The wretched subject of Macedonian/Successor troop types.

[Wien1938]

Here I've attempted to make a little more rational the successor Macedonian troop types. Others will hopefully follow!

Phalangites!
Here the sources are a little more firm and one can tread more openly.

While our information on the 3rd Century successor armies is limited, the models that appear from the end of the 3rd and into the 2nd Century BC can be taken as the development of trends from the early period as the successor states developed standing armies and recruitment.
The model that stands out as most astoundingly inaccurate in game would be the Antigonid Macedonians. The Pezhetairoi seems to have been a title that disappeared around 320 bc. Asthetairoi seems to have been a title for the highland tribal brigades/battalions of the phalanx, and this too as a title disappeared.
The phalanx of Antigonos Doson, Philip V and Perseus seems to be split into three parts. The Leukaspides (white-shields) approximate to the older reservists, the Chalkaspides (bronze-shields) seem to be the younger men as they appear on distant campaigns. Both bodies make up half the phalanx. Lastly we have the 'Peltasts', the guard infantry, within which there seems to have been a core Agema, called by Livy "the Conquerors", which could be a reference to the terms of Hellenistic monarchy by the titles 'Sotor', 'Nicator' etc. These seem to have been 4000 strong, indicating parallels with the Alexandrian hypaspists: a core of 1000, and three further units each 1000 strong. A sensible name for this game-unit would seem to me 'Agema', simply 'Guards'.

Phalangite troop types.
The charge bonus does not seem to work in the game, since the phalanx units when locked cannot move at any great pace. Instead this could represent the 'weight' of the phalanx as it ground into their enemies. In addition, Polybios recorded the sarissai of the phalanx piercing Roman shield and killing the man behind it when charging, or in the grinding push of pike, piercing the shield and shoving the man behind it backwards.

1. Leukaspides: Lowest quality phalangites, still disciplined and reliable. Fighting with full length pikes, etc. Att-13.
2. Chalkaspides: regular phalangites. Att-14.
3. Agema: Elite phalangites. Att-16. These should be 120 strong as the others, since they formed the right end of the line. High numbers here, since these guys BROKE Roman infantry.
Repeat these numbers for the Seleucid and Ptolemaic phalanx.
Seleucids:
1. Leukaspides. 2. Chalkaspides. 3. Agyraspides.
Ptolemies:
1. Egyptian Pezoi. These only appeared LATE on in response to a string of defeats at the hands of the Seleucids. These should be cheaper than the Leukaspides, given the numbers hastily recruited for Raphia. The fear about recruiting Egyptians was the possibility of rebellion - it happened soon afterwards!
2. Macedonians. This is most likely name given to these troops. This is reasoned on the basis of lots of archers being named 'cretans' as the historian was describing them on the basis of a known fighting style. These guys should be about 50% more expensive given that the Ptolemies never had enough of these units until the recruitment of the Egyptians.
3. Agema.

Hypaspists!
This is a wretched subject indeed owing to the uncertainty of the sources. However, in order to hang one's self, one must have rope so here goes...

At first glance, it would appear that the Alexandrian hypaspist troop type should no longer exist, namely a spear armed elite foot unit. However, a careful reading of the sources would seem to indicate (here one must be cautious) that in the later Macedonian type of armies (Antigonid, Seleucid and Ptolemaic) the elite unit of the phalanx was capable of duel roles.

Another problem comes with the limitations of the game-engine. The duel role unit (variously called agema, agryaspides, 'peltasts' etc) seems to behave as phalangites on level ground, yet be capable of storming city walls/breeches in the wall and tackling/taking rough terrain which would imply lighter armament. In the latter case, this could argue for shield, spear/sword, javelin combination.
Yet in the game, a unit cannot occupy two roles. One possible option for the player would be to purchase the pike-armed elite unit and the lighter variant unit together. Another might even be to abandon the elite pike unit altogether and assume their assimilation into the phalangites battle line, while retaining the lighter unit.

So what I propose is this:
1. The sword-armed hypaspist unit be should be deleted. There seems to me very little evidence of these having existing.
2. The javelin/spear hypaspists should have the secondary (spear) attack factor raised to 15 from 11. This would give to them an advantage in melee combat while removing the need to rework the skeletons etc.
3. The Macedonian Asthetairoi, Seleucid Argyraspides and Ptolemaic Agema be reworked. These proposals are mirrored and fully explained in the section on Phalangites.
4. The Hypaspist unit types should be doubled in number and reduced to a single hit point. Costs should be adjusted accordingly.

