umm...

[Vuk]

I heard so many raves about EB, so I decided to download it and try it myself. I gotta say, truely a fantastic job of overhauling the game system, representing provnices, units, characters, etc. It really is quite a breathtaking achievement. There is one part of it where I really felt it fell flat though. I know there are lots of fans of this mod, and I am not trying to be a jerk here, but the way battles play out is really quite unrealistic. Archers are undervalued, cavalry is almost completely useless, damage is quite off, and the AI does some random and pretty ridiculous things. Now before you rip me apart for stating my opinion, let me clarify something. I am not an ignorant noob who wants ridiculous tank cavalry that can roll everything like in RTW, and I am not clueless as to weaponry of the time. In fact, quite the opposite. Apart from having read a vast variety of sources on the subject, I have created and used my own archaic weaponry and armour. While not an expert, and not everything I have made has turned out, I none-the-less have a working knowledge of ancient equipment.
For example, let's take slingers. A good slinger could outrange the average bowman at this time, and be quite a bit more accurate. There are lots of good sources that cite the accuracy and range of slingers, but the best IMO is the Bible (I leave it up to you whether to accept this as a creditable source or not). I forget in which book of the Bible it says that the slingers of Benjiman could hit a bird in flight from some (I forget exactly) very long range. I made and have used a sling (three in fact) myself, and while I remain very unskilled with it, I have gotten a taste for its power. My biggest objection with the slingers lies in the description. The description says that they fling rocks at the enemy. Most Hellenic slingers at least at this time used lead bullets, not stones. They flew faster, with more accuracy, and could cause devestating damage - easily being able to kill an armoured man without even necassarily damaging his armour. While many peasants used smaller slings and stones to herd sheep, and often only brought that into battle, more professional slingers had more professional equipment, with hemp slings and lead bullets. I decided to have a unit of Rhodian slingers pour into a units of unshielded infantry and LO AND BEHOLD! About FIVE darned men dropped dead! WTH! They would have destroyed the entire first row and reaked havoc on the rest. Slingers were limited because of the nature of their weapon, but when used correctly they were extremely devestating, their long range could keep archers and horse archers away, and they slaughtered armoured soldiers. They are just one example of how horribly wrong battles play in EB.

*rant over*
Sorry if I ranted too much, but trust me, the reason for my abject disappointment with this aspect of the game is my love of other aspects of it.
I will still play the mod, but just auto resolve battles. Overall I think the mod is excellent, and I assure you that I will be doing my best to rebalance the battles myself. :beam:
Good luck on part 2, I will play it.
Vuk

[SwissBarbar]

The AI stupidity cannot be modded and is the same as in RTW.

And the slingers... they are good enough if used correctly

[Tollheit]

I'd even say they are still easily the most efficient ranged foot soldiers in EB, especially so against armoured opponents.
On the use and usefulness of cavalry:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103172

[Vuk]

The AI stupidity cannot be modded and is the same as in RTW.

And the slingers... they are good enough if used correctly

So what if they can be used effectively under the correct circumstances? The point of this mod to represent things realisticly, and that could have been easily achieved by simply setting a few values to something different. The problem is that the modders (despite how excellently they did with other aspects of the game) are not well enough informed about the warfare of the time. The way battles in RTW were worked too, but they were also wrong. EB's battles hardly play any more realistically than vanilla's.


I'd even say they are still easily the most efficient ranged foot soldiers in EB, especially so against armoured opponents.
On the use and usefulness of cavalry:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103172

Come on, if you have three units of some of the best cavalry in the game you can take down ONE unit of infantry after charging multiple times. lol, why not just have three units of infantry? That is my whole poine, cavalry is useless. And regardless of how useful it is, the big point here is that it is unrealistic.

Anyway, I may release my rebalance when I am done, then people can have realistic battles as well as campaign. :2thumbsup:

[Phalanx300]

EB battles are realistic, and not well informed? Are you joking???:inquisitive:

[SwissBarbar]

So what if they can be used effectively under the correct circumstances? The point of this mod to represent things realisticly, and that could have been easily achieved by simply setting a few values to something different. The problem is that the modders (despite how excellently they did with other aspects of the game) are not well enough informed about the warfare of the time. The way battles in RTW were worked too, but they were also wrong. EB's battles hardly play any more realistically than vanilla's.


That's what I say. The EB team is bound to the limits of hardcoded RTW-aspects.




Come on, if you have three units of some of the best cavalry in the game you can take down ONE unit of infantry after charging multiple times. lol, why not just have three units of infantry? That is my whole poine, cavalry is useless. And regardless of how useful it is, the big point here is that it is unrealistic.

Anyway, I may release my rebalance when I am done, then people can have realistic battles as well as campaign. :2thumbsup:

In reality, if you have nothing but "3 units" of cavalry against nothing but "1 unit" of heavily armoured Hoplitai with long spears, they also would be repulsed. The thing is to use cavalry properly in battle, in cooperation with the rest of your army. If you use cavalry how it should be used, you can roll up a line and make a whole army of 3000 men rout with your 3 units of heavy cavalry.

[Mediolanicus]

So what if they can be used effectively under the correct circumstances? The point of this mod to represent things realisticly, and that could have been easily achieved by simply setting a few values to something different. The problem is that the modders (despite how excellently they did with other aspects of the game) are not well enough informed about the warfare of the time. The way battles in RTW were worked too, but they were also wrong. EB's battles hardly play any more realistically than vanilla's.



Come on, if you have three units of some of the best cavalry in the game you can take down ONE unit of infantry after charging multiple times. lol, why not just have three units of infantry? That is my whole poine, cavalry is useless. And regardless of how useful it is, the big point here is that it is unrealistic.

