Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Pooploop]

I know this request must be done to death, but it has to be said: can EBII's team make javelins/javelin-users more effective? Doesn't matter if they're on horse or on foot...as of what I remember (the state of the mod at least a year ago), discharges of javelins were terribly underwhelming in-game. My personal opinion is that unshielded infantry or unarmored horses (not the riders per say!) have to be WAY more vulnerable to bolts hurled by the more elite javelineers. I mean, c'mon so many beasts (e.g. lions, boars, mammoths) tougher and more agile than horses have been reliably brought down by crappier-made ancient "javelins" (sharpened wooden sticks in some cases), and the precision and accuracy required to get through the gaps of average body or limb armor (not those of the cataphract riders, duh) in the period the mod is set in should be quite reachable by the elite javelineers on hand (e.g. eastern cavalry, numidians, cretans). When more than half the infantry/cavalry in this game launch a couple of javelins before closing in, you'd think the weapon itself should be way deadlier than how the mod portrays it across all cultures, right? Note: not asking that javelin throws be like a rifle volley, but when nearly 60 bolts are hurled straight into a mass of TIGHTLY packed, UNARMORED (the horses OK!) cavalry moving straight towards the discharge, and only 5 die...that's REALLY unrealistic. You'd expect probably like 10-15 dead, or their momentum terribly muddled.

(PLEASE READ FOLLOW UP EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ABOVE PARAGRAPH):
Considering the constraints of the m2tw system, and the fact I'm not a modder of this project, feel free to disregard my previous statements. I have a feeling the math/formulas you guys did to calculate and balance weapon damages can't account for specific versus cases, like javelins vs unshielded infantry or unarmored steed cavalry. Also, if it simply doesn't fit how effective javelins historically were, feel free to educate me! I'll gladly listen and devour all sources forwarded to my ignorant self. However, I stand firm on SOME sort of improvement for units which the javelin is the primary weapon. They simply are really underwhelming as a projectile (in-game). I suggest that the "pure (as close as possible to the term)" javelineers (either mounted - if so then include horse archers - or on foot) be either given more ammo (so more damage over a long period of time), or they be made way more agile. I don't mean they approach flash levels of velocity, but have definite speeds or acceleration rates that their heavier armored brethren simply can't catch up to. It should be as if they're always a few meters ahead, or they simply turn or maneuver way smoother. I read histories on the Punic Wars, and compare the numidian cav there to what's on EB2, and their riding skills really disappoint.

[Sar1n]

I know this request must be done to death, but it has to be said: can EBII's team make javelins/javelin-users more effective? Doesn't matter if they're on horse or on foot...as of what I remember (the state of the mod at least a year ago), discharges of javelins were terribly underwhelming in-game. My personal opinion is that unshielded infantry or unarmored horses (not the riders per say!) have to be WAY more vulnerable to bolts hurled by the more elite javelineers. I mean, c'mon so many beasts (e.g. lions, boars, mammoths) tougher and more agile than horses have been reliably brought down by crappier-made ancient "javelins" (sharpened wooden sticks in some cases), and the precision and accuracy required to get through the gaps of average body or limb armor (not those of the cataphract riders, duh) in the period the mod is set in should be quite reachable by the elite javelineers on hand (e.g. eastern cavalry, numidians, cretans). When more than half the infantry/cavalry in this game launch a couple of javelins before closing in, you'd think the weapon itself should be way deadlier than how the mod portrays it across all cultures, right? Note: not asking that javelin throws be like a rifle volley, but when nearly 60 bolts are hurled straight into a mass of TIGHTLY packed, UNARMORED (the horses OK!) cavalry moving straight towards the discharge, and only 5 die...that's REALLY unrealistic. You'd expect probably like 10-15 dead, or their momentum terribly muddled.

