-
BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Greetings fellow EB'ers! I've uploaded my updated edu, projectiles folder, and change log below. Feedback appreciated and desirable!
Please note: Change log is not 100% up to date. Some edits are there that are not accounted for. Also note, the change log does not show all the stamina changes, etc. Also the ownership in the edu is all messy because it is currently in use for my SP campaign.
Changelog: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?zpooyeq39v3n8w2
Updated edu: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?1776tx2jq88d772
Updated projectiles: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?iga1sr1uxngswpi
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
Good job :2thumbsup: , I especially like the bringing back of AP kopis. I think it adds more use of tactics in the game, should i use AP kopis or Hard-hitting Longsword, etc.
I also thought that giving poor morale to heavy units was a nice touch. Hopefully we can see some clear distinctions in stamina between light and heavy units, because right now, no one cares if his heavies are exhausted, as long as they got that armor on'em ^^ .
Generals should have to be careful where they commit their men, and for how long. The Roman tactic of attack then retreat-to-rest- should be an observably effective strategy to use.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Just two quick things for now:
1) "37. Sotaroas: -5 base men, -70 cost Too much Celtic archer spam, really ahistorical"
I really wonder about this, because I have never seen any Celtic archer spam. The reason why Celts bring more archers than is historical is the same reason why all western factions bring too many archers in general. In RTW, archers simply don't work the same way as they did historically. Nerfing them specifically for the Celts and Germanics for that reason is just unfair.
Oh! I almost forgot. Why wouldn't you make them (and the Germanic archers) into spearmen-with-bows like you did with eastern archer-spearmen?
2) "151. Cohortes Evocata: +1 shield Roman scutum covers more of the body than a theuros. Also units have relatively
low defense skill values for sword units. I think the +1 shield is appropriate."
The Cohortes Evocata are already OP as they are, giving them a free +1 shield defence is absolutely unthinkable. As for their "low defence skill", they've got more than Neitos and the same as Arjos...
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Celtic Viking
Just two quick things for now:
1) "37. Sotaroas: -5 base men, -70 cost Too much Celtic archer spam, really ahistorical"
I really wonder about this, because I have never seen any Celtic archer spam. The reason why Celts bring more archers than is historical is the same reason why all western factions bring too many archers in general. In RTW, archers simply don't work the same way as they did historically. Nerfing them specifically for the Celts and Germanics for that reason is just unfair.
Oh! I almost forgot. Why wouldn't you make them (and the Germanic archers) into spearmen-with-bows like you did with eastern archer-spearmen?
2) "151. Cohortes Evocata: +1 shield Roman scutum covers more of the body than a theuros. Also units have relatively
low defense skill values for sword units. I think the +1 shield is appropriate."
The Cohortes Evocata are already OP as they are, giving them a free +1 shield defence is absolutely unthinkable. As for their "low defence skill", they've got more than Neitos and the same as Arjos...
It seemed wrong to me that Celtic/Germanic archer units had more men per unit than steppe foot units. Also the ranged advantage of many eastern factions was diluted by the fact that 90 man Celtic archer units could absorb the majority of their arrows. It may be a good idea to give them fewer arrows and stronger melee capabilities akin to the eastern archer-spearmen units though. This is definitely something that I would consider and, dare I say, lean towards. Maybe 12-15 arrows with 8-9 morale and better melee stats? That way they wouldn't have to suffer through a price bump and would still be able to fight off some weakened or tired light cavalry units.