Anyway, I may release my rebalance when I am done, then people can have realistic battles as well as campaign. :2thumbsup:

Of course the battles play the same as in Vanilla. Battle AI is hard coded. Nothing the modders can legaly do something about.

Cavalry is pretty effective when I use them. They can kill everything as long as you don't leave lance-armed horses in melee. And use them in a supportive role most of the time. As Swiss Barbar said 3, and even 2 (I use an FM and a unit of equites extraordinarii in my campaign) can mob up a whole army 3000 men strong while taking about 10-20 casualties in total.

If you can't get used to fight with them then change their stats, but plaese don't come saying the EB team did a bad job and made battles unrealistical and should change everything because you say so.

[anubis88]

yeah... The cavalry is very strong in EB if you use it as it was supposed to be used, there is no non spear armed unit that could defeat a good charge by heavy armoured cavalry.

If the slings would be so effective as you suggest, then instead of a roman empire we would have a rhodian empire... If slings would be so effective, ie completly destroy a formation why weren't they used more? In fact, why were the slingers most of the time from the lowest level's of society?

If the sling was so effective, it would be use more often

[Mediolanicus]

Slings are very effective but require years of training before they can be so effective.

That's why only the lowest classes used them. They learned slinging by playing as a kid and hunting afterwards.
For a professional army it would take to long to learn. Archers are almost as deadly, can be used from behind your own lines and are much more easier to learn to use effectively.

In EB: western archers < slingers < eastern archers (with a few exceptions of course).

[Tollheit]

I can rout one unit of Hoplitai with one unit of cavalry by frontal charges, and that is not how cavalry should be used.

[Lovejoy]

Cavalry bad? You must be joking. Look in the MP-thread, even against humans opponents cavalry is game winners. Hetairoi is almost over powered in multiplayer - as romans you cant stop them.

Are you sure you know how to use cav correctly? They need a long chage space etc.


And the thing is, you cant make everything realistic. You must balance things.:juggle2: If they made slingers even more powerful, you would only need 5 slingers to beat ANY Gaul army. Is that realistic?

The battlefields in Rome Total War are like football fields: flat and you have a good view of everything. Slingers can target WHATEVER unit he wishes on the ENTIRE battlefield. If we went by your suggestion, you could simply take 5 slingers and kill the general in EVERY fight before the battle have even started. Is that realistic?

You see, you cant simply take one unit and say, "look this is wrong!". You need to look at it from a bigger picture. :yes:

[Vuk]

The Roman Empire (and Republic) DID use slingers. The reason that they did not dominate the battle are threefold.
1. They could not be concentrated easily like archers, because they needed a lot of room to shoot (I have done it myself, so I know :P)
2. If the enemy hard large shields they could get up to enemy slingers taking very few losses.
3. To be a good slinger took a lifetime of experience (which is why I am such a lousy one :P).

As to the cavalry comments, I am not saying they should be able to roll pikemen (like the guy who did the tutorial tried), but they should be a lot more mortal (ei, take a heck of a lot more damage), and do a LOT more charge damage. (and no, I am not saying that they should launch enemies like Vanilla had) And to avoid confusion, I am talking about heavy charging cavalry, not horse archers or something. Every unit should be more mortal, ranged units overall need to do more damage, infantry has to be a little slower, shields have to count for a bit more, and shock troops need more charge damage. That is my (un)proffesional opinion.

[Vuk]

Cavalry bad? You must be joking. Look in the MP-thread, even against humans opponents cavalry is game winners. Hetairoi is almost over powered in multiplayer - as romans you cant stop them.

Are you sure you know how to use cav correctly? They need a long chage space etc.


And the thing is, you cant make everything realistic. You must balance things.:juggle2: If they made slingers even more powerful, you would only need 5 slingers to beat ANY Gaul army. Is that realistic?

The battlefields in Rome Total War are like football fields: flat and you have a good view of everything. Slingers can target WHATEVER unit he wishes on the ENTIRE battlefield. If we went by your suggestion, you could simply take 5 slingers and kill the general in EVERY fight before the battle have even started. Is that realistic?

You see, you cant simply take one unit and say, "look this is wrong!". You need to look at it from a bigger picture. :yes:

lol, the answer is to give it all an overhaul. Make formations count for more, make shields count for more, give slingers a very loose formation and have them do lower damage than archers, but do AP damage. Up the charge damage of shock units, lower the speed of infantry, make new maps, etc. All these things would go a long way toward making the big picture more realistic.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and distinguise between peasant slinger levys and professional slingers with cost, training time, etc. The training time for good slingers should be very high. In MP that could be balanced by adding to the cost.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I heard so many raves about EB, so I decided to download it and try it myself. I gotta say, truely a fantastic job of overhauling the game system, representing provnices, units, characters, etc. It really is quite a breathtaking achievement. There is one part of it where I really felt it fell flat though.


I know there are lots of fans of this mod, and I am not trying to be a jerk here, but the way battles play out is really quite unrealistic. Archers are undervalued, cavalry is almost completely useless, damage is quite off, and the AI does some random and pretty ridiculous things.

Archers are undervalued? How so? I get the impression you have limited yourself to the very western most half (possibly the Italian Peninsula even) of the campaign map? Because, and I'm saying this as an EB player here, the archers from the Eastern regions will -when deployed properly- simply trash most armies. If two people where to do battle in multiplayer and one of them would use an army with those Eastern archer types the other one would have no choice but to invest considerably in his cavalry: indeed, when you get to the East the archers are quite capable of roundly defeating most western cavalry squadrons.


Now before you rip me apart for stating my opinion, let me clarify something. I am not an ignorant noob who wants ridiculous tank cavalry that can roll everything like in RTW, and I am not clueless as to weaponry of the time. In fact, quite the opposite. Apart from having read a vast variety of sources on the subject, I have created and used my own archaic weaponry and armour. While not an expert, and not everything I have made has turned out, I none-the-less have a working knowledge of ancient equipment.

