[EB] How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and East

[antisocialmunky]

Depends on how scary it is... but it is the difference between easily mass chain routing and dying hilariously.

[vartan]

Depends on how scary it is... but it is the difference between easily mass chain routing and dying hilariously.

But that isn't a 'difference'...easily mass chain routing and 'dying hilariously' are the same effective event in the game. I was just wondering if there was an effective difference between an army of Gauls that uses fire arrows and one that doesn't. For instance, if the Gallic army has a 45% chance of winning against a Roman Camillian army without using fire arrows, what would you suppose the increase in win percentage would be if it used fire arrows? 5%? 10%? more than 20%?

[antisocialmunky]

That is unknown. I've seen more experienced people like ACS and Agrippa hold it as Imperial Legionaires and then someone used a box formation like I started to this year somehow.

[Lazy O]

Vartan; Even though EB is designed for historical reasons, Some things just HAVE to be changed for multiplayer.... I mean how many units are there which are essentialy the SAME THING???? Look at the diadochi, Almost all are the same with only a few exception.....Mundane.....Steppe factions are unique, thats good, Arverni and Aediu? SAME. Atleast change the recruitable units a BIT so theyre atleast some enjoyment of playing another faction rather jthan just gauls. IN all, you should get someone whos been in the MP thing for a long long time.YOu cant possibly do all that by yourself

[vartan]

Vartan; Even though EB is designed for historical reasons, Some things just HAVE to be changed for multiplayer.... I mean how many units are there which are essentialy the SAME THING???? Look at the diadochi, Almost all are the same with only a few exception.....Mundane.....Steppe factions are unique, thats good, Arverni and Aediu? SAME. Atleast change the recruitable units a BIT so theyre atleast some enjoyment of playing another faction rather jthan just gauls. IN all, you should get someone whos been in the MP thing for a long long time.YOu cant possibly do all that by yourself

lol, hey Lazy O, how's it going? It's good to see you again. Yeah man, you took the words right out of my mouth. But don't worry about me. I don't do the recruitability (I guess it's a word now) by myself. Actually, I don't do it at all. The text file editing is done by my puppets. I just do the webmastering so people can see recruitment lists. Adding units to the MP rosters isn't a problem (unless we hit a faction's MP roster unit limit, and I don't know if there is one at all); it's the factional lists that people are worried about. You see, EB teaches history via video game medium. So if people are playing an MP game and wish to recruit mostly one kind of unit, they should choose a faction that has most of those types of units as their factionals. What we ought not to do is say that some Iberian units for the Lusotannan should be factionalized (hey, that's a word too now!) for the Saka Rauka, or anything along those lines. We could say they should be added to the MP roster so as to be hired as mercs, since RP also extends to the MP realm. Say you are Saka and you're fighting Carthage online. You might say I hired 5 Iberian mercs. Well there you go. You didn't exceed your merc limit (whatever people wish it to be) and they're available because the dwarves that work at the EB Online factory churned out a new Saka MP roster that included Iberian units! As for the Diadochi, it's their fault they didn't use vastly different army compositions, haha. Those rascals.

[Gabeed]

Mostly I think that one should stick with default stats for MP, but one thing that should be changed for EB MP (and something I griped about in the past) was the incredibly high price of elephants which led to armies that used them being far too gimped, or alternatively to armies just sadly NEVER using elephants.

Barbarians are fine, though. They aren't meant to be balanced, and with chariots anything can happen, including a stunning victory.

Oh, and yes, I still exist.

[Lazy O]

I did not mean to give the Saka iberian units ...(though if you idd it would be pure lol :D)... What I meant was to give Factions that are identical in factionals be at least marginally different. Lets take the Diadochi for example...

Makedon should have exclusive access to some celtic and thraikian troops.

Seleucids should have exclusive hold on the Eastern regionals.

ptolies should be granted all galatians along with sharing them with Pontus.

Getai should also have Skythians shared with Pontus. That we have 2 very different factionals bu the same accesible regionals.

Saba are fine as is but ELephants cost should be reduced. Since they are known to have frequently used them.

