So, as you all know, Vartan has recently revived the old EB Online Tournaments. He has given me permission to create a new multiplayer EDU for EB 1.2, for use in online play.
Please read the documentation or look in the actual EDU itself to examine it. People intimately familiar with the EDU, I definitely want some feedback. Thank you.
Approximately 95% of changes have been documented. There were several tweaks that fall along the line of what the others were, that were not recorded. All major changes in stats have been fully documented (i.e. melee shortsword lethality raised to 0.15).
REMEMBER IT WILL BE UNDER UPDATE UNTIL MAY 22ND.
One important note: the new stats are designed so that pre-Marian Romans can use 36k without being OP
I'm always sceptical when it comes to changing the actual stats of units. After all, they were set and balanced by the team already using some special formula. Messing with it can mess up the balance, and if the reason for this is only to remove the need for pre-marian romans to use less than 36k, then this would be taking the long, dark road with orcs, goblins and Michael Moore when there's a sunny and easy path offering you promiscuous women, beer and me that you could take.
I'm talking of course of increasing the cost of the Roman units. This is not just easier, it's downright sensible, as they've been given a discount for purely strategic reasons, reasons that shouldn't effect single battles such as MP ones. The problem, of course, is that I don't know how big the discount is, or for which units exactly it operates on (for example, is it just Roman units, or does it effect italian allies as well?). That's a fair criticism, but as a member of the EB team, if you don't know the answer to this already, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find out. Even if you couldn't do this, it's not as if changing the stats of other factions' units would or even could be exact either, so the criticism would be working both ways.
They were set up for use in a single player game. I for one, support this EDU even though I havent seen it, for the single reason that people recognized that stats cant be the same for SP and MP.
And regarding roman units, I consider their price fair, but the fact that they have more units in cohorts is stupid. Just remove that and bring them back to normal, ALL infantry units (im not talking levy and elites) should be a standard size, because this is tactical play, the reasons for there being some units more than others is strategic, and should not affect MP. And please dont increase the cost of the Romans, theyre too weak. Their spammability ( I MADE A WORD) I guess is the only protection from 12 units of cavalry.
Last edited by Lazy O; 05-14-2011 at 13:03.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
[21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting
They were set up for use in a single player game. I for one, support this EDU even though I havent seen it, for the single reason that people recognized that stats cant be the same for SP and MP.
Why not?
Originally Posted by Lazy O
And regarding roman units, I consider their price fair, but the fact that they have more units in cohorts is stupid. Just remove that and bring them back to normal, ALL infantry units (im not talking levy and elites) should be a standard size, because this is tactical play, the reasons for there being some units more than others is strategic, and should not affect MP.
First of all, unit size is not a strategic thing, for obvious reasons.
Secondly, their price isn't fair at all because they are given a discount that's for purely SP campaign reasons, not MP. For pre-marian units, this has already been agreed: the limit stating that they can't use the full 36k is there pricisely because their cheapness otherwise makes them OP.
All in all, I don't think we need to change anything. I'm happy with the stats as they are, I'm fine with the restrictions as are. What I am saying here, though, is that if you want to change the edu to remove the <36k limit for pre-marian romans, the natural way to go is to increase the cost of the Roman units, not to start tinkering with other factions' units.
Post Marian units retain their discount cost. Hastati and Cohors Reformata have stats that make sense cost-wise, now.
Post Marian units actually got better as shortsword lethality was increased to 0.15 for units that use shortswords a lot in melee.
That was far from the only reason, CV. There were lots of other units that simply did not have balanced stats at all, which made them nearly useless.
-Overhand spear cavalry, particularly the Germanic ones. Germanic light horsemen were historically very good and highly praised for their fighting ability despite their simple equipment.
-Germanic "retainer" units seem to have been styled as large-size troops, in reality they were more of a small cadre of highly loyal soldiers. Thus they lost numbers, got higher costs, and got much better stats overall.
-The cost of falcatae/kopides was actually higher than that of axes/maces, but they were weaker. They are now approximately equal in strength.
-Elite infantry cost far too much, their base cost was reduced so on average elite infantry cost about 200 mnai less now. It's not much of a reduction but it's something.
-Elite cavalry had a similar base cost reduction, but it was smaller.
-Several Arabian units had a few boosts.
-Phalanxes had their ridiculous shield stats lowered to 2, which makes sense given the small size of their shields; now mass arrows may have some effect on them. They had a corresponding increase in defense skill. Pike attack was also slightly reduced.
Of course there were other important changes but I won't discuss them all.
