Slingers vs Javelinmen

[JaM2013]

btw, just to get some idea how effective Mail was back then, here is one interesting video for you - guy in that video is using Mail with all solid rings, while Lorica Hamata was made of solid and riveted rings, anyway difference would not be that big:




here is one with shield + armor vs Pilum both light and heavy (this time just butted mail which is unhistorical and easy to defeat):

[edb1815]

Javelins have a +POA in impact for the javelins whereas slingers and bowmen do not, hence they are at an advantage in first round of combat. Maybe this has been changed in the new version but that's the way it was in tabletop FOG.

Also my point is that most skirmishing missile troops (LI ) javelins, slingers or bows are not massed formations like English longbowmen so in the context of large heavy infantry formations they are not doing any significant damage - more of a nuisance effect slowing down movement, disruption, running down routed troops, etc.

[JaM2013]

If I recall it right, only heavy infantry has +POA due to heavy javelins being used at the charge, not the skirmisher javelins. Personally, i think light javelins would deserve at least 20-25 POA bonus vs infantry considering their a lot higher lethality and penetration power.

[hjc]

I'm following this discussion with interest. I have been hit by slingshot plenty of times, and once by a javelin (long story).

Regarding the mail, it is very protective. But - I learned swordcraft (not fencing) and I knew and sometimes took part in a group of re-enactors who made their own mail and swords. A swung sword hitting mail will not penetrate - but I can assure you that it still really hurts and can crack ribs or break bones. I don't believe mail was commonly worn over legs, and while having your leg chopped may not kill you (immediately) it would take you out of the fight.

As far as the game goes I've found javelinmen to be useful. It might not seem much but the softening up they do on units can be an advantage later on, if a unit is already depleted they're going to be easier to overcome. I was surprised by how damaging e.g. Balearic slingers are - but having used musket balls in slingshots when hunting, I know they are deadly.

[JaM2013]

question to devs - aren't Velites supposed to be equipped with swords? why do they have light spear in their stats?

[rbodleyscott]

question to devs - aren't Velites supposed to be equipped with swords? why do they have light spear in their stats?

They are classified the same as in the tabletop game, where we ultimately decided not to give them swordsmen capability. (Note that not giving them swordsmen capability does not mean they don't have swords). They do however count Protected. No doubt you will tell me I am wrong, but in practice they do not seem to have generally dominated the Carthaginian skirmishers.

[JaM2013]

yeah, of course they didnt, they came quite late for the party as first mention of them is from siege of Capua in 211BC.. They were later trained to cooperate with Equites and ride on the horseback (each equite would carry one velite). They actually struggled againts Iberian Caetrati a bit, which forced change of tactics for them, but were finally disbanded after war with Jughurta when lack of manpower forced Romans to accept any citizen directly to heavy infantry.

Against Carthaginians they actually fought well, Scipio Africanus tasked them with engaging Carthaginian elephants at Zama, which they did quite well.
You probably mistaken them for Rorarii, the predecessor of Velites, which got effectively replaced by them, yet those did not carry a sword and fought (in melee, it they had to) as light spearmen.

[rbodleyscott]

yeah, of course they didnt, they came quite late for the party as first mention of them is from siege of Capua in 211BC.. They were later trained to cooperate with Equites and ride on the horseback (each equite would carry one velite). They actually struggled againts Iberian Caetrati a bit, which forced change of tactics for them, but were finally disbanded after war with Jughurta when lack of manpower forced Romans to accept any citizen directly to heavy infantry.

Against Carthaginians they actually fought well, Scipio Africanus tasked them with engaging Carthaginian elephants at Zama, which they did quite well.
You probably mistaken them for Rorarii, the predecessor of Velites, which got effectively replaced by them, yet those did not carry a sword and fought (in melee, it they had to) as light spearmen.

Please don't patronise me. Of course I am aware of the history of Roman light infantry. I have been studying Ancient Warfare for 46 years.

99% of the "defects" you have found in the game are conscious design decisions, not oversights or ignorance. As I have said before, this is a "top down" design, not a "bottom up" design. It's a different design philosophy, but after playing tabletop miniatures Ancients wargames for 46 years and writing rules for them for 25, I am convinced that "top down" produces better overall results than "bottom up".

