Cav balance

[antisocialmunky]

How is the team planning on balancing horses in EBII? The EB cav balance has been brought up several times in the EB forum so I thought that I should ask. Basically, Cataphracts beat every other horse type when they probably shouldn't be so deadly in hth where their armor weighs them down.

Shouldn't it instead be:
- Kataphracts are extremely powerful charges but aren't that good in melee due to all their armor.
- Heavy cavalry like Companions should have very powerful charges and be good in melee and fast.
- Medium cavalry is good in melee and very fast.
- Light cavalry is very fast.

So the balance would be:
- Kataphracts destroy everything they charge at
- Kataphracts are beaten in melee by Heavy Cavalry
- Medium Cavalry can beat both for cost
- Light Cavalry is just fast

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

You posted at the wrong forum fellow.

[Cute Wolf]

Im quite interested when you say that heavy cavalry will beat cataphracts in melee, well beating cataphracts in a full clad armour, while you wear nearly full-clad armour... is rather depends on skills. And if u play them, cataphracts aren't invincible, every ap units that has enough defense to buy some time against their charge, usually ends up eating them. With notable exception is Griphanvar, who had extremely lethal melee wapons, but even the Saka cataphracts still capable to deal with them if in secondary sagaris mode...

[antisocialmunky]

No, they are not invincible. Infact they get hacked apart by AP. The issue was raised in an earlier thread about cataphracts and I was wondering if hte EBII balance would be adjusted in the future.

[Cute Wolf]

No, they are not invincible. Infact they get hacked apart by AP. The issue was raised in an earlier thread about cataphracts and I was wondering if hte EBII balance would be adjusted in the future.

Oh, maybe u mistake my bad english, soory. I state that any ap units who had enough defense to buy time, usually ends up defeating the cataphracts. As u can try, try drapanai vs Saka cataphracts, and u can look a really hoorible death.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Are you kidding, my unupgraded Thrakian choppers moved down a full unit of Hellenic Kataphracts (50 men) while suffering 2 out of 60 casualties. The catas routed upon going down to 18 men. I timed it, and it took 8 seconds. Eight fluffing seconds!!! It felt like vanilla with its insanely expedient combat.

Custom battle it was. 1 unit vs 1 unit. Elite of the elite vs elite of the elite. The Drapnai or the Bastarnae would not do too much worse. My Pedites Extraordianrii did the same to Armenian cataphracts while suffering four casualties. AP infantry



So the balance would be:
- Kataphracts destroy everything they charge at
- Kataphracts are beaten in melee by Heavy Cavalry
That is quite difficult to implement. Fatigue was the main weakness of the cataphracts. Knights had it too. Mainly the horses that is, of the knights, as even the ultra-heavy chargers of the Mediaeval times would be conserved until the enemy was less than 80-100 metres away. So difficult was the knight and the barding for the horse to carry. But in the Eastern deserts, the men will suffer rather quickly too.

Thus, the cataphracts would still have a great deal of armour in comparison to other heavy cavalry. Speed does not matter much in RTW, and it seems there are only about three different horsemen speeds in EB. In conclusion, the catas' heavy armour will carry them through any melee battle.

The only possible solution is to significantly lower the cataphract melee attack, but I do not know how accurate that is. I mean, sure they have bulky and unwieldy armour, but still, they were effective fighters, were they not? Also, the charge bonus does not seem to work as it should after about 30-40, as I see little difference in the numbers. Heck, RTR has even larger bonuses, and they do little good...




Crap! I left this post for an hour without posting it! Now, with the new replies, my post is half outdated!

[Cute Wolf]

Well, ap, Thraikioi Rhompaiakoi are elite and well armoured, something that save them from early death against Cataphract charges and melee weapons. Even your Pedites extraordinarii are capable to tear down the living battering ram easily, except when the Catas are quickly withdrawn and repeat their charges. But the Drapanai ad only 13 crappy defense... and if u try, 50++ out of 80 of them didn't survive the first charge, if the cats land their charges properly.