As for the Cohortes Evocata, you are really pointing out the only Roman infantry unit I would consider overpowered for their price. The Roman scutum having a smaller value than the aspis is something I think of as an oversight rather than a price point issue. Also, they are in the tier which I would consider veteran heavy infantry, where they have little company, possibly only the Iberian Assaults. Shortsword units in general have higher defense skills than longsword units, as well they should considering the gladius is a quicker weapon that leaves the user exposed far less than a longsword when used intelligently in tandem with a larger shield, as a highly trained and veteran unit such as Evocata would be wont to use them. I should also point out that for pure gameplay reasons, the Evocata unit is one of the only advantages the post-Marian era gives to a Roman player. That all being said, I would agree with a small bump to cost for the +1 shield value, perhaps +50 or so since this was already an effective unit. My reasoning was meant more for most other Roman infantry units, it just so happened that I typed the reasoning in for the lone Roman infantry unit that had a very high defense skill:wall:.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
It seemed wrong to me that Celtic/Germanic archer units had more men per unit than steppe foot units. Also the ranged advantage of many eastern factions was diluted by the fact that 90 man Celtic archer units could absorb the majority of their arrows.
A steppe player who's an ounce smarter than the AI will still win 100% of the times against Celts or Germanics anyway; it certainly won't come down to the awesome effectiveness of the mighty sotaroas. ~;p
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
It may be a good idea to give them fewer arrows and stronger melee capabilities akin to the eastern archer-spearmen units though. This is definitely something that I would consider and, dare I say, lean towards. Maybe 12-15 arrows with 8-9 morale and better melee stats? That way they wouldn't have to suffer through a price bump and would still be able to fight off some weakened or tired light cavalry units.
Make that 10 morale (+4 like you did with the Arabs) and that change (with none else) would be fine by me
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
As for the Cohortes Evocata, you are really pointing out the only Roman infantry unit I would consider overpowered for their price.
I agree. Still OP, though. ~;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
The Roman scutum having a smaller value than the aspis is something I think of as an oversight rather than a price point issue.
No, I think that's rather because the highest shield value given out in vanilla EB stats is 4, with 5 reserved for phalangites (which is gone in gamegeek's EDU). The reason why you see the aspis with 5 is because it's carried by shieldwall units, who got +1 shield value but -1 def skill to compensate. He has also given light infantry units +1 shield which is why you can see such oddities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
Also, they are in the tier which I would consider veteran heavy infantry, where they have little company, possibly only the Iberian Assaults. Shortsword units in general have higher defense skills than longsword units, as well they should considering the gladius is a quicker weapon that leaves the user exposed far less than a longsword when used intelligently in tandem with a larger shield, as a highly trained and veteran unit such as Evocata would be wont to use them. I should also point out that for pure gameplay reasons, the Evocata unit is one of the only advantages the post-Marian era gives to a Roman player. That all being said, I would agree with a small bump to cost for the +1 shield value, perhaps +50 or so since this was already an effective unit. My reasoning was meant more for most other Roman infantry units, it just so happened that I typed the reasoning in for the lone Roman infantry unit that had a very high defense skill:wall:.
I see. Still, defence skill also includes things like dodging, which a big, cumbersome shield and heavy armour doesn't allow for as much as, say, a Bagaudas could. I don't think there was anything wrong with its def skill as it was.
As for your point about them being "one of the only advantages", well, yeah... but that's like saying, regarding ice hockey, "the only advantage with a powerplay is that you outnumber the opponent". You get cheap, massed heavily armoured infantry, good quality cavalry, you've still got good mercenary archers and the extra merc slots to slip them in... how many advantages do you need? If what you mean is that the better-quality-lesser-numbers modification makes Marian infantry inferior compared to imperials (something I disagree with), then it would be much better to go back to how it was before we made that change. It's better that we recognize that a flavour change failed and trash it than perpetually improve the Romans because one of their gazillion reforms turns out superior to the rest...