(PLEASE READ FOLLOW UP EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ABOVE PARAGRAPH):
Considering the constraints of the m2tw system, and the fact I'm not a modder of this project, feel free to disregard my previous statements. I have a feeling the math/formulas you guys did to calculate and balance weapon damages can't account for specific versus cases, like javelins vs unshielded infantry or unarmored steed cavalry. Also, if it simply doesn't fit how effective javelins historically were, feel free to educate me! I'll gladly listen and devour all sources forwarded to my ignorant self. However, I stand firm on SOME sort of improvement for units which the javelin is the primary weapon. They simply are really underwhelming as a projectile (in-game). I suggest that the "pure (as close as possible to the term)" javelineers (either mounted - if so then include horse archers - or on foot) be either given more ammo (so more damage over a long period of time), or they be made way more agile. I don't mean they approach flash levels of velocity, but have definite speeds or acceleration rates that their heavier armored brethren simply can't catch up to. It should be as if they're always a few meters ahead, or they simply turn or maneuver way smoother. I read histories on the Punic Wars, and compare the numidian cav there to what's on EB2, and their riding skills really disappoint.

I'd agree with you on case of javelins vs. cavalry. Javelins were primary cavalry weapon of the era from Iberia to Anatolia and then some, but their performance ingame against other cavalry is lackluster.

As for the infantry, it's not that bad. Most ranged troops in EBII are intended to be support, as they were historically. Used right, they're very cost-effective, but you have to maneuver them into position and make sure they don't run into their target (due to animation, repeated throwing moves them closer) and they don't get attacked in melee.

[Beckitz]

But the problem is that the battles in EBII are scaled down from the scale in real life battles because of the M2TW engine. So if you gave javelin attacks the full physical effect that they would display in real life, it would be disproportionately powerful because in real battles the javelin volley would only disrupt the first few ranks of the battle line, only disrupting a small proportion of the total formation. But given that the units in EBII are scaled down from real life sizes, giving javelins the same physical impact as they would have in a real battle would wipe out a whole chunk of the enemy units. Which is too exaggerated to preserve tactical realism

[Rad]

One way to make missiles more effective against lighter targets while still being realistic would be to ramp up attack, but also up armor and shield values. That way, armored and shielded units would still stand against missile fire while unarmored and unshielded troops would suffer a beating.

That would require a complete overhaul and years of testing. No thanks

[Roma_Victrix]

That would require a complete overhaul and years of testing. No thanks

Are you saying you're not up for the challenge, soldier? Where's your fighting spirit, Private Rad? You and I could test play the bajeezus out of it.

It is as NapoleonMaster said, Makedonia were traditionalists. They kept their Hypaspistai even to the end of the Antigonidai.

I'm unhappy about it, but at least this answer makes sense historically speaking.

[Roma_Victrix]

I don't know if you guys have any control over it, but it is so weird that Egyptian cities during siege are in a state of partial snow cover during winter. It's bizarre. The landscape around the city isn't covered in snow, but the interior is covered in it, namely the streets and rooftops. Needless to say, it does not snow in Egypt. Also, something I think you guys do have a bit of control over: the fact that the Nile Delta region looks like a freaking desert when it is one of the lushest, greenest places on Earth. Seriously, the landscape outside cities like Alexandria and Memphis should not look like a total desert. There should be at least 500% more palm trees, bushes, grass and other flora and fauna than we currently see when you besiege these cities on the campaign map. The vegetation outside the city of Meroe in Kush looked much better in this regard.

[Tribal]

Please make phalanx do more damage, i know the engine is kinda weird but when horses run straight into my pikes (which are these long pointy things but in a high mass which makes going against them unprotected like jumping into a meatgrinder) and like 2 of them die and then they just run away. I really havent found much use for them except for the elite ones because the damage of 5 or 6 or whatever it is, is substaincial enough that they actually kill something.
(sorry I had numlock off and it didnt post the number and there is no edit button so I repost with number ok, thank you, please admins delete the one without the number, thank you)

[Lusitanio]

You have no edit button because you need more comments before being able to edit.

About your suggestion, I don't think so, phalanx already do a very good job, they are there to secure their line while the troops on the flanks win the battle.