And now, going into some scientific and historical arguments, if the Cataphracts are bad at melee combats, why the latter Sassanids and Byzantines employ Clibinarii that exclusively rely on their mace as "Meat-Grinder", knowing if their enemies had faced them for years, they will just equip them with a good mace and stone.

[Watchman]

The OP argument does not make sense. Charge and shock combat were most specifically what the whole cataphract concept was for and the specific reason they wore a metric f***ton of armour - basically eliminating the normal weakness of mounted trops in extended hand-to-hand combat, namely the squishiness of the horse.

It's not like the lack of tactical agility caused by the weight of armour, and the eventual very dense formations whose chief purpose was to avoid individual horsemen becoming isolated and flanked, left too much alternatives anyay.

If lighter-armed heavy cav wanted to beat tanks like these, they had to do so by exploiting their greater mobility to pin down the cataphracts in close combat with part of their force and using the rest to mount repeated charges against their flanks. This is more or less what the Mac right wing did with the Bactrian and Saka armoured cavalry at Gaugamela, for example.
Trying to beat the heavier horse in drawn out hand-to-hand fighting, their very area of specialty, was obviously a pretty losing proposition.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, there was some discussion of this from another thread and someone that I thought might have been related to EB made a similar claim so that's fine you're nto changing it, I was jsut curious.

[Apázlinemjó]

Well, ap, Thraikioi Rhompaiakoi are elite and well armoured, something that save them from early death against Cataphract charges and melee weapons. Even your Pedites extraordinarii are capable to tear down the living battering ram easily, except when the Catas are quickly withdrawn and repeat their charges. But the Drapanai ad only 13 crappy defense... and if u try, 50++ out of 80 of them didn't survive the first charge, if the cats land their charges properly.

And now, going into some scientific and historical arguments, if the Cataphracts are bad at melee combats, why the latter Sassanids and Byzantines employ Clibinarii that exclusively rely on their mace as "Meat-Grinder", knowing if their enemies had faced them for years, they will just equip them with a good mace and stone.

Against AI you can set your Drapani to loose formation, they survive the impact of the charge, then set it back to tight and hack 'n slash. Of course against player this wouldn't work and in reality, I'm sure that the Drapanai would rout even before the tanks hit them.

[Rahwana]

Soory for this necroing, but I want to ask something about the cav balance.

In my lastest campaign as Avernii, my Brihentin are doing some duels against the Karthadast Lancearii (which was almost look like a Cataphract), and as the result, in spear duel, I usually win in the long run, but soon after I switch to secondary, my brihentin got a losing edge... why their longswords only got better lethality ut not ap? I think the longswords deserve ap, because their description about celtic longswords said that they are heavy and almost like a mace.

[Watchman]

Er, aren't you asking that in the wrong game's forum...?

Also Celtic longswords weren't actually particularly heavy, as such weapons go; in fact compared to some later iterations of the theme they were positively light (although it's worth noting here that with single-handed swords the differences are in the order of few hundred grams...). They would have presumably been somewhat tip-heavy though, on account of the nigh entirely nonmetallic hilts and other furniture which was duly rather light and wouldn't have been much of a counterweight for the blade.

Anyways, trying to cut through armour with one-handed swords is generally speaking stupid and mainly a recipe for damaging the edge. End-heavy "choppers" designed for raw cleaving power, typically single-edged (the kopis/machaira/falcata being a period example; Medieval falchions and their ilk were functionally very similar), AFAIK do best at it, in no small part on account of bearing no small resemblance to axes in overall principles of operation...
SOP for fighting an armoured man, particularly with a slashing sword: aim at the bits that don't have armour on them.

[seienchin]

Mmhh... Sounds like the Rock, Scissor, Paper system of Rome Vanilla to me :book:
Where is your evidence that cataphracts were bad in melee? (Medivial knights, cuirassiers and other heavy armoured troops werent...) and why should medium cavallery be good in melee? :book:

I personally would be happy about better skirmishing cavallery, but not for a Vanilla system.