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
I'll agree on this. The general increase to good stamina for all heavy infantry is really what hurt the Romans most. Prior to that, it was really only elites, Roman legionary units, and a select other few heavy infantries that had good stamina. I suppose in that sense the stamina edits help them more since I've reverted to those stats. That being said, most Roman infantry only has +1 defense skill over hoplite units which means they were equal prior to the shieldwall bonus. True the scutum is cumbersome, but to only have a +1 value over a buckler is silly, is it not? Its very nearly a full body shield, exposing the shins and head only. Plus, armor values on legions really aren't that high. Compare with Theurophoroi for example. The +2 for a pair of greaves more than makes up for the fact that chain mail is rated higher than linothorax. Romans do get good auxiliaries but to compare Roman native heavy infantry currently with Gallic, Iberian, Carthaginian, or Hellenic and you will find the Roman units wanting. I found it odd that Roman cavalry was actually more effective cost-wise than Roman infantry, something that I wanted to change by pricing the cav up slightly (along with a small morale plus) and making the infantry a little better.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
I'll agree on this. The general increase to good stamina for all heavy infantry is really what hurt the Romans most. Prior to that, it was really only elites, Roman legionary units, and a select other few heavy infantries that had good stamina. I suppose in that sense the stamina edits help them more since I've reverted to those stats. That being said, most Roman infantry only has +1 defense skill over hoplite units which means they were equal prior to the shieldwall bonus. True the scutum is cumbersome, but to only have a +1 value over a buckler is silly, is it not? Its very nearly a full body shield, exposing the shins and head only. Plus, armor values on legions really aren't that high. Compare with Theurophoroi for example. The +2 for a pair of greaves more than makes up for the fact that chain mail is rated higher than linothorax. Romans do get good auxiliaries but to compare Roman native heavy infantry currently with Gallic, Iberian, Carthaginian, or Hellenic and you will find the Roman units wanting. I found it odd that Roman cavalry was actually more effective cost-wise than Roman infantry, something that I wanted to change by pricing the cav up slightly (along with a small morale plus) and making the infantry a little better.
What unit are you looking at to say it's only 1 more than a buckler? Remember now that light units got a +1 shield, so if you're looking at Bagaudas, their buckler shield value is actually only 2 even though their shield stat is 3. It was an earlier attempt at making light infantry less useless.
As for the greaves on a Thureophoroi giving them the same armour value as Marians, that's true, but the reasoning being that the legs are more exposed than the chest area due to the shield, as I'm sure you know. This is of course a bit wonky as armour value protects from the back as well, which the greaves do not. Is it possible to put the greaves value on the shield instead, so it works from the front (+1 side) and vs missiles, but not from behind? I don't know, just something that struck me right now. The downside of that would be a less straight-forward stat system, of course, and possibly better defence vs missiles than they should have (from front and/or shield side at least) due to shield-value doubling... Just an un-thought-through idea, 's'all.
That non-Roman heavy infantry is better quality-wise is not wrong either... it's as it should be. They *should* be inferior to Gallic heavy infantry like Neitos, Arjos etc. What they've got is numbers and cost, which means that they can bring twice as many Cohortes Reformata/Imperatora as you can any of those even though they - the cohorts - still have more men individually as well. They were kind of the USSR of antiquity that way...
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Celtic Viking
What unit are you looking at to say it's only 1 more than a buckler? Remember now that light units got a +1 shield, so if you're looking at Bagaudas, their buckler shield value is actually only 2 even though their shield stat is 3. It was an earlier attempt at making light infantry less useless.
As for the greaves on a Thureophoroi giving them the same armour value as Marians, that's true, but the reasoning being that the legs are more exposed than the chest area due to the shield, as I'm sure you know. This is of course a bit wonky as armour value protects from the back as well, which the greaves do not. Is it possible to put the greaves value on the shield instead, so it works from the front (+1 side) and vs missiles, but not from behind? I don't know, just something that struck me right now. The downside of that would be a less straight-forward stat system, of course, and possibly better defence vs missiles than they should have (from front and/or shield side at least) due to shield-value doubling... Just an un-thought-through idea, 's'all.
That non-Roman heavy infantry is better quality-wise is not wrong either... it's as it should be. They *should* be inferior to Gallic heavy infantry like Neitos, Arjos etc. What they've got is numbers and cost, which means that they can bring twice as many Cohortes Reformata/Imperatora as you can any of those even though they - the cohorts - still have more men individually as well. They were kind of the USSR of antiquity that way...