The gauls....This im not sure. My general idea would be that the low/medium tier should be the same. With Nakeds shared but the armored elite should be different.

Lusos are fine as is but since they rely on ambush. All units imho should be given can hide anywhere. This goes for sweboz as well. You just cant force these guys into pitched battle, use a brain and scout

Carthies are fine but shouldnt stats be changed so they arent the same as greeks?

Baktria idk

These are just my thoughts , obviously this is very raw and someone more experienced should probably have a better idea on increasing diversity..

[vartan]

Mostly I think that one should stick with default stats for MP, but one thing that should be changed for EB MP (and something I griped about in the past) was the incredibly high price of elephants which led to armies that used them being far too gimped, or alternatively to armies just sadly NEVER using elephants.

Barbarians are fine, though. They aren't meant to be balanced, and with chariots anything can happen, including a stunning victory.

Oh, and yes, I still exist.

It's good to hear from you Gabeed. I thought you were out for good. For MP, I've seen elephant armies that have done just fine. Read MisterFred's paper on elephant usage online.

Elephants are pretty strong, and even though they are expensive, I think they are proportionally actually cheaper than soldiers. Not sure. But in any case, I think the higher costs in EB remove (somewhat) what you could find in vanilla Rome, which was and easy onslaught by elephants, because of their lower prices.

And LazyO, if you look at MP rosters for those Diadochi, you should find precisely those differences. Their mercs are different because of their regions.

[Gabeed]

Interesting paper. I've actually been watching a bunch of the multiplayer games from July 2010, and although I marveled at how skilled Fred was with implementing his one unit of African elephants, I was equally surprised by how ineptly many of his foes dealt with the elephants. In at least three instances, the opposing armies had the opportunity/men to have plenty of javelins ready for whenever the elephants would arrive, but ended up squandering their javelins beforehand, making the forthcoming slaughter inevitable.

Let me be more clear--I don't think elephants are underpowered by any means. They can be easily countered, but they can just as easily devastating in the right hands. But I DO think that elephants were part of armies besides the Sab'yn, and I'd like to somewhat see that reflected.

Fred has very nicely demonstrated that a Sabaean army with elephants works. This is wonderful, given that the Sabaeans can really only get levy-quality troops and medium cavalry anyway. But the Diadochi, on the other hand, will never be able to afford an army with elephants that makes any sense--the elephants require a considerable amount of the total cost of the army, with the result of the army being made up (similar to the Sabaeans) of lots of levy troops. This, I think, is just a minor nitpick, and I think I'm essentially arguing for less game balance , but when I imagine a Seleucid army, I shouldn't see a unit of elephants with a smattering of levy phalanxes, archers, and pantodopoi, with perhaps a unit of light jav cav or two. Elephants were a symbol of the grandeur of an army, and with these current costs that grandeur cannot be displayed or attained.

Oh, and I keep up with the forum from time to time. I've moved on to grand strategy games for the most part (big fan of Crusader Kings nowadays), but I'm always up for a mp EB battle.

[vartan]

Well Gabeed, I've considered the following: Assume Player A will be using a non-elephant 36k army, while Player B wishes to use elephants. In this case, we would set the money limit to either 41k or 46k (i.e., either a 5k or 10k boost), where Player A is still only allowed to use 36k, while Player B is allowed to use all of the money. One more thing: This proposition was fought against by the majority of people concerned with multiplayer EB, and hence why it isn't in place for "official" tournaments. I would much rather see it in play, as would you, I can imagine, but the reason (I believe) we see a majority of players fight against it is the precise lack of micromanagement and wise usage of troops/ammunition amongst newcomers to the scene.

[Lazy O]

My memory failing me -.- thanks for pointing it out

[NeoSpartan]

wow I can't believe i missed this thread..... I've been out of the EB loop for a while now, anywho..

Here is the problem with most people who play Hellenic factions a lot and then try to jump on Western barbarians:
-Do not Stand around in pretty front line!!!!