For example, let's take slingers. A good slinger could outrange the average bowman at this time, and be quite a bit more accurate.
This is what makes me think you have really limited yourself to the western bit. Oh and for the record: slingers in the west could & do outrange (as is the case in EB) most archers. But if you go to the east you'll find the nomadic composite bows are... quite potent. So potent in fact that composite bows remained the best ranged weapons: fast, accurate, and effective from horseback too. (While probably not entirely without exaggeration the Mongols did pride themselves on extraordinary range for a reason.)


There are lots of good sources that cite the accuracy and range of slingers, but the best IMO is the Bible (I leave it up to you whether to accept this as a creditable source or not). I forget in which book of the Bible it says that the slingers of Benjiman could hit a bird in flight from some (I forget exactly) very long range. I made and have used a sling (three in fact) myself, and while I remain very unskilled with it, I have gotten a taste for its power. My biggest objection with the slingers lies in the description.

Okay... However I personally do doubt that you would, as they do in movies, have sufficient time to aim very accurately under the stress of battle (you should look up the astonishing low percentage of soldiers in for instance WW2 that actually shot to kill, nevermind now the very low number which actually shot at all) much less when they are ordered to fire. It's not like "Fire! - But sir, I haven't marked my target yet!" more like "Fire! Ok, here we go - let's give it a shot..."

As for the reliability of the Bible... Well, put it this way: Biblical is a distinct term for refering to certain expressions or events. So is Homeric. See what I mean?


The description says that they fling rocks at the enemy. Most Hellenic slingers at least at this time used lead bullets, not stones. They flew faster, with more accuracy, and could cause devestating damage - easily being able to kill an armoured man without even necassarily damaging his armour.

The discription does? Yes, you are quite right that the Hellenic slingers do fling lead bullets. (I thought that it was mentioned the lead bullets are one of those military innovations which occured around the time of the famous Philip, king of Makedonia, or am I utterly confused here?) Heck, they are _statted_ as such (compare to the clay bullets of their Thracian counterparts). However...


While many peasants used smaller slings and stones to herd sheep, and often only brought that into battle, more professional slingers had more professional equipment, with hemp slings and lead bullets. I decided to have a unit of Rhodian slingers pour into a units of unshielded infantry and LO AND BEHOLD! About FIVE darned men dropped dead! WTH! They would have destroyed the entire first row and reaked havoc on the rest.

5 Men on a unit of how much? Even at 240 men it's still 1 in 48 or approximately 2% of the entire unit. Now consider that a slingers unit is what, 120 men? At any rate 1 vs 1 tests do not really work out in EB. They don't do so in RTW either. You will find, for instance, that the _scenario_ of the battle is quite influential: in EB units are more prone to the effects of circumstances (as they probably were in real life, for all we know) than they were in RTW because of the combination of stats, cost and AOR. You will find that slingers and archers are among the most effective and arguably the most cost-effective troops to campaign with. You will find that height advantages and disadvantages have markedly more effect on the performance of various missile troops compared to RTW: a few archers positioned advantageously are capable of inflicting massive losses among lightly armed enemy (infantry). Really, do play a couple of camaigns as a settled faction that has to face the nomads early on in large numbers (AS, Baktria) and you will -if anything- probably curse them archers for making your life so much harder and depleting your forces (not to mention coffers) so quickly. See how you can annihilate armies with a good mix of archers and slingers backed up by some solid heavy infantry, some tough light infantry and powerful cavalry. See how going cheap & easy on recruitment policy can backfire when faced with unexpectedly tough opponents, resulting in massive losses and/or routs.

The rather different ways in how battles play out in EB are a known first-timer nasty-surprise. However, once you get used to it apparently it isn't inherently worse than RTW: at least people who play EB a lot complain a lot less about these issues than do people who are new to it (and don't see their expectations fulfilled).

[SwissBarbar]

Since you're a slinger yourself, it's clear that you're not impartial :beam: If I was a naked swordfighter, I'm sure I would like to see them in the game being more powerful too :smash:

[Vuk]

Since you're a slinger yourself, it's clear that you're not impartial :beam: If I was a naked swordfighter, I'm sure I would like to see them in the game being more powerful too :smash:

I use the Atl Atl also, that does not mean that I am partial torward it. It just means that I understand it better. I also use bows and arrows, so why am I not prejiduced toward them? Heck, I can throw knives, hachets, do various styles of sword and knife fighting, and have experimented with making spears before. I must be prejiduced toward it all. :P No, it is just that ancient and medieval warfare interests me (esp primitive warfare). When I see things like 240 javelin being lobbed into a group of 240 infantry without shields and 10 or so falling dead I die inside. Do you know how deep you can bury those things into a tree? Do you know how little protection mail offered against them? That is what I mean about units being more mortal. Their biggest defense was their shield, and should be in the game.

EDIT: Just thought of some something, I am learning the Yang style Taijichuan fan form next semester, you will not see me opting for including fan warriors. :P

[anubis88]

I use the Atl Atl also, that does not mean that I am partial torward it. It just means that I understand it better. I also use bows and arrows, so why am I not prejiduced toward them? Heck, I can throw knives, hachets, do various styles of sword and knife fighting, and have experimented with making spears before. I must be prejiduced toward it all. :P No, it is just that ancient and medieval warfare interests me (esp primitive warfare). When I see things like 240 javelin being lobbed into a group of 240 infantry without shields and 10 or so falling dead I die inside. Do you know how deep you can bury those things into a tree? Do you know how little protection mail offered against them? That is what I mean about units being more mortal. Their biggest defense was their shield, and should be in the game.