Well its not only light infantry with bucklers that received a +1, all units with bucklers have a 3 shield, including heavy cavalry, so essentially, the buckler has a 3 value like it or not.:clown:
My idea for greaves was to give a +1 armor for the lead greave and nothing for the rear with a very small price decrease to compensate. The rear leg would be difficult to hit with a man standing at the ready anyway.
On the topic of the Roman infantry, it is difficult to consider them as proper heavy infantry which is why I raised the Thureophoroi comparison. They and legionaries have the same armor value and the same shield. I don't consider Romans to be medium infantry, but I certainly think that of Thureos. Its really the morale that makes Roman units better but morale doesn't actually affect fighting ability in a vacuum and even the largest Rome-hater couldn't argue that they shouldn't be substantially better than Thureos man for man. I wouldn't mind higher priced legion units that were better (though not as good as Neitos, Thorakitai, etc.), that way Romans couldn't afford as many high priced auxiliaries or less cavalry either of which would be a beneficial outcome in my opinion.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
I just checked for sure, and while you're mostly correct, there are exceptions. Slingers with bucklers have only 1 shield value, Northern Iberian Skirmishers have only 2, Cantabrian Cav 2 as well, just like phalanxes... I don't know, it's weird. I'd like to hear GG2's explanation, but the weirdness is really on the buckler side.
Only one greave gives an armour bonus already anyway; see Polybian Principes for instance. You can of course argue to cut the armour bonus in half, something I don't necessarily disagree with.
It's morale and numbers, and to be fair, the Thureophoroi description does call them heavy infantry. They should still lose in a 1-on-1 situation due to numbers and morale, and I think the biggest problem really is the spear's lethality is now higher than the shortsword (it used to be the same). I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions, though.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Celtic Viking
I just checked for sure, and while you're mostly correct, there are exceptions. Slingers with bucklers have only 1 shield value, Northern Iberian Skirmishers have only 2, Cantabrian Cav 2 as well, just like phalanxes... I don't know, it's weird. I'd like to hear GG2's explanation, but the weirdness is really on the buckler side.
The exceptions I've noted (and remember) so far in my edu'ing: Cantabrian Cav with 2, Iberian Light Cav with 2, Northern Iberian Skirms with 2, Iovaman with a 1 (poor Iberians can't catch a break against archers), Garamantene Infantry with a 2, all phalangite units with a 2, and all slinger/archer units with a 1 except for Theurophorantes Toxotai who have a 2. The logic for slingers and archers with smaller values (and I've discussed this with GG2) is that when firing a bow or a sling, the shield is not in an advantageous position to deflect or absorb missiles. Also, these shields are often strapped to the arm and would be more difficult to use than one freely about in the hand, similar to the shields used by phalangites. I've considered the above units (not counting the slingers/archers and phalangites) oversights to the rules rather than exceptions considering they are likely less than 5% of all buckler using units in game.
I won't comment too further on the Theuro/Legion comparison only to say that Theurophoroi's historical description is as a flanking unit, one whose role was somewhere between Peltast and line infantry. I believe me and GG2 have discussed that the in game models for both Theuros and Peltasts depict the higher-end armor that either of those would be wearing and as such, we statted accordingly (though its fair to mention that the Epeirote Theuro wears no greaves).
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Yeah, I understood the archer/slinger side, but the description of the Thureophoroi has them as between peltastai and phalangites, which isn't exactly the same as line infantry, and that their usage was contested. With the latter in your army too it shouldn't be surprising that the Thureophoroi would be flanking units either. That is not to say a thing about their armour and armament or how those should be statted for anyway, which is what you will have to argue about.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
At this point the EDU is really too discombobulated for me to even want to work on it further, though I don't mind answering individual questions. If I am going to work on it further, I'm just going to revamp the whole thing and replace it with the EBNOM system, which has gotten generally positive reviews and is more flexible in that it offers a greater number of "tier" options.
