How Many Different Units Should There Be?

[UniversalWolf]

There seems to be a general consensus that there should be more types of units in the game - but how many types, and what kind? If we start with:

1)Heavy Infantry
2)Light Infantry/Militia
3)Missile Troops
4)Cavalry
5)Horse Archers

My first move would be to sub-divide "missile troops" into a)skirmishers, b)archers, and c)slingers. These three seem distinctly different. I think a solid case could be made to divide "cavalry" into a)heavy cavalry and b)light cavalry.

1)Heavy Infantry
2)Light Infantry
3)Skirmishers
4)Archers
5)Slingers
6)Heavy Cavalry
7)Light Cavalry
8)Horse Archers

The only other potential unit I can think of is a mixed infantry-cavalry unit, which weren't all that common but did exist. Caesar encountered units of this type while fighting in Gaul, adopted the practice himself, and it was continued by the Triumvirate and on into the Empire.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Whoops, I left out elephants. Well, there are elephants.

 

[Teurlinx]

How would you make archers, slingers and skirmishers different though? More than some modifier value as it currently is handled I mean.

I think it's rather sweet to have 6 unit types instead of just the 2 that you'd expect from a EU:3 rework (infantry & cavalry). Yes that's right, missile units in EU:3 would just get a higher fire than shock value.

Also not sure about the Heavy Cav, Isn't that exactly what the current CAV already does: Add shock & flanking to the army instead of just scouting, skirmishing and pursuit?

 

[Hardradi]

Chariots, they were used by the Seleucids, Pontus and the Gauls during the time period of the game. You might have two types, a skirmishing type used by the gauls (brittania) and a heavier chariot used in the east equipped with bladed spokes.

 

[Emperor Leo]

I'd like to see culture specific units which are unique to a certain culture. For example Parthia should be able to build Parthian Cavalry, which has increased stats or Carthage should be able to build Forest Elephants which have increased stats. This would be similar to Civ IV where each nation gets a unique unit.

 

[Emperor Walter]

For Elephants, they should differentiate between the African Forest Elephant, and the Indian Elephant. I also agree with the above post about culture specific units.

 

[Cheexsta]

My first move would be to sub-divide "missile troops" into a)skirmishers, b)archers, and c)slingers. These three seem distinctly different. I think a solid case could be made to divide "cavalry" into a)heavy cavalry and b)light cavalry.

1)Heavy Infantry
2)Light Infantry
3)Skirmishers
4)Archers
5)Slingers
6)Heavy Cavalry
7)Light Cavalry
8)Horse Archers

The only other potential unit I can think of is a mixed infantry-cavalry unit, which weren't all that common but did exist. Caesar encountered units of this type while fighting in Gaul, adopted the practice himself, and it was continued by the Triumvirate and on into the Empire.

I don't think there's really all that much need to differentiate between slingers and archers; slingers would have formed the same role as either archers or skirmishers (depending). As for most of the other unit types, if the game mechanics remain the same for battles then there honestly isn't much point in adding so many units.

I've mentioned before my ideal battle system for this sort of game, mostly revolving around the re-introduction (and modification) of the EU3 battle phases:
1) Skirmish phase. Skirmishers (which could include slingers etc) attack enemy skirmishers; if they are able to break through, they can cause damage to the enemy front line (mostly to enemy morale, though) without suffering damage themselves. Skirmishers fall back behind the main infantry line after this phase and plug any gaps that appear (though not overly effectively).
2) Shock phase. The likes of elephants, chariots and in some cases heavy cavalry attack, firstly concentrating on their own counterparts before hitting enemy infantry.
3) Combat phase. Infantry fights infantry, cavalry hits the flanks.
4) Pursuit phase. Light infantry, skirmishers and light cavalry chase after enemies that have fallen back, causing additional damage to enemies that have already fled off the battlefield. If the units are particularly undisciplined, they might have a chance to loot the enemy camp rather than kill units?