Just a question : is it possible to add some units to the roster of a faction? Such as some melee only cav for Sauromatae?
I haven't seen the new EDU but just from the top of my head the main issues i had with the old EDU was lusotannan elite units on Carthage roster , Melee cav on Sauros , cheapness of romans , some scythian mercs for the Getai and some cheaper HA for Baktria (less than 1800 as dahae are too much).
Dahae did have cost reduced, and Baktrioi Hippotoxotai got a makeover as well. Pre-Marian romans became more expensive. Lusotanaan native elites not usable by Carthage were made better.
For CV, the Gallic player, here are the major Celtic changes:
-Arjos were reduced to 60 men (they were way OP at 80), several other changes to them, cost reduced to 1811
-Carnute Cingetos got better
-Gaesatae did not receive the elite inf cost reduction but got a more devastating javelin attack
-Celto-Germanic Cav and Leuce Epos received better javelin attacks
-Brihentin got better defense
-Remi Mairepos got better charge
Boii infantry are set to regain their 12 attack, also.
Celtic Viking, I've been looking for a re-haul of the EDU specifically for MP purposes since Day 1. Since the first battles I recall in '09 one could see how the SP battle tendencies showed up in MP arena due to our being used to those set of stats. MP was not as distinct a genre then.
P.S. gamegeek, I know you're updating the EDU, but when do you suppose a solid release could be made? I'm asking for archival purposes. So for instance, the two replay archives you see on the website (2010 July and August) can be played back using the current v1.1 of the EBO MP EDU. When I put up a v1.2 (more like a v2.0 due to it being a re-haul), I make a note that indicates people need to install the older version of MP EDU in order to view them correctly. So for that reason, if you suppose you might work into June, we could use v1.1 for June, then start with v2.0 for July onwards. Downside will be that we won't get the feedback we could use from June games. Definitely want to give people a different ballgame to work with this year, though, and July is the big season, so lemme know.
Which is the main mistake made by CA, rendering barbarian factions (scythia,germany,briton aside) useless. And even germany is mostly only used as a hard counter to rome. With thrace being a "minor" faction that cant compete with the rest, Rome being outclassed by nearly every faction with Catas, 10 archers or chariots, and Carthage only good when you want a balanced matchup against macedon, with Egypt the magic superfaction at the top of the ladder.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
[21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting
For CV, the Gallic player, here are the major Celtic changes:
-Arjos were reduced to 60 men (they were way OP at 80), several other changes to them, cost reduced to 1811
I don't like this at all. The reason why you'd use them is because, unlike other Gallic elites, these are affordable and not too few in numbers (though of course not quite as skilled as, say, the Solduros). This made them them one of the few Gallic elites actually worth using. With worse stats and this low numbers, this reason is now gone.
In fact, they're useless now, as for 300 mnai more, you get the more-numerous-and-almost-the-same-stats Neitos, and for 100 mnai more (than the Arjos, I mean) you get Mori Gaesum, both of which defeats the Arjos. Neitos even does this easily without using its javelins, and the Mori Gaesum has better morale than both.
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
-Carnute Cingetos got better
Slightly so, but I still don't think they're worth their cost.
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
-Gaesatae did not receive the elite inf cost reduction but got a more devastating javelin attack
They also, according to your documentation, got a higher sword attack, which surprises me. I mean, if it's a Gallic unit you can argue to be overpowered, then IMO that would be the Gaesatae, not the Arjos.
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Leuce Epos received better javelin attacks
But shorter range, fewer javelins and less armour, yet still the same cost. I don't think this nerfing is justified; they were good but certainly not OP.
Well according to the EB stat system, i actually should give them their armour back.
EDIT: Discrepancy found. I accidentally had costed the Arjos too much. This has been resolved. They retain their numbers reduction but their cost has been lowered to 1569 mnai.
The reasoning behind this is that
a) I don't want noble, chain-armed infantry to be a large-sized unit. It doesn't make sense.
b) Now they sort of fill their job as a "cheap elite" better - as elites are only supposed to have 60 men.
c) It offers an interesting quandary to the Arverni player, as Bataroas and Arjos are approximately the same cost now - which one to get another of?
The Gaesatae did not receive a cost reduction. They did get additional sword attack and javelin strength but I don't think this makes up for a 200 mnai cost reduction. But I may yet reconsider.
Don't forget Armenia. this faction is so in need of a price rehaul , it almost screams for help. i mean , noone plays it , for God's sake.