Light Spear capability is what Javelins count as in impact phase, it does not mean they are fighting with spears.

As I said before, the use of swords does not automatically qualify troops to have Swordsmen capability. In the case of light foot versus light foot it would give Velites too much advantage compared with their historical performance, and against heavy troops it would do them little good.

[nikgaukroger]

y
You probably mistaken them for Rorarii, the predecessor of Velites, which got effectively replaced by them, yet those did not carry a sword and fought (in melee, it they had to) as light spearmen.

As I was involved with the lists for the table-top FoG I can say with some assurance that there was no mistaken identity between velites and the leves/roarii that preceded them.

In the table-top game if you are LF (or LH) and have Javelins capability you get Light Spear with it as part of the way the rules were written - so the legionary skirmishers of whatever date got both if they had javelins. Velites were given the Protected option to reflect their better capabilities compared to the earlier versions - it was, on balance, decided to be a better way of doing it within the overall game than giving them Swordsmen capability (which was discussed). As ever this came from looking at the troop behavior from a top-down perspective in order to get the overall army behaviour right (as the authors perceived it), and game feel (not too much LF on LF action but encourage the main event) rather than a bottom-up equipment based approach.

[nikgaukroger]

As I said before, the use of swords does not automatically qualify troops to have Swordsmen capability. In the case of light foot versus light foot it would give Velites too much advantage compared with their historical performance, and against heavy troops it would do them little good.

And if you follow some of the tabletop army lists a lack of swords does not mean you cannot have the Swordsmen capability

[rbodleyscott]

As I said before, the use of swords does not automatically qualify troops to have Swordsmen capability. In the case of light foot versus light foot it would give Velites too much advantage compared with their historical performance, and against heavy troops it would do them little good.

And if you follow some of the tabletop army lists a lack of swords does not mean you cannot have the Swordsmen capability

Don't sweat this, I think Nik is referring to some native South, Central and North American armies, armed with weapons that can only by a stretch of generosity be regarded as equivalent to swords.

[JaM2013]

I'm ok with your top-down design approach (and im not patronizing you, i was just replying in same style to your previous post where you assumed i will disagree), anyway certain units just don't fit in as I pointed out in my first post.. current design doesn't take into account unit posture vs ranged attack, and there is no difference for ranged weapons in their armor piercing ability which had big impact on tactical use on the battlefield, while some just dont make sense (Slingers doing a lot more damage than javelinmen)

and just FYI, i tried to give Velites swordsmen ability, and it did not make them too strong when facing other skirmishers. effect of it was quite minuscule actually (3 velites in the open attacking the single light javelinmen form the front, not able to break it for 3 turns..), considering how big difference it would make for a guy with shield (helmet) and sword facing a guy with no shield and mostly just a dagger to defend himself.. anyway i wont press you on this anymore, i will just mod the game instead.

[JorgenCAB]

A game or simulation can't just take one consideration of the total effectiveness of a weapon or type of troop. The comparison with a Javelin or Sling as one weapon one shot are in my opinion totally irrelevant. A sling will have considerable more ammunition and shoot many many more times than a guy throwing javelins. On average in a unit more people would be able to use their slings in any given moment than a unit armed with javelins. Javelins will obviously be more dangerous to armoured targets while sling way more dangerous to unarmoured targets. Given that most troops in ancient times had little to no armour then Slingers was rather effective, they would not have used them otherwise.

Javine armed troops, especially the protected kind was very useful in other duties beside that of the battlefield role. The main role of skirmishers where usually that of before a battle anyway and that is not really depicted in the game either, which is one very important reason armies used them, as well as light horse units. Omitting these units from any battle would just be unhistorical for that reason alone. How many times was not the Roman army defeated becasue they ignored scouting properly in earlier times?

The role of skirmisher on the actual battlefield were generally rather circumstantial and for the most part very limited. Very few battle ever mention skirmishing forces being instrumental in the outcome and as such most likely not having a great impact. The reason skirmisher were on the field were often becasue they had them not becasue they were super effective during the actual battle. There role was an important one just not once the actual battle started.

All in all I think they have a relatively good use in the game and seem appropriately designed for the general role they play. I use slingers mainly to harass enemy formed troops and javelineers to drive of enemy slingers and archers or to sit in rough terrain and block it for as long as possible if I don't have medium foot to do that job.

