Slingers and Archers

[Hirtius]

This is probably something that has been asked about in the past, but how do the mechanics between arrows and sling bullets differ? I think all slingers have a higher missile damage (cobble being 9 and glandes being 10) than archers in the listed stats. Is there a reason for this?

In fact, the stats of archers seem kind of pathetic compared to slingers. Archers do have larger numbers, but they have lower damage and most archers have no shields. Now, I love using slingers probably more than anyone, but if slings and arrows operate in the same way it wouldn't make any sense. There is a reason that slingers often come from the poorest classes, in that in most cases the people that use them are too poor to afford anything else or don't want to put the resources into bows and especially the arrows. A slung stone might be easily able to exceed the force of arrows by a large amount, but it's lacking in the penetration of arrows.

The exceptions to this are of course lead bullets and large stones. Lead bullets are superior in speed, and likely in penetration. Livy (Book 38, [38.21], His original source is Polybius) describes the likely embedding of lead bullets into flesh, saying (concerning the Galatians) "But when the head of an arrow has gone in or a leaden bullet buried itself and it tortures them with what looks like a slight wound and defies all their efforts to get rid of it, they fling themselves on the ground in shame and fury at so small an injury threatening to prove fatal." (Side note: The context is Vulso's Galatian campaign in 189 BCE, about how many Galatians fight naked and respect large wounds which leave small scars. The Galatians had the high ground, but the Roman and Pergamene force decided to cheese them by pelting them with projectiles. The Galatians had long shields, but they weren't quite wide enough. The Galatians had also neglected to bother with many missile weapons, since their position had plenty of stones but not stated if thrown, slung, or both. Either way, the Galatians were disordered by the long range missiles that they couldn't focus on gathering those stones. Moral of the story: Take notes, Anakin).

Anyways, damage. Lead bullets could probably be somewhat comparable to arrows in damage. The other exception is large stones, which I list mainly for the Balearic slingers. If I remember correctly, Balearic slingers are using lead bullet missile states. This doesn't make sense, I don't know of lead bullet usage among balearic slingers. They are famous for using large stones. Their range should be more in line with slingers slinging stones, but their damage should probably even exceed lead bullets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZaDLQCPlY
(Starts around 1:05)
This is a video of Luis Pons Livermore. Although his accuracy probably doesn't match up accounts of the ancients and other slinging cultures (the sling is hands down one of the, if not THE, most difficult weapons to use effectively and master), he is certainly insanely strong (He slings between 50 m/s to 54.4 m/s, with a stone that I estimate to be around 150 - 200 grams. Thats a lot of damage.). I don't know how strong ancient Balearic slingers were, but they were slinging stones probably twice the weight (though probably much slower). It must have been pretty frightening to ever be on the receiving end. I digress, Balearic slingers should probably be using heavy stones with shorter range but higher damage instead of lead glandes.

If I recall correctly, I think Pyrrhus brought 500 slingers and 2000 archers (maybe from Thessaly or something?). Even though greek archers aren't the most renowned, I doubt he would have taken them along in such numbers if slingers (which probably also wouldn't have been in short supply) could have done the job better. However, the fact that he has slingers (albeit in smaller numbers) shows that for some reason they also have value in some way. Slingers are cheaper, can carry a shield (which I don't know of more than a few ancient depictions were they do that), have longer range with lead (According to Xenophon, which I would guess isn't too far off. The slinging distances even without lead can be kind of insane.). Slingers were increasingly superseded by archers in later periods (and lead usage disappears), but until the dominance of firearms they don't entirely disappear for a reason. I think it's important to accurately portray the advantages of both. But importantly for this, the bow is a superior weapon in damage and should be depicted as such.

One last thing relating to this. The recruitment for slingers is whack. I get why greek/thracian slingers only have one slinger recruitable at a time per settlement (Rhodes and a few areas in Asia Minor get 2, which makes sense given the importance. I think coins from Aspendos in Pamphylia often had slingers on them). But for the rest of the world that isn't using lead, why just 1 per settlement? I get that they might have a high damage output, but if they are properly represented and nerfed then this wouldn't be a problem. The barbarian factions especially should have at least 2 in most settlements, given how important the sling was in Iron Age hill forts. And this has been mentioned a couple times by me (ignore it if it's already noted), but their are a lot of Balearic slingers in my Carthage campaign. A lot. Maybe they should only have a couple recruitable in their home islands.

Alright, I'm done. If you're still here and actually still interested in slings, here is a cool video of Jaegoor testing out damage against synthetic bone with stone and lead, as well as an ostrich egg and a helmet. The music is a bit unnecessary, but this sure teaches you some important lessons. If I recall correctly, one of Caesar's soldiers was hit in the head with a sling stone and kept fighting even though it wounded him. He might have been killed later anyways. Regardless, I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that the soldier was wearing a helmet that prevented a potentially skull fracturing stone from being fatal. Remember to wear your helmet, kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMMebwEdAaE

[RodriguesSting]

Ranged combat is in a really bad spot right now. I remember having Breton Chariots trying to "snipe from the back" some hoplites. It was underwhelming to say the least.

