RS3: Missile Command

[Alavaria]

Missile Command
(click link)


Recap:
Missiles are an amazing way to kill people in Roma Surrectum, because they:

• Always ignore Defense skill, which for elite units especially can be very high
• Can avoid shield value, depending on placement
• Slingers are armor-piercing
• Kill from a distance, meaning these units rack up experience, which additionally increases their missile attack stat
• Kill from a distance, meaning these units don't have to take losses, meaning you maximize the benefit of kill-experience

=================================================================================

Let's start by reviewing "recent" history:

RS2

• Slingers** are short-range (most are range 80) armor-piercing killers. Just about any unit will melt when shot in the back with these.
• Archers have the range advantage (from 200-250) and are very effective against unshielded units (needs some upgrades to hit armored ones though). Will do decent work from behind an enemy.

**The Rhodian Slinger is the best killing unit, with a base attack of 12 (most slingers have 10) and an improved range of 100 (most have 80). Balerics are similar but for a much higher cost.

RSIII, initial beta release
The Greek and Scythohellenic slingers are the best ranged unit. With the highest ranges (360, beating everything including artillery), their really low cost means you can use a lot of these.
At any "decent" range they will allow you to eliminate enemy unshielded/small-shield units.
They are good against armor from behind, and just a few upgrades (Economic-and-Fortified for XP and large foundry for +missile) and they will melt anyone from behind.

RSIII, beta patch
All slingers now use videogame scatterguns. Currently this terrible accuracy means that you need to use them point-blank, making their range basically useless**.
Archers (Athens has the Scythian Archers) are now the unit of choice. While early on they struggle against heavily armored units, they improve dramatically (more on this later).
Rhodian slingers might be useful still, however they pretty much still have to be used point-blank, at even a little range archers will probably out-perform.

**One useful thing if you have the AI on the defensive is to just use a unit of pikemen or something like Theurophoroi (large shield: 10 and decent armor: 14+) to absorb all their missiles, which neutralizes anything the AI might do, like shoot your archers/slingers...

=================================================================================

So numbers: take a new (no upgrades) Greek Slinger and Greek Archer

• GS: 10 damage, AP
• GA: 12 damage

If we're shooting a Theurophoroi (14 armor), the slinger basically does 10 vs 7, for a +3. This is good, but the accuracy cuts down on the kills a lot.
The archer does 12 vs 14 for a -2. This isn't very good, but acceptable. Point-blank the archer might not do as well as the slinger, but at even a little bit of distance this gap narrows.


Now, compare a moderately-experienced (+5 XP) and upgraded (+3 missile) unit. We'll compare Rhodian Slingers and Scythian Archers since that's what I'm using.

• RS: 12+5+3 damage, AP
• SA: 14+5+3 damage

Now take a serious target, an upgraded hoplite with 16+2 armor.... (I think Romans might be 14+2).
Slinger: 20 vs 9, for +11. This is crushing**, but... accuracy again seriously cuts into their power, even pointblank
Archer: 22 vs 18 for +4. This is actually pretty good.

**The problem is that at some point (like past +4 or so) any extra is just overkill. While the archer improves greatly with upgrades, the slinger just gets a more overkill attack but retains the horrible accuracy.


At any range beyond point-blank, or any target with only moderate or less armor, the scythian archer pretty much beats the slinger. In fact, it's probably one of the best units to use. They also make excellent garrisn units, you should spam them a lot, bring them in as reinforcements when you can get good rotation.

=================================================================================

These battles are in the RS3 Beta patch.







The slingers did pretty well, using up all their ammo, but see that hippotoxoi really cutting into the less armored targets.
Even crazier is the Scythian Medium Horse archer, that gets 200 kills with only 1/3 of its ammo.




This fight is against a decent mix of armored with some less armored targets. As I did not keep my slingers at pointblank, their ability to kill drops off sharply.

