could you make a version of this but its just the javelin changes

Again, this mod is quite nice but I think that the changes that are made are more based on balancing the units as most as you can @Necrim, instead of taking into account all of the real life and historical data and trying to make the units as logical as they could.

Javelin throwers : To be quick, javelin = spear thrown with a strong force. This means: very high damage, very high armor penetration, good accuracy, low range (when I did javelin throwing at school even the big sport guy couldn't throw more than 50 meters with a fake spear) and most of all LOW AMMO. I mean can you imagine if it's possible that these guys could have a shield, a sword and 20 javelins on them ? Not very probable ain't it ? I think that javelin throwers should be divided into two categories : those which are more focused on close to medium ranged combat, and for decimating enemy troops which are engaged with your main infantry force, and some like peltasts, which have a little more focus on melee combat and have like 4 to 6 javelins to throw before fighting (a cheaper alternative to those barbarian infantry units who throw javelins while charging).

Since the slingers are just basically a mob with pieces of wood and stones that are made to kill another mob of peasants, some "elite slinger" units should be added, since they were also quite common at the time (for example Balearic slingers, extremely accurate and strong with a sling, were present in many armies).

Archers : These should have more armor penetration (we are talking about blades falling from the sky at 100 kph) but not too much or they'll outclass and outbalance the javelin throwers. Their damage should also be boosted a bit (again, blades falling from the sky), but the unit cost should in countermeasure be way higher (good arrows are quite expensive to make). The accuracy should also be increased a lot to balance the fact that it takes time to aim and load a bow. Again, elite bowmen (like the ones from Kush) should be added.

I think that some bonuses and balance changes need to be reworked a bit. I'll list all of my ideas for each main ranged class down below :

Slingers : I don't think that a stone would be able to completely pierce an armor and kill someone instantly, so the armor piercing bonus should be removed. However, these are extremely dangerous and deadly for lightly armored units, and so they should probably get a damage buff to counterbalance their low armor piercing. I also disapprove of the fact that their reload time was increased, since taking a stone from a pouch and launching it from a slingshot is extremely fast and easy to do (I even it experimented in my garden): instead of lowering the reload time it should be increased even further. The low accuracy is a good balancing measure though and I also think that their range should be a bit reduced to reflect the low power of a sling (in the case it is used by unexperienced "soldiers").

can you please update it to the latest version?

Sanmaya of course it does not mean automatically 175 meters its just so you have a visual idea of that range but still i do not dislike slingers at all but i dont like how they are overwhelming against archers. And i know it cant be balanced perfectly 100% but something like 200m for slingers and 275 for normal archers, 300 for longbow or recurve and 250 for composite bows.
Because your mod is still named "Ranged units more realistic" and that means all not just slingers :P

@cruze i have to think about the gamebalance. Also a range of 175 doe not nec mean a range of 175 meter. It's just range 175 something. Mayby 1 total war range is 2.2 meters :P

archer range is still 175 max.? british longbows shooting range was about 427 meters
so i guess the ancient normal bows recurve or even "ancient" longbow should be 200 min.
otherwise it would be unbalanced. and archers should get their 30 arrows every type like in Rome 1 which i think is more realistic than 15...
i mean come on you go to a big battle and giving your dudes just 15 arrows...

@Gustav, true, but compared to archers, they can carry more ammo (100) is realistic

Lead shots were indeed better then stones vs armor. But slingers using stones prob aimed for the non protected parts of the body. A stone hitting your head hard can mean death or an eye lost.

This may be true of slingers with lead shot, but then they don't exactly have infinite ammo do they? Lead shot is much more limited in supply, but much, MUCH more effective than stones. Stones would just bounce off armor. Lead has the mass and hardness to punch through. Stone is also less aerodynamic, meaning the drag of going through the air will stop them far sooner than a bow more often than not.

haha bedankt

Indeed, it was the problem.

Thanks for that mod! Vanilla ranged units feels so weak.

(Btw gruite uit Kleeve) :)

probably ;)

Well, I think the problem is one of my other mods (Battle animations overhauled [No battle overhaul]). Will test it

Ingame, it shows me still a range of 80, is it ment to be so?

@meatshield you are welcome!

