Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Unit balance issues

  1. #1

    Default Unit balance issues

    While i mostly like how the team has balanced combat in the M2TW engine, i have issues with units outperforming others by a mile, while others units are nearly useless.

    Units that i´ve noticed underperforming are mainly persian, like the iranian javelinmen/spear-archers/arachosian cavalry/slingers/medium cav. All those are way worse than their hellenic equivalents (even toxotai are better for being cheaper). Some are just too expensive like the hellenistic phalangitai, with +2 armor and +1 morale over the light phalanx, but costs nearly the double - the description talks about not having the same esprit de corps but phalangitai have only 1 point more of morale, they should have at least "normal" morale instead of "low".

    Units that i think are overperforming are clearly the greek hippeis (the description doesn´t match in the slightest what this unit can do), almost all thrakian units (specially peltanai) with their ap melee weapons and elite javelins - outperforming elite units that cost way more, post-reform roman units (maybe this was intended, still they´re way too good imo), etc.

    I also don´t understand why some units have a near-identical copy that takes exactly the same role. The most glaring case is the western/eastern iranian archer-spearmen, but there is also the thessalian/lydian cavalry, or some post-reform roman units like veterans. All agema phalanxes got merged into one unit, as did the cavalry of the diadochi, so i think there should be a revision of which units can be combined.

    Another big issue is how there is a hardcoded bonus/penalty for spears when facing cavalry or infantry. The use of swords or spears as a secondary weapon for many units, has a noticeable effect on their perfomance, like spear cavalry having a big advantage agaisnt other cav, while still being decent vs infantry (the charge is still relevant). This makes sword cavalry units a lot less desirable, when spear cavs does the same and also is anti-cav.

    Infantry with spears are at a disadvantage versus infantry swordmen, so they´re more specialized agaisnt cavalry and suffer versus infantry in settings like settlement battles - where flanking is not always possible. Are these hardcoded penalties taken in account when creating unit stats? If you design an assault unit like the hyspapistai but arm then with spears then it´s a gimped unit, specially with the agema peltastai right there too.

    Feel free to also leave your feedback about units that you think aren´t capable enough or perfom too well for what they represent.
    Last edited by Hellenikon; January 15, 2016 at 03:55 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I disagree with some of your statements.

    Specially I got shocked when you said that toxotai is better than the spear-archers. The latter is a great native unit. For a pretty low coast you have an archer that has better damage, more defense, more morale and more attack too.
    Basically they are a bit better than the toxotai already in the archery but they are a lot better in melee. They can deal very well with the light cavalry thats is prolific in the zone, and entertain the others, while toxotai rout at the first charge and are destroyed by almost all infantry.

    We will either find a way, or make one.


  3. #3

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I think the lethality or the damage of a lot of infantry units is a bit disappointing to be honest(maybe buggy?).
    So far the missile and cavalry lethality/damage both seem to work great but infantry needs some tweaking IMO.

    In many fights the duels between soldiers look inconsistent. Sometimes really weak units can take a rhomphaia to the face 10 times in a row and not die, then kill the enemy in one hit with their knife...other times the faster animations just destroys any strong slow weapons which again...dont seem to damage when finally connecting a swing.

    I spent a lot of time watching units up close and right now it seems that things like shield bashing, parrying or blocking are the worst things a soldier can do in a duel(which doesnt make any sense). Most dont actually die when getting hit for real so its just better to continually 'spam' the attack animation.



    Any chance we might see some damage buffs to infantry? Not to see armies massacre each other but maybe it might make the actual fighting realistic when you zoom in.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I've also noticed the units are not balanced very well, I assume it is due to it being a beta type release, and full unit balancing will wait for full-release rosters.

  5. #5
    delra's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    5,590

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I like low lethality setup. Played some BC this last couple weeks just to take breaks from EB and there every battles leaves you with 1/3 of the stack and it's annoying as hell. You need to train a new army for every battle, basically.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I see you missed the big difference between light phalanx and regular. A little thing, regular phalanx is highly_trained while light just trained. This affects cohesion and ability to hold formation, which is very important for phalanx. Still...light phalanx is more cost-effective.

