Classical Warfare AEA

[Outis]

Hello friends,

One question, out of the blue: i see an axe unit is more commonly used. I really appreciate the variety. However, i see the double axe is used as a weapon. I have not seen a historical reference of a double axe being used in warfare. Double axes are usually found used for religious or symbolism. I think it would be more historical to use single edged axes.

[Emacz]

This is "easy" to rename, would it work differently? be more hack, more pierce, more crush? the length of it etc? from your msgs it sounds like you have looked at some of the files? so you know the attack speed, range, dmg etc and how it compares to other weapons.  Let me know how to "best" most accurately depict the axe units in the game! 

should it have a bonus vs any type of unit/structure etc?

Edited yesterday at 20:57 by Emacz

[Thalatta]

38 minutes ago, Outis said:

I have not seen a historical reference of a double axe being used in warfare.

There is, but extremely rare: "According to Robert Graves (1960), in Minoan culture the ritual double-edged axe was forbidden to males, which is certainly consistent with Minoan iconography but not with that of the Achaeans. The implication of images such as that on the ring or on similar objects is that the double-edged axe was the symbol of a powerful priestess or female deity, but other iconography provides evidence of its clear employment by the Achaeans as a deadly weapon." - Bronze Age Greek Warrior 1600-1100 BC, by R. D’Amato & A. Salimbeti (notice that this is way before the timeframe of the game).

 

38 minutes ago, Outis said:

Double axes are usually found used for religious or symbolism.

Also to fell trees.

From Homers' Odyssey: "She gave him a great bronze axe, well fitted to his hands, sharpened on both blades; it had a beautiful olive wood handle, hafted well. She also gave him a well-polished adze. Then she led the way to the farthest part of the island where tall trees stood – alder, poplar, and fir – reaching to the sky, long dry and well-seasoned, which would float for him lightly. But when she had shown him where the tall trees stood, Calypso the radiant goddess went home, and he started cutting planks."

From Palladius' Opus Agriculturae: "...spades with footbars; grubbing hoes for going after bramble bushes; axes with a single or double head; hoes with one or two prongs..."

Edited yesterday at 21:23 by Thalatta

[Outis]

7 minutes ago, Emacz said:

This is "easy" to rename, would it work differently? be more hack, more pierce, more crush? the length of it etc? from your msgs it sounds like you have looked at some of the files? so you know the attack speed, range, dmg etc and how it compares to other weapons.  Let me know how to "best" most accurately depcict the axe units in the game!

I was just checking the unit stats from discord and i am impressed by the level of detail. Looks like a lot of thought went into it.

I would represent axes mainly as an armor-piercing weapon. I dont like hard counters. I would give it some crush damage. I think this is the direction you took already. The down-side is that these units would double as siege units. This is a problem of sorts. This makes some sense against wooden buildings, but not against stone buildings. What would be great is a way to differentiate wooden and stone buildings. Maybe give stone buildings a significantly higher crush resistance, and give actual siege engines a boost to crush damage to keep their attack against stone buildings comparable. Siege engines will be even more effective against wooden buildings but i think that is OK.

[Outis]

13 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

but other iconography provides evidence of its clear employment by the Achaeans as a deadly weapon.

I would take this with a grain of salt, as it is artistic representation and not an archeological find. Moreover, this is not the relevant time period. 

 

17 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

Also to fell trees

This makes more sense. The second blade does not make a meaningful contribution in combat. It shifts the center of gravity away from the strike, and makes the weapon unnecessarily heavy and unwieldy. Also, metal is expensive, it makes no sense to waste on the second blade. It makes sense for a lumberjack as the second blade can be used when the first one gets blunt. It is like bringing an extra axe for then the first one is no longer usable.

All in all, without suggesting anything definitive, i see more convincing evidence for single-bladed axes for combat than double-bladed ones.

[Thalatta]

41 minutes ago, Outis said:

I would take this with a grain of salt, as it is artistic representation and not an archeological find. Moreover, this is not the relevant time period. 