[RodriguesSting]

So I have been playing a lot of celts to have a better point of comparison with the Swebi (yes I just keep jumping around with my factions, but it is much more educational than single-mindedly playing Sheba "to master" like I was doing when I first found out this mod). First the pritanoi, and now, the Gauls, namely, Arveni. I was a bit, how to say, extant to try non-Boii because their government and economic options seemed a bit underwhelming, specially without colonies. That turned out to be quite not true, but that's not the case right now, if I am going to gather my thoughts on them, won't be here.

For here, a few suggestions:

1 - Make the "Further Druid Training" trait a bit more difficult to trigger. The first level of Druid is pretty great for general use, and while the outright necromancy the final level would afford me (nearly 45% of casualties recovered with a few select retinues by my calculations) is quite impressive/hillarious, I find that dedicating further +18 years of training is a bit excessive, specially considering I can just grab a pilgrimage and improve my bonus with just one more year of dedication with the chance of grabbing a bunch of great traits along with it. So it ends up happening by accident quite a bit. Rather than reducing the training time, I think it would be better to make more convenient for the player to make an informed decision. I suggest, on top of the MP espendure (RemainingMPPercentage < 75 seems a bit too much, how about we reduce it to < 25 or if possible < 10?), possibly also add a season trigger, like on Spring or Summer, to give the player more control over the trait progression. Alternatively, you guys could also implement a "preparing for Druidic Training" trait to be added/morphed just before the training actually starts, giving the player a heads-up in case he doesn't want to progress the character's training, which could return to the original form by just a simple action like spending a lot of MP.

2 - The manual trigger for the first Celtic reform seems completely pointless. I am not sure it is even possible to achieve that number and scale of battles against Meds without completely sacrificing your campaign, considering that even the Boii are some distance away from the closest candidate (Rome), and by the time you are no longer running on dry with your starting forces to be able to actually wage an attrition war with somebody (around turn 30?), you will already be pretty close of just auto-triggering the reform anyway. Like, turn 80 or so, with no sacrifices made at all.

3 - Mostly relevant to celts, but to a lesser degree all factions that have a mercenary adventure trait-line: how about the possibility of gaining levels of Wealthy with some degrees of success? It is a fantastic trait and by itself would already be very useful, as it can be turned in other good traits by spending time in a settlement, like curing a character's poor health. At least it would be better/more controllable than the faction gaining money out of it. Being able to gain it without having to go around sacking settlements would be a huge boom for Barbarian players.

4 - While on the topic of Celts, I noticed my recruitment pool is... less than impressive, overall. Without going too much further into it and derrailing this post, I want to ask: would it be possible for Celt players to have access to an "exclusive" merc pool in their regions? With larger unit pools/replenishment to make up for their mediocre conventional recruitment. I *had* the impression, in SS-HIP, that the Scots had something like that going on for them, which was vital for my campaigns.

[Just let me post]

Hi guys,

Are there any plans to revert spear combat animation to at least Medieval vanilla grip (which is perfect)?

Current overhead/icepick grip not only looks ridiculous but also is unrealistic, as no sane, not to mention trained person, would fight like that


I know there are many vase paintings etc. depicting icepick grip but that's just artistic freedom or a show-off like golden cuirasses for military parades


Or is there a (relatively) simple way to edit files to change it? Thanks

[Rad]

That's not going to happen. If I remember correctly, the team is quite adamant on that. Some units do use underhand grip, though.

Like you, I had doubts about the overhand grip. However, I eventually realised that it works - especially in formation fighting.

Current overhead/icepick grip not only looks ridiculous but also is unrealistic, as no sane, not to mention trained person, would fight like that

p.s. Unless you can prove that you're a time traveling Hellenistic era hoplite, such words will not convince anyone. All you're doing is belittling the time and effort that the team spent on research and the creation of units that use the overhand spear grip. By doing that, you're also making yourself look bad.

State why you think that the overhand spear grip is not realistic. After you do that, we can move the conversation forward.

