Question about elite phalanx and some other units

[excubitor]

for what i have seen in the twitter updates you plan to integrate into the hellenistic factions elite phalanxes and you are going to call them agema for all the factions.
from what i have read,only in makedonic and ptolemaic armies part of the standing army/royal guard was called agema.

in seleucid armies they were called argyraspides,in the epirus there isnt any unit called agema,nor is any on pontic armies.


also the bulk of the regular phalanx was called chalkaspides both in macedonia and seleucia albeit in a later date from the mod start.

another thing that i found puzzling about is the peltastai logades unit,which frankly i havent read anywhere that they existed and they are recruitable from most hellinistic factions from the game start.
i think they dont fit with the timeframe and either should be recruitable much later or their place should be taken by thorakitai.
the same i propose for the peltastai makedonikoi,their fighting style resembles thorakitai and should be recrutable much later,not from the mod start.

and honestly whose idea was to include in a 3nd century bc mod an onager of all things?

of course that is my opinion on the matter,and if you dont plan to consider implementing any of the above i should be grateful if anyone could tell me how to do it myself.

[QuintusSertorius]

We have historians, who know what they're talking about, advising us on what and when units should be available.

An elite phalanx is an elite phalanx. The fact that the Epirotes called it the Chaonian Agema and the Seleukids the Argyraspides, and the Pontics something else is largely irrelevant as far as their game effect is concerned. It's a waste of perfectly good unit slots to have five units, all with identical stats, just for the sake of them having a different label in-game. Exactly the same goes for the regular phalanx, that's why we dropped the Chalkaspides or Kleruchoi or any other distinction. There's the Phalangitai unit, which represents all the medium phalanxes comprised largely of Makedonians and Makedonian and Greek settler-soldiers.

Peltastai Logades are not recruitable everywhere, but in a very specific set of regions. They are exactly when they should be. The Makedones Peltastai are similarly when they are supposed to be.

There is no "onager" there's the Lithobolos, an attested-to piece of Hellenistic siege engineering.

[excubitor]

for a mod thriving for historical accuracy and equal presentation of each faction i find your answer unsatisfactory.

We have historians, who know what they're talking about, advising us on what and when units should be available.

yes of course,im no real historian just saying what i read about,but does it not contradict with your reforms having thorakitai style units on available at 272 bc and the thorakitai reform happening at 200 bc?

An elite phalanx is an elite phalanx. The fact that the Epirotes called it the Chaonian Agema and the Seleukids the Argyraspides, and the Pontics something else is largely irrelevant as far as their game effect is concerned. It's a waste of perfectly good unit slots to have five units, all with identical stats, just for the sake of them having a different label in-game. Exactly the same goes for the regular phalanx, that's why we dropped the Chalkaspides or Kleruchoi or any other distinction. There's the Phalangitai unit, which represents all the medium phalanxes comprised largely of Makedonians and Makedonian and Greek settler-soldiers.

we are talking about phalanxes which played a big part in hellinistic warfare up to the end of the 3nd century at least,not some obscure units used for some years and then disappearing like the kendrosfendonitai.
i believe that the unit limit in md2 is 500 units and currently we have 200 so i dont see where the problem is for making unique phalanxes for each faction.
giving them all identical stats because they all wield a long spear and a small shield is...ehm interesting.
you would expect units existing for many centuries,like the argyraspides,having better stats due to the elan of the unit than the chaoneon phalanx which was created by pyrrhus and disbanded after his death.
about the leuckaspide,the "white shields",which supposedly are mentioned being part of the macedonian phalanx during the third macedonian war,you decided to have them recruited by all or did i read wrong?

Peltastai Logades are not recruitable everywhere, but in a very specific set of regions. They are exactly when they should be.

so i ask again,whats the historical references for the peltastai logades?

The Makedones Peltastai are similarly when they are supposed to be.

the peltastai where indeed part of the standing infantry army of the macedon kings the other being the agema,but they are mentioned in the sources much later from the game start from 223 onwards.you could say that the date is irrelevant,but exactly the date isnt being used as an excuse to not include into the game the lorica segmentata?

There is no "onager" there's the Lithobolos, an attested-to piece of Hellenistic siege engineering.

from a post of alin in the "aside from the oxybeles and scorpio are we going to see the onager in the next release" thread

I wasn't expecting someone to find about that before the news on our twitter/FB pages.

