On balance and historical accuracy

[klunny10]

Greetings all,

Let me preface this by saying I'm very exited about this MOD.


It seems to me there is mounting complaints regarding certain faction/units being too strong and unbalanced. Such as elephant and Pike units.

I think your focus on historical accuracy trumps "arcade" balance.

Some people want to be able to MP battles and each faction be balanced, so each can be played fairly. Life isn't fair though...

Years ago old strategy games had multiplayer maps which were not balanced. Now each map has to be a mirror image or people wont play it.

Personally I think struggling as the underdog is rewarding in itself. You may not win but you gave the superior foe a hard time.

The use of the pike through the ages is testament to its power. In the middle ages the swiss used it to great effect. Even in the English civil war armys used it.

As I understand it though ancient pike phalanxes used the shafts of those behind to shelter the other ranks against missiles.

The very cheap method I've seen on MP games of stretching them out into thin double lines where they are still as effective seems to be the issue.

If there is no one behind to push back these lines should collapse if pressed by a compact mass of enemy infantry.

What if the "pike phalanx" use required say at least upwards of 4 ranks? Would this redress the balance?

Also a question to the mods, could entity mass be calculated, and reflecting the weight of men pushing forward cause units to shuffle backwards. Or conversely gain ground pushing forwards?

This would make an interesting tactic of pushing holes in a line that could then be exploited.

I'm sure I've several things misconceptions here, or just plain wrong, so please try to read between the lines the point I'm trying to raise.

[popovic]

So, basically, you don`t want pikes to be nerfed?

Frankly, I don`t care either way. But IMO, pikes were not as powerful as many people seem to think today.
They lost the majority (if not all?) their battles against the legions (so to say).

As for the game, it needs to have balance to be fun. IMO, in this game, balance CAN be made alongside of historicity. So, eventually, there shouldn`t be any problems there.

But it`s kinda silly to expect that the devs won`t tweak this unit or that, until most people are satisfied with how they perform.

[Haddon]

Frankly, I don`t care either way. But IMO, pikes were not as powerful as many people seem to think today.
They lost the majority (if not all?) their battles against the legions (so to say).

The Romans were able to beat pike phalanxes by outmaneuvering them. A phalanx is almost useless from the side, and cannot turn around to attack their rear easily like a phalanx of spears can. It was with this the Romans won; get the pike phalanx engaged with Hastati or Peltasts, bring the legions around the side, obliterate pikemen. Up TO this point, though, pikemen were incredibly deadly, and remained so against almost everyone but the Romans for quite awhile. Comparing the rest of ancient world to the Romans and saying "pike weren't strong" because of it doesn't really work. Most of the ancient world wasn't even close to Rome in means of military power by 202BCE.

[popovic]

But IMO, pikes were not as powerful as many people seem to think today.

Comparing the rest of ancient world to the Romans and saying "pike weren't strong" because of it doesn't really work.

That is not what I said. Please, don`t twist my words.

And I stand by my previous statement. It seems that on these forums people are trying to discuss historicall matters while basically talking about in-game stuff, and mixing the 2, all the time.

The pikemen were NOT the pinnacle of all warfare. They were just an infantry unit, using a certain kind of equipment, and formation. A mean to an end.

With time, it was proven, over and over again, that they had weakneses. And were thus beaten by other military units and formations.

What you are saying is "Only Romans could have beaten pikemen". That is of course, nonsense. The only reason why there werent other military units/formations that beaten them is that there simply werent any other significant land army powers around at the time (except for the ones that used pikemen themselves).

So, please, don`t be a fanboy. I understand you like how pikemen can kill a billion other infantrymen in a chokepoint in Rome 2. That`s all nice and dandy. But it has nothing to do with reality, or historicity. Don`t mix them up.

[Causeless]

Pikes were powerful, just they were also very fragile from a formation standpoint and if that formation was broken, they'd be effectively useless.

My issue with pikes in AE isn't so much their frontal strength initially, but moreso how they are still so incredibly strong even when flanked. Pikes should shatter effectively instantly if flanked, both in terms of morale and fighting ability.