[Just let me post]

Ok, so first of all I'm sorry for the harsh tone of my previous post, it indeed sounded rude. My apologies.


Secondly, reasons:

Advantages of overhand / icegrip:

+ stronger blow
+ a bit more precise
+ ability to throw it as last resort and use your sidearm?

Disadvantages:

- shorter, halved range (spears are supposed to be long)
- if your spear is retracted, you can't protect your friends with it
- predictable motion and direction of attack
- in formation, you poke out eyes of your friends behind you (spears often had two sharp ends)
- even if the other end is dull, it still hits your friends and disrupts your attack
- you don't throw your spear at enemy

[RodriguesSting]

Everybody who ever weld a spear and made historical or archeological studies on the subject have their very own opinion on that, and sometimes, these opinions can be shattered by experimentation (see the whole debacle of the "Mediterranean archery", arrow on the right side of the bow, etc). As the subject is if overhand grip is practical, rather than possible, though, and if it was used (people don't always do what's practical), no conclusive answer will ever be found least we find a way to look at an ancient battle in real-time.

Besides, the overhand grip has a purpose in the mod: it offers a better attack animation than the underhand grip, thus units using it fare much better, both offensively and defensively (attacking quicker means dying less too).

[Rad]

Ok, so first of all I'm sorry for the harsh tone of my previous post, it indeed sounded rude. My apologies.

That's nice of you. Some people are not capable of saying sorry. I may be one of them

Secondly, reasons:

Advantages of overhand / icegrip:

+ stronger blow
+ a bit more precise
+ ability to throw it as last resort and use your sidearm?

I'll expand on what you said and add a few things.

1. Yes, the overhand spear attack is considerably stronger. The overhand spear grip uses the back muscles more (the second largest muscle group in the human body) and also the triceps muscles which are much larger than the biceps muscles. You also have gravity helping your attacks.

2. Secondly, with the overhand spear grip, you are better able to reach over your opponent's shield and target the vital head, neck and shoulder area.

With the underhand spear grip, one is inclined to target the area of the body which is covered or can quickly be covered with a shield.

3. Third - overhand spear grip is more convenient to use in a tight formation, especially in the hoplite phalanx which relies on interlocked shields and unit mass - the spear is free up in the air and it does not bother your or your comrades.

With the underhand spear grip, you always risk hitting your comrades behind you - that could be nasty because spears can have secondary spear heads on the other end. Also, if you use underhand spear grip, your spear would be sandwiched between your shield and your comrade's shield. Also, the people behind the front rank are going to have issues when presenting their spears to the enemy because they will limited by bodies of the people in the front. You could try to mitigate those issues by spacing soldiers further apart, but that would damage the formation and make the soldiers more exposed. Kind of ruins the whole point, doesn't it?

4. You can immediately throw the spear which is a HUGE game changer. Your opponents have to be much more careful with you because of the range you have with throwing.

Disadvantages:

- shorter, halved range (spears are good because they are long)

Although reach is a nice bonus, it's not the best quality of the spear. In my opinion, it's not even in the top three. The spear is good because it's low tech, cheap, deadly, easy to use and does not require much space to use. Contrary to the sword, even the humblest village blacksmith can make a spear head out of a small amount of low quality iron and the weapon will still do its job. That means you need much material and you don't need specialized facilities and craftsmen. Spear thrusts and thrusts in general are deadly because they penetrate deep and cause massive bleeding and damage to vital organs. The doctors of that time were few and ill prepared for such wounds. Also, most forms of existing armor were better suited at stopping slashing attacks and weren't ideal for stopping powerful thrusts. Even mail is not immune to a dedicated overhand spear thrust. Again, contrary to swords, spears are simple to use because your main attack is poke, your secondary attack is poke, your tertiary attack is poke etc etc etc. People tend to ditch complicated things under the stress of combat, so the simplicity of the spear is actually a huge benefit. I have already mentioned why it doesn't take up much space when used with an overhand grip, so I won't repeat myself.
Most line infantry spears appear to have been in the ranges of 2m to 3m length. Even if that reach is halved (which it doesn't have to be because you can train those large muscle groups I mentioned AND balance the spear shaft by making it heavier on the other end and with counterweights), you still outreach opponents armed with swords. More importantly, one or two ranks behind you can also present their spears to the enemy and attack together with you. Opponents who use spears with the underhand grip run into all the issues I mentioned above. That enables you to close the distance and engage the enemy in the range that suits you and does not suit them. At the end of the day, if you really, really want a range advantage in melee combat, you grab a pike. That's what the Macedonians did.

