Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

  1. #21

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    Quote Originally Posted by Madoguy1 View Post
    Wow, are you kidding me?? They took a unit that was already way too strong in 1.2 and gave it the ap attribute too?? Without altering any of its other weapon stats??? In eb 1.3, against a very heavily armoured unit, a pezhetairoi is going to do 34 attack!!!

    Yeah none of my comments where aimed specifically at EB 1.3. I was actually commenting on 1.2 in particular, as its the one i play. If i was playing 1.3 then i would of defo mentioned the absurdity of adding the ap attribute too. I mean come on, surely of all units, heavily armoured infantry should be the only ones who can at least try and force there way through the pike line. But no, they gonna get massacred even harder than light and medium infantry now! This further adds to my point of how crazy phalangists stats are. Im genuinely amazed by how much of a blunder this is, to the point that im curious what rationalisation the EB mod team took to adding it.
    Wait a minute, 34 attack? I don't think there is a unit in EB with more than 20 armour, how did you obtain that number?

    TBH I have no idea why phalanxes should be ap, it's nonsense. This will be changed for sure in the next version.

  2. #22

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    Wait a minute, 34 attack? I don't think there is a unit in EB with more than 20 armour, how did you obtain that number?

    TBH I have no idea why phalanxes should be ap, it's nonsense. This will be changed for sure in the next version.
    Oh my bad, i dont know why, but i for some odd reason thought ap doubled attack vs very heavily armoured units. Actually cuts their armour in half. What a plonker i am!

    I recall a while back, on a an EB forum, people talking about how sarissa's had the ability to penetrate armour, such as mail. Perhaps the EB team thought this, and decided to give it the ap attribute. Whatever the rationale, its ridiculous. Other spears can pierce through armour likew that too, but people would think it absurd to give them the ap stat. And more importantly, it makes phalanxes even more broken. The fact that there stats where already insane in eb 1.2, and then they added ap, is crazy to me!

  3. #23

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    Remember that the current EB team is different from the original one, which has migrated to EB 2 and the M2:TW engine instead since the times of EB 1.2. At some point the new team probably decided it was adequate to add ap to the sarissa (I don't know why, maybe because of the discussions you mention), but it will be removed.

  4. #24

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    Quote Originally Posted by mephiston View Post
    Remember that the current EB team is different from the original one, which has migrated to EB 2 and the M2:TW engine instead since the times of EB 1.2. At some point the new team probably decided it was adequate to add ap to the sarissa (I don't know why, maybe because of the discussions you mention), but it will be removed.
    Are you helping make the EDU for the next version?

  5. #25

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    Quote Originally Posted by BHL 20 View Post
    Are you helping make the EDU for the next version?
    Yessir.

  6. #26

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    One thing I would like to add is that we should consider the overall design philosophy of this mod, historical accuracy. The team have prioritized historical accuracy over balanced gameplay in many ways - like how crazy expensive it is to maintain a strong fleet, for example. It's not far-fetched to suggest that they prioritized historical accuracy in making the phalanx the strongest infantry unit type in the game, over balancing units for gameplay reasons.

    The Macedonian phalanx was supposed to be brutally strong, certainly far superior in comparison to any infantry the Greeks or the Asian factions could field - including Spartan hoplites. The sources we have for the period EB is set in make that very clear. One can consider for example what Polybius wrote about Aemilius Paulus at the battle of Pydna against the Macedonians in 168, where the Roman consul is supposed to have trembled in terror at the sight of a Macedonian phalanx, which he had never seen before - and this, Polybius writes, even though Paulus had extensive command experience and was not a man you would expect to be frightened or intimidated by the arms of an enemy.

    We should also look at his comparison between the Roman and Macedonian military systems, he says that in theory the Macedonians should win every time because of how strong the phalanx is, but in practice they didn't beat the Romans because war doesn't happen in perfect conditions. You won't always get a nice flat open plain with plenty of hours before the enemy attacks to perfectly set up your phalanx. Sometimes you have to fight on a muddy, uneven hill where it's hard to get a strong foothold on the ground. Sometimes you get surprised and don't have enough time to set up properly. When that happens, Polybius says, the phalanx is at a significant disadvantage to Roman legions because the formation needs ideal conditions to work properly:

    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.
    Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge.
    Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily—seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigour to the use of their swords. Therefore it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.
    Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation.