[Darth Bane1]

Really? Do we really need such an indepth scientific oberservation on slingers... Stats of all archer units were perfect since 2.5 and no one cared for slingers, but now they're the hottest topic ever. Wooo, they're super OP, let's spam them. I don't care. I never used slingers and I never will. Even the AI doesn't really use slingers, occasionally a few times and these are mostly armies from Barbarian and Eastern factions in my experience. 2 archer units do the job, because I rely on my Hellenistic setup which consists about Phalangites, Hoplites, Heavy Infantry and up to 4 horse units and they're only there to do damage, if an enemy unit turns its back or killing of routing units during the battle and after. Maybe you should try that instead, just to see if you're still able to own the AI so easily. All this talking about slingers, who really cares about this gameplay-wise? For balance, good to know, but for gameplay that everyone chooses for himself?

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Interestingly you, in some detail, have shown the two greatest issues with modern day people's understanding of ancient missile effects....

1 - your link, indeed your entire title, is completely misleading - and, without that erroneous link, would have been much better placed in the thread we had already

2 - Your battles show that, given the silly effects that slingers have been given in game, plus the equal sillyness of players recruiting them because of that - for there should be only a single unit of slingers in any of those armies. They simply should not be as available as they are.

[Alavaria]

Good reactions.

Those are settlement fights.

[dvk901]

Well, I for one am very interested, because I feel like I'm on the 'hot-seat' because these stats got changed. So, if there are recommendations to be made, I'd appreciate them...even if it means just putting them all back the way they were in RS2.6. I do believe, however, from my own tests, that the change to accuracy was a good change, because previously, slingers had no setting for this, and subsequently hit everything they shot at. A good way to see how this works on a 'bigger scale' is to set the accuracy against units for a 'fiery_stone' on an onager to '0'.......they will hit anything they aim at, and the results will be devastating to the enemy. A setting of '1' apparently means they won't hit anything at all.

I thought, just by observing...that it looked more realistic to have slinger shots flying all over the place, some hitting their target and others not, and even hitting their own units in the back (and killing them) if they were behind a friendly unit. But that's just me. Also, slingers are one of those units that...yes, were historically rare, and yet we as a team chose to have a number of different slinger units...like 6-7 of them, and you have to be careful what you do to them otherwise they become a unit that no one wants. Not the player, and not the AI. The AI recruits based on number of men in a unit, cost of unit, and unit stat values...if they are too high..the AI spams them, if they are too low...the AI will ignore them altogether. So we need a happy medium.

Currently, I have went through the entire upgrade and reduced the range of all slingers to no more than 160...with better units at that value, and basically 'grunt units' at a lower range, with various accuracy settings. But if there is a recommendation out there...go for it. I'm listening....

[Alavaria]

Well the AI is really bad at using these units, they will just shoot all their ammo to no purpose, you can ironically discount the AI if it does bring these units. Actually, I see you've done the old "hitpoints" trick on units for autoresolve, does that work on recruitment weighting?

• A lower slinger range actually helps the AI, particularly in current accuracy.
• The beta patch version makes it so in any case you would use slingers (except: unupgraded and vs high armor) you would just use archers instead. This is a step back unit-selection wise.
• The initial beta version had it so you only used slingers, which is also a step-back.
• In general the way units have high defense skill and also their shield values means yeah missiles do nearly nothing to large-shield units from the front, but from the side/back they will demolish anything if their attack rating is high enough. This is not an accicent, because units like Romans have a shield value of 12, so the difference is massive. (Obviously if units were balanced by armor more than shield this isn't a problem).

The non-linear (and I can't remember how it works) way that attacks go up against defense, or how shields interact with missiles is hardcoded, I know. That's why the archer gains so much more from the upgrades than slingers do (also, why AP in general is so useful).

Bone-crushing melee combat:



If I remember correctly, most of our slinger models would be the "short-range" type due to them carrying shields. In contrast to slingers used at longer ranges to pepper the enemy who didn't usually carry one. Also, obviously special ones woule be different.