Anyway, that means we finished our siege engine roster: oxybeles, scorpion, 15 mina and 1 talent lithobolos and ONAGER

i find that the spirit of equal attention on all factions that charactirised EB1 is abit absent in EB2.

lets take the roster of seleukids concerning phalanxes in EB 1
you had the base ones called pantodapoi
then the medium ones called klerouchoi and you could also recruit pezhetairoi which i find a bit ahistoric but ok in terms of diversity of gameplay
and finally the royal guard,the argyraspides
you see now,that you can roleplay and create the seleukid army as it was in ancient times,having your core army including argyraspides in your capital and kleirouchs available in all type I and II goverments to recruit when the need arises.

lets take the macedon one
basic is deuteroi
medium is pezhaitairoi
and elite we have argyraspides

the ptolemaic one
basic is machimoi phalangitai
medium pezhaitairoi and katoikoi
elite phalanx we have the agema klerouchon

the pontic one
basic is pantodapoi
medium is klerouchoi
elite are chalkaspides


of course the rosters of the hellenistic factions were not perfect and had a lot of mistakes like giving argyraspides both to macedon and seleukia and also giving pezhetairoi to almost all hellenistic rosters.
but you had many options when building your armies,and if you wanted to roleplay you could.the key is diversity.


the reason Europa Barbarorum is venarated as the best rome total war mod was part due to the painstakingly historical researched content which lead to diverse gamestyles that were not posible in the vanilla game.the majority of the people playing didnt give actually a rats ass about historical authenticity but they enjoyed having different faction playthroughs.

[adun12345]

giving them all identical stats because they all wield a long spear and a small shield is...ehm interesting.
you would expect units existing for many centuries,like the argyraspides,having better stats due to the elan of the unit than the chaoneon phalanx which was created by pyrrhus and disbanded after his death.

I don't see what the problem is with having a few phalanx units available across the Hellenistic factions, especially if it leaves room and design resources for including a greater diversity of units. The greater abilities of more experienced units can easily be dealt with via the experience mechanic, as well as the various morale-on-recruitment buffs available in different places.

Although different phalanxes had different adornments, is there any original-source documentary evidence to support the contention that Seleucid phalanxes were on the whole superior in combat to Epirote phalanxes (for instance)? If not, then having a single Phalangitai unit isn't an issue of historical fidelity, but simply a design choice.

[QuintusSertorius]

for a mod thriving for historical accuracy and equal presentation of each faction i find your answer unsatisfactory.

EBII is not finished by any means.

yes of course,im no real historian just saying what i read about,but does it not contradict with your reforms having thorakitai style units on available at 272 bc and the thorakitai reform happening at 200 bc?

Just because some Makedones Peltastai happen to wear mail, does not make them "Thorakitai style". I'd suggest you update your reading if you think that's the only thing which makes them so.

we are talking about phalanxes which played a big part in hellinistic warfare up to the end of the 3nd century at least,not some obscure units used for some years and then disappearing like the kendrosfendonitai.
i believe that the unit limit in md2 is 500 units and currently we have 200 so i dont see where the problem is for making unique phalanxes for each faction.
giving them all identical stats because they all wield a long spear and a small shield is...ehm interesting.
you would expect units existing for many centuries,like the argyraspides,having better stats due to the elan of the unit than the chaoneon phalanx which was created by pyrrhus and disbanded after his death.
about the leuckaspide,the "white shields",which supposedly are mentioned being part of the macedonian phalanx during the third macedonian war,you decided to have them recruited by all or did i read wrong?

We have around 480 units planned, but only around 230 completed. Adding separate units for each elite phalanx is a waste of unit slots for what are most likely tiny, cosmetic differences between them (which can be handled with different skins).

so i ask again,whats the historical references for the peltastai logades?

Unit description for the Logades:

The influence of the Makedones was profound on Hellenic warfare. The Makedonian Diadochoi armies elevated the role of a select corps of peltastai, making them a versatile, well-trained force utilized for complicated, challenging missions. In western Anatolia in particular, poleis often emulated Makedonian martial arrays where possible. Training and fielding a large force of phalangitai was often impossible, but many experimented with their own phalanxes. An elite force of peltasts was both more manageable and more helpful for the sorts of military activities these cities conducted. The lesser Hellenistic kingdoms of Anatolia and the Bosporus, and even the local dynastai and various cities, fielded picked units of young, well-equipped men from leading families. They were effective at screening cavalry, skirmishing, flanking, assaulting fortified positions, rapid marches, seizing strategic locations on a battlefield, and when necessary gave a good account of themselves in the main battle line. They proved their worth against Hellenistic armies, in scores of battles and skirmishes against the Galatai, and in many engagements with Anatolian folk.