EDIT: Just thought of some something, I am learning the Yang style Taijichuan fan form next semester, you will not see me opting for including fan warriors. :P

Dude.... sarcasm...

[antisocialmunky]

...Cavalry is ridiculous. As the Rome vs Greece tournement has shown. The infantry can all but win the fight until the cavalry comes back and messes up their day.

[Tellos Athenaios]

...Cavalry is ridiculous. As the Rome vs Greece tournement has shown. The infantry can all but win the fight until the cavalry comes back and messes up their day.

Cannae... ? :wink:

[cmacq]

I heard so many raves about EB, so I decided to download it and try it myself. I gotta say, truely a fantastic job of overhauling the game system, representing provnices, units, characters, etc. It really is quite a breathtaking achievement. There is one part of it where I really felt it fell flat though. I know there are lots of fans of this mod, and I am not trying to be a jerk here, but the way battles play out is really quite unrealistic. Archers are undervalued, cavalry is almost completely useless, damage is quite off, and the AI does some random and pretty ridiculous things. Now before you rip me apart for stating my opinion, let me clarify something. I am not an ignorant noob who wants ridiculous tank cavalry that can roll everything like in RTW, and I am not clueless as to weaponry of the time. In fact, quite the opposite. Apart from having read a vast variety of sources on the subject, I have created and used my own archaic weaponry and armour. While not an expert, and not everything I have made has turned out, I none-the-less have a working knowledge of ancient equipment.
For example, let's take slingers. A good slinger could outrange the average bowman at this time, and be quite a bit more accurate. There are lots of good sources that cite the accuracy and range of slingers, but the best IMO is the Bible (I leave it up to you whether to accept this as a creditable source or not). I forget in which book of the Bible it says that the slingers of Benjiman could hit a bird in flight from some (I forget exactly) very long range. I made and have used a sling (three in fact) myself, and while I remain very unskilled with it, I have gotten a taste for its power. My biggest objection with the slingers lies in the description. The description says that they fling rocks at the enemy. Most Hellenic slingers at least at this time used lead bullets, not stones. They flew faster, with more accuracy, and could cause devestating damage - easily being able to kill an armoured man without even necassarily damaging his armour. While many peasants used smaller slings and stones to herd sheep, and often only brought that into battle, more professional slingers had more professional equipment, with hemp slings and lead bullets. I decided to have a unit of Rhodian slingers pour into a units of unshielded infantry and LO AND BEHOLD! About FIVE darned men dropped dead! WTH! They would have destroyed the entire first row and reaked havoc on the rest. Slingers were limited because of the nature of their weapon, but when used correctly they were extremely devestating, their long range could keep archers and horse archers away, and they slaughtered armoured soldiers. They are just one example of how horribly wrong battles play in EB.

*rant over*
Sorry if I ranted too much, but trust me, the reason for my abject disappointment with this aspect of the game is my love of other aspects of it.
I will still play the mod, but just auto resolve battles. Overall I think the mod is excellent, and I assure you that I will be doing my best to rebalance the battles myself. :beam:
Good luck on part 2, I will play it.
Vuk

A rant about the 'king of battle,' the sling, under-strength, as for the ratio of kills per volley??? Have not seen that one for awhile. Of course, this is why the sling has controlled the outcome of every battle until the coming of the first nuke? Although you protest otherwise, as introspection, do you think the problems you’re finding with EB have something to do with either your perception, level of experience, or intrinsic abilities? I’m Just asking the obvious and what most that read your comments are thinking.

For example try using the slingers against the rear or right flank of an enemy, yet with 6 or 7 kills per volley then you may complain the casualties caused are extreme or excessive?




CmacQ

[Lovejoy]

lol, the answer is to give it all an overhaul. Make formations count for more, make shields count for more, give slingers a very loose formation and have them do lower damage than archers, but do AP damage. Up the charge damage of shock units, lower the speed of infantry, make new maps, etc. All these things would go a long way toward making the big picture more realistic.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and distinguise between peasant slinger levys and professional slingers with cost, training time, etc. The training time for good slingers should be very high. In MP that could be balanced by adding to the cost.

Heh, not everything can be done.

Formation - not much can be done. what do u wanna do?

Shields are very strong is EB. Thats why many units don't take much dmg from skirmishers and slingers.

Slingers do have AP(most of them) and have weaker attacks than archers AFAIK.

Not much can be done about the maps. The AI only know how to use these kind of terrains - besides: most things are hardcoded.

[heldelance]

Cavalry are horrific things. Horrid armored bastards that can ruin your day (actually even light lancers can wreck your day). The only cavalry that sucks in close combat are the ones without lances/spears/whatever. You may think cavalry sucks and they're underpowered but you couldn't be farther from the truth. All cavalry sucks against pikemen, even infantry suck when front attacking pikemen, against hoplite style units however... Get some heavily armored cavalry (25+) and have some good offensive infantry backing them and here's a killer frontal tactic. Charge the cavalry head on and even hoplites break lines and then your infantry can get in and slaughter them with ease.

Other than that, cavalry is supposed to be used as the hammer, infantry pin the enemies and due to their speed, cavalry will get behind the enemy much faster than infantry can.

Slingers need to be used correctly, sure they don't have the range of Cretan archers but good slingers (rhodian slingers for one) will kill cataphracts dead. against armor, slingers are great, they're like the mid point between javelineers and archers, less damage than a javelin but greater range and they have AP (All of them do I think) which makes them indispensable when fighting heavy armor.
Can anyone verify that slingers suck against units with good shields? My slingers seemed to smash units with high armor and low shields but when fighting say hastati, they didn't do as much damage.

