Imperator Development Diary #4 - 18th of June 2018

[Manic Eskimo]

it is not the exact . its partialy like eu rome . and stop comparing old engine with new engines .
last 2 games so far have unite editor and even eu4 got an army editor so where do you want to go with your delusion ?

So is that a yes or a no?

You are the one claiming to be stopping confusion when you have no more evidence than anyone else. You are just expressing your own ideas as if they were fact. Every bit of evidence shows that this is the same system as eu:Rome. So again have you even played it? Do you even have the slightest reference point that you can form an opinion on?

 

[griffus]

It had very little to do with stirrups.

If Medieval cavalry ever faced infantry in disciplined close order, and charged them head on, even the Medieval cavalry would have failed. Stirrups or no stirrups. Medieval knights were successful in such charges because they mostly faced looser formations, often largely comprised of levies, that were too loosely formed to withstand them and/or broke.

Against a disciplined close order heavy infantry unit in dense shieldwall, the knights, if charging head on, would have failed (as indeed happened at Hastings against the shieldwall of the Anglo-Saxons). It was true at Hastings as it was true in the days of Ancient Greece and Rome: the disciplined Infantryman, In tight close order and densely deployed, will, if they hold, defeat cavalry when attacked head on. The cavalry just will not charge headlong in, it's suicide.

Cavalry rely on the infantry breaking. If they don't the charge must be pulled up or they risk being destroyed. (Hollywood is nonsense). Even in the days of the Napoleonics this was true.

Cavalry are for infantry in loose formation, or units that are broken or look to be about to be. They are for the flanks and for the pursuit. They are not for charging close order heavy infantry head to head and ploughing in.

I think weapons such as the 10ft Kontos were developed in order to allow cavalry to still engage close order infantry without having to plough in. Charge, pull to the side, thrust with weapon at range of six feet, then pull away again before infantry respond. Rinse and repeat. Just my thought.

Close formation has an impact but if you ever been on a horse, even for 1 hour on vacations, you have to notice the importance of stirrups.
Do you ever try to horse-riding on difficult terrain without a saddle?? Or try to gallup on soft terrain (like sand) without stirrups and a saddle? Only wih a blanked on your horse back?

I believe the only contact you had with a horse was through your computer...

 

[Jamey]

even if its not like eu4 then know that the greek heavy infantry will be different from the roman heavy infantry . the greek one will get more defense than offense points and will act more like a phalanx .

not making subunites of each class and not making difference between same unites on each culture mean that they have failed but this is paradox and i doubt that it will be this way .
just look at hoi4 ffs and how many type of tanks there is on HEAVY TANK AND LIGHT TANK .

We don't know anything of the sort about this game. We know what was done in other PDX games, but that doesn't tell us what is being done here. Each PDX game handles things differently. I'd like to have seen even a short discussion of how things will work, even if it was "There will be differences between the unit types based on cultures (or military doctrines, or whatever). Details on that system will come in a later dev diary when the game is closer to release."

As it is, a lack of information sounds like a lack of a system for differentiating units.

 

[BlackPrince]

I don't think that's either fair or accurate seeing how vital cavalry were to the Diadochi.

Not only there, cavalry was a crucial formation during the Second Punic War. Romans pretty much created their own cavalry units(with the help of Iberians and Numidians) just to counter Carthaginians and they saw Massinissa and his riders as the one of the most important factors to win the war.

For this time period cavalry should be awful against everything that isn't light infantry.

Measuring strenght potential of formations by comparison during direct charge is.. foolish. It's all about how formation is being used. Just like in Battle of Ilipa and Battle of Zama where poor/great cavalry maneuvers led to victory or defeat. Where was the superiority of carthaginian heavy infantry when they were encircled and then slaughtered by roman/numidian cavalry?

The real question is how well and how many ancient and classical warfare tactics and tricks will be present in the game, but that we should see in another DD.

 

[Cephei80]

So is that a yes or a no?