Sure, but you asked for a reference, not an object, and I did mention the time period issue. For a non-artistic reference, Strabo's Geography says: "For the barbarians were entirely inexperienced in war, and used their weapons unskilfully, which were bows, spears, swords, and slings; but the greater part of them wielded a double-edged axe. Immediately afterwards he took the city called Asca", which was probably modern Al-Lith in Saudi Arabia, around 25 BC. Probably no archeological evidence either, but as it is with many things.

[Emacz]

3 hours ago, Outis said:

I was just checking the unit stats from discord and i am impressed by the level of detail. Looks like a lot of thought went into it.

Thank you! Yes we have put A LOT of thought and time into it and have gone back and fourth on all sorts of stats.  I'm sure we will continue to do so as we learn more, gather better sources etc.  
We have a website (it's still a work in progress) but will have a lot of useful stuff on it to make understanding the mod a lot easier.

Clasic Warefare AEA

right now you will see under charts, the important stats laid out for different CS infantry and gather rates.  Plan to add more for Champions Infantry + Cavalry and Heroes.

3 hours ago, Outis said:

I would represent axes mainly as an armor-piercing weapon. I dont like hard counters. I would give it some crush damage. I think this is the direction you took already. The down-side is that these units would double as siege units. This is a problem of sorts. This makes some sense against wooden buildings, but not against stone buildings. What would be great is a way to differentiate wooden and stone buildings. Maybe give stone buildings a significantly higher crush resistance, and give actual siege engines a boost to crush damage to keep their attack against stone buildings comparable. Siege engines will be even more effective against wooden buildings but i think that is OK.

I am fine with this, although from the limited reading I thought the axes weren't as strong as say medieval/Viking age axes and probably wouldn't penetrate armor.  But then again the armor in a lot of cases wasn't as strong as several hundred to 1000 years later probably.

We are definitely trying to differentiate wood buildings vs those that are more stone and or metal.  Woold buildings burn a lot faster (We have several fire units) and I agree a axe should do some dmg to them and or siege!  I'll try and figure out how to do that.  Will probably ask on the discord channel.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

8 hours ago, Emacz said:

We have a website (it's still a work in progress) but will have a lot of useful stuff on it to make understanding the mod a lot easier.

Clasic Warefare AEA

right now you will see under charts, the important stats laid out for different CS infantry and gather rates.  Plan to add more for Champions Infantry + Cavalry and Heroes.

Very nice idea for a website for the mod. You may have just inspired me to make one for Delenda Est. I originally was making one on fandom.com, but I got angry with the massive ads everywhere and frustrated with the limitations. 

[Outis]

9 hours ago, Emacz said:

probably wouldn't penetrate armor

This may be correct. I was suggesting partly to differentiate it and give an incentive to create this unit rather than another kind of unit in game. 

[Emacz]

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Very nice idea for a website for the mod. You may have just inspired me to make one for Delenda Est. I originally was making one on fandom.com, but I got angry with the massive ads everywhere and frustrated with the limitations. 

Thanks! Although I can't take credit for it.  It was @Asher idea and set up!

2 hours ago, Outis said:

This may be correct. I was suggesting partly to differentiate it and give an incentive to create this unit rather than another kind of unit in game. 

Yeah I get it, i think ill start with a bonus against siege... and possible try and create "wood" as class and add to siege and some structures that are all wood. 

[Emacz]

Is anyone able to help us create some portraits?  Need to add "fire" to some units!

@wowgetoffyourcellphone you know anyone?

[Emacz]

17 hours ago, Outis said:

Hello friends,

One question, out of the blue: i see an axe unit is more commonly used. I really appreciate the variety. However, i see the double axe is used as a weapon. I have not seen a historical reference of a double axe being used in warfare. Double axes are usually found used for religious or symbolism. I think it would be more historical to use single edged axes.

Are you talking about the portraits/actors? Cause I am not able to change the props  But even if they look like double sided axes, we can have them act as single side axes

[Emacz]

What is more appropriate

Cavalry Swordsman or Mounted Swordsman? What about spear? and Lance?

for ranged

Mounted Archer or Cavalry Archer.  Mounted Javelineer or Cavalry Javelineer or Mounted Skirmisher?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

"Mounted..." to me, indicates they dismount to fight. 