Yours truly was the Armenian representative (true no matter how you interpret that!) during the only tournament I played in back in July 2009. Granted, I won just as many as I lost. But all my mistakes notwithstanding, I enjoyed the challenge. It taught me much!
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Armenia did get some help, fo sho.
UPDATED. Elite infantry have been given yet more bonuses...though you could say, their bonuses were standardized.
Small thought from RS2; Why not make every unit the same unit size, WITH adjustments to cost??? The number of soldiers balances itself out since the cost is increased/decreased. I know there wont be enough time to do this for this tourney, but is the idea acceptable?
Last edited by Lazy O; 05-15-2011 at 15:09.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
[21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting
Small thought from RS2; Why not make every unit the same unit size, WITH adjustments to cost??? The number of soldiers balances itself out since the cost is increased/decreased. I know there wont be enough time to do this for this tourney, but is the idea acceptable?
NO! plz , no! RS2 bored the heck out of me in 2 weeks. I love EB multiplayer , just some minor fixes which i mentioned before , and it's great.
Small thought from RS2; Why not make every unit the same unit size, WITH adjustments to cost??? The number of soldiers balances itself out since the cost is increased/decreased. I know there wont be enough time to do this for this tourney, but is the idea acceptable?
I will be testing your EDU this afternoon but until then:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
-Phalanxes had their ridiculous shield stats lowered to 2, which makes sense given the small size of their shields; now mass arrows may have some effect on them. They had a corresponding increase in defense skill. Pike attack was also slightly reduced.
Of course there were other important changes but I won't discuss them all.
Wont that make them even more über in non phalanx melee? its a bit ankward to see klerunchoi phalangitai being surrounded by melee specialists including clubmans, retainers and werewolves and still winning the fight....
I propose that Iosatae (? celtic slingers) should be added to Sweboz EDU, they are very abundant and usefull in the campain and would give a bit more flexibility to the Sweboz armies since they dont have any on their own in EB1 and the only have one usefull ranged unit (Medininkas).
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Germanic "retainer" units seem to have been styled as large-size troops, in reality they were more of a small cadre of highly loyal soldiers. Thus they lost numbers, got higher costs, and got much better stats overall.
The Thegnoz Drugule (heavy infantry) or only the bodyguards? That would make the Sweboz even more vulnerable to missiles and with only Speutagardaz to rely as armoured line infantary (wich arent so usefull in most situations, at least in my experience)...
Last edited by LusitanianWolf; 05-16-2011 at 12:32.
Does anyone else see the irony in Vartan calling parts of these changes "communism", and the only one who opposes them is the guy with Karl Marx in his sig?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Note, I'm not against all changes. For example, I agree that cavalry using spears overhand need a little improvement, as they're not up to snuff. In other words, don't take that joke too seriously, mmkay?
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
The reasoning behind this is that
a) I don't want noble, chain-armed infantry to be a large-sized unit. It doesn't make sense.
b) Now they sort of fill their job as a "cheap elite" better - as elites are only supposed to have 60 men.
They were never full elites, mind you - their fighting skill wasn't actually any better than that of the Neitos, who are regular soldiers fitted with chain mail. What the Arjos had on the Neitos was simply +1 shield and +2 morale, as well as a tighter formation. What you've done is to lower their numbers and lower their morale, so how can they be called "elite" now? They're low-numbered regulars - which motivates your third point:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
c) It offers an interesting quandary to the Arverni player, as Bataroas and Arjos are approximately the same cost now - which one to get another of?
You yourself invites the Arverni player to compare them with Bataroas. But, tell me, is a supposedly elite unit really supposed to compete with regulars for a place in the army?
Look, the real point is that noble infantry should not have 120 men. (Saba Noble infantry also seem to represent the regulars of the Sabaean infantry which are not depicted).
Also Arjos got their morale restored. Seems I didn't mean to change that as it was not included in the documentation, I would've remembered for this unit since there has been a debate over it.
The Thegnoz Drugule (heavy infantry) or only the bodyguards? That would make the Sweboz even more vulnerable to missiles and with only Speutagardaz to rely as armoured line infantary (wich arent so usefull in most situations, at least in my experience)...
Um no, this means the Dugundiz, etc. which got shield boosts as well to represent their tight, protective shieldwall formations. Sloxonez, which were historically good quality shock troopers, also got a boost. I am considering a further +1 defense for these units.
Good point on the Iaosatae. The Sweboz historically had slingers anyways. They have been added now.
EBOT June 2011 - MP EDU - Feedback needed.
Originally Posted by skullheadhq
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks