Melee Units

[Houman]

Please discuss your ideas about Melee Units.

 

[Anaztazioch]

How about a UU for Rome. A bronze swordsman replacing axeman as axeman skin looks more like a gladiator.

Also can we change a Maceman into a Maceman not Flailman as it is atm?

Also to make game more tactical, lets give spearmans, pikemans 20% disadvantagemant vs melee units, as it is really hard to fight close range whith pike, spear a bit easier.

 

[MindProphetX]

A question about spearmen? Why is it tthat otther melee units get bonus's against them and they seem to have a disadvantage against other meelee units. I mean I know some about modern warfare, not so much about the ancient but, wouldn't a well trained spear unit be able to impalle their enemy before lets say, said axeman or swordsman would even get close enough to graze their sheilds with their weapon. Logically and most likely historically in general a spearman should defeat an axeman etc... Well I guess sense this is somewhat implementedd withh the more elite Phalanx type of spearman, at least they get a bonus for melee,, and reightfully so sense we know their weapons were'nt too rudiimentary compared to their foes and, we know for damn sure that at least early on they were suporior to any foe who they would enter battle against. Guess I'm asking to reconsider,, not necessarily change their ability but definately take a look at it.... I know a good swordsman could break a spearman and all that blah... anyway just a thought

 

[WarKirby]

Stabbing attacks are easier to dodge, and if you dodge one attack from a spearman you will be able to get close enough for them to not have room to swing their spear. And not enough time to pull it back for another lunge. Especially given that spearmen were usually in tight formations.

I think that axemen get this bonus because most spear shafts were made of wood, and could be easily cut by an axe, meaning a spearman would be severely disadvantaged.

In that light, the penalties in melee combat are well justified, but it fails to take into account the reach of their weapon. It think that the melee penalties are fine, and should perhaps even be increased, but spearmen should get a first strike to account for their being able to hit the enemy first.

Spearmen are not meant for melee combat anyway. They are for anti cavalry duties.

 

[storm6436]

Pretty much my sentiment as well, though I never use them as the Americans... mounted units? what mounted units? I have no horsies to make mounted units over on this side of the pond.

 

[Anaztazioch]

@ mind

Yes axeman have disadvantage vs spearman as 2 handned axe and no shield makes it eaiy ti kill.
But know this, spear when hitting human flash gets stuck in it and it takes some time to get it out. Also spear is long, when attacked will get past its tip he can just use his sword, axe to hit the spear. It wont break spear down, but make a shock that might couse spearman to drop his weapon. Also shield is not only to block targets, it you rish whith shield and bach enemy spear whith it, you will disarm him and knock him down. I know how it is dont, once said im in Knight brotherhood and i do a lots of fights. Mostly in armor to prevent health damage, but we fight against differant weapons.

Best weapon, and easiest in use is sword (broad sword) whith shield, It has blade all over, has a tip and is good to thurst, and quite heavy to do some damage vs breastplate.

Waraxe (one handned) is good for 1 vs 1, as its heavy and it does lots of damage to shield and armor if parriet. One hit in breast plate and your down, still a life and not bleading, but your down and like where i am.

Two-handened axe - Need real power to use, as its mostly to take a swing and watch if you hit or not. Takes much strength to parry it whithout getting knockedback. In tournaments (whith wooden weapons that have led parts to make em heavy as real weapons) battleaxe man win a macth by 3 knockdown in 8 swings. Its weakness is lack of shield and axes are bad for very close distance, as its hard to use it. War axe is better in close range as you have shield to keep up the distance.

As for spear. Well i never used spear. I was using halabard (right spelled?) and pike. Pike is REALLY HEAVY and REALLY long. Like 220% of users height. Its top is big to pirce all kinds of armor and it does not get stuck in armor and human flash, but when u block it whith shield, the pike pirces the shield and gets a bit stuck in it, witch is enought for expirianced knight to disarm the pikeman.
As for halabard, its 170% of my height. Its about same weight as pike, but as its shorter the weight has smaller impact on your muscles. Its the best defansive weapon. Can be used as both spear vs mounted units and as Battle axe vs foot units, also you can pull the stick closer and have a war axe. Some halaberders had a wooden kite shield on his back, when halabardier pulls the stick back to make a 1 handened weapon, we gets that wooden kite shield and is good in close range. But to make this it really requires backup and time.