[Emacz]

Thanks! For melee I think especially. 
I think we have done mounted vs foot/infantry for ranged. But I do want to double check.

Skirmisher vs Javelineer is another one I kinda go between.  Eventually i want to make sure everything is uniformed.

[Outis]

27 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Are you talking about the portraits/actors? Cause I am not able to change the props  But even if they look like double sided axes, we can have them act as single side axes

Well, both.

 

27 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Cause I am not able to change the props

There are single-bit axes already in the public mod and other mods, you can use one of them.

[Emacz]

2 minutes ago, Outis said:

Well, both.

 

There are single-bit axes already in the public mod and other mods, you can use one of them.

I thought we just used the same as the base game, guess Ill have to take a closer look.

 

[Outis]

8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

"Mounted..." to me, indicates they dismount to fight. 

I second this.

25 minutes ago, Emacz said:

What about spear? and Lance?

Lance is generally used for weapons longer than spears. I would standardize as: spear for cavalry using with single hand and shield, lance for two-handed pike-like weapons such as kontos.

Reg skirmisher vs javelineer, i would stick to javelineer as all the other units appear to be named after the weapons they use. Skirmisher is more of a role, one can skirmish with more weapons than only javelins.

[Emacz]

Ok, thats what I'm working on (spear vs lance) currently its really just champ cav.  Even though there are two types of cs spear cav, i guess Ill have to change that too.

I made spear cav the base one (w/ shield).  Then I added lancer as the second version

Lance adds 1H, 1.5P dmg and 2 range, but repeat time is 1/4 second slower.  Also gave them +1 Hack resistance but 2% slower walk speed than spear version.  So spear version of cav is 1/2 meter less than cs spearman, but the lance version is +1.5m.  Again wil lhave charts and what not and totally open to feedback on how to adjust, change, balance, make more accurate

[Outis]

16 minutes ago, Emacz said:

made spear cav the base one (w/ shield).  Then I added lancer as the second version

Are these both citizen cavalry?

[Emacz]

56 minutes ago, Outis said:

Are these both citizen cavalry?

No this was just champ cavalry.  I personally have a hard time believing in a "heavy lancer" citizen cavalry unit.  I know cavalry was more of the nobels, elites, but a lancer sounds more like an actual trained/paid type of duty.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

for CS we have

base as a spear with no shield. +0.5m from a hand held spear, but still -1m from "Champ Lancer"

Dmg is 10% more than infantry spearman 4.4h 7.7p but 1/4 second slower repeat time compared to infantry. 

the CS shield version is -1 range (4m) 1/4 second slower prepare time, not repeat time.  +0.5H +1P resistance for the shield

we used to only have "spearcav, which included shield" and "hunt spearcav" which was no shield, worse at fighting but faster, more of a scout type unit.

Edited 5 hours ago by Emacz

[Outis]

I am working on my own mod for private entertainment from where my recommendations are coming, and i must say your mod has many similar or compatible approaches. I will share my proposals where applicable.

1 hour ago, Emacz said:

I personally have a hard time believing in a "heavy lancer" citizen cavalry unit

Me too. I would make this unit the same as cataphract with a longer range, heavier armor, and slower movement like in EA. To my knowledge, such two-handed lances are mostly combined with heavy rider and horse armor.

So we have multiple cavalry with small differences. I would implement the variations using the mixin templates, as this would streamline implementation.

So we have:

Champion lancer

Citizen cavalry spear without shield

Citizen cavalry spear with shield

Also

Champion cavalry spear without shield?

Citizen cavalry spear with shield?

[Emacz]

1 hour ago, Outis said:

I am working on my own mod for private entertainment from where my recommendations are coming, and i must say your mod has many similar or compatible approaches. I will share my proposals where applicable.

Why make 2 almost identical mods when we can make one : ) this is part of the reason I pm'd you in the first place when I saw some of your interest in the historical accuracy.  Unless we have very different end goals it might be "better" to make one super duper awesome mod   I have a lot of free time... but am a little nub with coding and  dont quite have the historical background.  Plus I was hoping for it to be more of a community effort.

