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

[VikingPower]

In EB then I think the best factions are:

Rome, Carthage, Pontus, Baktria, Parthia, and Macedon.

These factions are good all-round in their unit selection (access to most cost effective inf, archers, cav)


Medium factions are:

Egypt, Seleucids, Epeiros, Koinon Hellenon, Getai, Hayasdan, Saka, Sauromatae.

These factions are good-all round in their unit selection except one type (either cav, archers, or inf)

Most unbalanced factions:

Luso, Celts, Sweboz, Saba.

These factions only have one good troops types (inf) but are lacking in the other two. Don't know how to describe what is Saba strongest factor except ele.

[The Celtic Viking]

In what way can the seleucids not simply refuse to engage you until half youre force is dead through arrow fire? They have superior cav and archers. The only thing the celts are good at vs them is their infantry.

Well, no one I've played against so far has even tried to, and if someone does, I say best of luck to him. I don't think he would succeed. I will repeat what I said in my initial post: I have not had any problems playing against Hellenic players when I've been the Arverni. That includes the Seleukids - and that's practical experience speaking, not some theoretical speculation about who has the best cavalry or archers.

Most unbalanced factions:

Luso, Celts, Sweboz, Saba.

These factions only have one good troops types (inf) but are lacking in the other two. Don't know how to describe what is Saba strongest factor except ele.

I can't agree with this, or at least not with the Celts (or, well, the Gauls to be specific - the Casse are rather on the weak side). The Gauls have excellent cavalry in the Leuce Epos. That they aren't as heavy as others doesn't hurt them as much as you'd think: they're cheap, they're fast, they've got stamina, a good charge, ap underhand lances and if you use them correctly, they can beat those heavier enemies. If you bring some extra infantry instead of missiles - which you really should anyway: missiles are for cowards - you can even use that extra infantry to back them up if feel you really need to.

The Gauls are by no means the best factions in the game, but they are not amongst the worst either. They're solid middle grounders.

[vartan]

I would share clips on YouTube of the Gauls in action during last summer's monthly tourney sessions, as there were many, many points in battles where the Gauls had the upper hand. But I'm not sure if when those tournaments took place whether we were on the same EB Online MP EDU v1.1 that we have today. Or were we on another modified EDU? or was it simply the original EB EDU? I have a poor memory.

[VikingPower]

If I remember correctly then it was modified EDU in regard to extra units to Koinon Hellenon (Illyrian cav, skirmishers...) because Antisocialmunky requested it.


But about the Celts then I humbly admit that my most fundamental error in using them in last MP summer tournament consisted in:

1. Using an single extended infantry line which became vulnerable toward enemy cav, when I should rather have a double line with inf reserves to protect the first line rear.

2. Having a much more quality infantry than the adversary but still attempting to flank the enemy with some cavalry attack behind his own line, when I should rather have been patient in letting my infantry eat through the enemy infantry at the front and hold my cav back to countercharge enemy cav.

3. Wasting my slots with some slingers when I should rather have taken extra infantry instead.

I think the most practical way to use the Celts consists in that of choosing only units with a tight unit mass, like Milnaht, Alpine phalanx, and Mori gaesum which should be bullet-proof against enemy missiles, and having Leuce Eipos against barbarians but Brihentin against Hellenic and Nomads. But most of the other celt units are rather useless, like for an example how the Neitos and Arjos lack a stamina while the Milnaht and Mori gaesum are cheaper with stamina trait.

[Lazy O]

People, you are talking about a avery small community, I say we let this topic rest, I will try to Introduce EB to the RCC then we see what the results are when it gets noticed by the larger community

[Sdragon]

I think no missiles is a bad idea. A single slinger unit means the enemy cavalry can't be near your army for any length of time. You can keep them at arms length. No ranged means that cavalry can get VERY close and still be safe and fight they way they want.

[The Celtic Viking]

Well, as the Arverni/Aedui, the only missile troops you have access to are sotaroas, iaosatae, toxotai or sphendonetai. In other words, there's not much glory there to be found in the first place, and what you have can easily be taken care of by most enemies' missile units. That the best of them, the sphendonetai, count against your allied/merc slots, for which you have much superior contenders, doesn't exactly make the choices better. So by throwing missiles away alltogether, you are not losing much to begin with.