    Some of the elite units have problem with balancing simply due to reduced number of troops. From my campaigns, I can say that Thorakitai Epilektoi and Peltastai Logades aren't worth the money and issues with limited recruitment when regular Thorakitai or Machiarophoroi can do the job just as well.

    I agree with the spear cavalry though. When a common mercenary cavalry (Raskumezenai) can chase down and beat in melee elite unit like Hetairoi, it's a problem.
    Last edited by Sar1n; January 16, 2016 at 01:59 AM.

  7. #7
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,743

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    Firstly, there is no cultural equivalence or factional balance in the rosters, some rosters have some units which are better than those other rosters have. Furthermore, just because something has an ostensibly similar name to another unit, does not mean they are equivalent. There are only two balancing factors: cost (which is a consistent formula for all units based on equipment, status, training and size) and availability (which is based on a different formula limiting overall recruitment from any one source).

    Greek line infantry is better than anything equivalent the Iranian roster has to offer. That is entirely by design, that's why they cost more and historically why the Persians prized Greek mercenaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    While i mostly like how the team has balanced combat in the M2TW engine, i have issues with units outperforming others by a mile, while others units are nearly useless.

    Units that i´ve noticed underperforming are mainly persian, like the iranian javelinmen/spear-archers/arachosian cavalry/slingers/medium cav. All those are way worse than their hellenic equivalents (even toxotai are better for being cheaper).
    Akontistai are slightly faster and have a better missile attack than Payadag i Ashtan (the reason for that is that Greeks use the ankyle); the latter have more javelins, better armour, a better shield, a weapon that will allow them to stand up to cavalry and survive better in melee. I take it you've never pitted the two against each other?

    Archer-spearman are vastly superior archers to Toxotai. They have much longer range, better arrows and higher attack. They are also much more durable in melee and able to withstand cavalry. Once again, I have to wonder how you've been using the two of them to reach that rather bizarre conclusion.

    Eastern slingers are worse slingers than Sphendonetai, with shorter range and a worse projectile. However, they are better-armoured, which just edges them out cost-wise.

    Hippakontistai have a better javelin attack (ankyle again) and more of them than Arachosians. They use a sword, where Arachosians have only a retained javelin. Arachosians are better-armoured and have a better shield. Thus the Hippakontistai are slightly more expensive.

    Hippeis might be too cheap now they have a functioning secondary weapon - I'll review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    Some are just too expensive like the hellenistic phalangitai, with +2 armor and +1 morale over the light phalanx, but costs nearly the double - the description talks about not having the same esprit de corps but phalangitai have only 1 point more of morale, they should have at least "normal" morale instead of "low".
    Deuteroi are slower, have a lower bonus against cavalry, less armour, less morale and a less cohesive formation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    Units that i think are overperforming are clearly the greek hippeis (the description doesn´t match in the slightest what this unit can do), almost all thrakian units (specially peltanai) with their ap melee weapons and elite javelins - outperforming elite units that cost way more, post-reform roman units (maybe this was intended, still they´re way too good imo), etc.
    Post-reform Romans (Polybians) are still militia, they don't have any automatic right to be better than other units just because they're Romans. They generally have better equipment than other people and better morale, that's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    I also don´t understand why some units have a near-identical copy that takes exactly the same role. The most glaring case is the western/eastern iranian archer-spearmen, but there is also the thessalian/lydian cavalry, or some post-reform roman units like veterans. All agema phalanxes got merged into one unit, as did the cavalry of the diadochi, so i think there should be a revision of which units can be combined.
    Because we don't want identikit units across broad regions. Thessalians are a distinct and different people from Lydians, who both happen to have an elite, unshielded lancer unit. They shouldn't be a generic "Unshielded Hellenistic Lancer" with only factional skins separating them.

    By contrast, an Agema Phalanx is an Agema Phalanx. Why would we waste slots for a unit which is hardly going to be used, and as an elite with the best equipment around, will generally be very similar? These aren't regional units that will be appearing again and again all over the map.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    Another big issue is how there is a hardcoded bonus/penalty for spears when facing cavalry or infantry. The use of swords or spears as a secondary weapon for many units, has a noticeable effect on their perfomance, like spear cavalry having a big advantage agaisnt other cav, while still being decent vs infantry (the charge is still relevant). This makes sword cavalry units a lot less desirable, when spear cavs does the same and also is anti-cav.