With gauls you have to mix Gaesate with a Druid and long sword guys, use Axe guys IF you enemy has a lot of armored units (such as Hellenics and Romans). The idea is to smash a flank, while running around that flank to hit the enemy's rear. THUS forcing legions or phalanxes to break their pretty formations.

The Gallic Brenthin(sp) cavalry then comes in to smash the already engaged flank IF that flank has not routed by this point.

When playing with a western barbarian faction you want to end the battle in 6-8 minutes. Gallic troops are shock troops and they should be used to aggressively overwhelm the enemy's infantry piece by piece. Making the battle last a long time will tire the gallic forces, except for the elites, thus making it impossible to maneuver, en-mass, aggressively.

[WinsingtonIII]

On the subject of the diversity of the Diadoch in MP, I thought we already had some measure of diversity....

Epeiros is the only one that gets Illyrians plus Tarantine cavalry. Mak's are the only ones that get Thracian Peltasts as a factional instead of a mercenary, and only they and Epeiros get Agranian Assault Infantry. Pontus gets Galatians, Bosphoran archers, and Scythian noble cavalry. Ptolies get native Egyptian units and the Galatian Klerouchai. AS gets tons of Eastern regionals. Baktria gets Baktrian medium cav, Baktrian horse archers, and Indo-Greek units.

So, there is diversity, the issue is, the best armies tend to be ones that utilize large numbers of the most cost-effective units. The ultimate example of this are Thracian Peltasts. They are seriously the only support infantry a Diadoch army needs. They are high lethality, armor piercing, mobile, decently armored, have good morale, and have 6 javelins to skirmish with. As such, there's no reason to bring regular Pelstats or other regional skirmishers/axemen/longswords because they fulfill the role of all three for a surprisingly cheap price. And since they are available as mercenaries or factionals to Maks, Epeiros, Pontos, AS, and I think Ptolies (not sure about the last one though) you are probably going see a lot of them in any of those armies alongside levy phalanxes and Prodromoi. That might be part of the problem here, that a few unit types are very cost-effective, and elites and many regionals are generally not cost-effective in comparison.

[vartan]

That's right WIII. But why should the fact that some units are cost-effective while others are not be a problem? Is it the duty of the online community to ensure the cost-effectiveness of all units? Is that even possible? Is it necessary? I figure the variety of the Hellenes is clear now. And Spartan mentioned some of what comes up for the Celtic/Gallic player when facing the Hellenes online. Simply put: don't expect to beat a Hellene as a Celt by using Hellenic ways of fighting. Back to you WIII, elites don't really show up much online, that's true. But I never really expected them to. EB does a wonderful job of including vast amounts of units; it would really be rather ad nauseum if it weren't for the unit limit. But although they all fulfill the roles of history, it does not necessitate the player to use all units. For instance, I am not required to use Akontistai if I find it 'useless' (or any other excuse). Besides, some of us don't roleplay. The same goes online, especially if you're playing a competitive battle and not a re-enactment for artistic purposes (e.g., making a film using cinematics). Whatever the case, elites or not, cost-effective or not, if the games are fair and enjoyable, I deem the day a successful one.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, personally I don't see it as a problem, but if you do dislike the lack of diversity in armies, then I believe that it is a root cause. I'm not saying anything should be changed, just trying to explain a phenomenon.

[vartan]

That might be part of the problem here, that a few unit types are very cost-effective, and elites and many regionals are generally not cost-effective in comparison.

This is what I was referring to. Forgive me for not pointing it out.

Well, personally I don't see it as a problem, but if you do dislike the lack of diversity in armies, then I believe that it is a root cause. I'm not saying anything should be changed, just trying to explain a phenomenon.

Right. I see two broad cases:

In Case A, we see match-ups wherein Faction A and Faction B consistently field similar armies. Thankfully, this occurs more often due to inherent qualities rather than cost-effectiveness. These match-ups include Celt/Celt, Gallic/Gallic, Diadochi, and so on. It is clear why army compositions and units tend to be similar amongst these factions on the field.

In Case B, we see match-ups wherein Faction A and Faction B consistently field widely different armies. Again, this occurs due to inherent qualities. That is, for instance, the Aedui could not field a very similar army to that of Carthage simply because they do not 'own' the same troops.