Chariots, they were used by the Seleucids, Pontus and the Gauls during the time period of the game. You might have two types, a skirmishing type used by the gauls (brittania) and a heavier chariot used in the east equipped with bladed spokes.

Yes, add chariots...and make them utterly useless, just to be historically accurate

 

[nachinus]

I concurr with some of the ideas posted here. And I'm happy that there is debate about the military aspect of the game, because I really think that this is one of the most important fields of development for the future. The system and rules should feel more 'unique' as ancient warfare was. There should be a noticeable difference from other titles in this aspect.

I would just add a new type of unit -skirmishers- and change the current ones so that they group the different historical uses or ethnical differences. As others posted, the game should have different unit variations, based on historical development and cultural differences. Each 'model' should have particular stats, just like in EUIII.

Quoting myself in an old thread, that's how I think skirmishers should work:

I think that the battle system, inherited from EU with some changes, has more in common with medieval battles (those depicted in the original EU series, for whom the engine was made) than with ancient warfare. I have thought about this for some time, and what I would have done is to make missile troops less obicuous and important, probably restricted to some cultures or inventions, and divide infantry in 3 types: heavy infantry, light infantry and skirmishers. Skirmishers would have some special rules, in their attack and deployment in the battlefield. They would make a first free attack in the first turn of the combat, and then would deploy in the flanks, where cavalry should be if there is not enough cavalry to cover them, or if it is, in the rearguard, with the missile troops, giving a small morale or discipline bonus to the unit in front of them.

So, unit classes could be like this:

1) Heavy Infantry ('models': early phalanx, late (lighter) phalanx, cohort, marian cohort, scutarii, celtic noble warband, germanic noble warband...)
2) Light Infantry ('models': thureoporoi, auxiliary cohort, eastern infantry, caetratii, warband...)
3) Skirmishers ('models': hyspaspists, velites, ethnical javelin throwers...)
4) Missile ('models': slingers, archers, scythian archers, eastern archers...)
5) Elephants ('models': heavy and light perhaps?)
6) Cavalry ('models': latin cavalry, celtic, hispanic, eastern, hellenic, cataphracts, a huge lot to choose from... perhaps even chariots with some limitations)
7) Skirmisher cavalry (I'd add here all kinds of light cavalry whose tactic is to harass the enemy and avoid prolongued contact or direct fighting, from parthian archers to cantabric cavalry, numidian cavalry... whatever) Perhaps they should work in battle not as the current horse archers but a bit more like skirmishers.

Oh, btw, this RTW mod and its webpage are a great place to learn about 'models', warfare and unit development in different cultured during the EU:Rome timeframe:

http://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions.html

 

[Hardradi]

CHARIOTS:
In the hands of great commander I think they would always be useful. The skirmisher type gave Caeser hassles when he landed in Brittania.

Also I think militia would have a real problem dealing with the heavier types. Imagine yourself as some everyday potter or merchant going out to battle and having a line of scythbearing four horse chariots charging towards you. I can tell you that I wouldnt be standing there, I would be running for the nearest rough ground or tree.

 

[UniversalWolf]

How would you make archers, slingers and skirmishers different though? More than some modifier value as it currently is handled I mean.
...
Also not sure about the Heavy Cav, Isn't that exactly what the current CAV already does: Add shock & flanking to the army instead of just scouting, skirmishing and pursuit?

Slingers and archers could probably be combined and handled with a modifier; although they are fairly distinct types they are functionally similar. Skirmishers are functionally different though. They would have to be worked into the combat system.

Heavy cavalry like cataphracts and light cavalry like the Numidian type are too different to lump into one category, IMO. Right now cataphracts are handled with a NI, but heavy cavalry with armor should be stronger and slower than light cavalry and also have different terrain modifiers. Heavy cavalry should suffer more in unsuitable terrain.

Yes, I forgot chariots. Chariots should definitely be included, since they were so widely used.

 

[Cheexsta]

CHARIOTS:
In the hands of great commander I think they would always be useful. The skirmisher type gave Caeser hassles when he landed in Brittania.