Bosporan and western Anatolian sources are mentioned by our historians, what conflicting information do you have?

the peltastai where indeed part of the standing infantry army of the macedon kings the other being the agema,but they are mentioned in the sources much later from the game start from 223 onwards.you could say that the date is irrelevant,but exactly the date isnt being used as an excuse to not include into the game the lorica segmentata?

Makedones Peltastai description:

The elite peltastai makedones appear at some point during the late 3rd century as the guard of the Antigonid kings and later with the other Diadochoi. The precise moment is not known due to scarcity of information concerning period between the Battle of Ipsos and start of second Punic War; however, it is possible that a precursor of the unit may have been employed by Alexander and seen as phalangites equipped with javelins rather than the sarisa. Therefore, it is highly probably that such a unit was present during the vigorous fighting of the Successors in the late 4th and early 3rd centuries. It is from both Polybios and inscriptions found in Makedonia that we learn of them; that they were among the most fit Makedonians available to the king; and likely the sons of noble families. They were younger than 35 and so at the peak physical strength for the average man. Their role in war was similar to that of hypaspistai in the army of Alexander: assault of fortifications, supporting light troops in broken terrain, and performing special missions that required both skill and strength. In set battles they could be equipped with the sarisa and fight with the phalanx positioned in the place of honour at the right wing close to the king. Commanders of the peltastai were among the most important persons in the kingdom, as evidenced by Antigonos Doson's naming the contemporary commander of the unit, along with four others, as protector of a young Philip V.

from a post of alin in the "aside from the oxybeles and scorpio are we going to see the onager in the next release" thread

It's not actually called the onager, you're getting hung up on names.

i find that the spirit of equal attention on all factions that charactirised EB1 is abit absent in EB2.

lets take the roster of seleukids concerning phalanxes in EB 1
you had the base ones called pantodapoi
then the medium ones called klerouchoi and you could also recruit pezhetairoi which i find a bit ahistoric but ok in terms of diversity of gameplay
and finally the royal guard,the argyraspides
you see now,that you can roleplay and create the seleukid army as it was in ancient times,having your core army including argyraspides in your capital and kleirouchs available in all type I and II goverments to recruit when the need arises.

EB1 was finished, EBII is not.

The government system in EBII is completely different; indeed for Hellenistic factions, it is for the most part secondary to the polis and colony buildings.

lets take the macedon one
basic is deuteroi
medium is pezhaitairoi
and elite we have argyraspides

Deuteroi Phalangitai.
Phalangitai.
Agema Phalangitai.

the ptolemaic one
basic is machimoi phalangitai
medium pezhaitairoi and katoikoi
elite phalanx we have the agema klerouchon

Machimoi Phalangitai (and these weren't "basic" they were levied only in emergency).
Phalangitai.
Agema Phalangitai.

the pontic one
basic is pantodapoi
medium is klerouchoi
elite are chalkaspides

Pantodapoi Phalangitai.
Phalangitai.
Agema Phalangitai.

of course the rosters of the hellenistic factions were not perfect and had a lot of mistakes like giving argyraspides both to macedon and seleukia and also giving pezhetairoi to almost all hellenistic rosters.
but you had many options when building your armies,and if you wanted to roleplay you could.the key is diversity.

EB1 was finished, EBII is not.

the reason Europa Barbarorum is venarated as the best rome total war mod was part due to the painstakingly historical researched content which lead to diverse gamestyles that were not posible in the vanilla game.the majority of the people playing didnt give actually a rats ass about historical authenticity but they enjoyed having different faction playthroughs.

Some of what was in EB1 was wrong or naive, we've updated an awful lot of stuff as a result of our historians applying themselves to it. The quality of research in EBII is higher, not lower than EB1.

[z3n]

EB/EbII's have always had very informative and well done descriptions. Why don't you read them?

