Imperator Development Diary #4 - 18th of June 2018

[Scutatus]

Comfortable?
Not, stirrups keeps you on the horse once your lance hit the enemies chest or shield.
You should read about japanese warfare before and after they adopt stirrups and how tactics and weapons change.

It's kinda embarrassing deals with your ignorance when you try to make up a point.

Different kind of warfare. The kontos and Xyston were used without stirrups. There is more than one way to ride a horse and use weapons in combat while mounted. Stirrups are NOT necessary for it. Ask the Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Persians, the Parthians, the Seleucids, the Macedonians, the Romans, hell even the Native Americans.

Stirrups changed the way weapons could be used when mounted, provided a new shock of impact option - but melee while mounted had been possible and effective without stirrups for a thousand years before they came along. It was just done differently.

You speak of ignorance yet don't understand this? Seriously?

 

[Scutatus]

Actually medieval infantry would have mostly been semi-professional armsmen outside of large battles. Ill-disciplined levies like you are describing would have been rare sight due to the logistical issues attached to them.

The infantry, semi professional or not, were not the close ordered tight knit drilled and disciplined formations of the classic Greek and Roman days. We can argue semantics all we want but it was NOT the same. The knights did NOT usually have to fight the same kind of infantry formations - and when they did, they struggled.

I do like the qualifier "outside of large battles" when I thought large battles was the matter under discussion? (this game is hardly going to deal with the small patrol/skirmish level is it?)

 

[Tisifoni12]

Army compositions ikki
From Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars by Duncan Head.

Ipsos 301 BC:

• Antigonid army of 70,000 infantry, 10,000 cavalry, 75 elephants (10 - 15% cavalry)
• Seleukid and Lysimachid army of 64,000 infantry, 15,000 cavalry, 100 scythed chariots and 400 elephants (most of the elephants posted behind the line to stop Demetrios attacking their army in the rear if the cavalry flank he commanded won, which it did. (15 - 20% cavalry)

Of the infantry in those armies probably 2/3, perhaps more, would be phalangites, the rest would be peltasts and a few light skirmishers.

Trebbia 218 BC:

• A Roman consular army of 4 legions, Italian allies and allied Gauls (the Cenomani) 36,000 infantry (around 6,000 of them light infantry) and 4,000 cavalry (10% cavalry)
• Hannibal's army of 8,000 light infantry (Numidian javelinmen, Spanish Caetrati and Balearic slingers), 20,000 infantry (Gauls, Spanish Scutarii and North African spearmen), 10,000 cavalry (Numidian, Spanish and Gauls) (25% cavalry)

Raphia 217 BC:

• Ptolemy 70,000 foot, of which at least 56,000 were phalangites, 5,000 horse and 73 elephants (African Forest) (6 - 7% cavalry)
• Antiochos 62,000 foot, of which 32,000 were phalangites, 6,000 cavalry and 102 elephants (Indian) (8 - 9% cavalry)

Zama 202 BC:

• Scipio 23,000 Roman and Italian legionary foot (about 4,000 of them light infantry), 1,500 Roman and Italian cavalry, 6,000 Numidian light infantry and 4,600 Numidian light horse (20% cavalry)
• Hannibal had 40,000 men, but this army comprised perhaps 10,000 or less veterans from his army in Italy, a hotchpotch of allies (Ligurians, Gauls, Bruttians), remnants from his campaign in Italy, Carthaginian militia spearmen and cavalry, around 2/3 of the numbers of Numidian infantry and cavalry the Roman had and 80 untrained African forest elephants. (10% cavalry ?)

Unusual for an army to have more than 10% cavalry. Flanks tended to be much smaller than the centre, not a 20 : 60 : 20 split or combined a lot of support infantry (peltasts and psiloi) working with the cavalry.

 

[Praetorian44]

Wow, love how easy it'll be to add new unit types!

 

[Daniel the Finlander]

Exactly, my entire point. It’s absurd that there are two different units that both represent missile infantry.

Maybe not absurd. I suppose you could consider ”archers” to represent units like psiloi, armed with only ranged weapons, while light infantry also carries shields and swords, like peltasts, thureoporoi and Roman velites.