Thanks for your work on this mod!

Peltast type troops were good for harrasing heavy infantry. The numerous thracian peltast mercenaries were the main reason for the decline of the classic hoplites in the post peloponesian wars and helenistic world. The archers were dangerous for any type of units on the battlefield. Higly skilled cretan archers were among the most well paid mercenaries, alongside the thracian ifantry, scythian horse archers and the phalangists from Macedonia and Epirus. And the slingers were mainly good for countering light infantry like peltasts, archers, stone hurlers, clubmen and other slingers. It was all like scissors, rock and paper game realy. But historian records shows times when slingers were prefered before the archers. Like Hannibal, he chosed to use balearic and other iberian slingers than archers and they outpayed themselves more than well, wrecking havok in the roman lines in more than one acasion.

@Deez, it's mentioned in ancient sources a couple of times, and used bullets of lead made the range even better.
Don't forget the arrow used in war a quite different then arrow used for archery sport like we know it now.

Slingers, in no way, had the best range in ancient history lol. You literally made that up

i'll look into it

Maybe you could reward some specific slinger types, like Balearic, Rhodian and some others with a better range and keep the generic ones at their Vanilla values. A sort of "elite" slinger class. And it would be awesome if kills from slingers (due by contusions) wouldn't spread blood, like it was but I fear it could be a very big job. Oh, sorry if I remind it, can you please remove the table lines you didn't update, so that your mod becomes compatible with others ? it would be nice

I have no elements for negating that Persian archers were unable to hit the enemy slingers or that the sling technique itself could throw projectiles farther than bows. The only implication that seems reasonable is that, starting from 9.000 BC, when the first ranged weapons were built, it always was a matter of individual skills because technology couldn't help much and probably good schools like Rhodos were able to keep their prestige over time but I wouldn't generalize, especially because, as you know, a good amount of just-trained slingers were filling land armies, for pure emergency reasons.

well, i'm not an engineer so i have to rely on ancient sources for this one. And why would slingers be used and be valued very high by some sources if the bow would been better on all front? So i think it's logic to assume the ancient sources are right when they say slingers had more range then most bow at that time

Sadly i'm not a history teacher but as a bad engineer I can provide sources (like this [www.bio.vu.nl]) that proofs in a mathemathical way that when Composite bows (more parts) that display great design and technological innovations are compared to very basic Self bows (one piece), they won't necessarily shoot an arrow farther or faster. This means that in 11.000 years of history there hasn't been any improvement in the development of bows that is not due the archer's skill and experience. A lot of people think that as most of weapons, bows have evolved over time but it's actually inaccurate.

the composite bow probably was, but most people didn't used those

A lot of people seem to think that bows were actually powerful 2,000--3,000 years ago.

all factions

well, historical sources say otherwise, si i think you got it wrong on this one. But if you got some proof i'm happy to look into it.

Do you make video's of your reenactement? Would love to see those!

Man, I'm in a reenactement group and see what this can do. I mean exact replicas. Yes, I know those historical statements but in real practice it's no way for a slinger to outmatch an archer. No way. I can't explain why.

While archers had clear advantages (shooting over their own troops, needing less space to shoot, doing more damage), the sling had it's advantages to; cheap and almost unlimited ammo (stones or lead bullets), cheap to produce and a longer range.


If you disagree with me, please bring some proof. If i'm wrong i'll correct it. As a history teacher i like things to be historical accurate.

compared to the bows they normally used in that time yes, Mayby except composite bows who would have about equal range. The stafsling probably outranged even those bows.
Accounts from all over history have said that the sling always out ranged the bow.

For example: the Cretan Archers, about the best archers in the world then, would be outranged bij rhodian slingers, about the best slingers then. Echols, "The Ancient Slinger," page 228

Xenophon mentioned that when his force being attacked by persian slingers, they outranged his cretan archers en peltast, so he couldn't protect his rear. His solution was to ask the rhodian men, who were able to sling (but were probably hoplites, wich was valued higher) to become slingers to protect his rear. With lead bullets they could outrange any persian slinger and archer, while his cretan archer couldn't.

How do you know ''Slingers had the best range in ancient history''; you're wrong, pal.