- if your spear is retracted, you can't protect your friends with it

You and the people next to you have shields to defend yourselves. The spear is an offensive weapon. Its primary purpose is to attack, not to fend off attacks. You can use the spear to defend yourself by attacking - that way you are seizing initiative from the enemy and forcing them to play your game. A good offence is the best defense. There are Indian and Afghani styles of sword and shield combat in which the sword is used offensively while the shield does most, if not all of the defending

- predictable motion and direction of attack
- even if the other end is dull, it still hits your friends and disrupts your attack

That's actually one of the drawbacks of the underhand grip. Most attacks are funelled towards an area which the enemy can cover with the shield. Also, your spear is sandwiched between your shield and the shield of the comrade next you, further limiting your reach and making your attacks more predictable.

- in formation, you poke out eyes of your friends behind you (spears often had two sharp ends)

That's another drawback of the underhand grip, not of the overhand grip. With overhand grip, spears are angled so the other end of the spear points towards the sky.

- you don't throw your spear at enemy

You absolutely do throw a spear at the enemy if you see an opening. You will still be protected with a shield and you can ask for a replacement spear. Also, the mere threat of throwing the spear makes the enemy completely change the way they fight, making them more cautious and reserved. A more skilled, aggressive and disciplined group of fighters can use that to their huge advantage.

[Just let me post]

Hm, some of your points are very good and convincing, and what is more, I think the key element in either grip usefulness is whether the fight is happening in a "shieldwall" (like hoplites) or in more loose "barbarian" (and also later medieval) formation


Because in tight "shieldwall" formation = overhand grip makes sense (no sandwitching, you can freely jab from above)


In other formations = overhand grip is an amazing way to get killed

With the underhand spear grip, you always risk hitting your comrades behind you

You grab the spear near the end and secure it under your elbow so the end tip barely sticks out, and it's safe to use

spacing soldiers further apart, but that would damage the formation and make the soldiers more exposed. Kind of ruins the whole point, doesn't it?

Well yes, but that's where length of the spear comes into play, which is far greater with underhand grip - more of that next

Although reach is a nice bonus, it's not the best quality of the spear.

This is absolutely not true. Take shields out of the equation. Who wins, a guy with a long spear or a guy with a gladius?
Spears are dirt cheap but ALSO amazing. Just not so good in close quarters... hence the overhand grip making sense, but only then

4. You can immediately throw the spear which is a HUGE game changer. Your opponents have to be much more careful with you because of the range you have with throwing.

I agree, provided your own formation won't suffer from the loss of weapon/positioning. Good point

That's actually one of the drawbacks of the underhand grip. Most attacks are funelled towards an area which the enemy can cover with the shield. Also, your spear is sandwiched between your shield and the shield of the comrade next you, further limiting your reach and making your attacks more predictable.

Again, depends on spacing of fighters, but with underhand grip, you can attack high/mid/low + you have more reach, thus covering more area. With icepick grip, you can only attack from above, and from a short distance.

The spear is an offensive weapon. Its primary purpose is to attack, not to fend off attacks. You can use the spear to defend yourself by attacking.