Harkening (mind the U.S. spelling) back to an important note by our good friend Ludens...

[...]the best MP mods require a different playing style for each faction.

...indeed they do. And thankfully, every player plays slightly differently, and every group of factions plays out differently on the field. So some of the worst case scenarios would be from Case A, where AS would fight Mak, for instance. The only saving grace in this case might be a Thraikan Peltast here and some eastern unit there, not to mention the differing playing styles and speeds of the opposing players.

OP: "How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and Ea[stern factions]"
A combination of varying one's personal inventory of playing styles, adapting one's style to the faction of choice (e.g., one style for a Gaul, another for a steppe faction), varying one's army composition (as they say, to "spice things up", if you wish), and of course to partake in discussion on why certain units should be added or removed to certain factions on the so-called "Factional Unit Lists" (convenient nomenclature!)

[WinsingtonIII]

This is what I was referring to. Forgive me for not pointing it out.

Well, you've got me there I think I was just using the word "problem" because others were complaining of a lack of army composition diversity. It's not much of an issue to me, but I was just pointing that my thought process when building armies on a budget (as in MP) is to go for cost-effectiveness so that I get the most potential out of my money, and this is probably a thought process some others share. Depending on the faction, this can lead to some pretty boring builds (hence some peoples complaints, I think). In single player, on the other hand, I would be more likely to build a diverse army because the amount of available money is generally greater and the capabilities of the AI as a general are lacking.

I certainly am not calling for a change to the rules, however, as it's really not an important issue in my opinion.

[Burebista]

On the lack of diversity:

From what i've seen , these are the army types you expect:

Roman armies- heavy inf spam
Greek successor armies- Phalanxes + thracians
KH army -hoplites , 1 battle line in "guard" mode
Celtic - Fast charge , pro's do it in the flank , kinda weak imho ,
Carthage - My personal favourite , HUGE OPTIONS FOR COMPS ,virtually cannot be fitted into a model as army comp or strat
Getai/iberian- fight like gauls but with less armour and better cav. Getai rly rly could use the scythian units to give them the option of forcing teh enemy to make the first move , thus being able to ambush
Baktria/Saka/Pahlava -Same options , different approach. Did a lot of good things with Baktria in serious MP , got lots of potential
Sauromatae- broken - Not having medium non-ranged Cav factional is the root cause , as the rules seriously hampers them
Sweboz -similar to getai/iberian , but with great front-holding power - If you got trees you win , if not u lose
Armenia-broken -not cost effective
Pontos- best deal- broken due to OP combination between galatians /scythian/tharachian availability as factionals


This rly gives me all the diversity i need. I only believe that some minor balances have to be made.
Give medium non-ranged factional cav to Sauros.
Get skythians to Getai.
Remove some options from the successor armies . Some proposals are limiting the availability of Thracian peltasts to maks , galatians to egipt/ AS + pontos
Remove indian units from Pahlava to make them feel unique.They will still be very good.
Make mercs the gala /thra /scy units for pontos and successor. That's what they were ..mercs.
Limit the prima cohors to ONE.

[WinsingtonIII]

Give medium non-ranged factional cav to Sauros.

Can't you just use mercs for your medium cav? You do get 5 mercs.

[vartan]

Can't you just use mercs for your medium cav? You do get 5 mercs.

You may wish to use those merc slots for other units, like Hoplitai.

Bure, you make good points. And 1st Cohort is limited to one on the field, but if that wasn't mentioned in the rules, it was taken for granted. How do you envision a consensus on alterations in order to encompass those changes? What do you propose?

[WinsingtonIII]

You may wish to use those merc slots for other units, like Hoplitai.

True, especially considering that the only factional non-archer infantry that the Sauros get is the Voinu, which although fun because they scare enemies, are pretty lacking in the armor department.

[Burebista]

You may wish to use those merc slots for other units, like Hoplitai.