[Vuk]

A rant about the 'king of battle,' the sling, under-strength, as for the ratio of kills per volley??? Have not seen that one for awhile. Of course, this is why the sling has controlled the outcome of every battle until the coming of the first nuke? Although you protest otherwise, as introspection, do you think the problems you’re finding with EB have something to do with either your perception, level of experience, or intrinsic abilities? I’m Just asking the obvious and what most that read your comments are thinking.

For example try using the slingers against the rear or right flank of an enemy, yet with 6 or 7 kills per volley then you may complain the casualties caused are extreme or excessive?




CmacQ

Trust me, it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system.

[Zett]

Trust me, it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system.

First read this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79193). Approach the discussion openly, sources in hand, but willing to listen.:yes:

If you present some sources or evidences about your view, this agumentation wouldn't be only about "I said this, you said that".:beam:

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Vuk]

First read this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79193). Approach the discussion openly, sources in hand, but willing to listen.:yes:

If you present some sources or evidences about your view, this agumentation wouldn't be only about "I said this, you said that".:beam:

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

2 things, first of all, I am in Hungary now, several thousand miles from any of my sources.
Second of all, a part of my evidence was based on my own experience, and so not testable. I am not a sloppy historian (in fact, will not be a historian at all technically for another year), but right now it is a little hard to get at anything. You can check my thread in the Frontroom if you do not believe me BTW, I am in Hungary studying (just got here two months ago).

[A Very Super Market]

Just a question, you aren't playing on very hard difficulty are you?

[Mediolanicus]

Trust me, it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system.

Go complain to CA if you don't like the battle system. As said previously, that's hard coded.



Just a question, you aren't playing on very hard difficulty are you?

If this is the case, I'm going to laugh very, very hard...

[cmacq]

Trust me, it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system.


Your words make trust impossible. Capabilities = Role = Overall effectiveness

...this is madness!


CmacQ

[Vuk]

Your statements make trust impossible. Capabilities = Role = Overall effectiveness

...this is madness!


CmacQ

I said that their roles and capabilities were inaccurate, not uneffective. If no one is even gonna take the time to read what I write, I will not bother arguing on this thread. I will make my own rebalance and let you critique that.

[A Very Super Market]

What difficulty are you on?

[Visitor13]

Vuk, so are you playing on Very Hard battle difficulty or not? Because this may be the cause of your problems.

[Cute Wolf]

RTW Vanilla, slingers are just another versions of peasants with a sling and don't have much use...

EB = Slingers from hell!!! They mow down heavily armoured units... Let us spare the one with large shields, if I was a Hastati, and I faced a lot of slingers, I will cover my face with my shield, rather than hit on the forehead like the foolish goliath...:2thumbsup: even with their shields, they can't do much if outflanked....

[KipDan]

Ignore.

[antisocialmunky]

Lol, I remember the time in EB .8 where my sphendontai mowed down half a unit of Prodromoi before it charged the slingers and were routed by the last point blank volley.

[Kromulan]

Hmm. . . I don't use slingers much. I may hire 1~2 as mercs during a campaign (except as Saba... who NEED them). This is mostly because my uneducated opinion is that they're too powerful.

Also, the lethality of charge cavalry in ancient battles was VERY dependent on circumstances. A charge into the rear of an engaged levy infantry was absolutely devastating. Frontal charges on prepared and disciplined infantry was suicide. The change I would make would be to give 2 different charge ratings: 1 very high (like we have in EB) for rear or flanking charges and 1 much lower for frontal charges. I doubt this is possible within the game engine.

As to the "units need to be more mortal", I disagree. I think all units should have their defense raised and attacks should stay where they are. Even with the relative nerfing EB gave everything but the missiles via the lethality changes, units still die too quickly. Ancient battles were not decided by which side killed more of the enemy, they were decided by which side's morale broke. It was only AFTER one side broke and ran that the killing would begin in earnest. Therefore, EB's approach of trying to decrease the kill rates in battles is the correct approach (imo).

[Cyrus]

I kinda agree with Vuk, on that missiles in general are greatly underpowered, at least for the human player, just a few days ago i tested this theory and had 2 alpine shortswordsmen fight each other, they trew their volleys and while mine killed 10 his killed 50!!!!!!!!!!! That was repeated with 2 thureophoroi, and ,while with less losses due to armor i still lost three times more that the AI.
P.S. the conditions were equal for both units, flat terrein, m difficulty and launching of spears commenced at ruffly the same second........

[cmacq]

Indeed the AI is not fair, and neither am I, so as fare for my time, I hereby dub this Vuk...

'Sling-Lord.'
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6hC2P3tH2I&feature=related)



CmacQ

[A Very Super Market]

When you fire javelins at the same time, you leave yourself open for attack if you are late, and they get some time to pull up their shields

Ad vice versa if you're early.

[HunGeneral]

Well I am by no means a specialist of ancient weapons. And I have no reliable sources or any real life experience on the effectivenis of such weapons - (maybe just a little with composite bows and I think in EB they are far from being underpowered).

My statement is mostly based on my experience with EB - I'm not sure wether missile troops are underpowered - it depends alot on circumstances. I also think that a unit of skirmishers kills more than 10 people per volley expecially if they are unarmored - in theory armored units should suffer about as many casualities unless they have shields (most armored troops do have them)

I also believe shields to be a quite strong defense against missiles - if Peltastai or any javelin throwing unit trows them at a steady unit of men with shields then they won't cause much damage. Same goes for archers and slingers. The picture however changes alot when they trow the javelins at the rear or side of the formation...

Conserning cavalry - I don't think there too strong - like sad earlier charging them in a line of prepared spearmen (even if light infantry) is not a good idea. If that happens then they most likely will suffer more casualities then they can cause.

Still I can't be sure how close this is to historical accuracy.

A few things which might unbalance testing and should be mentioned: like sad before the difficulty level EB has been made to be played on is Medium - because any other dififculty would give a large advantige to either side and woul upset balance.