Now, if you did this and thought that you still could just sit around and play with your prick while the enemy bombards you with missiles and perfecting his own positions, then you truly deserve to lose. No, this choice is of course dependent on you playing a very aggressive style; it's all about taking and making the initiative yours. Naturally, if you succeed, he will not be able to fight the way he wants, but will be forced to simply react to your moves instead.

[VikingPower]

I have managed to install EB again on my computer and have watched some the vidoes referring to the last MP tournament, along with that of testing some units in the custom battles.

The Celtic Viking had better success than VLN (me), both because he had better unit combination and he knew better how to handle the Gauls strongest factor. For an example then VLN mostly took Neitos (no stamina), Celtix axemen (too light armoured), and Brihentin (too mediocore). The most preferable units of Gauls consist rather in Rhaetic axemen (or Alpine phalanx alternate attack), Northern Gallic swordsmen (or Milnaht), Celtic naked spearmen (or Mori Gaesum against eastern factions), Gallic naked fanatic infantry, Leuce Eipos.

VLN lost all his battles against Hellenes and Nomad factions except one, but The Celtic Viking had the good sense to avoid battles with them.

Although the before mentioned Gallic troops may be powerful against Barbarian factions, Carthage, and Rome, then the fundamental problem lies in that how:

1. Leuce Eipos can easily be shot down by powerful enemy long range archers of Hellenes and East. Even that the Leuce Eipos would keep themselves out of the enemy reach then at the same time they would not be able to help their own infantry against enemy cav.

2. Without a decent cavalry support the Gallic infantry gets surrounded and shot in the back by enemy Horse archers. To preserve stamina then it is just best to pack all the infantry in one box and let them wait for the enemy cav charges (but too passive method).

3. Even that the Gallic infantry is much better than the infantry of the enemy then the main problem lies in that how infantry clash 1v1 takes so much time, for if the enemy has better cav and archers then it will always be them whom decide the outcome with their interferance.

[vartan]

People, you are talking about a avery small community, I say we let this topic rest, I will try to Introduce EB to the RCC then we see what the results are when it gets noticed by the larger community

We never did have a PR department, but would definitely love to take you on that offer.

P.S. What's the RCC?

Now, if you did this and thought that you still could just sit around and play with your prick while the enemy bombards you with missiles and perfecting his own positions, then you truly deserve to lose. No, this choice is of course dependent on you playing a very aggressive style; it's all about taking and making the initiative yours. Naturally, if you succeed, he will not be able to fight the way he wants, but will be forced to simply react to your moves instead.

Well said. That brings up a question, do you see a pattern between factions and the styles of play that bring the most success to those factions? I read your post and I infer that you mean that as a Gaul you must keep the advantage from the get-go all the way to the end by maintaining the initiative and playing aggressively. Can other factions afford, indeed benefit mostly by playing rather passively and defensively? attrition is perhaps the word? Is the success of EB's factions in online play, when you think about it, style-dependent?

3. Even that the Gallic infantry is much better than the infantry of the enemy then the main problem lies in that how infantry clash 1v1 takes so much time, for if the enemy has better cav and archers then it will always be them whom decide the outcome with their interferance.

This has been the case since Day 1 of Rome: Total War. The game seems to have been made to inherently require the user to make use of a diverse army. Now, one may certainly take all the same unit in vanilla online, as Rome for example, but that EB brings such a vast variety of troops and that Rome has a system of differentiating troop types from light to heavy mounted, dismounted and missile, speaks to the fact that success almost depends on your bringing more than a few types of units onto the field.

[Lazy O]

RomeClanCentral. A meeting place for the clans of RTW.

fret not, while my appeal went unnoticed in the larger public, my recruiter Max heard it, and says wel do something during summer time.

Aside from that, considering the very good question that infantry battles take too long, how many players here played on normal unit scale? I know I didnt.

@vartan,From what I see, the reason factions like Rome/Carthage are superior, is that they have the missile power which many dont. Along with infantry that is ridiculously cheap. Carthage infantry is a bit more expensive but more easonably balanced with cavalry, meaning, you can sit all day long while the cretans do their work.

[vartan]

@vartan,From what I see, the reason factions like Rome/Carthage are superior, is that they have the missile power which many dont. Along with infantry that is ridiculously cheap. Carthage infantry is a bit more expensive but more easonably balanced with cavalry, meaning, you can sit all day long while the cretans do their work.