You are the one claiming to be stopping confusion when you have no more evidence than anyone else. You are just expressing your own ideas as if they were fact. Every bit of evidence shows that this is the same system as eu:Rome. So again have you even played it? Do you even have the slightest reference point that you can form an opinion on?

i dont claim to have evidence i say things that kept repeating itself over and over . i tell you to open your eyes on pdx games . dont compare a 2008 game with a 2018 because only the core of eu rome will be present in this while everything else will be eu4 and vick 2 and stellaris and new .

what you consider claims about unit types i consider facts from previous games that usually kept coming with each new game and will be implemented here probably because this game is supposed to be bigger not smaller and they have no reason to remove unit types and keep only the classes .
7000 provinces and just 10 unites while eu4 have barely 4000 province and like 40 unite divided in 3 classes . where is the logic here ?
you are even confused about what i try to say .

just last thing yes i played rome , i play pdx games since 2007 so dont try to use the fact that i use an alt profile here with no badges to play such games with me and turn me into an ignorant who know nothing about paradox .
somehow you disagree with facts that already exist in previous games just like in my message about "lighter smaller unite can beat heavier ones so no need to panic" yet peoples disagree with it like if they have never heard about the algorythmes that the engine use or have never beaten a higher army in eu4 or heard about the fregats swarm in stellaris of the vikings in ck2 .

 

[Enriador]

Hey many units models will there be?
Only infantry and cavalry like in prior games?

CK2 has seven different unit types, with unique models for each. I expect the same for Imperator.

 

[Scutatus]

Close formation has an impact but if you ever been on a horse, even for 1 hour on vacations, you have to notice the importance of stirrups.
Do you ever try to horse-riding on difficult terrain without a saddle?? Or try to gallup on soft terrain (like sand) without stirrups and a saddle? Only wih a blanked on your horse back?

I believe the only contact you had with a horse was through your computer...

Stirrups make it easier and more comfortable to ride.
They didn't make heavy cavalry suddenly effective in combat, as if they hadn't been for a millennium before stirrups came along. And they weren't a magic wand that suddenly allowed cavalry to charge headlong into formed heavy infantry and win. They didn't.

Understand what the discussion is actually about before you chime in with snide comments.

P.S. Your assumption about me? Sooo Wrong.

 

[Magnar]

For those complaining about unit varriety, which unit types would you have?

Cultural breakdowns of each unit type?
heavy infantry -> solduros, triarii, principes, hastatii, pike phalanx, hoplite phalanx, sparabara? or rather just expand the generic types? If sticking with generic types we have no distinction between principes/triarii ( triarii with the traditional hasta being better vs cav than the principes/hastatii wich would have used their shorter pila in such situations and only a limited number of times) nor pike phalanx/thorakitai (one being much more mobile than the other).

Personally the concept of heavy cavalry for this period is too broad. The only real "heavy cavalry" were the cataphractoi. The other cavalry would have had very different capabilities based on the types of horses available to them. Greco/roman horses being well trained for tighter formations probably would be the next step (as in catas -> day light -> greek cav). Celtic and germanic cav would have been very light same with the iberian and nth african. A further division of cataphract / heavy cavalry would prob be appropriate as they are really completely different units both in panalopy and battlefield usage.

Should archers be broken further down into javelinmen/skirmishers, slingers, archers? The table at the bottom would indicate that in game context there is no real difference between slingers / archers as the concept of ammunition/range doesnt really play a part, but skirmishers/javelinmen could prob have a case made for them and be stronger against elephants and heavy infantry yet worse agaisnt lighter infantry (due to lower range) than archers.

 

[Scutatus]

For those complaining about unit varriety, which unit types would you have?

Cultural breakdowns of each unit type?
heavy infantry -> solduros, triarii, principes, hastatii, pike phalanx, hoplite phalanx, sparabara? or rather just expand the generic types? If sticking with generic types we have no distinction between principes/triarii ( triarii with the traditional hasta being better vs cav than the principes/hastatii wich would have used their shorter pila in such situations and only a limited number of times) nor pike phalanx/thorakitai (one being much more mobile than the other).

Personally the concept of heavy cavalry for this period is too broad. The only real "heavy cavalry" were the cataphractoi. The other cavalry would have had very different capabilities based on the types of horses available to them. Greco/roman horses being well trained for tighter formations probably would be the next step (as in catas -> day light -> greek cav). Celtic and germanic cav would have been very light same with the iberian and nth african. A further division of cataphract / heavy cavalry would prob be appropriate as they are really completely different units both in panalopy and battlefield usage.