- In campaign: the number of command stars a general has can give many bonuses to the abilities of their troops. The AI usually has more stars then your generals will get - this is ment to give the AI a chance of an equal fight against you (since the battle AI can make lots of nonsense).

Vuk. I think you should take this into consideration when testing troop performance - I'm not suspecting you don't know of these but since you haven't confirmed or denied this in your earlier posts I can't know for sure.
In no way am I atempting to insult you or doubt your knowledge. I'm just stating my thoughts.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I am not sure I understand your point Vuk, you say that slingers are not being given their historical role on the battlefield. but in all honesty slingers [to my limited understanding] were very rarely given a true role in a battle, there is a reason that slings are almost never mentioned in battle accounts. they just werent used enmass and used like other traditional units. slingers were mostly treated the same as skirmishers and most of the time had very little equipment. so realy EB has over emphasized slingers as a combat unit. I am not saying that slings arent powerful, I know they are and have had the chance to see its power first hand by someone who has used it for a long time. what I am saying is that in the battlefields of antiquity most often slingers were not treated as some super deadly elite missle corps, but as a irritant to the enemy [I may be wrong, as I said I am no expert, though I wish I was]

[bobbin]

If you feel the slingers are too weak try tightening up their formation in the EDU, this makes them a LOT more powerful, as i recall the EB team losened their formation a while ago as many people felt that they were overpowered.

As for the cavalry i feel EB is spot on, a frontal charge into braced spearmen will be ineffective while charging swordmen will cause more causalties while charges to rear and flanks will result in a massacare.

[Vuk]

I like how Vuk posts a few times, and then never comes back to this thread.

Pardon me for getting some sleep, I will be sure to stay awake all night at your pleasure next time.

I have not read all the post since I last posted here, but from what I have glancing over:
I am playing on the hard difficulty.
Slinger's roles on a battle field were in the back (usually on a slope) in a very loose formation. They usually were NOT skirmishers, as the main army would keep the enemy away from them. They were not some elite unit for the reasons aforementioned, and esp since they did little more than harras units with shields. They were also used a lot to defend walls. When I talked about roles though (as you will see if you reread my post), I was referring to the capabilities and roles of many units, not just slingers.
Also, as I have said many times before, those things are not hard coded in. By changing text files (with a little creativity) it is possible to represent units in a much more realistic light. First of all, the # of slingers would be lower to a unit. Slingers were often used enmass in the ancient world, but if you look at the musters in the Bible, the size of the specific units of slingers compared to infantry that were raised from the Tribes of Israel were quite small. (plus, regardless to say, there were many more units of infantry) And Israelites at this time were a shepherd people. 'Units' of slingers were drawn from individual families/tribes, and so were not very big. Also, I think that a bigger distinction needs to be made between professional and nonprofessional slingers, AND that the shield factor needs to be higher. I am sick of saying this, and I am making my own rebalance, so I am not gonna check this thread much/at all until I complete it.
Sorry, I do not mean to be arrogant, but I am doing no good arguing with the whole community over something they all believe. It is not like an intelligent twoway conversation, it is a fifty way conversation with two sides. That said, bye. :bow:

[A Very Super Market]

Sorry for sounding like an asshole, but I hate it when important questions go unanswered.

You are playing on hard, therefore unbalancing the game. The difficulty doesn't improve AI, it just give the units bonuses. Play on normal, and see if it is still unbalanced.

[cmacq]

Slingers were often used enmass in the ancient world, but if you look at the musters in the Bible, the size of the specific units of slingers compared to infantry that were raised from the Tribes of Israel were quite small. (plus, regardless to say, there were many more units of infantry) And Israelites at this time were a shepherd people. 'Units' of slingers were drawn from individual families/tribes, and so were not very big. Also, I think that a bigger distinction needs to be made between professional and nonprofessional slingers, AND that the shield factor needs to be higher. I am sick of saying this, and I am making my own rebalance, so I am not gonna check this thread much/at all until I complete it.

If one wants to be taken seriously, one must be specific. Also if one wants to be specific and cite a reference, please do so. For example:

II Kings 3:25
׃וְהֶעָרִ֣ים יַהֲרֹ֡סוּ וְכָל־חֶלְקָ֣ה טֹ֠ובָה יַשְׁלִ֨יכוּ אִישׁ־אַבְנֹ֜ו וּמִלְא֗וּהָ וְכָל־מַעְיַן־מַ֤יִם יִסְתֹּ֙מוּ֙ וְכָל־עֵֽץ־טֹ֣וב יַפִּ֔ילוּ עַד־הִשְׁאִ֧יר אֲבָנֶ֛יהָ בַּקִּ֖יר חֲרָ֑שֶׂת וַיָּסֹ֥בּוּ הַקַּלָּעִ֖ים וַיַּכּֽוּהָ׃

New American Standard Bible (1995)
Thus they destroyed the cities; and each one threw a stone on every piece of good land and filled it. So they stopped all the springs of water and felled all the good trees, until in Kir-hareseth only they left its stones; however, the slingers went about it and struck it.

King James
And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kirharaseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it.

____________________________________________________

Also by use of Tribes of Israel indicates the period from the late middle Bronze age up until the end of the united monarchy. So I believe you're talking about the Near Eastern Late Bronze or Early Iron ages. After this period Israel was not but a pleasant fiction. I'm not entirely sure how that would compare to the EB time frame, that is unless you’re intent is to imply that detailed information that was included for the Tribes of Israel context, actually relates to the late 1st millennium BC. The period in which the text was composed, rather than the period mentioned in the texts?


CmacQ

[SwissBarbar]

Which has been mentionned in at least 75 other threads.