 

1 hour ago, Outis said:

Me too. I would make this unit the same as cataphract with a longer range, heavier armor, and slower movement like in EA. To my knowledge, such two-handed lances are mostly combined with heavy rider and horse armor.

So we have multiple cavalry with small differences. I would implement the variations using the mixin templates, as this would streamline implementation.

I have gone back and fourth on this one, the benefit of using a mixin or another template.  We actually still use Cataphract mixin, on top of the lancer template.  For example, Companion Cavalry would be more of a lancer from what I have gather where as sele and even persia had lancers that were "cataphracts"

I personally think the citizen cav system needs a lot of work.  Especially if you see someone play sparta and they have 50 jav cav and 20 infantry skirmishers but only 2 hoplites.... doesn't really depict Sparta in an accurate way.   

 

1 hour ago, Outis said:

So we have:

Champion lancer

Citizen cavalry spear without shield

Citizen cavalry spear with shield

Also

Champion cavalry spear without shield?

Citizen cavalry spear with shield?

We currently have

CS cavalry spearman and cs cavalry spearman with shield.

Champ Cavalry Lancer, Champion cavalry spearman with shield.  

Then we have Cataphract mixin.  Although we only add it to 2 civs champion lancers... definitely dont think it would fit with CS.

[Emacz]

It's just chat gpt summary so not sure how accurate it is:

Companion cav: armed with the xyston (long thrusting spear).

Sele cataphract: Wielded a kontos, a two‑handed long lance.

So i guess in someways we are in accurate calling companion cavalry lancers... although they are still considered "Elite heavy cavalry" 
And here its even considered a 1 handed weapon, even though they still didnt use a shield... this is where it gets so "confusing" and tricky. How to differentiate each!

Feature	Companion Cavalry	Seleucid Cataphracts
Armor	Medium-heavy	Very heavy (rider + horse)
Weapon	Xyston (1‑handed)	Kontos (2‑handed)
Mobility	High	Low–medium
Shock power	Strong	Extremely strong
Tactical role	Breakthrough + maneuver	Frontal hammer
Best terrain	Open but flexible	Wide, flat plains

[Outis]

3 minutes ago, Emacz said:

Why make 2 almost identical mods when we can make one : )

I started mine mainly with some artwork. I plan to make it unbalanced by design for single player. I guess it is a relaxing hobby of sorts. But i will surely share any idea from my mod which may contribute . 

 

14 minutes ago, Emacz said:

I have gone back and fourth on this one, the benefit of using a mixin or another template

I am a sw project manager, i like to simplify and keep design modular where possible, hence the suggestion. What i like about mixins is: you can keep common/major unit types, so unit types appearing for most civs and are significantly different in templates, and add small differences in mixins. But this is just my preference.

 

17 minutes ago, Emacz said:

I personally think the citizen cav system needs a lot of work.  Especially if you see someone play sparta and they have 50 jav cav and 20 infantry skirmishers but only 2 hoplites.... doesn't really depict Sparta in an accurate way.   

I hear you. The game should aim to incentivize historically accurate armies, and small changes in top to reward insight. Ideas i have but havent put to test to see the effects:

1) keep citizen soldiers we want to incentivize as they are, and make the citizen soldiers we want to downprioritize another category like allies or dependents, which keep their stats and cost but lose resource gathering. In a sense, they are unprofessional soldiers we recruit only if we need them tactically. This may be a drastic change but i wanted to consider and try.

2) or introduce allies/dependents, keep their resource gathering, but put some kind of limit to their number based on a set ratio between number of allies/dependents allowed per citizen soldier. In fact, such a ratio-based limit can be introduced for mercenaries and champions as well, with some civs having a civ bonuses or techs relaxing the given ratios. For example Carthaginians being allowed more mercenaries than other civs. I know limits are not popular in the game but a Spartan army with no hoplites is a travesty...

3) the mildest approach would be to introduce unit-specific generic upgrades, and allow each civ to have only the upgrades of units we want to incentivize. So in your example, a Spartan player will have good hoplites but poor javelineers, so will build javelineers only when they are crucial tactically.