    I think the developers of the mod have sought to reflect the esteem that the Macedonian phalanx was held in by its observers and by those who had to fight against it. This is probably why they are so strong in-game. The sources are clear that the only way to beat a Macedonian phalanx is to engage it on rough ground, take it by surprise before the formation has time to get set up, or to avoid attacking it front-on and instead hit the flanks. And I think that the game reflects that assessment reasonably well, you can't send any unit up against a phalanx head on and expect to come out on top. At best you can send one unit to lock it down in head on combat, then send a couple of units around the phalanx's flank. It's the only way the Romans could do it after all!

  7. #27

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    The question of historical accuracy vs balance is an interesting one. Personally, i think there is a fine line between the two. For me, the biggest danger is when a historical accuracy justification, that makes sense in theory, does not work in the practical reality of RTW, and ironically makes things less historically accurate.

    For example, you said in your missile comparison thread, that all siege weapons are basically useless, because of how expensive they are. I can see why the old EB team, made siege weapons so costly. Its done to simulate how these where for their time, high tech devices, that required careful maintenance and skill to build and maintain. Unfortunately, this huge cost and upkeep, makes them more a liabilty, than an asset for the player. Why purchase a siege weapon, that costs a fortune to buy, and maintain, that takes up a slot in your army, and slows it down, when you can use rams, siege towers, sappers, and ladders, all for free? The answer is that you dont, and so a human player never uses them. They are also far to expensive for the ai too, so the result is that you will never see nor use torsion siege engines, which where used and effective in the actual time period. Its a great example of where a good historical justification, fails to actually create historical accuracy in game.

    This problem exists for phalangites as well. For example a barrage of roman pila was historically, very effective against the front of a phalanx. The iron shank of the pila could pierce the pelte, going straight into the phlangists arm. Even if it didnt do that, the shank would be unable to remove, and cause the shield to be unwieldy to carry. The phalangist would have to drop it, making him far more vulnerable, from other projectiles, and in melee. Put simply, from a historical standpoint, a legionary's pila barrage should be quite effective against the front of a phalanx.

    Except in EB it isnt, because the phalanx has such a massive shield value. The shield value is so high to (in theory) represent how projectiles would bounce of the long sarrissa, keeping the formation protected. However, in the reality of RTW, this is unnecessary, because as ive already shown, the phalanx mode already gives a frontal shield buff. Instead of being resistant to incoming missile fire, the phalanx is practically immune to it. It is once again, another example where a good theoretical historical justification, make the game less balanced, and less historically accurate in practice.

    The Macedonian phalanx was supposed to be brutally strong, certainly far superior in comparison to any infantry the Greeks or the Asian factions could field - including Spartan hoplites. The sources we have for the period EB is set in make that very clear. One can consider for example what Polybius wrote about Aemilius Paulus at the battle of Pydna against the Macedonians in 168, where the Roman consul is supposed to have trembled in terror at the sight of a Macedonian phalanx, which he had never seen before - and this, Polybius writes, even though Paulus had extensive command experience and was not a man you would expect to be frightened or intimidated by the arms of an enemy.
    While i can agree that the macedonian phalanx was superior to the infantry of its asian counterparts, it being 'far superior' against the infantry of the Greeks is debatable. While no longer the juggernaut it once was, the hoplite still remained an effective force on the battlefield, even giving a fierce account of themselves during the battle of the Granicus, where the greek mercenaries held very well against Alexanders phalanx. Even the vast superiority of the Macedonian Phalanx against the spartan hoplite is debatable, considering how Pyrrhus failed to break them during the siege of sparta in 272. If we are also to talk about the infantry of greeks, it should be kept in mind that, that includes Thureophoroi. This style of combat was first introduced during the Celtic invasion of the Balkans in 279, where the Gauls utterly crushed the macedonian king Ptolemy Keraunos's phalanx. Recognising the effectiveness of the style of war the gauls used, the Hellenes would copy it, and develop thureos bearers which many successor states would utilise, or in the case of Ptolemaic Egypt, accept as their main style of fighting.