    Infantry with spears are at a disadvantage versus infantry swordmen, so they´re more specialized agaisnt cavalry and suffer versus infantry in settings like settlement battles - where flanking is not always possible. Are these hardcoded penalties taken in account when creating unit stats? If you design an assault unit like the hyspapistai but arm then with spears then it´s a gimped unit, specially with the agema peltastai right there too.

    Feel free to also leave your feedback about units that you think aren´t capable enough or perfom too well for what they represent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    I agree with the spear cavalry though. When a common mercenary cavalry (Raskumezenai) can chase down and beat in melee elite unit like Hetairoi, it's a problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactics Mayers View Post
    Are sword cavalry too powerful? Even light cavalry with swords are a nightmare against sword infantry due to how fast the sword animation is for the cavalryman.
    So which one is it? Are spear cavalry too good, or are sword cavalry too good?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    Normal phalanx also has a shorter range than it should have. The light phalanx units are better in most situations right now but that might change.
    From my experience, a lot of the expensive units arent really worth it.
    Numbers simply are better than elite in a lot of cases.

    Even the AI does a better job with 2-3 units of cavalry than with 1 elite unit.
    For infantry fights its also similar. I fought a lot of those Carthage Sacred band units in battles but they dont leave a single scratch in my battle line before they rout either.

    None of the elite units that i have seen in battles have been scary other than the elephants which are more of a wild card.

    I think their damage/lethality should be increase a little to compensate more for their low numbers. Same with the units that have a 'weaker' attack animation.

    Also, that reloading bug is a serious problem. Hopefully it can be fixed somehow...its super easy to exploit.

  9. #9
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,743

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    The skill of one elite unit shouldn't be enough to counter the tactical flexibility of 3 lesser units. They're not gods.

    Elites already have higher damage and defensive skill, often armour too. They don't need any other compensation.

    Altering unit stats to accomodate "weaker" animations is exactly the wrong way to go about correcting that issue. The fix is to swap out the animation for a better one that's appropriate to the unit (as we did in standardising infantry skirmishers).

    Which is in fact something the community can help with - tell us which units have efficient animations, and which have inefficient animations. There are essentially three tiers of unit: levy/militia, professional, elite. Levies should have the least efficient animations, regulars a more efficient one, and elites the most efficient of all. That goes for both cavalry and infantry.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I know that elites shouldnt be invincible and that they have higher stats already but what i am saying is that they might not be enough.

    I am gonna do some more testing and take a closer look but as other players have said, they arent worth the money right now.

    Cavalry is great for charges and the AI uses it like that well but when they fight for extended periods(vs infantry or cavalry) you will notice some problems. I will do more tests on this too but so far i think sword cavalry is better vs infantry because they do more attacks.

    In cavalry vs cavalry battles, all attacks seem rarer which makes a stronger hit better. Of course there is more to it than that(armor, dmg) which i dont know much about right now.

    I dont know how animations work either for cavalry but i assume that the spear can attack in front while swords cannot(?), most cav vs cav fights are between 2 horsemen facing each other.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I honestly find sword cavalry to be the underpowered one. Ever use Numidian bodyguards against the thracian merc cav? Spear wielding cavalry usually tend to outperform sword cavalry--even when the sword wielding unit is much better in stats. The Numidians are supposedly some of the best cavalrymen in the western Mediterranean, and whilst they're not the heaviest of cavalry, they were quite skilled and famous. The Numidian bodyguards are fairly awful IMO against all but the lightest of cavalry units(and quite terrible period), perhaps largely due to the fact that they use swords. I didn't notice them performing exceptionally against infantry, btw, but I haven't extensively tested them against sword infantry. In my experiences, spear-wielding cavalry are the overpowered ones because they beat the hell out of non-spear wielding cav.