Should archers be broken further down into javelinmen/skirmishers, slingers, archers? The table at the bottom would indicate that in game context there is no real difference between slingers / archers as the concept of ammunition/range doesnt really play a part, but skirmishers/javelinmen could prob have a case made for them and be stronger against elephants and heavy infantry yet worse agaisnt lighter infantry (due to lower range) than archers.

I would certainly agree with there being a need for different unit types for Heavy cavalry and Cataphracts. Especially as many of the "heavy cavalry" mounts would have been little more than what we today consider ponies.

I wouldn't want there being a whole horde of different unit types though, that would get too busy and complicated.

Perhaps a "Specialist "unit type: Phalanx. Legionary cohort. That kind of thing. But I think Light infantry and archers are fine as they are.

 

[Deaghaidh]

Stirrups make it easier and more comfortable to ride.
They didn't make heavy cavalry suddenly effective in combat, as if they hadn't been for millennia before stirrups came along. And they weren't a magic wand that suddenly allowed cavalry to charge headlong into formed heavy infantry and win. They didn't.

Understand what the discussion is actually about before you chime in with snide comments.

P.S. Your assumption about me? Sooo Wrong.

Everything I've ever read about military history directly contradicts this. Stirrups are frequently cited as one of the most revolutionary innovations in military history, alongside iron working and gunpowder. Likewise early medieval knights absolutely could and did charge infantry head on with devastating effect, though that was more to do with the relative decline in infantry and stopped once Europe rediscovered the effects of organized, disciplined heavy infantry.

Obviously heavy horse existed, and could be quite effective, as they were the elite of Alexander's army. Unless I'm very much mistaken their role was to hit the enemy's vulnerable flank and break their line (and prevent them from doing the same), and to ride down vulnerable light troops.

 

[Thure]

I'm kind of bummed to see Heavy Infantry need the Iron trade good. I get the logic, but in EU:Rome it just meant you were screwed if you didn't produce Iron domestically.

This time provinces can have multiple resources, so it shouldn't be this problematic this time.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

i dont claim to have evidence i say things that kept repeating itself over and over . i tell you to open your eyes on pdx games . dont compare a 2008 game with a 2018 because only the core of eu rome will be present in this while everything else will be eu4 and vick 2 and stellaris and new .

Yes you did. You claimed to be "stopping confusion" and then made wild assumptions with no evidence. There's little more egregious than that imo.

just last thing yes i played rome , i play pdx games since 2007 so dont try to use the fact that i use an alt profile here with no badges to play such games with me and turn me into an ignorant who know nothing about paradox .
somehow you disagree with facts that already exist in previous games just like in my message about "lighter smaller unite can beat heavier ones so no need to panic" yet peoples disagree with it like if they have never heard about the algorythmes that the engine use or have never beaten a higher army in eu4 or heard about the fregats swarm in stellaris of the vikings in ck2 .

Why are you using an alt account? Did you perhaps get banned? I asked you questions. I did not assume anything until you started avoiding simple questions. When someone refuses to answer a simple and direct question it makes me suspicious. Your facts are based on what has happened in previous games. Fine. But contradictory mechanics that work entirely differently exist in other games. These could be as factual as your supposed facts. Saying this is how it worked in EU4 does not mean this is how it will work in I:Rome it could just as easily be CK2 which is entirely different. How can both be present at the same time? Finally show me one single thing the Devs have said that shows us it will work differently to the basis of eu:Rome. Apart from the use of tactics obviously, which seems to be an entirely new addition.

 

[wingren013]

I have this impression that the whole horse-camel thing is bit BS. I guess they will be scared if they aren't used to them, but I'm betting you'll get even better reaction with elephants.

It is BS. Camels were never used in combat. People used them to get there and then dismounted.

It had very little to do with stirrups.

If Medieval cavalry ever faced infantry in disciplined close order, and charged them head on, even the Medieval cavalry would have failed. Stirrups or no stirrups. Medieval knights were successful in such charges because they mostly faced looser formations, often largely comprised of levies, that were too loosely formed to withstand them and/or broke.

Against a disciplined close order heavy infantry unit in dense shieldwall, the knights, if charging head on, would have failed (as indeed happened at Hastings against the shieldwall of the Anglo-Saxons). It was true at Hastings as it was true in the days of Ancient Greece and Rome: the disciplined Infantryman, In tight close order and densely deployed, will, if they hold, defeat cavalry when attacked head on. The cavalry just will not charge headlong in, it's suicide.