For greeks who didn't use archers or slingers much, you will have things like

• Balerics: really accurate
• Rhodians: using lead bullets? More than usual I guess?
• Cretans: shooting but also for fighting in melee (Their stats definitely don't encourage this by the way). They also have nice hats
• "Hoplite archers": Tank missiles to the face like heavy infantry (check out their armor/shield, they're more protected than most hoplites)
• Scythians (and others): Shoot lots of (presumably deadly) arrows

I thought, just by observing...that it looked more realistic to have slinger shots flying all over the place, some hitting their target and others not, and even hitting their own units in the back (and killing them) if they were behind a friendly unit. But that's just me.

Well you'd get (as historical I guess) no use of slingers as they will pretty much always kill more friendlies than hostiles unless you (unhistorically) do wierd tricks so they can somehow volleyfire pointblank.

I can see why the Romans really wanted to spam Syrian archers so much, though. Yeah, I would too use tons of archers.

I'll point out that even your Romans do very little with their pila, but almost anyone else who doesn't have AP javelins will accomplish very little with them if using in a direct "historical" uses a missile weapon before charging.

[Iskandar]

Slings certainly outranged bows and had high accuracy. They were a valuable deterrent, especially against enemy armor, be it cavalry or infantry. As it is, their lower accuracy renders them not particularly effective at that. Also, it seems to me that singers were not that rare in the Antiquity. Perhaps not present en masse in battles, but certainly a unit or two at most medium and large engagements.

I found them well balanced in RTR VII, where they all had low damage but good accuracy and were AP (unless of course the player is Alavaria, you min-maxer you!). Perhaps increasing their accuracy and decreasing their occurrence would work better. Increase their cost a bit and move them up a tier or two in the barracks tree.

Speaking of recruitment trees, slingers disappear from the Macedon/Seleucid roster after upgrading beyond the third tier or so. Any particular reason for that?

And lastly, there is also the question of whether you want them balanced for the Player or for the AI. Both is mission impossible, same as HAs.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Slings certainly outranged bows and had high accuracy. ...............

Excellent - but evidence, please.

In the hands of well trained, highly experienced troops - yes. These are rare beasts (my main comment and something we have to cope with) - and with the other comment, please also provide evidence that they are "not that rare".

When it comes to accuracy - far more than bows - slingshot used from behind other troops would most certainly cause fratricide; except where a significant slope is used.

[Iskandar]

Range:
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=sling-ranges
Bear in mind that Mediterranean bows of the time were of lower quality than English longbow or composite bows of the steppe peoples. Xenophon in Anabasis directly states that his repurposed Rhodians could sling farther than the "Persians [slingers] and the archers".

Accuracy & Efficacy:
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=t...chris-harrison
In "The Sling" section of the text are several quotes of ancient authors speaking as to the accuracy and impact of the sling.

Rarity: Can't be bothered to compile a list of ancient battles with yay or nay on the presence of slingers right now. One would think that from the combined arms of Philip and Alexander until the Late Empire they would have had a place at the battlefield. There is no shortage of gushing over Rhodians and Balearics and Vegetius even mentions Legionnaries being required to train with the sling. Romans rarely copy something ineffective from their enemies.

You may be right on the fratricide point - high accuracy would probably require more or less straight shots. Then again, the engine doesn't discriminate between different shooting techniques (and corresponding lethality) depending on range, so we will have to deal with some kind of mean.

[Alavaria]

high accuracy would probably require more or less straight shots. Then again, the engine doesn't discriminate between different shooting techniques (and corresponding lethality) depending on range, so we will have to deal with some kind of mean.

You'd have to do it per unit, so you'd actually have Long-Range and short-range slingers (though in reality decent slingers could do both types of shooting and had different slings).

But really, probably the long-range ones wouldn't be useful if they so inaccurate, so the only one using them would be AI that would be probably wasting a unit slot? Then we might as well return to the RS2 all-short-range shooting regime.


You see what's really funny is things like:

It would have been troublesome to pack multiple rows of slingers into a typical medieval assemblage, where each soldier would fire over the row in front of them. Even a slight misfire, launched in front but too low, could cause friendly casualties.

Because this is precisely what happens in the RTW engine with units of slingers, minus the actual friendly casualties.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Range:....................

Accuracy & Efficacy:...................