According to Caesar, everything he faced was a hassle He didn't want to make it look like his conquests could have been done by any Joe Bloggs commander...

Yes, I forgot chariots. Chariots should definitely be included, since they were so widely used.

Chariots weren't widely used in this period at all, Caesar only mentions a few Gallic and Brythonic tribes that use them. By this time, most people had cottoned on to the fact that chariots were pretty useless.

 

[legatus123]

Use of Chariots

CHeexsta is right that major powers considered chairots useless. But is a gradual trend starting its use and decline from East to West. During the Trojan war ( around 1300 BC) chariots were used by Greeks and Trojans.
Chariots fell out of use in Greece when the Macedonian emphasis on the Phalanx and cavalry especially with King Philip and his son Alexander the Great. Egyptains used chariots until Alexander the Great conquered them around 330 BC. Some of the post Alexander Macedonian Successor Kingdoms used Chariots especially the Selecuids. When the Roman General (Later Dictator) Sulla defeated the Selecuids at Battle of Maganisia (around 80 BC) the Chariots were rarely used by anyone in the Eastern Med. In the central med with the rise of Rome, chariots fell out of use in battle. The Romans consigned them to ceremonial(TRiumph), games(chariot races) and messengers (Postal service). In Western Europe, the Celts used chariots. In France and Spain chariots were not used in combat up to 100 years before Caesar arrived in France(Gaul). The only celt tribes using chariots were British tribes that Caesar encountered in his 2 invasions of England (55/54 BC). Chariots were encountered by Roman Invasion of England in 43 AD plus during the time of Emperor Claudius. Chariots were used by Queen of the Iceni Boudica in her revolt vs Rome in time of Emperor Nero 60 AD.
The last recorded battle involving chariots was in Scotland around 80AD when Roman General Agricola invaded the area and fought the Caledonian tribes there. Every weapon has its time and place like every civilization(they rise but will fall).

 

[Achab]

1) I like the character development and RP factor and the significant effect it has on gameplay.
2) I like the fact the game limits you little in your style of play, that there are many different approaches to pick and your decisions usually have sound impact which comes quickly.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

I'd like to see culture-specific unit types. e.g. Greek and Macedonians would get Hoplites as heavy infantry and Companions as heavy cavalry, Parthian and Persian culture would get cataphracts, North African culture would get Numidian cavalry etc.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Chariots weren't widely used in this period at all, Caesar only mentions a few Gallic and Brythonic tribes that use them. By this time, most people had cottoned on to the fact that chariots were pretty useless.

When I said widely used I guess I was thinking in the geographical sense. The Carthaginians used chariots against the Sicilian greeks at the beginning of the game's time frame. Also, there's the semi-famous incident when Mithridates used scythe-wheeled chariots ineffectively against the Romans in Asia Minor - with laughter as the result. The chariot as a direct combat weapon was clearly on the way out, but the chariot as part of a mobile infantry concept held on with he Gauls and the British tribes.

The fact that Mithridates used chariots is reason enough for them to be in the game.

 

[Hardradi]

According to Caesar, everything he faced was a hassle He didn't want to make it look like his conquests could have been done by any Joe Bloggs commander...


Chariots weren't widely used in this period at all, Caesar only mentions a few Gallic and Brythonic tribes that use them. By this time, most people had cottoned on to the fact that chariots were pretty useless.

Lets see what Caeser had to say for himself :

XXXIII.--Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the meantime withdraw some little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry; and by daily practice and exercise attain to such expertness that they are accustomed, even on a declining and steep place, to check their horses at full speed, and manage and turn them in an instant and run along the pole, and stand on the yoke, and thence betake themselves with the greatest celerity to their chariots again.