Easy = easy
Medium = realisticly balanced
Hard = the enemy gets bonusses which make the game unbalanced
Very Hard = the enemy gets freaking bonusses which make his local levies slaughter your elite-forces.

[seienchin]

Of course EB Battles are unrealistic and there are many strange things like the almighty Phalangitai, but the slinger are quite powerfull in EB.
But my goodness... Cavalery in EB is completly messed up (Thanks to Vanilla ^^).
Shock Cavallery like medievial nights were unthinkable in the EB time. Without saddles its impossible to stay on your horse, when using your spear to penetrate something. But on the other hand Cavallery dies very quick in close combat or like the cataphraktoi can perform impossible tasks like stay alive alone rounded by 100s of spear men... But the Generals are just hilarious... They just take way to many hits...:furious3:
But I like the EB Battles. :2thumbsup:
They are just 10times funnier than Vanilla ones

[Vuk]

If one wants to be taken seriously, one must be specific. Also if one wants to be specific and cite a reference, please do so. For example:

II Kings 3:25
׃וְהֶעָרִ֣ים יַהֲרֹ֡סוּ וְכָל־חֶלְקָ֣ה טֹ֠ובָה יַשְׁלִ֨יכוּ אִישׁ־אַבְנֹ֜ו וּמִלְא֗וּהָ וְכָל־מַעְיַן־מַ֤יִם יִסְתֹּ֙מוּ֙ וְכָל־עֵֽץ־טֹ֣וב יַפִּ֔ילוּ עַד־הִשְׁאִ֧יר אֲבָנֶ֛יהָ בַּקִּ֖יר חֲרָ֑שֶׂת וַיָּסֹ֥בּוּ הַקַּלָּעִ֖ים וַיַּכּֽוּהָ׃

New American Standard Bible (1995)
Thus they destroyed the cities; and each one threw a stone on every piece of good land and filled it. So they stopped all the springs of water and felled all the good trees, until in Kir-hareseth only they left its stones; however, the slingers went about it and struck it.

King James
And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kirharaseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it.

____________________________________________________

Also by use of Tribes of Israel indicates the period from the late middle Bronze age up until the end of the united monarchy. So I believe you're talking about the Near Eastern Late Bronze or Early Iron ages. After this period Israel was not but a pleasant fiction. I'm not entirely sure how that would compare to the EB time frame, that is unless you’re intent is to imply that detailed information that was included for the Tribes of Israel context, actually relates to the late 1st millennium BC. The period in which the text was composed, rather than the period mentioned in the texts?


CmacQ

What you quoted is irrelevant. I know the time period is different (obviously), but what I was saying is that peasant slingers were generally organised in tribal units, which were generally small. I do not have a source for it, so I will not push it as an argument. I have a very hard time reaching any sources right now. :P

[oudysseos]

Unfortunately, without any details or sources to back up your argument, it's just a collection of your opinions, which are of no greater intrinsic worth than anyone else's.
Moreover, you have made some assertions that could be reasonably challenged, but claim that you have no access to your "sources", therefore you should be excused from defending your arguments. If that is truly the case, why did you post now? Could you not have waited until you felt ready to respond adequately to the inevitable criticisms of your assertions? This all seems to me like a massive waste of everybody's time.

You state flatly that the EB team is ignorant about the warfare of the period. This is offensive and was perhaps meant to be, but leaving that aside for the moment, in order for this to be taken seriously, you have to demonstrate that you are an unimpeachable expert on every aspect of warfare in the 3rd century. Your bare assertion that
I none-the-less have a working knowledge of ancient equipment. doesn't quite cut the mustard; for one thing, there is no reason to believe you. People quoting themselves are inevitably experts, yet strangely their claims to expertise can never be substantiated.

You made some poorly constructed, knee-jerk complaints about the lethality of slings and javelins: you were disappointed that the slingers only achieved 2% casualties in one volley and that javelins only achieve 4% casualties again in only one volley. Have you done any beta-testing for any mods? 'Cos that kind of report would be useless rubbish to anyone trying to balance units: can you do any better at tabulating some battle results, with clear and objective standards and comparisons? It's time consuming, but if you can't be bothered why should anyone listen to your rants? Saying something like
my evidence was based on my own experience, and so not testable again begs the question of why did you open this thread at all?

Then there is the funny stuff:
I am not a sloppy historian is endearingly humble, but statements like
it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system. just make you hard to take seriously.
But, truly, sloppiness is the only word for posts like
Slingers were often used enmass in the ancient world, (en masse means 'in large numbers', actually)
but if you look at the musters in the Bible, the size of the specific units of slingers compared to infantry that were raised from the Tribes of Israel were quite small..
So which is it? Were slingers used 'en masse', or were they small units drawn from tribes? And what precisely is the point of talking about the military organisation of the late bronze age when you are criticising a model of the late Hellenistic period?

Let's see some contemporary battle narratives with a bit of structured analysis relating to units and their stats: a lot of this material is online, so being in Hungary is no excuse for laziness.

[mcantu]

Vuk,

as has been stated...you HAVE to set the battle difficulty to medium if you want balanced results

[Aemilius Paulus]

I am playing 1.1, Vuk, and in it, slingers annihilate everything. You can download 1.1 if you wish, although it would be better if you simply modded the stats, which is incredibly easy. Plus, you would not want to miss out on all the 1.2 features would you? Cavalry is already strong enough when properly utilised, so this could be you solution.

[Macilrille]

The actual historian says...


Pffff... Full of himself, Know-It-All. Play the game properly for a 100 or so or so hours then let us see. Somehow only two of my Roman units have achieved gold chevrons in 61 years of fighting, an Accensii and an Equites... Nuff said.