..............

I'm sorry Iskander, but you've just proved my point. Firstly all this modern stuff doesn't matter a bean. And secondly, that the actual ancient references only support my contention!

So - still no evidence.

My favourite - Roman soldiers (although we're not entirely sure when this might apply) were supposedly also trained with the Bow and the Sling. However, we see almost no evidence of this in accounts of battles.

What we do find is evidence of slingshot at sieges - and this makes perfect sense - harassing fire on the defenders whilst the attackers conduct the siege. But commonly used - no. And perhaps there's a real reason for that......

[Iskandar]

I'm sorry Iskander, but you've just proved my point. Firstly all this modern stuff doesn't matter a bean. And secondly, that the actual ancient references only support my contention!

...

Right. Objective testing of the physical capabilities of a device doesn't matter a bean. Ancient sources testifying as to the range and accuracy of the slingers doesn't matter a bean. Sling projectiles evolving over several millenia means that just for a century or two there were a few dedicated groups of people from two islands on the opposite sides of the Mediterranean who deigned to take part in a couple major engagements and that was it.

Yeah, I don't see the point of further conversation with you on the topic.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

.......................
Yeah, I don't see the point of further conversation with you on the topic.

Oh my!

Curiously - have you ever thrown a javelin? Tried some archery? Perhaps discus (no current modern sport with a sling)? Perhaps trained in the application of military weapons?

But, you will happily believe well fed, extremely healthy, modern enthusiasts who make efforts to throw/project single examples of missiles - with never any attempt to get several hundred people together and see what's actually practicable.

Good slingers, like good archers were rare beasts. Just as those things referred to in your references attest. People trained since childhood - and only available from particular specialist (mercenary) areas...

But no - don't think - don't debate. Just dismiss because it doesn't meet your personal preference.

[Iskandar]

Curiously - have you ever thrown a javelin? Tried some archery? Perhaps discus (no current modern sport with a sling)? Perhaps trained in the application of military weapons?

Ad Hominem
Implying that my physical capabilities or implied lack thereof affect the logical validity of my arguments.

But, you will happily believe well fed, extremely healthy, modern enthusiasts who make efforts to throw/project single examples of missiles

Fallacy of presumption
I don't think you have comparative health data on the particular modern enthusiasts and the particular ancient practitioners.

and

Straw Man
The only relevant parameter is whether modern humans can reproduce in a reasonable manner the achievements attested in the ancient sources.

- with never any attempt to get several hundred people together and see what's actually practicable.

Ex silentio
Assuming absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Do you have data on several hundred people attempting to reproduce an ancient slinger unit's tactics? If so, what was the methodology and what were the results? How do they stack against the ancient sources?

Good slingers, like good archers were rare beasts. Just as those things referred to in your references attest.

Fallacy of composition
The rarity of good slingers does not imply the rarity of all slingers.


@dvk

If it were up to me, I'd do the following:

Return to 2.6 levels of accuracy, except more stratified, depending on "elite"-ness of unit.
Keep the ranges equal or higher than that of archers.
Move recruitment availability a tier or even two up the barracks tree.
Reduce their damage a bit, since they already have the AP attribute.

My rationale for this is that slingers are referred to as a viable counterpoint to enemy ranged attackers and armored infantry/cavalry and that they are people who take a bit longer than the general footman to develop adequate skills (similar to higher tiers cavalry).

[Grimbold]

Personally slingers were sort of perfect in RSII 2.6. They didn't suffer from the wacky trajectory that current slingers do, like shooting up to the sky or something.

[dvk901]

Well, I thin what I'll do is just put the RS2.6 stats back as the default, and let the RSIII stats be optional. Problem solved.

[Alavaria]

Well, I thin what I'll do is just put the RS2.6 stats back as the default, and let the RSIII stats be optional. Problem solved.

Really a good balance would be to let the more "generic" slingers have somewhat of a nerf to accuracy, while the better ones have better accuracy.

But rather than 0.3 to 0.46, maybe something more moderate, try 0.1 (Rhodians/Balerics) to 0.2 (the generics).