EB2 battles are focused quite heavily on routs, and having some guys with swords charging the side or rear is much more effective and easy to pull out than having to maneuver your entire skirmishing core. Realistically, the only thing I use them for is to force the enemy to go on the offensive so I can manage my line better.

Regarding recruitment, I think it is because you can't realistically train slingers to a military capacity at the time. These troops are levied from the rural populace, and to get enough of proficient enough slingers to make a regiment would put quite a strain on the supply of the area. You may have not noticed, but Barbarians do get better slinger numbers than settled factions, and archers too for that matter.

[Lusitanio]

And this has been mentioned a couple times by me (ignore it if it's already noted), but their are a lot of Balearic slingers in my Carthage campaign. A lot. Maybe they should only have a couple recruitable in their home islands.

The Balearic slingers were being used as placeholder for many regions, that won't happen anymore for the next version since we now have the Corsi ligurian slinger unit.

[Hirtius]

Regarding recruitment, I think it is because you can't realistically train slingers to a military capacity at the time. These troops are levied from the rural populace, and to get enough of proficient enough slingers to make a regiment would put quite a strain on the supply of the area. You may have not noticed, but Barbarians do get better slinger numbers than settled factions, and archers too for that matter.

Slingers aren't trained. It's a skill that is developed over a long period of time, so you can't train a slinger for war. Where slingers are available, it's a skill that has to be present in the population. In Iron Age Europe (and elsewhere), this was probably a very common skill.

Most of the barbarians get only 1 slinger unit per settlement at a time, the same as with most settled factions (though some Greek settlements get 2). Most barbarian factions also don't have much for archers for most of the game (unless you are referring to the Getae or the steppe factions).

The Balearic slingers were being used as placeholder for many regions, that won't happen anymore for the next version since we now have the Corsi ligurian slinger unit.

I know, I was bringing up the fact that there are so many, not just about where they are placeholders. In a Carthage campaign, in Iberian settlements you can recruit at least 3 or 4 Balearic slingers. I think in New Carthage, you can recruit 5. This is nuts. While most slingers are too restricted in numbers, Balearic slingers are way too populous even once you cut out the placeholders.

In these settlements, regular Iberian slingers should be increased to at least 2 and Balearics removed. There should only be around 2 or so Balearic slinger units available for recruitment at a time, and probably limited to the islands where they come from (if you really want to, maybe 1 in New Carthage with the Barcid government). For the new slingers (which I'm excited for), the same rules apply. They should probably not be available in absurd amounts.

I'm curious to how prominent Corsi/Ligurian slingers were. I think I read a passage once about Ligurian slingers being able to work in groups and call which duck in a flock they were going to take out. Why do they have some helmets and shields? What ammo will they be using? It looks like they are using the same animations as Greek slingers, which is a bit strange. And are those swords? Dang, these guys must be loaded.

[RodriguesSting]

Slingers aren't trained. It's a skill that is developed over a long period of time, so you can't train a slinger for war. Where slingers are available, it's a skill that has to be present in the population. In Iron Age Europe (and elsewhere), this was probably a very common skill.

So I guess that most skirmishers are not trained at all, but rather, levied. Slings may be common, but mastery takes a long time. Bows might be marginally more expensive, but far easier to master, so this is probably why you see overall more archers than slingers in the game.

Who is actually being drilled are militia, semi-professional warriors, and the warrior elite. And this is why you, as a rule, have much higher availability of line and infantry than of light skirmishers. A matter of arming and training from the large population pool vs going around the countryside and just picking whoever is available.

[Hirtius]

So I guess that most skirmishers are not trained at all, but rather, levied. Slings may be common, but mastery takes a long time. Bows might be marginally more expensive, but far easier to master, so this is probably why you see overall more archers than slingers in the game.

Who is actually being drilled are militia, semi-professional warriors, and the warrior elite. And this is why you, as a rule, have much higher availability of line and infantry than of light skirmishers. A matter of arming and training from the large population pool vs going around the countryside and just picking whoever is available.

I think you're missing a point. Don't think about the game as much when discussing things that are beyond the game. The society you are drawing troops from already has all the skills and societal/wealth distinctions there. You are levying from that population. Don't think about arming and training as much, because you aren't really doing that.

Also, I'm just going to point out that the Western Mediterranean doesn't have much for archers recruitable anyways. That leaves you with whatever javelin throwers or slingers, the numbers of which I think are underrepresented even though skirmishers are only a smaller part of an army.