Here are few other instances within the relevant time period:

1) Seleucid Empire - Battle of Magnesia - 190 BC - used scythed chariots
2) China - Battle of Mobei - 119BC - Wei Qing recognized the odds against him and quickly made defensive countermeasures. He ordered his troops to arrange heavy-armoured chariots in ring formations, creating mobile fortresses that provided archers, crossbowmen and infantry protection from Xiongnu's powerful cavalry charges, and allowing Han troops to utilize their ranged weapons' advantages in precision.
3) Africa - in the northern Sahara, nomadic tribes, Pharusii and Nigrites, used scythed chariots: "They have chariots also, armed with scythes" – (Strabo: Geography, XVII.iii. c. 22 AD).
4) Battle of Telamon - 223BC - celts used chariots on the wings
5) Battle of Sentium - 295BC - The two armies arrived at the Plain of Sentinum but waited for two days to battle each other. Finally, unable to control the eagerness of their troops, the Romans attacked. Fabius faced the Samnites; Decius was opposite the Gauls. The Roman line initially buckled under the Gauls' chariots. Decius charged into the Gauls anyway. Although he was slain, Decius' charge inspired his men and they restored the Roman line. Fabius routed the Samnites and then outflanked the Gauls to win the battle.
6) Mauryan Empire -

Texts from southern India mention the Mauryan chariots invading the country "thundering across the land, with white pennants brilliant like sunshine"

Two instances where chariots are recorded as breaking the ranks of the enemy (this is the scythed variety, although Caeser attests that the celtic chariot has the same effect):

I think this is from 49BC:

The Romans naturally drew up into "tortoise" formation-which proved their undoing. Behind the veil of the dust cloud, Pharnaces had ordered his scythed chariots and Galatian mercenaries to charge; the horsemen suddenly moved to the flanks of the Roman line to pin down their meager cavalry and, by the time the Romans spotted the chariots and Galatians, it was too late open ranks. The scythed chariots, guaranteed to hit, finally proved themselves to the Romans by creating holes in the line which the Galatian warbands following them could exploit. The second and third Roman lines suffered horribly, and the first was completely swept away.

Around about 393BC:

The soldiers had got into the habit of collecting their supplies carelessly and without taking precautions. There was one occasion when Pharnabazus, with 2 scythed chariots and about 400 cavalry, came on them when they were scattered all over the plain. When the Greeks saw him bearing down on them, they ran to join up with each other, about 700 altogether; but Pharnabazus did not waste time. Putting the chariots in front, and following behind them himself with the cavalry, he ordered a charge. The chariots dashing into the Greek ranks, broke up their close formation, and the cavalry soon cut down about a hundred men. The rest fled and took refuge with Agesilaus, who happened to be close at hand with the hoplites. (Xenophon Hellenica IV,1,17-19)

Another successful use of the chariot - 93BC - Mithridates vs unknown enemy:

His largest victory during this period was described somewhat sketchily by Theophrastus as having been fought over a river which the Pontic light troops crossed alone, not wanting to wait for the phalanx. What enemy they were fighting we do not know, though several plausible theories have been put forward; in any event, the unknown enemy suffered greatly at the hands of the Pontic scythed chariots and peltasts and lost some 7,000 (or 17,000?) of their number.

As legatus said, chariots were still being used by the celts during the time of the Empire:

The last mention of chariotry in battle seems to be at the Battle of Mons Graupius, somewhere in modern Scotland, in 84 AD. From Tacitus (Agricola 1.35 -36) "The plain between resounded with the noise and with the rapid movements of chariots and cavalry." The chariots did not win even their initial engagement with the Roman auxiliaries: "Meantime the enemy's cavalry had fled, and the charioteers had mingled in the engagement of the infantry."

The facts speak for themselves.

 

[Cheexsta]

Lets see what Caeser had to say for himself :

And, as I recall, he never actually mentions them being effective. Caesar has a habit of exaggerating the power of his enemies before defeating them (how many different tribes does he describe as being "the best warriors in all of Gaul"?). That's not to say they couldn't have been effective, of course; I just tend to view anything that Caesar says in his own memoirs with a rather large grain of salt.