Bure, you make good points. And 1st Cohort is limited to one on the field, but if that wasn't mentioned in the rules, it was taken for granted. How do you envision a consensus on alterations in order to encompass those changes? What do you propose?

Proposals for factionals:

Sauro- add skudra tabari , skuda uaezdaettae ( to enable some non-ranged options , making i easier to respect the rules and still field a good army)
- add one of the following -Aspet hetselazar /mezenai/asiatikoi hippeis- sauros rly need factional medium non-archer cav.

Getai - add scythian foot archers

Pontos & rest o successor - make thracians mercs ( except maks , they can keep them , that's their flavour)

pontos - make scythians mercs


I think that if you chang these the following will happen-

less Pontos players , but still played due to galatians as facs.
more baktria , more egypt , as they appear more interesting now as successor states.
more getai players. I for one , being romanian and stuff , would love a crack at a game in which i actually force a player to make the first move.
More romans , but less prima cohors spam , still manageable.Maybe trim down their mercs lists?:))

these are some few options. More tweaks can be made , but essentially most problems come from "guard mode" romans/ hoplites , making getai/luso/swebos and esp celtic armies cry.

[WinsingtonIII]

Proposals for factionals:

Sauro- add skudra tabari , skuda uaezdaettae ( to enable some non-ranged options , making i easier to respect the rules and still field a good army)
- add one of the following -Aspet hetselazar /mezenai/asiatikoi hippeis- sauros rly need factional medium non-archer cav.

Getai - add scythian foot archers

Pontos & rest o successor - make thracians mercs ( except maks , they can keep them , that's their flavour)

pontos - make scythians mercs

The Sauros already have the Scythian Noble Cav as a factional... but it is a heavy, not a medium like you want. I think the generic Eastern Medium Cavalry is probably the best choice to add as a factional medium, the others are a bit too unique, and I think people would complain less about adding such a generic and not very good unit.

It is true that it doesn't necessarily make sense for Pontos to get Scythian foot archers as a factional and for the Getai to not get them as a factional as well, considering the lands of the Getai and Scythians actually overlap.

The Thracian peltasts already are mercs for every successor faction other than the Maks, so no need to change that. If you're seeing a lot of them being used by the AS, then that player is using all their merc slots on them.

[vartan]

This is why the Sauromatae don't get the Eastern Med Cav (but I'm sure people can make an exception):
http://tiny.cc/fimn1

I think that most western town/village here is Տիլիս (I'm assuming that's Tilis in English, but it might be spelled Tylis, don't quote me), so since that's pretty much Getai lands, I can see why they would be an option for them:
http://tiny.cc/tt0mu

[VikingPower]

I have been looking at many different unit stats and I have often seen a similarities between two different unit of some factions, like for example how many Carthage units have excactly the same stats as a Greek ones (hoplites, successor cavalry) and are only dissimilar in appearance and one point.

So in regard to the Thracian peltasts then they have a very similar stats and javelin ammunation as the Lusotana light infantry and Balearic light infantry, but they have a similar cost as the lusotana ones while the Balearic units do cost about 1730 minai. So maybe if the Thracian peltast cost would be increased to 1700 then it would force the Hellenic factions to be not as strong all round in units, but they would have a weak factor in cav, arch, or inf.

In regard to the Romans then the Gallic aux cav is probably the best cost effective cav in the game, because they are Leuce Epos/Curepos with better armour which makes them almost immune to missile damage. So maybe they should be considered a heavy cav in order to force other weaker cav units to be chosen. Because as a Roman you can have a lot of gallic aux cav, cretans, and Post marian cohorts to make them strong all round.

The Lusotana cav is also very bad and does not perform as their stats show, like the Iberian medium cav and Iberian heavy cav. But maybe that will be changed in EB 2.

I otherwise agree with everything which Burebista proposes.