    I definitely find the Thracian merc cavalry in Hellas/Thrace to be an overpowered unit. They are incredibly dependable.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I understand that the rosters aren´t mean to be mirrors of each others, my concerns come from a combination of cost (also upkeep) + effectiveness in their role. I haven´t mentioned iranian infantry at all, and i agree that it shouldn´t be on the same level as the hellenic one. On the units you addressed:

    - Akontistai vs Payadag i Ashtan: the greek unit now only moves but it fires faster too (move_speed_mod affects all animations), the only noticeable advantage of the iranians is the shield, otherwise the greeks are a much better missile unit. Having units face each other is not a good way to compare them, instead test their effectiveness at their role: a unit of akontistai kills a lot more at range than the iranians, the latter only has for it a shield and a spear - are they spearmen? no, their crappy melee stats won´t help them agaisnt anything but the lightest cavalry unit, and penalize them vs infantry. So they´re like a skirmishner wannabe spearmen, akontistai are clear cut skirmishers and kill a lot more with their ammo.

    - Toxotai vs Archer-spearmen: i didn´t say toxotai were objectively better, just that they were better "for the cost". That is toxotai are cheap and carry light_arrow, missile 4, same as the iranian archer-spearmen. The main difference is the range, which i agree the iranian has a clear advantage. Again the iranian unit pays more for having a spear and some armor, while the toxotai shots do the same damage when they hit. I have used a lot the archer-spearmen and they are worthless against any cavalry unit that charges them, they die in droves because they lack shields, they´re like a half a spearmen: only good for attacking already engaged cavalry in the back. Toxotai don´t pay to be half-anything, they are just cheap archers.

    - Deuteroi vs Phalangitai: the improvement is +2 armor and +1 morale, the other things don´t really affect their perfomance, they still scare horses. The difference in cost is a lot, and in upkeep is too. I expected phalangitai to have better shields (looking at the model) and morale better than low (aren´t they like line infantry? similar to classical hoplites).

    - Sphendonetai vs Iranian slingers: Again the iranian tries to be good at melee, with their tiny extra armor, but becomes a worse at their main role - being a missile unit. Does the tiny armor imrpovement helps them in melee? No, they still get overrun - they just start fleeing at anything that charges them.

    - Regional units: I agree with your point, that Lydian/Thessalians should not be merged, but there are others near identical units like the eastern/western archer-spearmen, iranian/hyrcanian/anatolian axemen, east/west celts etc. I think these could be revised to differentiate them a bit, so there are no two units that are the same I like the difference between the iranian spearmen and the armenian ones, they´re extremely similar but the models, stats and cost are different.

    As for the spear cavalry, they get a bonus vs cav for their "spear" attribute, this makes low-cost spear cav beat most sword cav units. One of the biggest offenders is hippeis, who are suposed to be mediocre but with their spears beat a lot of better cav units, they make xistophoroi irrelevant. Sword cav is only useful is sustained melee vs infantry, and that is only decent in desperate situations like settlement combat.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    - Akontistai vs Payadag i Ashtan: the greek unit now only moves but it fires faster too (move_speed_mod affects all animations), the only noticeable advantage of the iranians is the shield, otherwise the greeks are a much better missile unit. Having units face each other is not a good way to compare them, instead test their effectiveness at their role: a unit of akontistai kills a lot more at range than the iranians, the latter only has for it a shield and a spear - are they spearmen? no, their crappy melee stats won´t help them agaisnt anything but the lightest cavalry unit, and penalize them vs infantry. So they´re like a skirmishner wannabe spearmen, akontistai are clear cut skirmishers and kill a lot more with their ammo.

    As for the spear cavalry, they get a bonus vs cav for their "spear" attribute, this makes low-cost spear cav beat most sword cav units. One of the biggest offenders is hippeis, who are suposed to be mediocre but with their spears beat a lot of better cav units, they make xistophoroi irrelevant. Sword cav is only useful is sustained melee vs infantry, and that is only decent in desperate situations like settlement combat.
    Actually javelineers like those two commonly faced one another in pre-battle skirmishing, historically(I believe). Besides some harassment and chasing down routing enemies, skirmishers are most deadly against and mostly used in response to other skirmishers. Hence, testing them against one another is useful in this scenario, as the main opponent(or rather, the main enemy which they deal the most damage to and are least likely to be steamrolled by) of skirmishers is other skirmishers. You'll notice the BAI almost always charges it's skirmishers forward first on the attack, this is to do pre-battle skirmishing(which historically happened, so we believe), this is when skirmishers are really supposed to clash against another.