[excubitor]

i prefer the original sources

[excubitor]

I don't see what the problem is with having a few phalanx units available across the Hellenistic factions, especially if it leaves room and design resources for including a greater diversity of units. The greater abilities of more experienced units can easily be dealt with via the experience mechanic, as well as the various morale-on-recruitment buffs available in different places.

giving to factions units they didnt have historically is ..ehm ahistorical?
lets give the romans then phalanx for the lulz.

Although different phalanxes had different adornments, is there any original-source documentary evidence to support the contention that Seleucid phalanxes were on the whole superior in combat to Epirote phalanxes (for instance)? If not, then having a single Phalangitai unit isn't an issue of historical fidelity, but simply a design choice.

you would expect units existing for many centuries,like the argyraspides,having better stats due to the elan of the unit than the chaoneon phalanx which was created by pyrrhus and disbanded after his death.

[adun12345]

So, no "original source" basis to show that phalanxes of different polities were of sufficiently different quality to warrant separate units, just your expectation. Thx - that was what I was hoping to clarify.

[excubitor]

that you suggest is not logical,because polybius didnt write that "the macedonian phalanx had 13 points of defence and 15 of attack and the seleucid one had 12 attack and 16 defence" doesnt mean that there were no differences between the phalanxes of the different states.
thats why the roman roster has different stats through the different reforms,it reflects the armour,training,ethos,elan etc.
it even had a new unit in the marian roster,called evocatii which represented the reenlisted veterans of the legions.

there are some indirect evidence,if you read carefully the battles of the hellinistic kingdoms you can see that for example in the battle of raphia the ptolemy phalanx made of katoikoi and machimoi phalangites managed to defeat the kleirouchoi fighting for the seleucids.that was part of the superior numbers of the ptolemic phalanx and part of their superior training.

and as i wrote before there is a 500 limit for units,and currently the mod has 200.
so give me a break with "we must have space for more important units" shenanigan,units that is quite questionable if they ever be in the mod afterall.

[excubitor]

Just because some Makedones Peltastai happen to wear mail, does not make them "Thorakitai style". I'd suggest you update your reading if you think that's the only thing which makes them so.

ok i didnt insult you in the slitest nor did i denote your work in the mod,so spare me the reading lecture friend.
the fighting style of the peltastai is similar to the thyreophoroi/thorakitai and what i ask is to include that unit either to the 257 or to the 200 reform.

Bosporan and western Anatolian sources are mentioned by our historians, what conflicting information do you have?

i simply ask the original sources,not the exact passage in the x book of the x ancient historian but something like "mentioning of peltastai logades was at the works of polybius".
the only infromation i have about westen asia minor is that they continued the use of hoplite style warfare long after it was stop being used elsewere.

Some of what was in EB1 was wrong or naive, we've updated an awful lot of stuff as a result of our historians applying themselves to it. The quality of research in EBII is higher, not lower than EB1.

well yes and no,you didnt replicate the same mistakes eb1 did considering the faction rosters but you added some of your own which i point out.

It's not actually called the onager, you're getting hung up on names.

lets call it my little pony,the thing is that single arm throwing devices were not used in the centuries bc

[QuintusSertorius]

ok i didnt insult you in the slitest nor did i denote your work in the mod,so spare me the reading lecture friend.
the fighting style of the peltastai is similar to the thyreophoroi/thorakitai and what i ask is to include that unit either to the 257 or to the 200 reform.

Material on exactly our period is quite thin; a lot has been lost on the early wars of the Diadochi. So there are a lot of judgement calls on when to draw a line about things which were fluid, emergent and varied by place. Not to mention that in terms of military reforms, some places adopted, dropped and re-adopted particular fighting styles. The city-states of Hellas in particular were all over the place in whether they were trying to imitate the Makedonian phalanx, or fielding Thurephoroi-focused forces, or using old-style Hoplites. They switched between them based upon victories or defeats and perceptions at the time as to whether or not they were responsible for their success/failure.

You could argue for Thureophoroi being available at the start of the game, they were in some places, but the idea behind having a reform event is that it marks when the overall tide of adoption had shifted decisively in one direction or other. The notion of a royal elite using novel or distinct tactics, ahead of the general trend is not a great leap of faith. Alexander had elite assault infantry, which is why the Makedones Peltastai are staying exactly where they are.

i simply ask the original sources,not the exact passage in the x book of the x ancient historian but something like "mentioning of peltastai logades was at the works of polybius".
the only infromation i have about westen asia minor is that they continued the use of hoplite style warfare long after it was stop being used elsewere.