    he sources are clear that the only way to beat a Macedonian phalanx is to engage it on rough ground, take it by surprise before the formation has time to get set up, or to avoid attacking it front-on and instead hit the flanks. And I think that the game reflects that assessment reasonably well, you can't send any unit up against a phalanx head on and expect to come out on top. At best you can send one unit to lock it down in head on combat, then send a couple of units around the phalanx's flank. It's the only way the Romans could do it after all!
    There is one big problem with this point. The RTW engine is not great at simulating the rigidness, inflexibility, and difficulty with rough terrain that the phalanx suffered from. If it did, then id be more accepting of the very high attack stat, as it would come at the cost of them being easily destroyed by a smart general who could exploit these weaknesses and flank them. You cannot do this in EB with the RTW engine. If you flank a phalanx, they just easily turn there spears around, and quickly begin to annihilate the flanker. Therefore, you are forced to have one unit 'lock' the phalanx in place, as the other flanks. The problem with this, is that the 'lock' unit is going to always take heavy casualties, due to immense power of the pike line. To further add to this, historically, most phalanxes would crumble quickly once they where flanked and surrounded. Yet in eb, because you MUST 'lock' the phalanx in place from the front, they will inflict casualties so quickly that it keeps there morale up, meaning they can hold on far longer than even many elites. Let me quote again what i said in the original thread:

    Anything that hits the front of a phalanx will rapidly suffer from massive casualties, irregardless of the quality of the unit. In theory, one could argue that you shouldn't attack the phalanx from the front, but because of the limitations of the RTW engine, phalanxes have to be pinned in place with infantry from the front, while another unit hits them from behind. If you try to have one unit flank, without another unit pinning the phalanx, it will turn around instantly, and quickly begin unleashing its massive attack and lethality onto the flanker. They only way to try and avoid this is to have your units deliberately run through the phalanxes spears, and mosh into there formation. But this is a cheap, exploitative tactic, abusing the limitations of the engine. As unfair as it is though, its one of the only ways to tackle a phalanx in melee without taking heavy casualties

    This high attack has further knock on effects on the morale too. If a unit is killing many enemies, very quickly, its own morale will stay up. I recall a time when an enemy unit of Galatikoi Klerouchoi was hit from both the front and rear and the unit quickly panicked and routed. Yet in the same battle i did the same thing to a Pezhetairoi, a unit that has the same morale as the galatians, and it held on for a gruellingly long time. Why? Because the Pezhetairoi attack meant that the unit pinning it for the flankers, was taking massive casualties, keeping its morale up. This created a cycle, because as it held on, it continued killing my men rapidly, and so its morale remained high, keeping it holding, and so killing more men! Only once most of the unit was destroyed did its killing power falter, and the unit finally break.
    I can appreciate the many historical justifications that can be made about the phalanxes stats, and in many cases, i can see what was being aimed for. But that doesnt change the fundamental fact that in the practical reality of the game, these do not work, and actually cause things to be less historical. You cannot give the phalanx its legendary frontal attack power, in an engine that does not simulate its vulnerability to rough terrain, and flanking. When you do, it gives the phalanx its historical strengths, without its historical weaknesses, therefore making it both historically inaccurate and overpowered.

  8. #28

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    If you're interested, I recorded a short video to demonstrate how to deal with phalanxes without losing an entire unit. Note that if you place more armoured men in front of the phalanx and/or act quicker than I did in the video (which is very likely, as I purposefully waited five minutes before flanking), you're going to cut those losses down by a large number.
    Last edited by mephiston; June 12, 2020 at 03:23 AM.

  9. #29

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    Quote Originally Posted by mephiston View Post
    If you're interested, I recorded a short video to demonstrate how to deal with phalanxes without losing an entire unit. Note that if you place more armoured men in front of the phalanx and/or act quicker than I did in the video (which is very likely, as I purposefully waited five minutes before flanking), you're going to cut those losses down by a large number.
    Your link doesn't seem to work

  10. #30

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    Quote Originally Posted by Madoguy1 View Post
    Your link doesn't seem to work
    Oops! Should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out.

  11. #31

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    Thanks for the video! I wonder why the phalanx seems to have so much trouble with loose formation units. It still seems kinda cheesy strategy to use, but with no other way to flank phalanxes without taking heavy casualties, ill give it a try in my next campaign. It will be interesting to see how the tactic works, in a battle where the phalanx is supported by other infantry, that will perform better against the loose units.