[Flavius_Belisarius]

Im pretty sure that cataphracts weren't bad in melee. They had a very powerful charge and were cabable of fighting melee for a long time due to their armor. Im quite sure that they even were made for melee. The downside should be their extreme high cost and that the exhaust quite fast which means that they get useless if you charge several times. (or run too long)

[Genava]

Plutarch, battle of Carrhae:

Many of them died thus, and those that survived were disabled for any service, and when Publius exhorted them to charge the cuirassiers, they showed him their hands nailed to their shields, and their feet stuck to the ground, so that they could neither fly nor fight. He charged in himself boldly, however, with his horse, and came to close quarters with them, but was very unequal, whether as to the offensive or defensive part; for with his weak and little javelins, he struck against targets that were of tough raw hides and iron, whereas, the lightly-clad bodies of his Gaulish horsemen were exposed to the strong spears of the enemy. For upon these he mostly depended, and with them he wrought wonders; for they would catch hold of the great spears, and close upon the enemy, and so pull them off from their horses, where they could scarce stir by reason of the heaviness of their armour, and many of the Gauls quitting their own horses, would creep under those of the enemy, and stick them in the belly; which, growing unruly with the pain, trampled upon their riders and upon the enemies promiscuously. The Gauls were chiefly tormented by the heat and drouth, being not accustomed to either, and most of their horses were slain by being spurred on against the spears, so that they were forced to retire among the foot, bearing off Publius grievously wounded. Observing a sandy hillock not far off, they made to it, and tying their horses to one another, and placing them in the midst, and joining all their shields together before them, they thought they might make some defence against the barbarians. But it fell out quite contrary, for when they were drawn up in a plain, the front in some measure secured those that were behind; but when they were upon the hill, one being of necessity higher up than another, none were in shelter, but all alike stood equally exposed, bewailing their inglorious and useless fate.

[Watchman]

...and the whole passage makes it quite abundantly clear that despite some very spirited efforts, and in the process falling back to many of the universal staples employed against opponents too heavily armoured to be meaningfully vulnerable to one's main weapons ("grapple and stab" was actually a pretty common way for heavily-armoured warriors to deal with each other too - it's not like their weapons had an easier time at it after all), the Gallic auxiliary cavalry was at a very decided disadvantage in a straight fight with the far heavier armed cataphracts. In fact it makes it quite clear they got their asses thoroughly kicked, and most of the battered survivors who made it back to the Roman lines did so without their horses which the catas had rather unsportingly but entirely according to universal SOPs cheerfully run through to dismount their opponents.
:blank2:
So your point was what exactly, other than that you didn't properly read and digest the whole of the account ?

[tarem]

based on limited personal fighting on foot (unarmored and limited armor) as well as some intuitive thinking i'd asume the following:
1. fighting with less armour gives you greater mobility and slower exhaustion rate, ergo in TW terms more defence value and more stamina (possibly slightly more attack but this would depend on the weapon used also)
2. fighting with more armor would result in the oposite efects but adding more armor value.
3. folllowing conclusion would be that in prolonged melee that results in definite exhaustion of stamina a heavily armored unit has the advantage while in short hit and run skirmishes, the light units have the advantage.
4. charge value is more dependant on weapon type and horse size/speed, so light horsemen with heavy lances could charge just as well as heavy horsemen if equiped with the same weapons and horses, it's their survivablity after the charge (or during if it failed) that is lowered by the lack of armor. it should be noted that throughout history the heavy horses were reserved for the armored units for obvious reasons.

now if we want to establish the outcome of a heavy cavalry VS cataphract duel, we have to ask first just how much heavy this cavalry is? and what type of weapon and horse they mount? if they are comparable to that of the cataphract, then on the offensive they could win. but the cataphracted horse will always be more survivable, especially when facing misssile fire or prolonged melee. pretty much the same would go for the medium cavalry, with the note that these were usually armed with lighter lances then the heavy units, giving them a disadvantage on the offence too.