[Septentrionalis]

This is beside the point of historical realism and unit balance, but I have come to accept as a fact that the ranged units are weak as such but have the special advantage of being able to concentrate fire. I use both slingers and archers as a way of weakening a single enemy unit somewhere near the middle of their line as they approach. When they get closer, I use all nearby javelin troops to concentrate fire on the same unit that has already been depleted by slingers and archers. When they eventually clash with preferably a strong infantry unit of mine, they are quick to rout and to reduce the morale around them.

I also try to have cavalry ready to intercept their rout. That way their line is compromised quite early in the battle and they have suffered proportionally more casualties by mid-battle, which can be very advantageous for the human player.

[Camcolit]

Ranged units are great if you ask me (except javelin troops which are junk unless you edit the edu, which I did, see thread on skirmish cavalry if you want to use it)

This thread sounds very Westernmediterraneanacentric. Of course if you are using toxotai or some crap northern tribal archers then they are going to be, well, crap. But they are cheap enough to be basically free also. Just think of them as more bodies to fill out your army who might even do something now and then.

Real archers like nomads or Cretean professionals on the other hand are excellent. Nomad foot archers can do serious damage and their cost is kind of hilarious. Sakan foot archers for 60 odd a turn? Yes, I'll take 10 instead of that cataphract. Creteans are great especially in infantry-heavy armies. They have excellent range and so allow you to dictate the engagement, and when they run out of arrows they make decent light infantry. Plus they aren't expensive at all. The trick I find is not to overdo it, two units of creteans (or slingers, if preferred) in my KH armies is enough, you could get away with one. With the javelin changes I made I also use three good medium skirmisher units and only two cavalry units. This gives an army in which every unit is capable in hand-to-hand and is reasonably priced.

For early Pahlava armies I make liberal (to put it mildly) use of horse archers. Of course HA are great and given the AI's inability to deal with them in large numbers are arguably unfair. Later I use more foot archers. They perform well, are dirt cheap, and really help balance the cost of armies with a lot of expensive cavalry in them.

[Hirtius]

Ranged units are great if you ask me (except javelin troops which are junk unless you edit the edu, which I did, see thread on skirmish cavalry if you want to use it)

This thread sounds very Westernmediterraneanacentric. Of course if you are using toxotai or some crap northern tribal archers then they are going to be, well, crap. But they are cheap enough to be basically free also. Just think of them as more bodies to fill out your army who might even do something now and then.

The question I was directing more at the beginning was why slingers have such high damage? Is the damage calculated differently? If it isn’t, why make their damage so high?

it’s kind of difficult to test out since the AI is really stupid in custom battle, but I’ve found that sphendonetai (10 attack, 120 men) go roughly toe to toe with Persian bowmen (5 attack, a little less range than the sphendonetai, 160 men). I can’t tell if the bow damage is calculated differently, or if it’s because they have more men. I chose the glandes slinging sphendonetai (good slingers) since stone slingers usually get shredded before damage can be tested out. Slingers have a little bit of a disadvantage in EB 2 since I can’t get their loose spacing to work, they only have the default. When tested against nomadic archers, they get shredded which makes sense. Are these results due to a difference in number of men, or something else?

I think you’re missing the point. I’m not bringing up a complaint about balance, it’s about accuracy. Does it make sense for slingers to do more damage (if that is how it’s calculated)? Not really. I think slingers should have lower damage (with exceptions I listed in the original), but equal numbers (160 on huge) and more availability on the campaign map. The range for stone throwing slingers might need to be increased by a little bit as well. Most slingers of the time likely aren’t throwing very heavy stones.

The reason this focuses a bit more on the Western Mediterranean is that this is where it’s more important. Archers aren’t really that present in many of these areas, and the sling is a lot more important. However, the recruitment system is kind of screwed up. Instead of being easily available, slingers are pretty limited. Areas where archers are more important can get away with it, but the lack of archers really makes how limited slingers are apparent. I think the recruitment should be 2 as a cap instead of 1.

[Camcolit]

The question I was directing more at the beginning was why slingers have such high damage? Is the damage calculated differently? If it isn’t, why make their damage so high?

Yeah sorry, I was mainly replying to some of the other posts, should have quoted and it was a bit of a derail.

Re slinger damage I am not sure but in balance terms I thought it was because slingers are more awkward to use. They have a loose formation so you can't slot them as conveniently behind your line. Plus they have fewer numbers as you said. Also I assumed there was a greater chance of friendly fire if you had them firing from behind your troops? This may not be true with the engine though. When I use them (rarely, only when playing a West Med faction or occasionally with KH) I put them in front of the main line and then withdraw them for historical accuracy sake.

[Sar1n]

The difference is in accuracy. Slingers are a lot less accurate than archers.