    I agree that the Hippeis are simply too good for the unit's intended ability and cost. They performed exceptionally in my KH campaign time and time again because of their spears, despite me only ever having 1-2 units of them(as my only cavalry). They are supposed to be a mediocre/acceptable cav unit, and instead are EXTREMELY dependable.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I want to say congrats to Quintus, he made some really good points in his posts.

  15. #15
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,743

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    I understand that the rosters aren´t mean to be mirrors of each others, my concerns come from a combination of cost (also upkeep) + effectiveness in their role. I haven´t mentioned iranian infantry at all, and i agree that it shouldn´t be on the same level as the hellenic one. On the units you addressed:
    "Effectiveness in role" is not a measure on which they are costed. Nor should it be given the difficulty of assessing this in any objective way. As above, equipment, status, training and size are the bases of cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    - Akontistai vs Payadag i Ashtan: the greek unit now only moves but it fires faster too (move_speed_mod affects all animations), the only noticeable advantage of the iranians is the shield, otherwise the greeks are a much better missile unit. Having units face each other is not a good way to compare them, instead test their effectiveness at their role: a unit of akontistai kills a lot more at range than the iranians, the latter only has for it a shield and a spear - are they spearmen? no, their crappy melee stats won´t help them agaisnt anything but the lightest cavalry unit, and penalize them vs infantry. So they´re like a skirmishner wannabe spearmen, akontistai are clear cut skirmishers and kill a lot more with their ammo.
    They move faster because they're more lightly equipped. Is it verified anywhere that move_speed_mod affects all animations?

    They kill more because the use the ankyle. If there's any argument to be made here, it might be for a slight increase in cost for those javelins using one.

    Being a better missile unit won't help them if they get caught by cavalry of any kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    - Toxotai vs Archer-spearmen: i didn´t say toxotai were objectively better, just that they were better "for the cost". That is toxotai are cheap and carry light_arrow, missile 4, same as the iranian archer-spearmen. The main difference is the range, which i agree the iranian has a clear advantage. Again the iranian unit pays more for having a spear and some armor, while the toxotai shots do the same damage when they hit. I have used a lot the archer-spearmen and they are worthless against any cavalry unit that charges them, they die in droves because they lack shields, they´re like a half a spearmen: only good for attacking already engaged cavalry in the back. Toxotai don´t pay to be half-anything, they are just cheap archers.
    They're not the same in archery any more; all the Iranian archers were increased to attack 5 a couple of weeks ago in the dev build. Range is huge. Try them in the sort of archery duel that skirmishers will engage in before the lines meet. The Toxotai won't fare well at all. Worse still if the archer-spearmen charge them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    - Deuteroi vs Phalangitai: the improvement is +2 armor and +1 morale, the other things don´t really affect their perfomance, they still scare horses. The difference in cost is a lot, and in upkeep is too. I expected phalangitai to have better shields (looking at the model) and morale better than low (aren´t they like line infantry? similar to classical hoplites).
    If move_speed_mod affects animations as you just said upthread, then given Phalangitai are faster (0.7 cf 0.65), that's a significant impact on performance.

    Shields are of limited use in the phalanx, you often can't even see the person you're attacking. That's why they don't get the doubling that non-phalanx infantry have.