Thanks. And it's not a problem if they're in certain ways superior, because when this came up, it was similar to the issue of the inappropriately and verbally abusive player: the answer was simply, the choice of opponents is yours. It was in the hands of the player whether he wished to play with the abusive player, just as it was in his hands whether to play against a certain faction. Don't know if this helps, just pointing it out since it was/is the case.

[Lazy O]

Vartan, you didnt answer my question, how many people actually played normal scale? Since youre the one who managed all the replays.

[Burebista]

RomeClanC
@vartan,From what I see, the reason factions like Rome/Carthage are superior, is that they have the missile power which many dont. Along with infantry that is ridiculously cheap. Carthage infantry is a bit more expensive but more easonably balanced with cavalry, meaning, you can sit all day long while the cretans do their work.

That is why smart gaulish & sweboz players use infantry spam with sotaroas just as annoying cannon fodder.
Main problem i've encountered with those 2 factions is the guard mode. It puts you in the position that you cannot take initiative vs a guard mode roman/hellen and expect to win. else was great , rly rly enjoyed the MP tournaments.

[Lazy O]

They dont even need guard mode. THey can just refuse to engage you and youre toast.

[vartan]

Vartan, you didnt answer my question, how many people actually played normal scale? Since youre the one who managed all the replays.

I don't think there are any normal scale games that I can recall. This is why I hope a replay analyzer is made. Anyway, if there are any normal scale games, then they must be either more than 2 players or players who played on normal as they feared laggy gameplay.

That is why smart gaulish & sweboz players use infantry spam with sotaroas just as annoying cannon fodder.
Main problem i've encountered with those 2 factions is the guard mode. It puts you in the position that you cannot take initiative vs a guard mode roman/hellen and expect to win. else was great , rly rly enjoyed the MP tournaments.

The effects of the guard mode feature reach beyond simple mechanical dynamics (i.e., it isn't simply a matter of telling the troop not to follow a retreating unit, but rather that the guard mode affects actual casualty outcomes; see Guard Mode: Imperial Roman Cohorts and Classical Greek Hoplites). Unfortunately, one cannot alter the effects of the guard mode, and thus we must live with it (not only is it very difficult to enforce such rules as guard mode feature restrictions among players, but I find such rules as unscrupulous).

They dont even need guard mode. THey can just refuse to engage you and youre toast.

Not entirely and not necessarily. If you have in mind that some states in EB can field men that are on average more armoured and durable than the men of other states, then that is a reflection of (a historical interpretation of) the ancient armies of the respective states.

[Burebista]

I think rethinking budgets for greek/roman/barbarian/nomad will get us where we need to be. Simple to understand and apply.
Propose 35 k for barbarian & nomad , 32 k greek , 30 k roman

[vartan]

I think rethinking budgets for greek/roman/barbarian/nomad will get us where we need to be. Simple to understand and apply.
Propose 35 k for barbarian & nomad , 32 k greek , 30 k roman

One option is to say that all money amounts are accepted for tournament play, because, after all, each side gets the same budget since that's how the game was programmed. Your proposal isn't new. Some have even proposed specific budget modifiers, such as extra money for elephants. Superficially and at some intuitive level, it is understandable to appropriate less of a budget to inherently stronger factions in order to balance online play since competitive play does not aim to reenact, and this I agree with, but it's always been tough drawing the line between too much of a budget cut or too little.

[VikingPower]

I am wondering whether we should add more merc units to the Barbarian roster OR leave the Barbarian factions as they are. Like if there is for an example added a rhodian slinger mercs to the Barbarians then they will be able to beat the Hellenic and Nomad factions. But if we leave the Barbarian factions as they are then they can let other allied factions make up for their lack of archers when there is played a 2v2 or 3v3 battles (like if Averni would only bring infantry and cav, while the Carthage would bring the Cretans).

The only reliable AP units which Gauls have are Rhaetic axemen and Alpine phalanx, but since they count as mercs then they cant both have them and some merc missile units. Either the merc limit should be increased or that these units dont count as mercs.
The Averni have a very good access to a cost-effective heavy infantry, like which I have counted on another thread, but they do still need a cheap armoured spearmen in broad unit mass while they do already have two good units in a tight unit mass (helveti and alpine).