Mace is close to axe, how ever is more knockdown weapon than axe. Mace is best uned to hit arms and legs and head, not chest as it is pointles vs breast plate. Mace and axes are also limited only to chops and swings witch are easy to block (harder to stay standing). As we in brouther hood tested maces we discovered they were used more to knockdown, confuse and knock uncoucious enemies by hitting head, Break shoulders by hiting pauldrons and shoulders, break legs by hitting arm plates, and same whith legs.

Flails are the harderst to hit wepaons EVER as when you hit, enemy need only to block chain not the ball. Also you can block flail by hiiting chain whith your hand, this way you can disarm the flailman. Flail is also weak in close range. But neither do i or others in my brotherhood can actually use this weapon well.

Twohandned sword - its good only vs lightly armored As it doen not have the power as battleaxe, is heavy, hard to swing, easy to block, but very hard to stay standing. Weak in close range. Twohandned sword is best effective when you just stand on some hill and swing this sword, who ever comes near is knocked down, but 2 enemies are enough to make 2h swordsman a carcass.

Samurai weapon, well its kind of strange. If your not skilled whith it, you will break the sword at first strike at armor. You will cut through it thou. Japan weapon was made to swiftly cut through armor, and is mostly a counter attack weapon, in while yuo parry enemy attack, you contron his weapon. By controling his wepaon you control his mainhand, controling his mainhand, you may control his torso and turn him this way so he can not block whith shield and have his weapon under your control (this needs long practice and kendo dont teach this, as kendo is more a sport that war art. However when i was in Japan i was shown such tricks from Daito-ryu family line of Takeda, thou i can use them like once in every 10 tries), and what you do is just cut, katana will cut through most of armors, but try not to aim at plate but spaces betwean each plates.

I always liked to use 2 short swords, but its too hard to fight whith them. They are perfect for close range, you just use em both as bucklers, bet close to enemy and thurst through his armor. Short sword can pirce it.

Really try to use some weapons and fight whith others, see how hard and easy is to block, and how hard is to hit, not mentioning how tireing fighting is even whith no armor.

 

[Ankenaton]

Massed spears in a Greek/Macedonian phalanx were effective even against Roman legionaires as long as their flanks were protected. The problem with a phalanx was once you were able to flank it (or God help you get behind it) then it was pretty much all over for the phalanx. Also it required a lot of drill and practice to get the men to perform as one mass body.

 

[Anaztazioch]

Rember that Roman legioneres had "turtle" formation.

And most importaltly - who won ? Phalanx or legioner ?

 

[Ankenaton]

Rember that Roman legioneres had "turtle" formation.

And most importaltly - who won ? Phalanx or legioner ?

They did not win as often (especially early on) as people think. In fact the great battle (the name escapes me at the moment) that pitted a crack Roman legion against an equally elite Greek phalanx, and the Romans were losing quite badly because of poor tactics by the Roman commander. He was attacking up a hill against the Greek center. Unfortunately for the Greeks was that an order to "refuse the flank" - (withdrawing your left or right flank at a perpendicular to the main line) was not given in a timely manner. This allowed the here to fore desperate legion the opportunity to flank the line. They still would not have won if the Greek commander had ordered his skirmishers to volley and for his cavalry to charge into the advancing (but disordered Romans). The famous Testudo (turtle or tortoise) as speed of the advance was more important than protection against thrown missiles. Battles often turn not just on superior tactics, arms and/or fighting spirit. Often they turn on simple things like being in the right place at the right time. Even though the Legion was a more flexible and robust entity than a phalanx; no Roman commander took them for granted especially if he was going against an experienced opponent on unfavorable ground. I often play Rome Total War on multiplayer and the core of my army are always phalanxes with skirmishers and cavalry in reserve; along with a couple of regiments of sword/shield wielding infantry to protect those vulnerable flanks. Often my most inexperienced opponents (I hate the word Nooob, everyone is a nooob at one point or another) especially if they are playing as Rome will try to attack along the line, instead of concentrating on flanking me and/or otherwise trying to out manuver my army. What happens is that the cream of my opponents army (Legionaires) approaches hurl their spears and then attack my center. My archers are raining arrows on them as they do this; after one of two futile charges the Romans have suffered 40% casualities, whereas I have suffered only about 5% casualities. And what happens next is that like any army in the world at any time that suffers such disproportionate casualty rates.....the Romans begin to waver, I order my phalanxes foward at the walk...and the Legions break and run. My cavalry is loosed for the clean up. Even with an experienced opponent it is very difficult to pull off a successful flanking manuever. Yes the Romans were better, but not to the point where they could win a battle by just showing up.