I still have no idea how you folks expect a forward-curved sword to do a large amount of blunt damage while being a fair bit less effective than a standard sword against unarmored troops. I can see this logic for a mace and even for an axe, but not a kopis.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Then we must bash someone wearing a suit of mail with a Kopis, volunteers ?
And on the shield thing, I personally think it is ridiculous to have +1 difference between a thureos and a scutum , both are roughly the same size, would be of same quality, and any difference would really be negligable in an actual battle, since individual armaments are the least decisive factore, in my opinion we should standardize shield values .
5 for Spara or whoever has doors for a shield , with a decreas in defense skill
4 for Roman shields/aspis/thureos/scutum
2 or 3 for bucklers and smaller stuff with an increase in defense skill .
Just throwing it out there .
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gamegeek2
At this point the EDU is really too discombobulated for me to even want to work on it further, though I don't mind answering individual questions. If I am going to work on it further, I'm just going to revamp the whole thing and replace it with the EBNOM system, which has gotten generally positive reviews and is more flexible in that it offers a greater number of "tier" options.
I still have no idea how you folks expect a forward-curved sword to do a large amount of blunt damage while being a fair bit less effective than a standard sword against unarmored troops. I can see this logic for a mace and even for an axe, but not a kopis.
I just hope we got some faster horses, and some noticeable differences when a unit is fresh or exhausted.:2thumbsup:
I can probably guess the edu doesn't deal with those things, So migrating to EBNOM would be the best option, i think.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lazy O
Then we must bash someone wearing a suit of mail with a Kopis, volunteers ?
And on the shield thing, I personally think it is ridiculous to have +1 difference between a thureos and a scutum , both are roughly the same size, would be of same quality, and any difference would really be negligable in an actual battle, since individual armaments are the least decisive factore, in my opinion we should standardize shield values .
5 for Spara or whoever has doors for a shield , with a decreas in defense skill
4 for Roman shields/aspis/thureos/scutum
2 or 3 for bucklers and smaller stuff with an increase in defense skill .
Just throwing it out there .
This post has my full support, though I still think they were OP before they lost the AP trait (though afterwards they became UP). The falcata may be too, but you don't see those too often so it's harder to judge based on experience (though going by the Iberian Assaults they are massively OP ~;)). Lonchophoroi cav used to be the real deal only because of that kopis - now the only reason to take those would be if you don't want to spend merc slots on Brihentin and really want some medium-to-heavy cav with shields. I can't even remember seeing them since the kopis lost AP, but perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me... and I wouldn't put that past him. My memory is a sneaky bastard. In any case, there's no use for them now. See -
Koinon Hellenon - has Brihentin and not much use for their merc spots (partly because they don't have a lot of mercs to begin with, partly because the mercs they do have can more often than not be easily replaced with factionals). Brihentin has better defence, better secondary, has an officer and is (insignificantly) cheaper. >3 charge value IMO.
Pontos - Scythian Nobles are literally better or equal in every way with with no detriments, while still somehow being 300 mnai cheaper. Seriously. The scythians have the same lance attack, same charge value, same lance lethality, same number of men, both hardy, better charge with secondary, better lethality with secondary, same attack with secondary, same armour and def skill but +1 shield, both have 13 morale and are disciplined... Lonchophoroi are for chumps!
Arche Seleukeia - Khuveshavagan cav are much better for only ~70 mnai more. Pass.
Ptolemaioi - Agema Klerouchon are much better and cheaper... maybe, maybe if you really want a shield on your cav? But otherwise no.
Epeiros - Here they might be useful, actually... but I would probably rather take Prodromoi and spend the remaining 300 mnai elsewhere. Epeiros still suck and no one plays as them anyway. :laugh4:
Makedonia - Same as Epeiros.