Archers were probably the light foot unit with the most impact on an actual battle.

I think people sometimes get so caught in what is effective once a battle actually occur (points wise) they don't even stop to think that 99% of ancient warfare are what happens BEFORE any actual open battle which will heavily influence the different compositions. As soon as you introduce a point system that ONLY concentrate on in battle balance you will find people fielding armies that are not historically plausible and you sometimes have to make certain units more effective so they are used as they were historically. Take horse archers as one example, they were many times more effective before battle than actually on it.. harassing an enemy, keeping them from foraging and simply utilizing attrition warfare. IN games we usually have to increase their efficiency so people use them.

If I designed a game like these I would force selection of troops in a less free way... forcing some types to be deployed if you select certain troops types etc. Have the armies more dynamic and historically accurate. I would then try to make the units more historically accurate. Skirmishers in the game can often feel a bit ping pong in design which I don't think are that historically accurate. Light troops were often caught in battle with formed troops even horse archers. In the Parthian wars Roman soldier repeatedly caught light horse archers in melee as one example. It was not uncommon for horse archers to actually dismount to fire their bows more accurately.

All in all I think skirmishers are fine in the game even though I think they are too hard to catch by formed troops. Even if they were not dragged into full melee it was not very uncommon for them to retreat and never take part in a battle again after suffering some losses in a charge from formed troops. Most skirmishing troops were not of the sturdiest types of soldiers and was not expected to stand and fight either.

[JaM2013]

Take a unit of Slingers, and unit of javelinmen in FoG2. Then try to shoot at Roman Legionaries from the front. Slingers will deal more damage than Javelinmen. In reality, Roman Legionary with his big Scutum shield, and helmet would be practically invulnerable to any frontal hits from slingers. chance to score casualties would be extremely small and completely dependent on random hits on unprotected/unarmored areas. With javelins and their penetrative power, you would get a lot more penetrated shields, no armor would be able shrug it off - so even with 10x less javelins used, you would produce a lot higher casualty rates to heavy infantry. No other ranged weapon could do that - that was just main fact why javelin was used in that time period..
Right now in game, there is no difference in penetrative power of javelin, sling or arrow.. all use same formula, yet javelins get penalized as not all men are considered to be throwing their javelins per attack. So effectively, you end up with Javelinmen unit, that is the worst ranged unit in the game because of shortest range and weakest effect on target...

I tried to give gameplay arguments, i tried to give historical arguments or arguments based on actual weapon tests.. No matter what the design philosophy is with this game, truth is, Javelinmen are badly portrayed, as they got all penalties and no bonuses.. There is no point using them, if you have access to archers or slingers as those would be way more effective in the same job. Their only "benefit" is their availability

[rbodleyscott]

Their only "benefit" is their availability

Well at least we got that right

[stockwellpete]

I went to the Battle of Hastings re-enactment last Saturday and got talking to a Norman soldier in their camp afterwards. He gave me his long chainmail coat to hold and he said that it weighed 20 kilos. Anyway . . . carry on.

[JaM2013]

Roman Lorica Hamata was 10-15kg, based on type. some were shorter, some longer. some were made in shape of tunic.. Mail was actually quite long lasting, some early medieval period pieces were actually made out of former Roman Hamata.. One of the most recent discovery of Lorica Hamata came for example from Denmark.. quality wise, Roman Lorica Hamata was extremely dense mail, with very high protective abilities.. pure medieval pieces were exchanged density for area, so while being longer and had sleeves, were not as thick/dense. Majority of reenactors use very cheap butted mail replicas that look nothing like actual Roman mail btw..

Well at least we got that right

Actually, what you are missing are specialist troops equipped with javelins. You have Cretan archers and Balearic Slingers, but no Numidian or Iberian javelinmen are present.. default light javelinmen unit doesn't have experience or elan equivalent to those two..

[stockwellpete]

Majority of reenactors use very cheap butted mail replicas that look nothing like actual Roman mail btw..

He showed me two types of mail, one was riveted, the other wasn't. I don't know much about it to say what type it was. He also showed me a helmet with a mailed aventail.

[JaM2013]

here is how Hamata looked like actually





its piece of mail found at Arbeia, its way denser than anything what was used in medieval period.

[GiveWarAchance]

.