[Genava]

I quoted Plutarch for those which forgot this passage. Then, I think that the Parthian cataphracts were less good in close combat than a usual cavalry. I say that because the ambushes carried out by Cassius in front of Antioch, the battle of Taurus, the battle of Trapezôn and the battle of Gindaros show well that the cataphracts cannot fight the infantry without to have charged it at full speed.

Contrary to the Parthians, the Celtic cavalry pushed back them twice. Once in front of Phraaspa and another time during the retirement of Marc-Antoine. The Celtic cavalry is definitely more mobile and when the cataphracts are attacked by the sides by the Celts, they flee. The fight which takes place during the retirement of Marc-Antoine illustrates this characteristic well. The mounted archers and the cataphracts are stopped by the light infantry and the Celtic cavalry will take them out of clipper. The fight lasts only a few minutes before Parthians flee.

The cataphracts are terribly effective only in plain and when they can charge the enemy. The only problem in EB1, it is that the cataphracts are too resistant in the clause combat cause of their armours.

[tarem]

in TW engine these resluts can be duplicated by making the said cataphracts have high armor and high charge values but lower attack and deffence values i think. and charging them in the rear or flank while engaged is always a good option :yes:

[Watchman]

Umm, yeah. You're describing universal phenomenom, not anything specific to cataphracts; when cavalry are caught stationary by an infantry attack, particularly in the flank and if they're disordered, they basically die in droves. The French gendarmes at Pavia could tell you quite a bit about that. Anything that gets charged in the flank, nevermind rear, by close-combat cavalry is pretty much screwed; infantry formations of thousands have in mere minutes dissolved into panicking mobs by flank attacks of mere few hundreds of rather light cavalry of not terribly noteworthy quality, as for example the Greeks of Classical Antiquity could attest to.

Very heavily armoured troops like cataphracts are more vulnerable to this kind of thing mainly because their heavy load makes it comparatively difficult for them to reform and/or shift frontage to face such assaults, and of course they also have a harder time disengaging to reform at a safe distance too due to encumberance.

[-42-]

The big issue, as I see it, is that in M2TW charges are an end all. They are so ridiculously effective that pikes are your only concern. You can literally kill 70 men out of an 80 man unit with a single charge (not terribly common but very possible). This concerns me simply because they have comparatively low charge values (by EB standards) of between 6 and 9.

[Cute Wolf]

The big issue, as I see it, is that in M2TW charges are an end all. They are so ridiculously effective that pikes are your only concern. You can literally kill 70 men out of an 80 man unit with a single charge (not terribly common but very possible). This concerns me simply because they have comparatively low charge values (by EB standards) of between 6 and 9.

You should note while EB had about 0.4 lethality lance at the best, the M2TW cavalry lance are stick to 1 lethality.

[-42-]

I know that, as I have checked the statistics. However somebody mentioned that lethality values were not modable in M2TW.

[Cute Wolf]

maybe we'll got multiple HP system in EB II to compensate that, and get longer fight

[seienchin]

maybe we'll got multiple HP system in EB II to compensate that, and get longer fight
But that would make arrows strange? I recall the LotR Mod for Rome were sauron was nigh impossible to beat in melee, but could be killed by like 2 or 3 arrow volleys... :book:

[Cute Wolf]

But that would make arrows strange? I recall the LotR Mod for Rome were sauron was nigh impossible to beat in melee, but could be killed by like 2 or 3 arrow volleys... :book:

Sorry OT: Elven archers had insane damage :2thumbsup: that's it! Try the result with normal Gondorian or worse, orcs...

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Cataphracts were later used by both the Eastern Roman Empire (Basileia ton Romaion) and the Sassanids as meat grinder thus i believe they were very fierce as melee units.