 

[D Inqu]

The infantry, semi professional or not, were not the close ordered tight knit drilled and disciplined formations of the classic Greek and Roman days. We can argue semantics all we want but it was NOT the same.

Absolutely. The greek and early roman militaries were vastly inferior. Greek hoplites (and pre-marian roman legions) were a citizen militia who bought their own weapons, thus their quality was quite poor (exceptions like the sacred band aside). The phalanx was a way to give the poor formations real fighting capability.

 

[JordanX]

Elephants sound rad.
Very easy to add new units too.

 

[Swuul]

The nomenclature for infantry was a bit confusing in EU:R (I seem to remember some lenghty discussions in the EU:R beta forum at the time, but maybe my memory is just playing tricks with me), and seems that remains in I:R (at least at this point). Essentially, what the different troop types in EU:R or I:R are compared to many other games of this era:

Heavy infantry -> Heavy infantry (well armoured infantry with shields, used as front line troops)

Light infantry -> Medium infantry (lightly armoured infantry with shields, used as flankers or troops holding rough terrain (like roman auxiliarii), or as front line troops (when no heavy infantry was available, like the illyrian thyreophoroi)

Archers -> Skirmishers and other light infantry (lightly armed infantry with no shields, used to harass enemy with bows, slings and javelins, and then withdraw behind the front line when battle began in earnest)

I suppose the name "archers" has been chosen because it is easier to depict them on the second row, while the name "skirmishers" would lead people to assume they are fighting ahead of the front. Well, the skirmishers *did* fight ahead of the front-line, until they *did* retreat to second line, and provided backup if possible (archers were shooting in high arch over the front line (arrows coming down on enemy from above is deadly when they hold their shields ahead of them to stop the enemy javelins), and slingers tried to use higher ground right behind the front line from where they were able hurl shots over the friendly troops).

 

[Tisifoni12]

The only massed archers formed in close order I can think of in this period were in Indian armies.

Cretan archers, 'eastern archers', e.g. Armenian, Elymian, Iranian, were all skirmishers. The same when others developed the practice of having some archers in their army, e.g. the Numidians in their later wars with Rome and the Gauls under Vercingetorix

 

[Ulflander]

Egyptians, Assyrians, and most cultures from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean used Chariots. Any chance we'll see those? Granted, most of those civilizations were in decline or gone by the start date, but there had to be some usage of them still.

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

A bit late for the period, I believe (though I'm willing to be corrected). In any case, I suspect they'll be one of the first things modded in.

Parthians use cataphracts and they are here at this era just not an empire yet.
Pretty sure seleucid used heavy cav and armored war elephants.

 

[Scutatus]

Absolutely. The greek and early roman militaries were vastly inferior. Greek hoplites (and pre-marian roman legions) were a citizen militia who bought their own weapons, thus their quality was quite poor (exceptions like the sacred band aside). The phalanx was a way to give the poor formations real fighting capability.

I don't know about "vastly inferior", what with the drill and all. You can't keep a close formation, shield to shield and manoeuvre it, and have it hold, without training. But yeah, I will concede your point about Greeks and Romans also being levies. Of course they were. That was silly of me.

The point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make is that those classical formations employed shield to shield close order units that, so long as the infantry did not break, cavalry could not just plough right into head on - they had to feint and probe instead, or try the flanks. This did not happen so much in the heyday of the medieval knight, when formations tended to be looser and cavalry could hurtle headlong in and mix it up amongst the infantry if they wished. Strange how the shieldwall fell out of favour when, arguably, it was still needed.

 

[erez87]

I don’t like how major archers are, considering they really weren’t...

 

[Martynios]

Maybe not absurd. I suppose you could consider ”archers” to represent units like psiloi, armed with only ranged weapons, while light infantry also carries shields and swords, like peltasts, thureoporoi and Roman velites.

Then why is that subtle difference represented without a more reasonable distinction between HI types? And why are light infantry weak against HI, unlike archers?

You’re just making up excuses to justify a lazy copypaste battle system.

 

[Scutatus]

Exactly. These were a later tech than the start date.

But the Scythian and Parthian and (slightly later) early Sarmatian versions weren't. They are all very much in period. They are pretty much from where the Romans got the idea.