Cavalry rely on the infantry breaking. If they don't the charge must be pulled up or they risk being destroyed. (Hollywood is nonsense). Even in the days of the Napoleonics this was true.

Cavalry are for infantry in loose formation, or units that are broken or look to be about to be. They are for the flanks and for the pursuit. They are not for charging close order heavy infantry head to head and ploughing in.

I think weapons such as the 10ft Kontos were developed in order to allow cavalry to still engage close order infantry without having to plough in. Charge, pull to the side, thrust with weapon at range of six feet, then pull away again before infantry respond. Rinse and repeat. Just my thought.

Lances were a natural development of the cavalry tactic of riding up and throwing or shooting something then riding away. Ancient cavalry didn't couch their lances. They were used in an overhand grip, the cavalrymen would ride up, trot forward, turn, stab with their lances, finish turning, and ride away.

Cavalry was very different from how most people imagine them to work. Even in the days of Napoleon where the breeding and training of warhorses had reached its apex. Horses would refuse to charge a dense formation to contact. Ancient cavalry with much smaller, less capable warhorses didn't function anything like later cavalry.

Cavalry charges are basically mass scale games of chicken. If the infantry run at the sight of the charge they get run down and die. If the infantry hold the cavalry either pull up short and wheel around for another go or they die.

 

[I'm gaming]

Troop types and formation remind me of MotE. Why weren’t they applied to EU4?

On the other hand, I’ve never thought that archers are easy to build..

 

[Scutatus]

Everything I've ever read about military history directly contradicts this. Stirrups are frequently cited as one of the most revolutionary innovations in military history, alongside iron working and gunpowder. Likewise early medieval knights absolutely could and did charge infantry head on with devastating effect, though that was more to do with the relative decline in infantry and stopped once Europe rediscovered the effects of organized, disciplined heavy infantry.

Obviously heavy horse existed, and could be quite effective, as they were the elite of Alexander's army. Unless I'm very much mistaken their role was to hit the enemy's vulnerable flank and break their line (and prevent them from doing the same), and to ride down vulnerable light troops.

Stirrups allowed riders to ride for longer on campaign, with more endurance and ability. It allowed longer deeper scouting missions, in rougher terrain. It gave the poorer horseman greater balance, giving more potential with weaponry (GOOD horseriders could already do this though).

So yes, it revolutionised the horseman. And yes, it eventually led to the use of the couched lance. Greater shock and awe. Those charges by the famous knight though - context context context. They mostly charged loosely formed levy based armies, men at arms and knights. Not phalanxes. Not shieldwalls. Not disciplined Legions in very close order. Barely any close order at all. If those knights with those wonderful stirrups had charged a Greek Phalanx or Roman Cohort, how well would they have done? Oh, look, hello Hastings. Where only a trick won the day for the Normans.

Stirrups helped. A lot. But that's not the same as saying Cavalry were useless/redundant before stirrups came along, which seems to be the implication. Weapons such as the Xyston and Kontos were very effective for centuries, no stirrup in sight. Cavalry learnt to balance with their bodies, and grip with their legs - indeed it was the only way to do it. The Horse peoples got VERY good at this. In some ways, once the stirrup came along, many forgot to ride well without them. But for a thousand years, that's exactly what cavalry did.

And to bring us back to the subject I thought we were discussing, the stirrup for all of it's benefits, didn't make much difference against heavy infantry formed in disciplined close order. I'm not even sure they are relevant.

 

[Scutatus]

Lances were a natural development of the cavalry tactic of riding up and throwing or shooting something then riding away. Ancient cavalry didn't couch their lances. They were used in an overhand grip, the cavalrymen would ride up, trot forward, turn, stab with their lances, finish turning, and ride away.

Cavalry was very different from how most people imagine them to work. Even in the days of Napoleon where the breeding and training of warhorses had reached its apex. Horses would refuse to charge a dense formation to contact. Ancient cavalry with much smaller, less capable warhorses didn't function anything like later cavalry.

Cavalry charges are basically mass scale games of chicken. If the infantry run at the sight of the charge they get run down and die. If the infantry hold the cavalry either pull up short and wheel around for another go or they die.