[dvk901]

I recall recently watching a 'Military History' episode in which the fate of the three Roman Legions destroyed in the Teutoburg forest was thoroughly discussed and backed up with archeological evidence...it was very interesting, and I learned some things I had not known before. BUT, at the end of the episode, which made much of the 'trauma' inflicted on the Roman psyche by this disaster, the narrator made a statement that rather bothered me. He said the Romans never went back into that area again, and basically became defensive.....omitting the part about Germanicus later avenging the defeat.

In a very slight way, I admit, this is just how modern historians 'bend' a story a bit to favor a particular emotional or informational slant. We do it, and there's no reason to think that ancient writers didn't. Still, considering how few ancient documents have survived, it seems that if one mentioned slingers...that could be a unique case. But if two mention it, it becomes 'suspicious'. If three mention it, one could surmise it may be a 'trend', and conclude that ancient armies may have used them more than we think.

As for 'modern enthusiasts' of ancient weapons.....I don't quite understand the 'distaste' for this, or shooting those investigations down simply because they're 'modern'. There have been a plethora of experiments and studies done on how all kinds of ancient weapons were used, what their effects would've\could've been, and even believable examples and recreations of weapons that we as 'modern men' kind of poo-poo and laugh at...like using mirrors to burn Roman ships. I don't think people are doing this to 'invent' anything...they're just trying to prove that the ancients were a bit smarter and capable than we might've thought.

I'm sure that some mathematical equation could be applied to a stone or bullet thrown by a slinger that could arrive at a reasonable range...just like bullets shot from a gun.....but accuracy is a whole new ball game. Skill of the slinger, wind, air density, etc. etc.....you could get all statistical about it. But in the end, is accuracy all that important? A legionary throwing a pila is more an issue of chance.....a sharp object thrown into a mass of men. Maybe it hits something, maybe not. Perhaps we could argue that slingers in a battle...as opposed to killing a rabbit or a wolf for personal use or survival....were simply used to harass and scare the enemy, put him on the defensive lest he get hit by a stone like the guy next to him did? Same thing with archers......are they really 'aiming' at an individual in a battle, or just scaring the enemy with the possibility of being hit?

[Alavaria]

Well supposedly, the pilos helmet was significant (among many other factions) in that it provided good defense against being shot by a slinger (but I'm sure it was good against other projectiles as well). But at the same time, obviously when people were moving to lighter and more mobile infantry, a really heavy and constraining helmet (like the corinthian which people posted on this forum a lot about wanting to see) might be less desireable for other reasons. Then again, if was cheaper and easier to make which always counts for something.

Wearing a fancy officer helmet when you know the enemy has accurate units (eg: Carthage's favorite Balerics) looking to snipe you must be at least a little disconcerting for a, say, Roman....

[LoGaL]

It's been 2-3 years that i see "people" claiming that Rs2 should pursue "extreme realism" and i've lost count of the same things repeated over and over ,in every single thread in which there was even a small link to the subject : indeed ,slingers and generalizing, missile units and cavalry units well represent some of the cases in which the quest for realism goes against giving the unit any particular role in the game

First case, missile units: as many pointed out, missiles weren't that effective at killing stuff, like today's gatlings , so, extreme realists claim that they shouldn't be deadly at all.
Typical example of this idea is RS 3 javelins shot from the front : like it didn't happen . However, given the engine limitations, we are not able to represent the real effect those units had on a military campaign or on the battlefield : to continue the first example, roman javelins were supposed to make the enemy's shield useless
In the case of archers, as dvk pointed out, their effect was to harrass, scare, put on the defensive , irritate : those things CANNOT be reproduced with RTW engine
Same goes for cavalry, especially light one : scouting ambushes, being on the vanguard ( i am guessing here) : any chance to see stuff like this in game? NO

Therefore, in my view it is better to look for a compromise between realism and role in the game, instead of showing data here and there , trashing everything that is not historically correct
Unfortunately, compromise in RTW means giving the unit some killing cabality as, in the end , it's the only thing that really matters