  12. #32
    Laetus
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    thessaloniki
    Posts
    24

    Default Re: The Crazy EB Phalanx: An analysis of phalangist stats

    do U have a file with thesde changes my friend, in order for us to incorporate them in our games? I am virtually useless in modding/changing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Madoguy1 View Post
    Of all the mods i've played for RTW, Europa Barbarorum, is by far my favourite. In fact it may be my favourite mod for any game i've played. One that has so many changes to vanilla that i like, that i have even altered other mods just to make it more like this one! However i believe to truly love something, you need to also be critical of some of its flaws and errors. One of the most apparent flaws in EB is how the mod handles units that fight in the Macedonian phalanx.

    Usually when criticism is levelled at this, people point to the flaws in RTW engine, in that it has serious problems replicating the dynamic of the phalanx such as turning on it access, swinging its spears around, and attacking a flanking force with ease. Or it being so easy to form and reform the phalanx while locked in combat. i've played RTW and other mods enough to recognise these problems with the engine, but i think there are aspects that are wrong with the phalanx, that are unique to EB. These faults are universal across phalangist units, and can actually be changed rather easily, by going into export_descr_unit. So if your somebody else who's frustrated at certain aspects of phalangists performance, or just a passerby, curious what some guy has to say i hope you enjoy!
    Part 1: Shield valueAt a quick glance the shield value of phalangist seems rather strange. Despite only carrying a pelte, they have a the highest shield value in the game at 5 beating units carrying the aspis or scutum which have a value of 4. Whenever i see forums questioning this, it is usually justified by the fact that historically the long sarissa carried by phalangist would also deflect incoming projectiles while the unit is in the phalanx. Its makes complete sense in theory..
    .
    ...In theory...

    In practice this additional shield value is totally unneeded. When in phalanx mode, a phalangist receives additional frontal protection from missiles. This means that instead of simulating the extra protection the sarissa provided and making the unit resistant to frontal missile attacks, the additional shield value only results in making the unit near invulnerable to frontal missile attacks! Let me try and prove this to you:

    I decided to set up a little test, to take a look at how phalangist units react to frontal missile fire. A single unit would move up to a large city, with a large wall. The defenders would only have a melee unit that did not interfere. The same map was chosen, with the same weather conditions, and the single attacker would always only move up to firing range of the gate. The battle would have a timer of 60 minutes, so i could track how long the unit lasted before the battle would be lost once enough soldiers had died to no longer man the ram.

    I decided to start the test using Machimoi Phalangitai. They are the lowest armoured phalanx unit in the game, and so i thought would make a good start to test out the missile defensive capabilties of the phalangists, in and out of phalanx mode. The first test i had them move in front of the wall in phalanx mode:


    The unit survived 24 minutes of consistent wall fire before defeat. Pretty darn impressive for a low tier, pretty cheap levy unit. However, lets compare how the unit did when out of phalanx mode:



    16 minutes, an 8 minutes difference. This is the first bit of proof that phalanx mode, provides extra frontal protection to missiles. However, you could argue its not a huge time difference, and could just be chalked up to coincidence, or luck. So lets go deeper.

    My third test, i decided to try something different. Instead of a phalangist, i would test how a Hoplitai would perform under the constant wall barrage. For me, this is important, because the historical justification for the phalanx shield value is that it was resistant to missile fire, thanks to the long sarrisa causing them deflect away. However every source i've seen, suggest that the hoplite phalanx had similar protection from missiles too, because of there heavier armour and larger, thicker shield. Logically one would expect a Hoplite and phalangist to have similiar missile protection in EB. I decided to raise the number of hoplites to 60, the same as the phalanx units, so the phalangists will not have a numerical advantage over the hoplites. The result:

    20 minutes. More than the Machimoi out of phalanx, but less than them in phalanx. Keep in mind Hoplitai are more costly and require a higher MIC than machimoi, and in this comparison, i had increased there numbers to match there phalanx counterparts. Had i kept them at there usual 40 unit size, they would of lasted even shorter. One would expect that Hoplitai would outclass a levied phalanx in its range protection.