[WinsingtonIII]

This is why the Sauromatae don't get the Eastern Med Cav (but I'm sure people can make an exception):
http://tiny.cc/fimn1

I think that most western town/village here is Տիլիս (I'm assuming that's Tilis in English, but it might be spelled Tylis, don't quote me), so since that's pretty much Getai lands, I can see why they would be an option for them:
http://tiny.cc/tt0mu

No, I agree that it doesn't really make sense for the Sauros to get Eastern Mediums, but I think it makes even less sense for them to get Armenian Medium Cavalry or Dacian Light Cavalry. Actually, on the second thought, maybe the Dacian Light Cavalry makes most sense, as they go right up to the fringes of Sauro territory. Either way, though I understand Burebista's complaint about a lack of non-ranged mediums, I'm not sure how historical any of these units are for the Sauros.

I actually think it's Kallatis, Tylis is further Southwest. Either way, it is certainly an area where Dacians and Skythians both lived historically, and as such, Skythian Foot Archers wouldn't be that unrealistic a factional unit for the Getai.

[VikingPower]

What if the fundamental problem lies in that the Rome and Hellenic factions do get too cheap units in all the unit types so that they are strong all round in infantry, archers, and cavalry. Like for an example about a successor cav, cretans, thracians, and levy phalangists. Or Gallic aux cav, cretans, and post marian cohort.

Maybe the rules should limit the civilized factions (Rome, carthage, Hellenic) from having good units in all three factors, so they must be weak in one to make them fair against the Barbarians and nomads. The barbarian are always weak in archers and the Nomads are always weak in infantry, so they need no to be changed unless the levy and merc phalangists should be removed. This should make this rock-paper-scissor thing work.

[Burebista]

What if the fundamental problem lies in that the Rome and Hellenic factions do get too cheap units in all the unit types so that they are strong all round in infantry, archers, and cavalry. Like for an example about a successor cav, cretans, thracians, and levy phalangists. Or Gallic aux cav, cretans, and post marian cohort.

Maybe the rules should limit the civilized factions (Rome, carthage, Hellenic) from having good units in all three factors, so they must be weak in one to make them fair against the Barbarians and nomads. The barbarian are always weak in archers and the Nomads are always weak in infantry, so they need no to be changed unless the levy and merc phalangists should be removed. This should make this rock-paper-scissor thing work.

The game is fine , i managed to pull plenty of victories with geati/sweboz against romans/greeks. I can't say the same about the celts , but some ppl claim they had , so no comment there.
I think the solution is to not allow successor states to get so many good flankers as factionals by making them mercs. i'm reffering to the 3 problems - galatian wildmen , scythian foot archers /hcav , thrakioi peltastai.
Romans should not get more than 1 prima cohort .
Also , add some units to the underused facions as proposed in my previous posts and i think that it will do the trick.

[vartan]

Why is there this notion that the game should be artificially balanced a la rock paper scissors? Please help me understand this idea.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I think the idea is that MP SHOULD be artificially balanced because it is not meant for historical accuracy, it is meant for personal enjoyment separate from the spirit of the campaign which involves the historical accuracy side of the game. I don't think people deploy MP armies to display accurate Roman armies, they play to win!

As such, balance is important if everyone would like a unique feel and playing style to factions without compromising their chances for a victory. For example, if I play as Aedui because I want to combine fear units with a ferocious charge on one flank which might break a lesser foe, I want a chance to win if I handle the tactical aspect properly. I don't want to lose because the Aedui simply can't win against comparable costs of Thracian skirmishers and levy phalanxes without an incompetent opponent (note that I am not saying this is the case but this is the gist I get from reading previous posts). Perhaps by reassessing the costs of various units for MP would help balance things a bit.

If a team of 5-10 people could rank units according to predetermined classes (ie heavy cav, light infantry, etc.) then perhaps new cost values could stop some of these rules and make the cost effective argument irrelevant. Instead, players can fight with the tactics they want to play with rather than saying, "well I want to win and use Pezhetairoi but I should just buy 2 units of Thracians instead since they are so cost effective."

IMO this is why I play the original RTW multi still with one of my friends but we havn't played EB much. While the vanilla game is gimmecky, thats fine for MP, I don't care that Arcani are historically inaccurate, I just want to hide them and at the right moment spring them on his archers while he wonders where they came from. Also, it is a little more balanced cost wise for the units.