I completely agree. The Xyston and then the Kontos (the latter wielded in two hands, for balance and control) evolved (probably) so that cavalry could engage infantry without having to commit suicide and plough in. The lance in turn evolved from the Kontos, once the stirrup had arrived. But only then. Interestingly though, even at Hastings at least some of the Norman knights were apparently still fighting overarm, using the old thrust and turn method of old.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Sorry, the troop types thing is disappointing to me. Too few to represent the range of troop types and battlefield combat roles in the Macedonian and Punic Wars period.

Also you don't so much need access to certain trade good to access those types of troops you need either control of areas where they can be recruited, allies who can supply those types of troops, or access to mercenaries from those regions/areas.

States had little in the way of standing armies in that period, but they did have either state controlled stocks of military equipment, Rome for example, or subjects/citizens who were obliged to turn up equipped when called on. Rather than recruiting fresh units and training/equipping them from scratch you I think should be thinking of a potential resource that can be called on and which could be put in the field relatively quickly. However a potential resource that could take quite some time to add to, change the 'shape of'; reform should be difficult and probably follow lessons learned from failures or problems.

This looks too much like EU4 or Rome: Gold/Vae Victis; please some new mechanics.

 

[durecellrabbit]

For those complaining about unit varriety, which unit types would you have?

Cultural breakdowns of each unit type?
heavy infantry -> solduros, triarii, principes, hastatii, pike phalanx, hoplite phalanx, sparabara? or rather just expand the generic types? If sticking with generic types we have no distinction between principes/triarii ( triarii with the traditional hasta being better vs cav than the principes/hastatii wich would have used their shorter pila in such situations and only a limited number of times) nor pike phalanx/thorakitai (one being much more mobile than the other).

Personally the concept of heavy cavalry for this period is too broad. The only real "heavy cavalry" were the cataphractoi. The other cavalry would have had very different capabilities based on the types of horses available to them. Greco/roman horses being well trained for tighter formations probably would be the next step (as in catas -> day light -> greek cav). Celtic and germanic cav would have been very light same with the iberian and nth african. A further division of cataphract / heavy cavalry would prob be appropriate as they are really completely different units both in panalopy and battlefield usage.

Should archers be broken further down into javelinmen/skirmishers, slingers, archers? The table at the bottom would indicate that in game context there is no real difference between slingers / archers as the concept of ammunition/range doesnt really play a part, but skirmishers/javelinmen could prob have a case made for them and be stronger against elephants and heavy infantry yet worse agaisnt lighter infantry (due to lower range) than archers.

I think archers and light infantry could be broken down into massed archers, skirmishers and irregular foot.

Massed archers would be the foot archers used by the Parthians, Indians and others in large quantities.

Skirmishers would be javelin, sling or bow armed light infantry used for recon, screening infantry or linking cavalry with infantry. I don't think you need to do each weapon type separately.

Irregular Foot or Medium Foot, Javelinmen or some name along those lines would be budget heavy infantry that doesn't live up to the standard of heavy infantry. They would perform better in ambushes or rough terrain. These would be the infantry used by Bithynia, Jewish revolters, subject infantry of the Steppe tribes .etc.

 

[Bayward]

Chariots can be built if you have the celtic or mauryan traditions

Hmm, I'm pretty sure Kingdom of Pontus fielded chariots in the timeframe of IR, and they werent of celtic nor mauryan heritage.

Pretty sure the selucids did as well .

 

[Tisifoni12]

On the stirrups thing (not going to scroll back through it all):

• Moorish / Numidian light cavalry rode bareback (except maybe the nobles, who may have wanted to flaunt their wealth/position) using only a simple rope bridle
• Greeks and most others rode horses with only a saddle cloth held in place by a girth (plus a bridle for control of course)
• At some point, from I think, Gallic wooden saddles, the Roman developed a saddle with four 'horns' (wooden projects, covered in leather like the seat part of the saddle), one in front and one behind each thigh, which give the rider something to brace against and allows some movement in the saddle, to shift their weight, to reach, to turn; Roman re-enactors say that if you're fighting using a spear 'overarm' then this is a very useful and safe form of saddle
• Medieval knights as well as the stirrup had support at the back of the saddle to brace against, also at the front; its not just the stirrups
• Norman 'knights' like those at Hastings were armed with spears not lances and I think that they are often shown using them overarm rather than couched and re-enactors certainly seem to go for using them 'overarm'