    But how about we compare the Hoplitai's performance to a phalanx unit closer to its status? I decided to go for Pezhetairoi. With one armour less, and one shield point more, you would expect the 2 units to have a similar anti missile protection. My first test would be the Pezhetairoi in phalanx. The result.....

    ....is shocking! The unit survived 60 minutes of constant tower fire! What makes this even more terrifying, is that Pezhetairoi aren't even the heaviest protected phalanx unit. The elite phalanxes have even more armour, especially Hysteroi Pezhetairoi, Chalkaspidai, and Elite African Pikeman. After that i decided to test again, only with the unit out of phalanx mode:
    (Please excuse the painted timer, i took the screenshot without my mouse hovering over the timer)

    26 minutes. 6 minutes more than Hoplitai. And 2 minutes more than machimoi in phalanx mode. Not overly surprising considering they are more costly. However what is very impressive is the the time difference between pezhetairoi in, and out of phalanx. In phalanx the unit lasted more than twice as long. For me, this is very convincing proof of phalanx mode providing frontal arrow protection, and in my opinion, shows that the justification for the very high shield value is unnecessary. The formation itself accounts for the pikemans long sarissa protecting from arrow fire. The extra shield value, in an ironic twist, makes the unit so immune to projectiles, that is makes it LESS historically accurate. Not only that, but it makes them far too capable as assault units. Your opponent could man his walls with dozens of cretan archers, and it wouldnt matter, cause your army could soak up all those arrows, while taking minimal casualties.

    Solution

    There a 2 stat changes that i believe need to be done to make Phalangists a move balanced unit, when it comes to anti-missile protection, without impairing its melee capabilities
    Lower shield value by 2 points
    Raise defence skill by 2 points
    Let me show you how these changes effected the test. I repeated the Pezhetairoi in phalanx mode test, with these new stats. The result:

    29 minutes. This makes these units still very resistant to frontal missile attacks, however they are now not totally immune to them. Now a legionary can lob his pila at a phalanx line, and actually be able to do some damage. The increased defence skill makes up for the loss of the shield in close combat, so they do not become weaker in melee. Ive found these changes have opened up more tactical options to dealing with a phalanx with skirmishers and archers. While it is still a better idea to flank them and throw the projectiles in the rear, it is now no longer a complete waste of time shooting a phalanx from the front.

    Part 2: Attack value/Lethality

    If the shield value of phalangist's seems strange at a glance, the attack values are arguably even more absurd. Lets take a look at various phalanx units of different status, and compare them to other spear wielding equivalents.


    As you can see, relative to other units carrying normal spears, phalangists consistently have much higher attack than there competitors. Its crazy to think that a low tier Machimoi Phalangitai has an attack that exceeds the elite, and much more expensive Thorakitai. Pezhetairoi, the standard unit of a successors faction, has an attack that matches the truly elite spartan hoplite! From what i have seen Argyraspides have the highest base melee attack of any unit in the whole mod! And if that wasnt bad enough, the sarissa has a high lethality of 0.17. Usually in EB, units with higher lethality, tend to have lower base attack values, either making them more suited for tackling less armoured opponents, or relying on powerful charges/ armour piercing abilities to hit harder. However Phalangists have the luxury of high attack and high lethality.

    Unsurprisingly these 2 stats together is a terrifying combo. Anything that hits the front of a phalanx will rapidly suffer from massive casualties, irregardless of the quality of the unit. In theory, one could argue that you shouldn't attack the phalanx from the front, but because of the limitations of the RTW engine, phalanxes have to be pinned in place with infantry from the front, while another unit hits them from behind. If you try to have one unit flank, without another unit pinning the phalanx, it will turn around instantly, and quickly begin unleashing its massive attack and lethality onto the flanker. They only way to try and avoid this is to have your units deliberately run through the phalanxes spears, and mosh into there formation. But this is a cheap, exploitative tactic, abusing the limitations of the engine. As unfair as it is though, its one of the only ways to tackle a phalanx in melee without taking heavy casualties

    This high attack has further knock on effects on the morale too. If a unit is killing many enemies, very quickly, its own morale will stay up. I recall a time when an enemy unit of Galatikoi Klerouchoi was hit from both the front and rear and the unit quickly panicked and routed. Yet in the same battle i did the same thing to a Pezhetairoi, a unit that has the same morale as the galatians, and it held on for a gruellingly long time. Why? Because the Pezhetairoi attack meant that the unit pinning it for the flankers, was taking massive casualties, keeping its morale up. This created a cycle, because as it held on, it continued killing my men rapidly, and so its morale remained high, keeping it holding, and so killing more men! Only once most of the unit was destroyed did its killing power falter, and the unit finally break.