Don't know if all of that can be attributed to the kopis change, but it certainly hasn't helped.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
-Stormrage-
I just hope we got some faster horses, and some noticeable differences when a unit is fresh or exhausted.:2thumbsup:
I can probably guess the edu doesn't deal with those things, So migrating to EBNOM would be the best option, i think.
Actually Storm, the fact that I've removed good stamina from most non-elite heavy infantry has decidedly changed the way you would typically use them. They tend to slow down and tire much quicker now as opposed to lighter units.
And TCV I agree with many of your points, the only two points I would make are that KH actually has more mercenaries than most Hellenic factions so those slots are definitely valuable and you can do a lot with them (Balearic Slingers and Scythian Archers come immediately to mind). Also, the Scythian Noble cav gets the price reduction associated with Sarmatian units iirc, hence their ridiculously low price compared to other cav in their tier.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
Actually Storm, the fact that I've removed good stamina from most non-elite heavy infantry has decidedly changed the way you would typically use them. They tend to slow down and tire much quicker now as opposed to lighter units.
Does this applies to Cohorts? Those were, after the Marian reform, dedicated war corps. I think they must have good stamina. Apart from that, I've the feeling that now Heavy Infantry will be useless. But I'm talking without knowing. Perhaps is just a change in the way a general should use them, and that's good.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Cohorts retain good stamina due to their extensive training and drilling. Phalangites do as well though that may have more to do with the way the engine handles them than anything else.
Heavy infantry shouldn't be running around much. They should advance into javelin range, toss their javs, and then begin to exert themselves. In other words, you shouldn't be able to race heavy infantry into position without much penalty. They will still fare very well in the main line but keeping fresh reserves may also be more important. They will in no way be useless:clown:
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
And TCV I agree with many of your points, the only two points I would make are that KH actually has more mercenaries than most Hellenic factions so those slots are definitely valuable and you can do a lot with them (Balearic Slingers and Scythian Archers come immediately to mind). Also, the Scythian Noble cav gets the price reduction associated with Sarmatian units iirc, hence their ridiculously low price compared to other cav in their tier.
That's baloney. Baloney I say!
Regarding KH and it's mercenaries, I disagree. There are three mercenaries that I usually consider for their individual usefulness - Brihentin, Thraikioi Peltastai and Scythian Archers. That's basically it. There are definitely others that I like to bring too, but none that aren't because I'm still a Keltophile at heart, or that can't easily be replaced by a factional anyway. I'm not convinced that Balearic slingers have any use at all, to be honest; at the very least I'm not convinced they're meaningfully better than Rhodians, but both are more expensive than I'd like to pay for what is still a small and vulnerable slinger unit anyway.
(Of course, I also forgot that KH has the Hippeis Xystophoroi as well, who are factional cost the same as Lonchos while being better. So, only reason to bring Lonchos are if you a) don't want to spend merc slot/s on Brihentin, b) really want cav at that price range, and c) require shields. I.e. not very often indeed. Though that's of course unrelated to the Kopis.)
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Celtic Viking
That's baloney. Baloney I say!
Regarding KH and it's mercenaries, I disagree. There are three mercenaries that I usually consider for their individual usefulness - Brihentin, Thraikioi Peltastai and Scythian Archers. That's basically it. There are definitely others that I like to bring too, but none that aren't because I'm still a Keltophile at heart, or that can't easily be replaced by a factional anyway. I'm not convinced that Balearic slingers have any use at all, to be honest; at the very least I'm not convinced they're meaningfully better than Rhodians, but both are more expensive than I'd like to pay for what is still a small and vulnerable slinger unit anyway.
(Of course, I also forgot that KH has the Hippeis Xystophoroi as well, who are factional cost the same as Lonchos while being better. So, only reason to bring Lonchos are if you a) don't want to spend merc slot/s on Brihentin, b) really want cav at that price range, and c) require shields. I.e. not very often indeed. Though that's of course unrelated to the Kopis.)