Richard

postscript. Have just field tested ideas. Seem to work nicely, though upped the Hyps from 20 to 30 men and the melee attack to 16 (I think) but now only one 1 hp.
Elite pikemen, well handled, can even destroy Roman infantry. Bog standard pikes are worthwhile too! Next step - costs!!!

[joerd9]

That sounds very interesting. I've experimented with the hypas/swords myself. So far, reducing them to 1hp while raising their stats and cost does a lot to balance the game, i.e. neither macedon nor seleucids steamroll their neighbours in 9 out of 10 cases.

On the subject of historical successor army composition, I'm not educated enough to judge it, but I'm eager to read more on this.

[Marcus Camillus]

Actually, I'm already testing the removal of most of the 2 HP's from units.

I reduced the "egyptian hypaspist", "seleucid hypaspist", "greek hypaspist", "greek hoplite elite", "illyrian hoplite heavy", "carthaginian sacred band infantry", "bactrian swords", "seleucid swords", "macedonian swords", "greek bastarnae", and "merc bastarnae" units from 2 HP's to just 1 HP, and then added 50% to their defense skill.

I reduced the "greek hoplite spartan" unit, or Spartans, from 3 HP's down to 2 HP's and added 50% to their defense skill.

I increased the "rtr german eliteswords", the only RTRPE unit with the berserker attribute, from 1 HP to 2 HP's, leaving their defense skill as per the RTRPE v1.8 release.

The only units in my test EDU with multiple HP's still are the general's bodyguard units and the various chariot units. It turns out that none of the elephant units have multiple HP's per the EDU, but apparently are assigned more HP's by what I guess to be the game engine, since when I look at the info for any elephant units in the custom battle screen, it shows that they have multiple HP's.

I have also left all their costs as is per the EDU of the RTRPE v1.8 release. I'm testing this along with the various fixes/updates that will be part of an upcoming RTRPE v1.9 build, though I'm not sure whether I will include my multiple HP change EDU to the final RTRPE v1.9 release.

So far I've only played about 16 turns into a campaign as the Romans, but I'll be closely watching the effects to the AI factions. Once I get far enough into my current campaign to start encountering these above units, thats when I will start to see the real effect of these changes.

One thing I noticed so far though, is that my first impression that adding 50% to their defense skill seemed like a lot to be adding, but since their armor factor is not as high as some units, the overall defense total is not too unreasonably high as compared to the overall defense total of other elite units. Take the Roman legionary cohorts, who by the EDU have a defense total (armor factor + defense skill + shield factor) of 36, while the adjusted Seleucid hypaspist unit has a defense total of 40. Both will have a health_stat of 1 HP. Time will tell whether this is a good change or not.

[joerd9]

Since legionaries are significantly superior in numbers to any of them hypaspists/swordsmen units, I daresay 50% will do, it might even be too low. But that should be subject to several test runs.

In my own roman campaign the seleus are almost extinct, mostly on the hands of the ptolemies, so they seem to need some help. Macedon is big and black, though not as big and black as I'm used to. I think thats because their northern neighbours are crap.

But on the other hand, I'm playing with the MNM Mod, there are significant changes to the game flow anyway, so this is not representative.

[Marcus Camillus]

Ah, I believe the M&N Mod also has some changes to the EDU file too, which would give different results in battle or autocalc battles, which would change the campaign flow as compared to just RTRPE alone.

The M&N mod is an excellent mod though, with some very interesting features of its own. Well worth checking out to see if it suits your game-play style or preferences.

[joerd9]

I don't think there are many changes to the units at all. At least all the hypaspist-units and the like had the same stats as in RTRPE.
But yes, it's a very fine mod and definitely suits me. I like a slow game pace and the fact that I have to think ahead very carefully because of the high building cost.

And the absence of walls in most cities leads to a refreshing overall dynamic in the campaign.

Oh btw. The "greek bastarnae" you mentioned is the thracian unit, right? I did leave them at 2hp, but even that didn't help them. Maybe making them a bit cheaper could help.

[KALI]

Nice research Wien,
you'll be pleased to know that many changes are being implemented in RTR 7.0 and most of these issue's have been addressed. We've got a great team of researchers and historians (some presently doing their PhDs in Hellenistic warfare) Hopefully we'll keep you happy with our results.

btw MC I find limiting the amount of Hyspaspists available seems to stop them being quite so annoying. Basically I made them only recruitable in home AOR's and raised there upkeep and recruitment costs..and voila no more armies of Hyspaspists.