Even if you bring up the argument that pikes had secondary weapons, their shields and armour were specialised to pike warfare. Furthermore, trying to fight after dropping their huge pikes in the middle of their formation is just going to cause chaos as everyone trips over the pikes they just had to drop.

I still think pikes need to be weaker from the front, too, however. I don't think their strength is necessarily a huge issue when fresh, but they need counters other than just being flanked, especially in settlement battles. Pikes were certainly strong from the front, but there have been many cases where pikes have simply lost in frontal engagements mostly after relatively prolonged battles and especially when their formations have decayed.

Certainly, limitations in TW does mean that these effects can be difficult to simulate, but at the very least I think when a pike unit gets tired it should become a *lot* weaker and be able to engage from the front with a fair chance of winning. Trying to thrust with a huge spear is tiring and after some prolonged combat the pikes would become significantly less effective in combat.

Also a question to the mods, could entity mass be calculated, and reflecting the weight of men pushing forward cause units to shuffle backwards. Or conversely gain ground pushing forwards?

I feel like this would be a good part of a solution but due to limitations in TW it's difficult to make units effectively push, and the pike formation in particular prefers to stand completely still.

[Rejenorst]

Thought I'd Polybius as reference:

For no speculation is any longer required to test the accuracy of what I am now saying: that can be done by referring to accomplished facts. The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.
The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others. I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming.

Histories. Polybius. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. translator. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962.

[Willhelm123]

Based on feedback we have rebalanced pikes and elephants. Elephants we're broken. Elephants now are still strong but they will actually die now if you mob the crap out of them with cavalry or infantry.

Pikemen (and other organised heavies) have had their entity mass lowered, they're still powerful especially from the front but rear charges are much more effective. The little +1 morale bonus pike formation gave them has also been removed.

Likewise infantry charges in general have been improved, the charge bonus lasts longer now making units who are all about the charge like Falxmen more useful, this then also has the effect of making pikemen and others get wrecked more from rear charges.

[Maetharin]

Interesting idea of increasing the charge bonus time, never thought of that as a solution^^

Anyway, concerning rear and side charges, from what I´ve recently read in Bar Kochvas book, pikemen were rather easily spooked from the rear and sides.
Just think how Cato completely routed Antiochus forces at Thermophylae, or how the Katoikoi ran off after being flanked at Raphia.

IMO the exposed flank malus itself should be a bit bigger, so that only the upper spectrum of mid tier units and upwards can withstand rear and side charges effectively.

But here I am rambling on without even understanding how exactly the mod really works apart from the smaller scale of stats^^
Just wanted to suggest sth, and I hopw it works out if you try it out

Best regards

[Petellius]

Interesting idea of increasing the charge bonus time, never thought of that as a solution^^

Anyway, concerning rear and side charges, from what I´ve recently read in Bar Kochvas book, pikemen were rather easily spooked from the rear and sides.
Just think how Cato completely routed Antiochus forces at Thermophylae, or how the Katoikoi ran off after being flanked at Raphia.

IMO the exposed flank malus itself should be a bit bigger, so that only the upper spectrum of mid tier units and upwards can withstand rear and side charges effectively.

But here I am rambling on without even understanding how exactly the mod really works apart from the smaller scale of stats^^
Just wanted to suggest sth, and I hopw it works out if you try it out

Best regards

This would be fine were it not for two reasons

1) the AI is stupid and its easy to rear charge them, so battles would last minutes

2) you cannot withdraw units from battle without getting the "attacked from the rear" penalty so if you ever cycled out fatigued troops from the line they'd likely shatter.

[Willhelm123]

The charge rating works by literally adding the value of the charge rating to the melee offense for a set period of time after the charge has begun. Previously and in the build you have it is set to 5 seconds, this as it turns out is far too short, a lot of the time the unit charging hasn't even reached the enemy before the charge bonus timer runs out. I upped it to 18 seconds so generally the first 10-14 seconds of combat, depending on how far away you charged from, the charging unit will have its charge rating added to its offense making it much more powerful for a short time. This is especially useful as i said to units like falxmen, who in all are pretty crap except for that charge rating, which now is their main advantage which previously wasn't being taken advantage of.