    This of course begs the question....why? Why do phalangists have such high attack power, as well as such high lethaltiy? While the sarissa was a good weapon, it wasn't renowned for having killing power that was MASSIVELY higher than say a dory spear. Why does there seem to be a pattern in the graph that every single phalanx unit has roughly 3-4 more attack than spearmen of the same class? In all the forum posts i've viewed, i've never seen a historical reason for why the attack on these units is so absurdly high. However i did find something else.

    In an old thread for EB in 2008, a user was asking why the Macedonian phalanx had such a high attack as was being asked here. Someone replied that the reason it was so high was because the sarissa had the spear attribute. For those who do not know, this raises the attack of a weapon against cavalry by 4, but lowers it against infantry by 4. Suddenly it all seems to make sense, and why the pattern of phalanxes having 3-4 points more than there spear equivlents. Its to compensate for the lowered attack against infantry. Unfortunately, there is just one problem....

    In newer versions, the sarissa has the light_spear attribute instead, just like all other spearman! This gives it 4+ defence against cavalry, and no attack loss versus infantry. This means that instead of hitting enemy infantry with the -4 attack it had in earlier versions, now it hits with its full attack! Ultimately the current attack was supposed to compensate for the spear attribute, but now only results in phalanxes being terrifying killing machines.

    However, so far i've only been looking at the effects on the battlefield. How does this absurdly high attack effect the campaign map? Badly. The ai, from my experience is very much biased in favour of recruiting units that perform well during autoresolving. Stats such as attack, defence, and numbers per unit are important in resolving, instead of morale, stamina, speed, special attributes, missiles etc. This is an area where the high numbers and high attack of the phalanx, especially relative to its cost, excels. By c
    ontrast units such as horse archers, light cavalry and archers which have low attack, low defence, low numbers, relative to there cost, falter. This is a really bad dynamic to have in a game where two of the main factions, that are trying to challenge the phalanx juggernaut of the Seleucid empire, are Pahlava and Sauka rauka, factions that are dependent on horse archers, light cavalry and archers. Unless you the player are those factions, or support them by financial aid or military support, they usually get slowly annihilated by the white blob of death, and its army of phalanxes. These factions have so many cool units like Grivpanver or Agema hellenikon that you will never fight, because the Seleucid have forced them back, and stopped them from reforming and unlocking them.

    This problem persists with most the other successor, phalanx dependent factions, who tend to have an advantage against there opponents who do not have these units. The bias to recruiting them means that these factions tend to avoid recruiting other cool units in there own rosters. Why would the ai controlling Carthage recruit the 13 attack elite african infantry, when it can get the elite african pikeman with there immense 18 attack instead? The massive stat difference greatly influences the ai's recruitment decisions, and makes battles further dominated by phalangists

    Put simply, the high attack is in my eyes, a major problem for the unit, amplifying the limitations of pikeman in the RTW engine, and making the campaign map much less interesting and diverse. And with no historical, or practical justification for it, i think it should be altered

    Solution

    The simplest change to the sarissa is this:
    Reduce attack points of pikeman by 4 points

    This change means the unstoppable killing power of the phalanx has been greatly reduced and puts them closer in line with there spear wielding equivalents. However, they still possess their high lethality and so still are by no means weak. Another alternative, could be lowering the lethality a little, while only reducing the attack by 3 instead. From my experience, these changes make phalanxes far more balanced to fight against, especially for equivalent units of cost. However, where ive noticed the most substantial improvement is on the campaign map. The Seleucid empires is nowhere near as unstoppable now, while still being a strong faction and the eastern and nomad factions have much more capability to expand. Other units are more viable as purchases for the ai, and so battles are not totally dominated by phalanxes. I believe a more in depth look into how this stat change effects the game could be useful, but i may save that for another day

    If you have reached the end of this 'essay' i applaud you. Thanks for reading, and im curious about your thoughts
    (Please ignore the all italics, its being all glitchy)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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