Thorough and meticulous research based on source criticism is the basis for any historical theory if we are to be distinguished as science from fiction young padowan. In order to be credible you will have to
1) Play enough, using all units to their fullest, to actually form an educated view of each unit's capabilities.
2) Meticulously research the effectiveness and role of the various sorts of ancient military units in various sorts of terrains and against various sorts of opponents, in various geographical locations and at various times (which contrary to what you assume, the EB team has at least made an effort to do)
3) Provided that you have not retired after this long and painstaking work, you can then compare the two and see where something may be amiss.
4) Stop undermining your credibility by quoting The Old Testament, it is about as relevent for EB's timeframe as the Vanilla Egyptian units.
5) Stop making blanket statements unsupported by any valid sources, it does not help your credibility and makes you look like an immature ignorant. Or of course you can try the same style if you ever write your dissertation and see how it goes. Our attitude is the same as the professors evaluating that.


I am sorry, but I cannot take you seriously before you do that. Apart from that, I shall let oudysseos' words stand as wisest in this thread. You have much to learn yet, young Padowan and in my arrogance I fear your blinkers will not allow you to learn it for at least another 20 years.

[Blxz]

I use the Atl Atl also, . I also use bows and arrows,, I can throw knives, hachets, do various styles of sword and knife fighting, and have experimented with making spears before.
I am learning the Yang style Taijichuan fan form next semester,

Jeez, I am less worried about overpowered slingers and much more worried about Rambo here. Seriously, mod this guy in and he can be like the Kensei from back in the old Shogun TW days.

[Macilrille]

Nice sarcasm ;-)

But let me reassure you.

With 16 years of fighting with swords and spears I know from experience that people who constantly try new weapons and styles will not master any. It is yet another sign of immaturity, lack of patience... the same as is displayed by someone who has little experience with the game jumps in here and starts spouting opinions based on that and some superficial knowledge of the subject matter, tinted by some obvious bias already... wait... I just realised, it is one and the same.

Now Vuk, you may of course think us biased and evilly against you, and to some extent we are, but we would not have been had you done as I outlined in my above post. People here generally have some sense if presented with valid arguments based on methodical research. The only exception being of course all the Hellene Lovers (not of course us Rome Lovers, who are always perfectly objective and sensible, LOL).

[Vuk]

Nice sarcasm ;-)

But let me reassure you.

With 16 years of fighting with swords and spears I know from experience that people who constantly try new weapons and styles will not master any. It is yet another sign of immaturity, lack of patience... the same as is displayed by someone who has little experience with the game jumps in here and starts spouting opinions based on that and some superficial knowledge of the subject matter, tinted by some obvious bias already... wait... I just realised, it is one and the same.

Now Vuk, you may of course think us biased and evilly against you, and to some extent we are, but we would not have been had you done as I outlined in my above post. People here generally have some sense if presented with valid arguments based on methodical research. The only exception being of course all the Hellene Lovers (not of course us Rome Lovers, who are always perfectly objective and sensible, LOL).

I am not impatient, and I do not move from one to another. I started with Taekwondo which I practice to this day. I never tried to master the atl atl, or the bow and arrow, or the sling, I just wanted to see if I could make and use one, and I could. I still practice most of the sword forms I have learned, still practice my knife forms, and am learning spear, staff, and fan next semester. I never claimed to be a master of any of these, simply that I had some working knowledge.
As a history major I of course realise the importance of sources, and regret creating the need for them so ill prepared. I did not intend for this turn into such a debate. I cannot help that it is now when I decided to try EB, and I am in Hungary without a single familiar book. :P The reason I stopped arguing further is because the need for sources did develop and I am currently completely ill/unequipped. I do though, resent your accusations about my "immaturity, lack of patience". Just because I curious enough to dabble into more areas than I can work to master does not mean that I do not have patience. It simply means that I am open minded.

[satalexton]

er... before everything, may you please play EB for about 100 game years on Medium Campaign difficulty AND Medium Battle difficulty? I believe that it was your choice of game difficulty settings, which is not entirely your fault (hardly anybody reads the faqs), that has led to this regretable (and somewhat humourous to some) misunderstanding between you and the others.

now may peace be with the world (preferably under a makedonian banner)

[Macilrille]

Frankly I do not really care whether or not you resent my perception of you as based on your statements here.

Or rather, I care about as much as you probably do about whether or not the EB team might resent being called ignorant. If you dish out something, do not complain when you get the same back. It is not as if you came and presented a well-thought out argument supported by research and politely presented.

Go and read my first post again, digest it and adhere to it, till then...

/me puts on Ignore.

[athanaric]

Now, Vuk, putting aside for a moment what has been said here before: You must play on "medium" battle difficulty and without chevrons and upgrades to judge unit balance in EB.

Slingers, I can assure you, are absolute killers in EB. In fact, there have been complaints that they were too strong. Five units of Arab slingers (one of the weaker slinger units) on a stone wall can badly maul a whole army. Had a lot of battles with these guys as main missile troops. And everyone here sings the praise of Rhodian and Balearic slingers.
Archers are extremely effective as well. There are many players, including myself, who have managed to defeat fullstack AI armies with only a few Nomad horse archer units.
Regarding heavy cavalry: In my experience, one unit of Ysaninu Aysiramjä (Saka Cataphracts) can kill ca. 30 out of 82 legionaries with the initial charge. One of my units of Grivpanvar (Pahlava Elite Cataphracts) could stand up to a Praetorian cohort in melee. And that after they had killed another cavalry unit, also in melee. I wouldn't call that too weak vs. infantry.

Also, you do, of course, realize that the EB team had a lot of pain making video game units as historically accurate as possible? How would you support your initial statement that they got it all wrong?
You have experience using a weapon as a single man, but do you also have experience fighting in a unit?



It is yet another sign of immaturity, lack of patience...

This is an assumption, and, as such, comes across as unnecessarily offensive.