That isn't the only factor in a charge, the mass of both units is a big factor too, which is why even with a 5 second charge bonus cavalry will still kill a lot of troops.

[KAM 2150]

If pikes still have expert charge defence, then rear charges of cav might still be a problem, plus it makes frontal charges on pikes broken as they deal massive casualties, while they would have been just slowly approached or even avoided by the enemy, although that frontal charge thing might not be a problem in AE, just my notes from working on other mods.

Maetharin, in case of Thermopylae, main factor for phalanx rout was not that they would be attacked from the back, but rather the fact that saw Romans charging into their camp, where their loot and families were. Funny thing is that at the same time, Roman camp was also being sacked but either Romans did not know about it, as their camp was further away or they simply continued to fight despite that.

[Willhelm123]

The majority of the time if you charge cavalry at a pike phalanx, or any organised braced unit of infantry, the cavalry will halt before impact, the horses will not run into the spikes, though the momentum sometimes carries them through onto them. It's a value in KV_Morale, lets you set a % chance that the cavalry will not run onto spikes, we have it at basically 100%. I hope the majority of players have the sense to not charge cavalry onto pikes and then cry about it though. Infantry can charge and fight pikes frontally for a while but almost almost come out worst.

I don't think expert charge defence applies to the rear, i did some testing and the cavalry didn't take causalities like a frontal charge, the issue, which I've fixed, was simply that the entity mass of pikemen was so high that they didn't take many casualties.

[KAM 2150]

They do take casualties from rear charge if unit has expert charge defence, it does apply, there is no doubt. It simply does not have same impact as in frontal charge bonus of that attribute. Unit mass is lowered when not braced, like in rear charge so that is why rear charge on unit with expert charge defence will not have as many casualties as frontal one.

[ABH2]

Disclaimer - I don't handle battle balance, outside general suggestions here and there. So my post isn't so much related to the nuts and bolts of individual units against one another as it is a general philosophy I have on the mod. I will leave the guys on the team more familiar with that stuff do their work there. No one claims that our unit/battle balance is completely finished. It should also be noted - no matter who or what the battle mechanics are, there are ALWAYS people who disagree. Pikes, for instance, are a real pain in the ass to get right for battle overhauls. Not just AE. Elephants, as well. So if those are the two biggest issues at this stage, I think Philip, Petellius, and Will have done a pretty good job. I like the overall direction of battles very much.

I think your focus on historical accuracy trumps "arcade" balance.

I tend to agree on this. One of the things I talked about when starting this mod was staying away from what I would consider to be artificial balance. I don't want super factions/units that can't be beaten, but at the same time, I don't mind a disparity for some factions. It should be relatively hard to build a large empire with Celtic factions, for instance. That should be difficult to maintain. Gameplay doesn't go out the window here. I don't want repetitive mindless roadblocks or cheats to accomplish that task, but hopefully we can achieve a situation where factions have legitimate issues they have to deal with in a campaign or battles.

[Maetharin]

I tend to agree on this. One of the things I talked about when starting this mod was staying away from what I would consider to be artificial balance. I don't want super factions/units that can't be beaten, but at the same time, I don't mind a disparity for some factions. It should be relatively hard to build a large empire with Celtic factions, for instance. That should be difficult to maintain. Gameplay doesn't go out the window here. I don't want repetitive mindless roadblocks or cheats to accomplish that task, but hopefully we can achieve a situation where factions have legitimate issues they have to deal with in a campaign or battles.

Definitly one of the reasons I followed this mod since before I had Attila.
If there´s the one thing I dislike about DeI, apart from the better Attila engine for AE, is the balance they try to acchieve between all factions.
From a gameplay perspective it´s fine and it was a deliberate decision, but as I´m a history student before a gamer, I prefer historical accuracy to balance.

This would be fine were it not for two reasons

1) the AI is stupid and its easy to rear charge them, so battles would last minutes

2) you cannot withdraw units from battle without getting the "attacked from the rear" penalty so if you ever cycled out fatigued troops from the line they'd likely shatter.

Concerning this, maybe you could decrease the morale of especially hellenic frontline units units, like f.e. average Pikes and Hoplites?
These guys are nearly unbreakable from the front, weren´t really cycled about anyway, so when they get flanked, they should be pretty much ed.