 

[storm6436]

That's what I was thinking. I love Rome:Total War for that reason. My forces under Rome are usually 1/4 infantry 1/4 archery 1/2 cavalry... infantry gets up and basic screams "Hey you! OVER HERE!" to get their attention while my cav spreads out for flanking/enveloping... once the enemies move to engage the infantry, I reorganize my infantry for optimal performance on the terrain while my missile support whittles them down. Once I have them engaged, the cavalry moves in from the flanks/rear in a headlong charge... I usually break man-for-man even sized armies in the first rush. I take 5-10% casualties, they take about 50-60% in the first series of charges... and many battles, I end up around 10-15% losses and them at 90-100%

 

[Ankenaton]

That's what I was thinking. I love Rome:Total War for that reason. My forces under Rome are usually 1/4 infantry 1/4 archery 1/2 cavalry... infantry gets up and basic screams "Hey you! OVER HERE!" to get their attention while my cav spreads out for flanking/enveloping... once the enemies move to engage the infantry, I reorganize my infantry for optimal performance on the terrain while my missile support whittles them down. Once I have them engaged, the cavalry moves in from the flanks/rear in a headlong charge... I usually break man-for-man even sized armies in the first rush. I take 5-10% casualties, they take about 50-60% in the first series of charges... and many battles, I end up around 10-15% losses and them at 90-100%

I hear you. Cannot wait for Medieval Total War II and the mods that will go with it. In case you have not already tried these Rome Total War mods, these two are really the best IMHO: Rome Total Realism (sounds familiar huh?) and Europa Babaracum (despite the Europa part it includes factions from the Nubians all the way east to the Indian subcontinent. Excellent mods

 

[Anaztazioch]

@ Ankenaton

Note that Greek army was not Spear units only. Archers and swordsman (kopis in TR) were also presant, and this might made Legionares sux.

How ever Phalanx/Hoplites units were better equiped than normal spearman, but their victories were mostly achived by commanders tactics and Greek strategy. Still if legionaries will hava bonus vs spearman (including phalanx), it will be easier to defeat a spearman than Phalanx. Also if Phanalx will have Great Leader will recive some bonuses, that might give Phalanx advantage over legionares even whith their bonus vs spearman.

I say each unit should have their own set of advantages vs some units and their disadvantages vs some units.
For intance:

Swordsman: str 6
vs Archers: +20% (archers range is low, and swordsman once in close range have real advantage)
vs Longbowman +5% (long range, still once in close range they are superior)
vs musketman +15% (as for slow reload and inacuracy and lack of equipment)
vs spearman +20%
vs mounted -10% (horman can easilly attack and retreat giving no chance of damaging them)
vs mounted arches -20% (horses are fater, ranged, but inacurate and hoses get tired eventually)
vs UU -10% (lets say that every regular unit will have an disadvantage vs Unique Units, as UU are specially trained and equipped)

 

[Donkey Puncher]

dude rtw has mods where do you go to get them

 

[Spartan117]

@ Ankenaton

Note that Greek army was not Spear units only. Archers and swordsman (kopis in TR) were also presant, and this might made Legionares sux.

How ever Phalanx/Hoplites units were better equiped than normal spearman, but their victories were mostly achived by commanders tactics and Greek strategy. Still if legionaries will hava bonus vs spearman (including phalanx), it will be easier to defeat a spearman than Phalanx. Also if Phanalx will have Great Leader will recive some bonuses, that might give Phalanx advantage over legionares even whith their bonus vs spearman.

I say each unit should have their own set of advantages vs some units and their disadvantages vs some units.
For intance:

Swordsman: str 6
vs Archers: +20% (archers range is low, and swordsman once in close range have real advantage)
vs Longbowman +5% (long range, still once in close range they are superior)
vs musketman +15% (as for slow reload and inacuracy and lack of equipment)
vs spearman +20%
vs mounted -10% (horman can easilly attack and retreat giving no chance of damaging them)
vs mounted arches -20% (horses are fater, ranged, but inacurate and hoses get tired eventually)
vs UU -10% (lets say that every regular unit will have an disadvantage vs Unique Units, as UU are specially trained and equipped)

except i think the swordsman would have to get in close range first before actually attacking archers. A group of longbowmen would heavily damage swordsman before they get in even close. So then swordsman would die before reching the longbowmen.

