at all?

Edit: Also does anyone know of a good video or book that explains the effectiveness of javelins? I can't seen to find any good sources.

[geala]

You can only deduce from actual events and reconstructions. For example there were some cases in the Peloponnesian War where contingents of heavy close combat troops were annihilated by skirmishers with throwing weapons. That happened only after the own ranged troops of the heavies ran out of ammunition. During the huge Celtic attack on Greece in 279 BC a part of the Celts who seemingly lacked a strong ranged arm were beaten and routed by constant harassment from Aitolian skirmishers.

Nevertheless skirmishers had a restricted effectiveness. They needed time and space to wear the heavies down and had to be near but not too near of their targets. From my limited experience with reconstructed javelins you should be well under 20 - 30 metres of the target to hope for any other effect than mere annoyance. You have to take into account that the usual "attack from the rear" so common in TW games did not happen that often in real battles. It was not easy for infantry units to get into the back of a battle line. Why? Because of the distances, the threat from enemy cavalry and last but not least the enemy skirmishers. Ranged troops could have been a real danger if they were left unmolested. Therefore the main duty for skirmishers during a battle was to neutralize the enemy skirmishers mainly by denying them room to get into dangerous distances of the heavies (heavy does not mean heavily armored but line infantry, usually with big shields). They often battled each other for extented times.

That's more or less all not in the TW games. I always used some units of akontistai in EB for screening my flanks to win time and perhaps one or two volleys from the flanks but in DeI where skirmishers with javelins are in rather small units and javelins not very effective I only keep one javelin unit just for the look and because for some time I reenacted a javelinman. Like artillery it's a real waste of a spot unfortunately.

I wouldn't go the way and make skirmishers a kind of light melee infantry. The only units which deserve this are Cretan archers and Roman velites. The Greek skirmishers usually fall back behind the battle line after the ranged phase was over.

[Durador]

Skirmishers where also used to screen off the rest of the army.

In rome2 CA have made the line of sight system but it is never used.

It would be cool if in dei, we the players can't see the army of the AI if it is placed behind his skirmishers.

It would make the battle much harder.

is this possible to do?

['Gunny]

Gunny, do missiles affect morale and fatigue? And can they affect cohesion at all?

Yes, being under missile fire affects both morale and fatigue. I'm not quite sure what you mean by cohesion, unless you are talking about what they have done in R2TR

[Disarray]

He probably means will missile fire effect how well the unit under fire holds a formation. It would be interesting to see if a debuff could be applied to units under fire from missiles to their effectiveness in combat from having their line broken. Perhaps a cut to charge effectiveness to represent the unit not striking as a single force. That would give a well timed javelin strike a little extra oomph without making them overly effective.

[FlashHeart07]

To visually disrupt lines under missile fire is just a matter of knockback being increased but whether or not this adds a negative bonus to some stats I dont know. Probably could be done?

[Disarray]

I know that missile fire modes can add a negative effect, other than getting shot, so it is certainly possible. Poisson, whistle and fire ammo all effect unit's fighting ability. I'd say the real question is can it be implemented in such a way that the AI can cope with it, or even use it to full effect.

[KAM 2150]

Unit under missile fire already suffer from many penalties like decreased speed and stamina from months. Although be made it a bit more harsh for 1.0. Formation distruption and charge breaking only applies to pilum.