The Lusos lack a good heavy/medium cavalry between the heavy Iberian cav and Iberian curisi. And many of their units are rubbish in regard to morale and cost effectiveness, while the Gallic factions have access to a better all-round infantry in regard to AP and lethality. For an example then Lorciate scutari and Dunamica get their asses kicked by some cheap Gallic units, the lighter AP units have so little armour that they are easily shot down by javelins and missiles, and other expensive units prove to be mediocore in their effects. Why bother to improve the Luso faction if Carthage does already have access to their best troops!

The problem with Getai is that how they lack a good heavy infantry as a lineholders in the middle, for even that their dacian falxmen and thracian peltats are good on the flanks then they do still only have access to some lame heavy phalanx unit in regard to their centre. Like see in the last July tournament how the 'President' player had much difficulty in trying to find a good lineholders for this faction, for he was always changing his units in each battle because the previous units had become unsuccesfull in holding the line.

About Casse then I know little about them.

[Lazy O]

At least the luso have Balaerics. Which allows them to skirmish. And I must commend President, for although he was annoying, he had great micro. So I dont think he needed such reliable lineholders.

And a question about the casse, Are the chariots AP?

[VikingPower]

The problem about Balearics is that they have only 20 ammo and are so lightly armoured that they drop like flies toward enemy archers fire. The slinger units only have 60 men on large while the archer units like Cretans have 80 men. The Rhodians are cheaper, have more range, more ammo, and some chainmail armour to last.

I dont know about the chariots but they slaughter cataphracts even that they dont have scythed blades.

[Lazy O]

Ah, that means they do have AP.

------

Compared to Sotoroas and Ioasatae, Id take balaerics anyday. There are some factions, whose effectiveness in their supposed "specialty" is outdone by another faction. For example, I take youre point, Luso vs Carthage. Luso get outclassed in EVERYWAY. The only thing their equal in is cavalry. Then tell me, how come the carthage player cant skirmish as effectively as a lusop player? :D. Minor and Major factions, same vanilla crap.

[VikingPower]

Then tell me, how come the carthage player cant skirmish as effectively as a lusop player? :D. Minor and Major factions, same vanilla crap.

Do you mean that they are better because of the combat bonus in woods? Some Carthage units are only renamed versions of the Lusotana ones (like Balearic light inf) and their Numidian skirmishers are identical to Luso skirmishers.

And what do you precicely mean by this same vanilla crap?

[Lazy O]

Same vanilla crap as in useless factions. E.g Vanilla gaul and spain. Getting repeated here. Carthage vs luso was taken as example

[vartan]

Luso is a skirmisher faction, while Carthage is not. A good Luso online player is one who can micromanage his majority skirmisher army. It's safe to say that Luso (as some other factions) is more demanding online than factions like Carthage.

[Lazy O]

Vartan, Carthage has the exact same units as Luso + More option in the heavy department. They can do it just as well and even much better. Hence rendering Luso sub par as a skirmisher faction. With the steepe rules, the true skirmisher factions can only be the nomads, leaving all the rest miles behind.

[vartan]

Vartan, Carthage has the exact same units as Luso + More option in the heavy department. They can do it just as well and even much better. Hence rendering Luso sub par as a skirmisher faction. With the steepe rules, the true skirmisher factions can only be the nomads, leaving all the rest miles behind.

That makes Luso a challenging faction to play as online. EB contains over a dozen factions. It doesn't contain 3 factions, like Starcraft, so it can't and shouldn't be balanced to the point of no return. Some factions are more challenging than others, especially online. Much respect to those who choose to play as weaker factions. Nobody forced them to, after all.

[antisocialmunky]

Luso's units are just really expensive when not in trees. It might be fun to play a 'king of the hill' or 'objective' type game where the winner controls a certain part of the map at the end of the game and set that point to be at the edge of some woods or something.

That or less money so you can't use the 'all elite' armies. But most people want to play with the super elite armies :-\

[Lazy O]

I think its just the case of the best available. For e.g, imo, Pantodapoi are far better than the argyraspidai due to 10x lower cost and doing pretty much the same thing. Id take them and their ap axes anyday.

[vartan]

Luso's units are just really expensive when not in trees. It might be fun to play a 'king of the hill' or 'objective' type game where the winner controls a certain part of the map at the end of the game and set that point to be at the edge of some woods or something.

Yeah, someone in the past suggested things like mini-games. Reminds me of UMS maps on old school SC.