Something I really like about AE is the increased duration of cavalry enagements and their vulnerability to missile troops.
But IMO cavalry engagements would be rather more open visually.

Would it be possible to increase the engagement area after the initial clash?
I know Bar- Kochva argues in favour of very dense heavy cavalry deployment,
but IMO, unless you were a Kataphraktoi, you left yourself and your horse damn vulnerable if you didn´t move.

Additionally, would it be possible to decrease the chance of Kataphraktoi cavalry rearing up when charging any infantry aside from pikes?
Bar-Kochva writes that at Magnesia, possibly a whole legion was routed by a frontal attack by Antiochus III`s Kataphraktoi

Best regards

[KAM 2150]

If there´s the one thing I dislike about DeI, apart from the better Attila engine for AE, is the balance they try to acchieve between all factions.

I work on DeI for last 2 years and I did not know that we do that huh.

[Causeless]

I work on DeI for last 2 years and I did not know that we do that huh.

It was a personal opinion about DeI, I do not think he meant to offend you. He's saying that his personal interpretation of how DeI does balance is one of the only things he dislikes, it's a compliment more than anything else.

[Maetharin]

I work on DeI for last 2 years and I did not know that we do that huh.

It was a personal opinion about DeI, I do not think he meant to offend you. He's saying that his personal interpretation of how DeI does balance is one of the only things he dislikes, it's a compliment more than anything else.

Pretty much what Causeless wrote.

You might remember how I argued in favour of a Pike Phalanx with long Pikes and more shield defence instead of defence? (Pretty much what I do here)
Back then you meant that even though it´d be more accurate, it would make Pikes too strong when controlled by the player and too weak when controlled by the AI.

Please don´t take this the wrong way, I still love DeI, and whenever I criticise you it´s never meant with malicious intent

Another example would be how you guys depicted the Hellenic factions, I criticised it, but you decided against my ideas, and that´s that.
Currently I´m working on several overhauls (PoR, Hellenic factions, animations) to change DeI more to my liking,
but all of that is just possible and even worthwhile because DeI is such a great mod.

[KAM 2150]

Pretty much what Causeless wrote.

You might remember how I argued in favour of a Pike Phalanx with long Pikes and more shield defence instead of defence? (Pretty much what I do here)
Back then you meant that even though it´d be more accurate, it would make Pikes too strong when controlled by the player and too weak when controlled by the AI.

The deal is that on Rome 2 engine, pikes with range above 4 are broken as every pike strike COMPLETLY ingores melee defence of attacked target, yeah, that is how much broken the phalanx is. It means that only armour can block the damage, while EVERY pike strike has 100% hit chance. Only when approached at swords length, both units need to pass attack/def check. I knew something with hit chance was broken since units acted like they are not in combat, hence they could not pass attack/def check. Yesterday I did a test and gave some units 1000 melee defence, either for shield or personal skill and in both cases pikes just ignored it.

Just to be clear, I was not offended by your comment, just forgot to add emoticon Btw, Greeks are getting pretty big overhaul at the moment so 1.2 release will have much more accurate Greek and Hellenic factions

[mahgah]

Definitly one of the reasons I followed this mod since before I had Attila.
If there´s the one thing I dislike about DeI, apart from the better Attila engine for AE, is the balance they try to acchieve between all factions.
From a gameplay perspective it´s fine and it was a deliberate decision, but as I´m a history student before a gamer, I prefer historical accuracy to balance.

I mean, the issue with basing all mechanics on historical accuracy is this:

1) We don't even know the nitty gritty details of how most battles were fought in antiquity.

2) No one in history had the kind of command and tactical view that you, the player has. Effortlessly getting your units to march in unison? Units on one end of the battlefield knowing what's happening on the other side?

I think any fan or student of history could accept the fact that Total War is not and cannot be an accurate simulation of ancient warfare. I don't think it's a good policy to directly translate something into a mechanic solely based on the fact that it's what would happen in real life, because Total War isn't able to simulate real life in the first place.

In my opinion, it's valuable to know where game design takes precedence over historical accuracy.