 

[Morgan Wight]

The light infantry situation looks pretty inelegant, but I think it almost works. Despite suggestions from many posters that the archer class covers all missile troops, this cannot be correct. Skirmishers are defined by their screening role, so abstracting them to the back line would be simply absurd. Perhaps, in a low-granularity system like EUIV, but not in a system which bothers to delineate six separate cavalry types, including camels. Even the icons confirm this. So what we really have in the light infantry class is an amalgam of javelin skirmishers (e.g. velites), light spear levies, light swordsmen (e.g. hastati), etc. Slingers as well, perhaps? I think is a reasonable amalgamation. My main gripe would be the fact that they seem to serve purely as cannon fodder, with no combined arms role whatsoever. I don't think making them weak to everything is a compelling design choice. That is, there should be some enticement to utilize them even in an expensive army. Perhaps this can be achieved through other mechanics, but I still have to wonder why the cavalry types are so well-defined, while the broad, colorful array of antique infantry is crudely shoehorned into three classes.

Let me re-iterate that for those who may be skimming. Six mounted types, three infantry types . . . that's more than a little uneven, yes?

 

[Scutatus]

No chariots for Egypt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariotry_in_ancient_Egypt

The heyday of the Egyptian chariot was a full thousand years before this game starts. By the 4th Century BC Egypt was under the rule of a Macedonian dynasty, largely employing a Macedonian style army. Any chariots that remained were likely ceremonial or a symbol of prestige(?), and far less likely to still be used in warfare.

So, no. Wrong era for Egyptian chariots.

Interestingly those states with Persian influence, such as the Seleucids and Pontus, would still attempt to use them at times in this period (normally scythed chariots and usually without success). But not, as far as I am aware, Ptolemaic Egypt.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I wonder how much the wildly anachronistic treatment of Egypt in TW series (as I understood even Rome 2 used the New Kingdom style, despite Rome 1 being already criticized for it) is inspiring these "Why no chariots for Egypt" posts.

I mean, even if there had been a native ruled pharaonic Egypt in this period instead of a Hellenistic kingdom I doubt it would have had a New Kingdom syle military heavy on chariots. The last, brief period of native rule in first half of 4th century BC seems to have already been under heavy Hellenic influence. Presumably a later native dynasty would have continued the trend, with plentiful use of Greek mercenaries and attempts to imitate Greek model among the native soldiers. It's just not 1300 BC anymore.

 

[Voigt]

But the central question still stands.
Will we get NATO Counters for the Unit Types, and which NATO Counter for which Troop Type?

 

[Scutatus]

I wonder how much the wildly anachronistic treatment of Egypt in TW series (as I understood even Rome 2 used the New Kingdom style, despite Rome 1 being already criticized for it) is inspiring these "Why no chariots for Egypt" posts.

I mean, even if there had been a native ruled pharaonic Egypt in this period instead of a Hellenistic kingdom I doubt it would have had a New Kingdom syle military heavy on chariots. The last, brief period of native rule in first half of 4th century BC seems to have already been under heavy Hellenic influence. Presumably a later native dynasty would have continued the trend, with plentiful use of Greek mercenaries and attempts to imitate Greek model among the native soldiers. It's just not 1300 BC anymore.

Chariots had their heyday when cavalry were not yet a thing in battle. Once cavalry was effective (from around the 11th - 9th century BC I think) chariots largely fell out of favour - they were expensive, more vulnerable and not nearly as manouverable/useful/versatile as cavalry - and far more maintenance heavy. Such chariots that were still used were used as platforms to get warriors to the front, where they dismounted (like the celts), or scythed chariots being hurtled headlong into enemy ranks as one shot weapons -that largely didn't really work (like the Persian influenced Seleucids and Pontus).

For their part, the Egyptians, who had always favoured the light missile platform chariot, abandoned it when the role could be done better by light cavalry. I think you are correct, I also don't think this would have changed even under a native Dynasty.

Yes, Total War has given very misleading impressions of historical armies. Which is why I have often despaired of the "fantasy" units even in the "historical" titles. It's interesting how many people think I am talking about magic, dwarves and elves when I say that.

But the central question still stands.
Will we get NATO Counters for the Unit Types, and which NATO Counter for which Troop Type?