I'll ask them.

well yes and no,you didnt replicate the same mistakes eb1 did considering the faction rosters but you added some of your own which i point out.

They're not mistakes, they are trade-offs. The advantage gained in having different types of Medium and Elite phalanxes are not worth the loss of unit slots and additional modelling work required to make them genuinely distinct.

lets call it my little pony,the thing is that single arm throwing devices were not used in the centuries bc

Since you're making the assertion, please feel free to present the evidence against.

[excubitor]

unfortunately i find your grasp of the hellenistic warfare inadequate so instead of historical proof of your points you get defensive and respond with nothing useful to discuss.
at least you didnt throw the "go make it yourself noob" argument many self proclaimed grand modders throw at every critisism.
best luck with the completion of the mod.

[alin]

unfortunately i find your grasp of the hellenistic warfare inadequate so instead of historical proof of your points you get defensive and respond with nothing useful to discuss.
at least you didnt throw the "go make it yourself noob" argument many self proclaimed grand modders throw at every critisism.
best luck with the completion of the mod.

I don't understand why you keep insisting on your request for unique names for elite phalanx units, it's similar to asking for unique names for the Roman legions.
As you said, we put above all historical accuracy and that each faction gets the same treatment. What you're asking is special treatment.

The mod is not complete, it's far from it and when we reach that stage and have spare unit slots we will use them accordingly.

As for the historical aspects of those units a historian will have to answer those.

[excubitor]

well the team of EB2 is certainly biased towards certain factions,which unfortunately dont include the succesor kingdoms.maybe they are considered "boring" who knows.
thats sad,because for the whole 3nd century ptolemaic egypt and the seleucids where the big players on the eastern part of the map.




it seems whoever was responsible for fleshing out those factions abandoned the project and you had to make due with the leftovers.at the same time obscure and unsupported by the tinest of historical evidence factions and their roster were feversly made.
the spirit of EB 1 is long dead.

[alin]

well the team of EB2 is certainly biased towards certain factions,which unfortunately dont include the succesor kingdoms.maybe they are considered "boring" who knows.
thats sad,because for the whole 3nd century ptolemaic egypt and the seleucids where the big players on the eastern part of the map.

Those factions have the richest rosters from all and got the attention they deserve at the expense of steppe and arabian factions.
Even some european factions were neglected because of that, look at the first release Romani roster which included only the Camilian units.

it seems whoever was responsible for fleshing out those factions abandoned the project and you had to make due with the leftovers.at the same time obscure and unsupported by the tinest of historical evidence factions and their roster were feversly made.
the spirit of EB 1 is long dead.

Actually the ones who were responsible for those factions(keravnos, Urnarma and other) left after their roster was completed for the first release.
So you're just making assumptions and I don't see that you wish to continue with a civilized and well thought discussion by assessing actual facts as they are.

I was never expecting to hear that we're biased to certain factions because we're neglecting the Hellenistic factions...

[excubitor]

they are called hellinistic for a reason not greek or anything else you are trying to accuse me off here.
i stated my points you responded with "we know better",so yea good luck with the mod.

[Rail93]

Excubitor I am not a team member and unfortunately I am far away for being one and I can tell you honestly : the only biased person here is you. Of course we, the community, may ask questions and give suggestions even crticism is welcomed by the team but it needs to be backed up by arguments and logic. Your posts here had neither unlike posts by the team. Therefore I world like to kindly ask you to change your writing style and stop with flaming. Qs and alin were too nice and spent enough time answering your rude (yes rude) posts. I also love hellenic (or greek - nevermind ) factions and I disagree with some decisions (few) but I try to make suggestions with as detailed argumentation as possible while you dont and that is just rude and juvenile.

[excubitor]

I would prefer if you pointed my wrong theories and provided counterarguments to the statements i did but unfortunately you respond with ad hominem accusations and threats which i return to you as i receive them.

[QuintusSertorius]

I would prefer if you pointed my wrong theories and provided counterarguments to the statements i did but unfortunately you respond with ad hominem accusations and threats which i return to you as i receive them.

For someone demanding historical evidence, you haven't actually provided any to support your arguments.