You may feel this way because most of the merc units KH has access to are lower tier units but think about it for a minute. They get access to Enoci Curoas which are a pretty decent flanking/reserve unit for a faction that lacks longswords. They get the above mentioned Thrakioi, Scythians, and Brihentin which are all quality units. They get Iberi Caetrati which I have made substantially better (as I felt they were lacking and are supposed to be some of the best light infantry in the world), they also get Balearics whom I love (pair them with a few Scythians and you can protect them long enough to wreck havoc on any and all cavalry), and if I'm not mistaken KH also has access to horse archers. You may decry the lack of a fear unit in KH's roster, but I don't see their merc options as worse than Makedonia or Ptolemioi, equal at least to Epeiros, and, well everyone has less diversity than the AS so I can't decry that shortcoming.
But lets stop arguing over the KH mercs, even if it is good fun 'ole chap:bow: Please continue to give suggestions on the edu, what you like and what you don't like. The Lonchophoroi issue can certainly be addressed.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
Cohorts retain good stamina due to their extensive training and drilling. Phalangites do as well though that may have more to do with the way the engine handles them than anything else.
Heavy infantry shouldn't be running around much. They should advance into javelin range, toss their javs, and then begin to exert themselves. In other words, you shouldn't be able to race heavy infantry into position without much penalty. They will still fare very well in the main line but keeping fresh reserves may also be more important. They will in no way be useless:clown:
I saw you already had addressed this issue in the end part of the changelog. Sorry.
Also, wouldn't be a just idea to pump Neito's morale +1? They've 13. I think 14 is fair for non elite but trained heavy infantry.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ulises
I saw you already had addressed this issue in the end part of the changelog. Sorry.
Also, wouldn't be a just idea to pump Neito's morale +1? They've 13. I think 14 is fair for non elite but trained heavy infantry.
I think pumping Neitos morale further lessens the distinction between them and Arjos. 13 and disciplined is already extremely difficult to break, its not as if you seen Neitos running with more than 25-30 men left in the unit often. I would consider a +1 morale but it would come at the cost of a price bump. If anything I want to add higher charge bonuses to Celtic and Germanic units to increase their shock effect and those would be more or less free.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
If anything I want to add higher charge bonuses to Celtic and Germanic units to increase their shock effect and those would be more or less free.
It's a sound idea. I saw the 12 or so increase to Arjos charge. I wonder, why not increase Solduro's too? It has to do with some age distinction between the units?
And, btw, I'm not sure, but I think most standard heavy infantry has 14 morale, like Cohorts, Loricati Scutari -now-, etc., so maybe we need to see Neitos morale in relation to all factions and not only inbetween Arverni, which also not considers the Aedui status of Neitos, for Aedui don't have Arjos in roster. Well, an idea I got.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
OP updated to include the newest edu. Now the ownerships of all units should be fixed for MP use so feel free to load up this edu and test it out if you wish.
To test this EDU, please place the export_descr_units file in your mp game edu backup folder in the EB folder. I recommend backing up your current MP edu first. To test the missiles file, replace the current projectiles_new file in the EB/Data folder, of course backing up the original first. Note that the detailed stats when you mouse over a unit card have not been updated. That mountain I won't bother scaling unless the edu is finalized and approved for use.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
I can help you with the descriptions once you have the finished version, i can do it in like an hour or two, or even less (most of the work was getting all done first)
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Hey Nac, good to see you around and thank you for the offer of help! Has anyone had the opportunity to play around with the edu yet?
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Thanks Nac for that offer. I remember you did the same thing the first time around. Seems like the dog barks again!
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
Anyone playtested the edu yet? Me and Uly are going to test it next week. I'd really like to see at least some of these changes (Stamina, HA range reduction most notably) in effect for June if I can get approval.
-
Re: BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread
If i could sort out my hamachi i would play for sure but it still keeps messing me up so i think i need to reinstall but by what extent i dont know