[marcvs agrippa]

btw MC I find limiting the amount of Hyspaspists available seems to stop them being quite so annoying. Basically I made them only recruitable in home AOR's and raised there upkeep and recruitment costs..and voila no more armies of Hyspaspists.

Whooohooo!
That's exactly what I suggested in the "Balanced Macedonia" Thread.

Thanks a lot!

[Wien1938]

Wow! Lot of replies.
Thanks for the suggestions. Look forward to RTR7 then. I hadn't thought about raising the defence strengths, good suggestion.
How do I limit core units to home AOR? I dropped the 3rd rank pikemen to 12 attack - better balance. The pikes are SO much better now! Provided your flanks are protected, your 2nd rank pikes can chew through even Principes.
Also, rebalancing the costs means no Seleucid armies of just pikes! They even use cavalry!
I renamed Antigonid elite pikes as Peltaspides in honour of Polybios etc. Did think about peltephoroi but this seems to apply to a different class of troops.

How do I reset the formations file? The Hellenistic battle formation is driving me nuts. I get formations stretched out to 2-4 deep, when they should be double that. I means I spend five minutes before each battle resetting the units, while the AI fights in a normal depth formation. Any help much appriciated.

Little note, much more fun to be had with heavy cavalry against foot when drawn up in Conrois formation - long line, two-three deep, charge at a right angle. Much better impact than charging in wedge, which seems to peter out after a couple of line hit the foot, especially if moving fast away from your charge direction.

Richard

[KALI]

Wow! Lot of replies.

I renamed Antigonid elite pikes as Peltaspides in honour of Polybios etc. Did think about peltephoroi but this seems to apply to a different class of troops.

That might be taking it a bit too far...Polybius didn't get all his Greek stuff right. Remember he's a barbarous Roman... The Antigonids didn't call them Peltasts...and most academics see them as simply Hypaspists who were using the pelta.

[Wien1938]

We actually do not know what the Antigonid troops were named, excepting the Leukaspidai and Chalkaspidai. We know that the elite formations were named Agema or given derivative names from Agema. But these are confined to the elite battalion of the Phalanx and the King's Royal or 'sacred' squadron.
Polybios was a Greek and a soldier and politician of the Achaean League. I think he knew what he was talking about.
From all the historians of the Macedonian wars, the elite portion of the phalanx are called 'peltasts', that is men who fight with the pelte. The description of the Macedonian shield as a 'pelte' might be an error on the part of Plutarch, but Polybios, Plutatch and Livy all refer to the elite pikes as 'peltasts'. Either this means that 'peltasts' is an approximate name or reflects perhaps a variant of the original name - which is unknown.
What seems to be apparent is the title peltast by the late 4th century came to mean a special kind of soldier, since 'peltasts' disappear in the histories from 370-350 BC until they are found in the army of Antigonos. From this point onwards, the peltasts seem to reappear as elite infantrymen, who fight with the pike in pitched battle but are flexible enough to support light-armed troops in difficult terrain. If this seems contradictory to my point below, take it as one more example of the dangers of attempting to be precise over a distance of 2500 years.
One thing which is known is that they were NOT called hypaspists. This title is retained only for the king's bodyguards and his aides. Each account of the 'peltasts' describes them as fighting with the sarissa, not spear and argive shield. These are not the same troops as Alexander's hypaspists, since the 'peltasts' and agema are described even on distant expeditions as being left behind when there was difficult terrain to be tackled. This was left to the mercenaries.
On another point, there seems to be little truely difficult terrain in RTW, even forests do not hamper a phalanx that much...
By the way, which academics?
Richard

[Quinn Inuit]

Wien: That sounds pretty cool. Would you be willing to put something together for the ExRM? If so, PM me and we can try to work something out. I'm all about trying to make it more realistic.

btw, MNM mod, from what I've heard, has a very different economy than RTRPE and the ExRM.

Is there any way to give units terrain penalties? I'd like to nerf chariots, especially, since they just didn't work on non-level terrain historically.

[Marcus Camillus]

One means to try for giving units different terrain penalties is the "stat_ground" attribute in the EDU file for each unit.

stat_ground = Combat modifiers on different ground types.
From left to right: scrub, sand, forest, snow

[kalkwerk]

Im pretty sure that these bonuses and maluses are bugged.

[Quinn Inuit]

Thanks, Marcus Camillus.

Why do you say that, kalkwerk?