Imperator Development Diary #4 - 18th of June 2018

[thewolf66]

Will heavy infantry have an edge over war elephants if their commander is a good tactician? I am thinking of something like the battle of Zama where the Roman legions decimated Hannibal's war elephants and developed an efficient tactic against the "Lucanian cows"

 

[cools0812]

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.

 

[Tarthur]

I'm not sure for other nations but I know that Roman heavy infantry countered cavalry attacks by forming a shield wall similar to Testudo (sometimes in squares), tightly packed that any cavalry charge would be knocked back by large shields and sharp shortswords called gladius sticking out of a formation like thorns ready to be thrusted at horses, especially since Auxilia were often kept as a rear guard behind the citizen legions and stationed on flanks in battle usually armed with shield and spears, and the ranks often consisted of archers too. Even if Cavalry punched through a legionary formation, the Auxilia would drive them back with spears and plug the hole. Roman Legionaries also tend to carry pilums which are like javelins when thrown can unseat anyone from their horse or capable of bringing horses down mid-charge.

Source? I don't think I've ever heard of that. Tetsudo wasn't used in actual fighting, only when manouvering troops in the battlefield, so it seems strange that basically an equally iconic tactic as tetsudo wouldn't be in wider knowledge.

 

[Zwirbaum]

Will combat be something like HOI IV?

No, closer to what is in EU IV.

 

[VI Imre]

Why are Chariots not part of the Egyptian tradition? When someone says chariots, Egypt is the first thing that comes to my mind.

 

[Zwirbaum]

No Skirmisher unit type? Archers seem kinda off when slingers or javelins were much more common during that time period.

Rome didn't even field archers until the late republic-Principate and even then only as auxiliaries.

Archers is probably just a general broader term that includes peltastai, psiloi, spehndonetai etc. So all ranged, skirmisher units and archers are used as something people will understand at glance ('they fight from afar, ranged units'), while skirmishers could be more confusing.

It is probably the same case as cohorts used as general term for 'regiments' in I:R - just generalization

EDIT: Skirmishers are also used to describe cavalrymen

 

[lucaluca]

Camels is new, wasn’t in the paradxcon presentation. Chariots too I think.

Some of their bonuses are a bit odd, seems like cavalry elephants and camels chariots have similar roles, but maybe that’s wanted?

 

[Zwirbaum]

This. It's like they grabbed EU4's combat system and just changed Cannons for Archers.

Similiar case was in EU: Rome. And yes combat was similiar to EU III. Combat system in I:R is supposed to be kinda similiar to EU: IV but with some twists and changes (tactics system, more unit types etc.)

 

[Zwirbaum]

Camels is new, wasn’t in the paradxcon presentation. Chariots too I think.

Some of their bonuses are a bit odd, seems like cavalry elephants and camels chariots have similar roles, but maybe that’s wanted?

Camels and chariots were in pdxcon presentation.

 

[Cephei80]

In what sense is heavy infantry good against cavalry? I know you need to abstract anti-cavalry tactics away somehow, but surely cavalry performs very well against everything that isn't pikes? Also, are horse archers good against all infantry types? This is not mentioned, but isn't that like the whole point of using horse archers, that they can't be engaged by infantry unless they want to be engaged?

using sword and shield icon for heavy infantry dont mean that they are swordmens . tey are good against cavalry because they can shoot javelins on them and hold the shield like romans or they can simply be PHALANX or triari short pikemens . for romans recruiting heavy mean they are going to be principes and triaris . for greeks its heavy swordmens long pike hoplites and short pike hoplites .

its heavy class not sword class this mean they can be everything that wear a shield and armor and weapon .

 

[lucaluca]

Camels and chariots were in pdxcon presentation.

Really? Don’t remember them...

What about spearmen, shouldn’t they be separate from infantry?

 

[cools0812]

Why are Chariots should be part of the Egyptian tradition? When someone says chariots, Egypt is the first thing that comes to my mind.

quite true. Strictly speaking Ptolemaic army was of Hellenic tradition, but they kept a large chariot force too.

The empire of Alexander was splendid in its magnitude, in its armies, in the success and rapidity of his conquests, and it wanted little of being boundless and unexampled, yet in its shortness of duration it was like a brilliant flash of lightning. Although broken into several satrapies even the parts were splendid. The kings of my own country [Egypt] alone had an army consisting of 200,000 foot, 40,000 horse, 300 war elephants, and 2,000 armed chariots, and arms in reserve for 300,000 soldiers more. -Appian, The Foreign Wars

 

[Zwirbaum]

Really? Don’t remember them...

What about spearmen, shouldn’t they be separate from infantry?

Spears were quite common weapons and used very often whether by heavy infantry (Hoplites, Triarii etc.) and light infantry as well (Persians, Celtic, Germanic lower classes etc.)

So either you would need to lump all spear using units into category where persian infantry and hoplites are the same, or you need to include heavy and light spearmen - and that results in more unneccesary clutter IMO.

Furthermore you can probably show the difference between use of spear vs sword primarily for example by modifiers to certain unit types by inventions, ideas, cultures etc.

Current distinction on heavy inf/light inf is adequate IMO. When talking about Hoplites, phalangites or principes we refer to them just as heavy infantry - and not by heavy spearmen, pikemen or heavy swordsmen

 

[NilsFabian]

When did you wrote this? Friday? During your Weekend?

 

[Martynios]

Heavy infantry requires iron? Really? Let me guess, iron is not present in every province like it historically was?

>differentiate between archers and ”””light infantry””””
>even have a unique unit for camels
>legionaries are the same as phalangites

*clap clap*

 

[Xetfield]

So regular horses and steppe horses are going to be two separate trade goods?

 

[Martynios]

Archers is probably just a general broader term that includes peltastai, psiloi, spehndonetai etc. So all ranged, skirmisher units and archers are used as something people will understand at glance ('they fight from afar, ranged units'), while skirmishers could be more confusing.

It is probably the same case as cohorts used as general term for 'regiments' in I:R - just generalization

EDIT: Skirmishers are also used to describe cavalrymen

Then why is the “light infantry” icon clearly a javelinman?

 

[MrNewVegas]

using sword and shield icon for heavy infantry dont mean that they are swordmens . tey are good against cavalry because they can shoot javelins on them and hold the shield like romans or they can simply be PHALANX or triari short pikemens . for romans recruiting heavy mean they are going to be principes and triaris . for greeks its heavy swordmens long pike hoplites and short pike hoplites .

its heavy class not sword class this mean they can be everything that wear a shield and armor and weapon .

I mean sure, but this means that Roman HI is more effective than it should be. Do they use culture specific HI values? I think not.

 

[Zwirbaum]

Heavy infantry requires iron? Really? Let me guess, iron is not present in every province like it historically was?

>differentiate between archers and ”””light infantry””””
>even have a unique unit for camels
>legionaries are the same as phalangites

*clap clap*

And that's where probably inventions, different cultures, national ideas comes into play to differentiate phalangites and legionares. Not to mention it is a sandbox game and who says you didn't reform your army as Hellenistic Successor into different way?

 

[classicist]

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.

That seems to have been the case - but it can also be surmised that the chariots were primarily there to send a message about the Pontic royal dynasty's 'double heritage' and identity: they very much projected an image of descending both from Hellenes and Achaemenids, and the chariots would have been primarily a psychological and propagandistic weapon.