    The phalanx formation is bugged, increasing their morale would take forever to break them even if they were encircled.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    - Sphendonetai vs Iranian slingers: Again the iranian tries to be good at melee, with their tiny extra armor, but becomes a worse at their main role - being a missile unit. Does the tiny armor imrpovement helps them in melee? No, they still get overrun - they just start fleeing at anything that charges them.
    How good they are at their main role, is again irrelevant as far as cost goes. The reason for that is a different projectile. And once again, the difference matters in skirmisher-on-skirmisher combat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    - Regional units: I agree with your point, that Lydian/Thessalians should not be merged, but there are others near identical units like the eastern/western archer-spearmen, iranian/hyrcanian/anatolian axemen, east/west celts etc. I think these could be revised to differentiate them a bit, so there are no two units that are the same I like the difference between the iranian spearmen and the armenian ones, they´re extremely similar but the models, stats and cost are different.
    The eastern and western Celtic units are completely different. Have you actually looked at any of their stats? Compare Akus Eporedoi with Eponados, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellenikon View Post
    As for the spear cavalry, they get a bonus vs cav for their "spear" attribute, this makes low-cost spear cav beat most sword cav units. One of the biggest offenders is hippeis, who are suposed to be mediocre but with their spears beat a lot of better cav units, they make xistophoroi irrelevant. Sword cav is only useful is sustained melee vs infantry, and that is only decent in desperate situations like settlement combat.
    Cavalry don't use the spear or light_spear attributes - most of them have no attributes at all. I think this observed effect is due to the animations and the hitbox defined by the descr_skeleton.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Unit balance issues

    I agree that some units perfomance doesnt match what one would expect but I keep seeing things I cant agree with by own experience.
    Also one thing Im noticing, why do you expect elites to be the most cost-effective? They never have been in history. Elites are the best but a very high price. This comes from a fact that applies to most disciplines and warfare isnt a exception. After some level every increase of efficacy comes at an ever increasingly cost. Making an armor with double resistance costs more than double. Been noticeably better at fighting takes a lot more training and so on....

    Still I dont know why so many hate agaisnt elites and in general more expensive units. I play on H/H and I see most times better quality units defeating the cheaper ones nicelly despite their smaller sizes. Taking as example the Epilektoi Hoplitai/Hypaspastai (not the same but very similar), they are really expensive specially having in account that standard hoplites have free upkeep. But you are supossed to use a lot more standard hoplitai than elite ones. Still I wouldnt say they arent worth using. Even just one unit of these on the battlefield makes the difference, been able to outlast their standard units nicelly. Put them at a choke point where their smaller size isnt such a problem and they will just break mayhem.

    Also, isnt only that their casualities come very slowly, I find the morale factor is very important. Elite units are ussually one of the few ones that will fight long in difficult conditions. Most units will rout if flanked and taken some casualities but elite ones even flanked and suffering will keep on fighting very long, what in my experience is a great tactical advanatge giving time to the rest of your army to take advanatage of several units been engaged with your elites.
    Also, they inspire the others. I had standard untis last notably more in some situations I was even surprised myself they were not routing, and then I realized that elite unit fighting among them and keeping them on the front.
    In short terms, they are very expensive and not to use in great numbers but definitely worth to have.

    I agree that cavalry really seems to have problems. In relation with their secondary weapons their effectiveness against other cavalry varies greatlly (whatever the reason is) but I dont notice that much the difference agaisnt infantry. Maybe sword cavalry should be stronger agaisnt infantry?

    About phalanxes, I agree maybe that the makedonians phalanxes coul use a bit more morale, they already have 5 instead of 4. Its tru that feels weird they still have low discipline but for some reason they dont seem to rout as easilly as most low discipline units. Still you clearly notice the difference in performance. I think this comes mainly from the trained stat. Been highlly trained makes their formations more compact, something very improtant for a wall of spears to work. I usually seem them defeating comfortably lesser phalanxes adn in general take casualities a lot slower than the lighter ones agaisnt any unit. Im at the moment playing makedonia and its really noticeable.

    I dont know about slingers, but its true that sphendotai really do very well their job. About the iranian archers though I still cant understand why in your opinion they are that bad. Toxotai are only decent at range at best, and almost useless in melee. Iranians are noticeably better at ranged and a lot better in melee. They can flank nicely and can hold against non heavy cavalry and infantry for a while. They even wreck light cavalry. And all that for a small cost and upkeep (even if not that small like toxotai). I dont know but I recruit them when they are available in my Baktria camapigns.

    We will either find a way, or make one.


Posting Permissions

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