Exactly! If you have reach, which you have with an underhand grip, you can not only threaten an enemy in front of you, but also the one trying to attack your friend, making him think twice. Defense by prevention. I guess situation is the same with icepick grip when shieldbearers are hugging





Nevertheless, that's surely an interesting discussion here, and you made my eyes irk a bit less when I see those EB2 soldiers jabbing about

[Rad]

Hm, some of your points are very good and convincing, and what is more, I think the key element in either grip usefulness is whether the fight is happening in a "shieldwall" (like hoplites) or in more loose "barbarian" (and also later medieval) formation


Because in tight "shieldwall" formation = overhand grip makes sense (no sandwitching, you can freely jab from above)


In other formations = overhand grip is an amazing way to get killed

Medieval eh? Medieval fomations could be as compact as phalanx formations. Just think of the Anglo-Scandinavian shield wall.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

BNF Nouvelle acquisition française 15939 Miroir Historial Vol 1 1370s France

However, it doesn't mean that the overhand spear grip was used exclusively in tight formations.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

BL Royal 20 C I Les fait des Romains - French, first quarter of the 15th century.

You grab the spear near the end and secure it under your elbow so the end tip barely sticks out, and it's safe to use

If you do that, you make the spear tip heavy. That tires you more quickly, makes your attacks slower and allows your opponents more chances to move past your spear, knock it aside or just outright grab it from you. Also, you are still limited by your shield and the shield to the person next to you. Lastly, no one would hold the secondary spear head close to their skin - that's a self inflicted wound waiting to happen.

Medieval manuscripts leave a bit of the shaft sticking in the other end.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bodley Ashmole 1511 The Ashmole Bestiary early 13th England

This is absolutely not true. Take shields out of the equation. Who wins, a guy with a long spear or a guy with a gladius?
Spears are dirt cheap but ALSO amazing. Just not so good in close quarters... hence the overhand grip making sense, but only then

You cannot take shields out of a discussion about spear&shield combat. I really can't stress that enough. They are such a huge game changer- they are the main reason we're having this discussion.
Reach can be a great bonus, but it's not the main quality of the spear. Just look at Zulu spears. They are short. That's because their style of melee fighting relied on closing the distance and stabbing the enemy.

Again, depends on spacing of fighters, but with underhand grip, you can attack high/mid/low + you have more reach, thus covering more area. With icepick grip, you can only attack from above, and from a short distance.

High/mid/low with the underhand is trapped by your shields and it strikes right into the enemy's shield, armor, greaves. In a fight, wasting energy and opportunity is extremely dangerous.

On the other hand, overhand focuses on moving past defensive gear and striking the vulnerable areas of the body.

Exactly! If you have reach, which you have with an underhand grip, you can not only threaten an enemy in front of you, but also the one trying to attack your friend, making him think twice. Defense by prevention. I guess situation is the same with icepick grip when shieldbearers are hugging

With the underhand spear grip, you get 1m of extra reach at the expense of speed, power, your ability to easily operate the weapon in close quarters etc. Your opponents know you can't throw the spear in that position, so they are less concentrated on you.

With the overhand grip you are able to throw the spear at any moment - that's up to or even perhaps more than 10m of extra reach, depending on the spear and the strength of the thrower. That's a considerably greater risk to the enemy. In my opinion, that's a better form of active defense.

Nevertheless, that's surely an interesting discussion here, and you made my eyes irk a bit less when I see those EB2 soldiers jabbing about

I'm glad we're having this discussion. Like I said, I wasn't a fan of the overhand grip when I started getting interested into ancient and medieval history. Time and experience changed my views.

[Kilo11]

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I think you guys should post a couple more responses to one another, to work out all the theoretical argumentative points, and then we'll get you each a spear and let you boys do some practical research! After all, that's the only way to be really sure

[Rad]

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I think you guys should post a couple more responses to one another, to work out all the theoretical argumentative points, and then we'll get you each a spear and let you boys do some practical research! After all, that's the only way to be really sure

So, you want us to try to kill each other? At least give us a shield as well

[Kilo11]

So, you want us to try to kill each other? At least give us a shield as well

Fine. I'll give the two of you one shield. I will be interested to see how that affects matters.

[Rad]

Don't get technical now!