 

[Ankenaton]

@ Ankenaton

Note that Greek army was not Spear units only. Archers and swordsman (kopis in TR) were also presant, and this might made Legionares sux.

How ever Phalanx/Hoplites units were better equiped than normal spearman, but their victories were mostly achived by commanders tactics and Greek strategy. Still if legionaries will hava bonus vs spearman (including phalanx), it will be easier to defeat a spearman than Phalanx. Also if Phanalx will have Great Leader will recive some bonuses, that might give Phalanx advantage over legionares even whith their bonus vs spearman.

I say each unit should have their own set of advantages vs some units and their disadvantages vs some units.
For intance:

Swordsman: str 6
vs Archers: +20% (archers range is low, and swordsman once in close range have real advantage)
vs Longbowman +5% (long range, still once in close range they are superior)
vs musketman +15% (as for slow reload and inacuracy and lack of equipment)
vs spearman +20%
vs mounted -10% (horman can easilly attack and retreat giving no chance of damaging them)
vs mounted arches -20% (horses are fater, ranged, but inacurate and hoses get tired eventually)
vs UU -10% (lets say that every regular unit will have an disadvantage vs Unique Units, as UU are specially trained and equipped)

I agree with your propositions; and believe me when I play as a Greek/Macedonian/Ptolemaic General in RTW I use a mix of troop types: 50% phalanx; 25% sword/shield troops; 15% missile troops; and the remainder cavalry (10%). With this mix I am able to conquer the known world.
But seriously outside of a game, the Roman legion was the best military formation in the ancient world. In the proper hands a legion is unstoppable when pitted against comparable opponents.

 

[Ankenaton]

dude rtw has mods where do you go to get them

@Donkey Puncher
@Storm
Go to RomeTotalRealism.net for one of them. Others go to the main Sega site; go to RTW; then click on links; there should be about 3 or 4 forum sites listed like SCC where you can download the mods. The vanilla RTW has too many fantasy elements, but the mods really enhance the look and strategy. Send me a private message concerning your search as I do not want to tie up the board with this. Too bad your a Cowboys fan.

 

[Anaztazioch]

@ Spartan

1) my bad, tought that swords man is mounted (typing 1 thinking 2 )
2) you did forget defancive bonuses from longbow ?
3) Longbowmans Will defeat them before engaiging melee. (foot troops run 350m/s, whith no armor, but Longbows can ctually retreat a few meters betwean each wave) And that their first attack bonus.

 

[Los Tirano]

Some more great units are in circulation.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=185826
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=185968

The foot soldier would be a great addition to the European armies. Replace swordsman perhaps? Problem its a medieval unit, not an ancient one. Can other units update as eras pass, like great people do? That would solve this problem.

The warrior monk could be an extra unit for Judaism and Christianity. Enabled by a monastery, change the name to Zealot or Fanatic. Or since every religion has its zealots and has had them in the past, make it open to all religions as a second unit. Christian zealot, Judean zealot, Zoroastrian zealot etc etc.

The dob dob unit could be the second uu for buddhism and taoism.

 

[Ankenaton]

Some more great units are in circulation.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...06#post4537806
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=185968

The foot soldier would be a great addition to the European armies. Replace swordsman perhaps? Problem its a medieval unit, not an ancient one. Can other units update as eras pass, like great people do? That would solve this problem.

The warrior monk could be an extra unit for Judaism and Christianity. Enabled by a monastery, change the name to Zealot or Fanatic. Or since every religion has its zealots and has had them in the past, make it open to all religions as a second unit. Christian zealot, Judean zealot, Zoroastrian zealot etc etc.

The dob dob unit could be the second uu for buddhism and taoism.

Hey Los Tirano, Houman wants us to post more of our zealotry commentary in the sub-forum; as what we wrote in the old thread will be forgotten after a couple of pages of CTD's.

 

[Los Tirano]

Arrr, alright matey. Here be the dob dob unit that would fit well as the second uu for taoism and buddhism instead of them having zealots that dont look asian. Naturally im talking about the sword wielding monks, which did exist to guard temples and the area surrounding them from surly land-lubbers.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170774

Question: what stats should these zealots have? Should the stats differ between the zealots off different religions? i.e. buddhists more defensive?