Slitherine

I'm no expert here, but isn't Numidian Cavalry usually regarded as better than other mounted skirmishers of the era?

In the game, they are always classed as Average like all the other Light Javelin Horse. Even at Cannae, where most of Hannibal's army is Superior (probably due to experience), the Numidians are still Average, even with the experience.

Am I just misinformed? Is it an oversight? What was the thought-process here?

fully agree. Numidians were feared, had huge impact on Punnic wars, and its a shame they are displayed so poorly. they were superior to other similar types of cavalry (tarentian)

JaM2013 wrote:fully agree. Numidians were feared, had huge impact on Punnic wars, and its a shame they are displayed so poorly. they were superior to other similar types of cavalry (tarentian)

Where is your evidence for that? They were effective in their skirmishing role, especially against Romans who had nothing similar. They were famous and in demand because of that.

They tend to be over-rated in other games because they were famous, but they don't need to be rated above Average to have their historical effect. (In fact they would actually be less cost-effective if costed as Superior).

Why were other units of skirmisher cavalry not hired as mercenaries at the time? According to the army lists (again, I'm no expert) the Spanish used a fair amount of them. Also the Romans had contact with some of these skirmishers due to the neighboring Greek colonies.

Cumandante wrote:Why were other units of skirmisher cavalry not hired as mercenaries at the time? According to the army lists (again, I'm no expert) the Spanish used a fair amount of them. Also the Romans had contact with some of these skirmishers due to the neighboring Greek colonies.

The Carthaginians also used Spanish light horse.

Are the Numidians famous simply because they were more numerous?

Cumandante wrote:Are the Numidians famous simply because they were more numerous?

They were certainly used in larger numbers because they were more numerous. They were successful and hence became famous. But their success is a factor of their role, and the fact that Hannibal made the best possible use of them fighting in that role, not because they were especially superior practitioners of that role.

Hannibal won his victories because he was a genius, not because his troops were superior. It is an insult to his genius to presume that because he used his troops successfully they must therefore be superior troops.

Other Carthaginian generals did much worse with them, and they weren't great when fighting on their own account either. As Sallust says in more than one place in his history of the Jugurthine War, "Jugurtha had everything in his favour except the quality of his troops".

Anyway, you can have them as superior in the game if you want simply by playing a campaign, by the end of which they might even be elite.

Cumandante wrote:Are the Numidians famous simply because they were more numerous?

I can't speak to the numbers of Numidians specifically, but because of the terrain of North Africa there is a long history of armies composed almost entirely of cavalry, which in turn entails a lot more cavalry must have been available as a fraction of possible military men. Likewise, it's much easier to find cavalry in Central Asia than basically anywhere in the world all the way into the early twentieth century.

lets not forget that a lot of historians consider Scipio becoming friend with Massinisa as the key for Roman victory in second Punic war.. and a lot of contemporary sources claimed them to be the best light cavalry of ancient era.. they were superior to tarentians and italians fighting in the same style.

JaM2013 wrote:lets not forget that a lot of historians consider Scipio becoming friend with Massinisa as the key for Roman victory in second Punic war..

Because it denied Hannibal cavalry superiority at the battle of Zama, not because Numidians were super-troops.

rbodleyscott wrote:

JaM2013 wrote:lets not forget that a lot of historians consider Scipio becoming friend with Massinisa as the key for Roman victory in second Punic war..

Because it denied Hannibal cavalry superiority at the battle of Zama, not because Numidians were super-troops.

nobody is saying they were super troops... but they were best light cavalry of the ancient era... LIGHT CAVALRY

rbodleyscott wrote:Hannibal won his victories because he was a genius, not because his troops were superior. It is an insult to his genius to presume that because he used his troops successfully they must therefore be superior troops.

Nah, Hannibal was just lucky.

rbodleyscott wrote:Anyway, you can have them as superior in the game if you want simply by playing a campaign, by the end of which they might even be elite.

This bothers me a little bit. As the campaign progresses my units become better and better, which is of course expected. But I don't like relying on superior troops to win. It's much more satisfying to win by outsmarting the opponent than just by brute-forcing my way through their units.

JaM2013 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

JaM2013 wrote:lets not forget that a lot of historians consider Scipio becoming friend with Massinisa as the key for Roman victory in second Punic war..

Because it denied Hannibal cavalry superiority at the battle of Zama, not because Numidians were super-troops.

nobody is saying they were super troops... but they were best light cavalry of the ancient era... LIGHT CAVALRY

It might be fairer to say light javelin horse, since it most unlikely that they were superior to Skyths, Alans or Huns.

Cumandante wrote:This bothers me a little bit. As the campaign progresses my units become better and better, which is of course expected. But I don't like relying on superior troops to win. It's much more satisfying to win by outsmarting the opponent than just by brute-forcing my way through their units.

Precisely, which is why Numidians are rated as Average in the game. They don't need to be rated Superior to effectively perform as they did historically. Superior is overkill for their role - and has to be paid for in points.

Jughurta lost the war because he did not have good infantry.. Romans sieged his bases, took land from him.. all he could do was hit and run tactics which actually lasted for quite some time.. he even managed to deal nasty hits on Roman army few times. Ancient historians describe Numidians as expert horsemen, who can control the horse like no other, being able to run fast, change direction in a whim, lure enemy into traps, then surround them and wipe them out.. nothing of this sort was ever written about Tarentians who were quite popular, but not exceptional in any way.

It might be fairer to say light javelin horse, since it most unlikely that they were superior to Skyths, Alans or Huns.

different area of the world or even different era...

Feel free to mod them any way you want.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Cumandante wrote:This bothers me a little bit. As the campaign progresses my units become better and better, which is of course expected. But I don't like relying on superior troops to win. It's much more satisfying to win by outsmarting the opponent than just by brute-forcing my way through their units.

Precisely, which is why Numidians are rated as Average in the game. They don't need to be rated Superior to effectively perform as they did historically. Superior is overkill for their role - and has to be paid for in points.

there are other ways how to make them "special" than just experience or elan.. they could have for example +1-2AP bonus because of their nimbleness.. but for that, they would have to be represented by unique unit

Most nomadic horsemen would be considered expert horsemen by the standards of settled people. I'm sure that Numidians were life long riders and experienced in cavalry warfare. So were almost every single group of nomadic people from Mongolia to Morocco. Being expert horsemen is not exceptional for them, it's normal, and does not indicate military capacity greater than average.

Bugger all need to make them special in the game in order to get the right historical effect.

Cheimison wrote:Most nomadic horsemen would be considered expert horsemen by the standards of settled people. I'm sure that Numidians were life long riders and experienced in cavalry warfare. So were almost every single group of nomadic people from Mongolia to Morocco. Being expert horsemen is not exceptional for them, it's normal, and does not indicate military capacity greater than average.

That would be true if all Light Javelin Horse in the game were from nomadic peoples. There are many from settled nations as well.

Now, we can represent nomads' superiority in this role by making them more numerous, while keeping their quality Average. That is apparently how the developers went about it, and of course the accuracy of this approach is subjective.
But Light Horse, while mostly from nomadic factions, are not exclusively available to them.