1) Seleucid Empire - Battle of Magnesia - 190 BC - used scythed chariots
2) China - Battle of Mobei - 119BC - Wei Qing recognized the odds against him and quickly made defensive countermeasures. He ordered his troops to arrange heavy-armoured chariots in ring formations, creating mobile fortresses that provided archers, crossbowmen and infantry protection from Xiongnu's powerful cavalry charges, and allowing Han troops to utilize their ranged weapons' advantages in precision.
3) Africa - in the northern Sahara, nomadic tribes, Pharusii and Nigrites, used scythed chariots: "They have chariots also, armed with scythes" – (Strabo: Geography, XVII.iii. c. 22 AD).
4) Battle of Telamon - 223BC - celts used chariots on the wings
5) Battle of Sentium - 295BC - The two armies arrived at the Plain of Sentinum but waited for two days to battle each other. Finally, unable to control the eagerness of their troops, the Romans attacked. Fabius faced the Samnites; Decius was opposite the Gauls. The Roman line initially buckled under the Gauls' chariots. Decius charged into the Gauls anyway. Although he was slain, Decius' charge inspired his men and they restored the Roman line. Fabius routed the Samnites and then outflanked the Gauls to win the battle.
6) Mauryan Empire -

All very good reasons to include chariots as an option. In some cases, they seemed to prove reasonably effective - but any more effective than heavy cavalry? Maybe I was hasty to call them "utterly useless", though.

I think this is from 49BC:

This reads more like a tactical error on the Romans' behalf than anything. True, though, that chariots would have been a better choice than just cavalry in this instance.

Around about 393BC:

Another successful use of the chariot - 93BC - Mithridates vs unknown enemy:

Cool, a couple more instances where they were reasonably useful.

As legatus said, chariots were still being used by the celts during the time of the Empire:

The facts speak for themselves.

UniversalWolf mentioned that he said "widely used" in terms of geography: plenty of civilisations used them at some point. My previous point was under the assumption that they were "widely used" in that they were very common, though I did fail to mention the scythed chariots.

So I agree with you in that chariots deserve to be in the game as much as elephants do; I just think that, like elephants, they should have a very limited level of usefulness.

 

[UniversalWolf]

UniversalWolf mentioned that he said "widely used" in terms of geography: plenty of civilisations used them at some point. My previous point was under the assumption that they were "widely used" in that they were very common...

That was poorly stated on my part. Your interpretation of what I said was perfectly logical.

The interesting thing about the Gallic and British chariot infantry and horse infantry is that Caesar created similar cohorts for the Roman army - mixed infantry and cavalry cohorts - the forerunners of later mixed units like dragoons. I think this suggests that they were, in fact, effective.

So I agree with you in that chariots deserve to be in the game as much as elephants do; I just think that, like elephants, they should have a very limited level of usefulness.

Maybe there should be an invention that can be gained by fighting against elephants that makes elephants less effective. For example, if the Romans fight elephants a few times, they gain the invention, and since they now have the invention, elephants become much less effective against the Romans. Learning how to fight against elephants seems to have been the key to neutralizing them.

 

[Hardradi]

Maybe there should be an invention that can be gained by fighting against elephants that makes elephants less effective. For example, if the Romans fight elephants a few times, they gain the invention, and since they now have the invention, elephants become much less effective against the Romans. Learning how to fight against elephants seems to have been the key to neutralizing them.

Yes, this is a good idea and then they quite often became a problem for their own army.

 

[Emperor Leo]

In regard to chariots, I think they should be included. As Hardradi and UniversalWolf say, they were used in the time period. This is a game where you can take a British tribe and conquer Rome or make Iberia the dominant power in the East. It's a game about creating an alternate history. If you want to "retire" chariots (as in history), then so be it, but maybe you want to continue their use for a few more centuries. Obviously, not everyone should have access to them, but it'd be nice to at least have the choice to be able to build them.

 

[DarthJF]

The thing that bugges me the most is that Greek phalanxes and Roman legionaries are all put under heavy infantry. I'd rather see them seperated under different development paths, quite like different doctrine paths are represented in HOI.