[Cute Wolf]

Where is Sonic the Necromancer..... :furious3:


Cataphracts were later used by both the Eastern Roman Empire (Basileia ton Romaion) and the Sassanids as meat grinder thus i believe they were very fierce as melee units.

Yeah, unit terms - not catafractii, but clibinarii (solely armed with mace and bow)

[athanaric]

The Celtic cavalry is definitely more mobile and when the cataphracts are attacked by the sides by the Celts, they flee. The fight which takes place during the retirement of Marc-Antoine illustrates this characteristic well. The mounted archers and the cataphracts are stopped by the light infantry and the Celtic cavalry will take them out of clipper. The fight lasts only a few minutes before Parthians flee.

Frankly, I fail to see where the problem lies. You can do all that in EB I too. I've taken out cataphracts with flank charges by light cavalry (Arabs, who are slightly worse than Leuce Epos). Still the cataphracts are superior to other cavalry in real melee, just as they were in real life. Pahlava's cavalry is superior to that of the Aedui, get over it.

I've yet to see textual evidence for an occasion where Parthian cataphracts were beaten in a melee engagement by other cavalry (excepting other catas of course).

[Watchman]

Yeah, unit terms - not catafractii, but clibinarii (solely armed with mace and bow)That would be the late Sassanid "universal" cavalry, and IIRC my reading they still kept some lancer squadrons on the side. The Byzantines actually at one point devised a serious meatgrinder tactical array for rolling over infantry which IIRC had maces in front of the blunt wedge, lancers in the flanks, and archers making up the rear. Worked pretty well apparently.

Anyway, there's good reasons people quite universally preferred to armour their elite shock cavalry to the gills.

[satalexton]

I remember reading somewhere they actually 'remade' the checkerbox with cavalry instead of infantry.

[Genava]

Frankly, I fail to see where the problem lies. You can do all that in EB I too. I've taken out cataphracts with flank charges by light cavalry (Arabs, who are slightly worse than Leuce Epos). Still the cataphracts are superior to other cavalry in real melee, just as they were in real life. Pahlava's cavalry is superior to that of the Aedui, get over it.
I'm not agreed with you. I test a battle: 1 Grivpanvar, no bonus. VS 1 brihentin (bodyguard) and 1 brihentin, both without bonus. 100 cataphracts against 143 celtic cavalrymen.
I ambush the cataphracts with the brihentin (not bodyguard) and the cataphracts were surprised and stop. I charge them with the Brihentin and the Brihentin bodyguards on two sides. After a long fight, I lose. There remain 33 cataphracts and 13 celts.

Conclusion: Without charge, 100 cataphracts can kill 143 good cavalrymen.

[athanaric]

I'm not agreed with you. I test a battle: 1 Grivpanvar, no bonus. VS 1 brihentin (bodyguard) and 1 brihentin, both without bonus. 100 cataphracts against 143 celtic cavalrymen.
I ambush the cataphracts with the brihentin (not bodyguard) and the cataphracts were surprised and stop. I charge them with the Brihentin and the Brihentin bodyguards on two sides. After a long fight, I lose. There remain 33 cataphracts and 13 celts.

Conclusion: Without charge, 100 cataphracts can kill 143 good cavalrymen.

Grivpanvar are the best heavy cavalrymen in EB, except for some bodyguards. Brihentin are not designed to combat such a foe, moreso as Celts of that period didn't have to deal with Parthian knights, unless some fat idiot dragged them to the Middle East for his own personal glory and left them to perish in battle against those same Parthians.
I've managed to rout Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi with sandwich charges from 2 units of Bedouin cavalry.
You would have needed two units of regular Brihentin, both charging home, to destroy those Grivpanvar. The bodyguard version of Brihentin is of course tougher but numbers count more.

I think, having used all kinds of cavalry in this game, that EB's system is the most balanced and historically accurate of all games or mods I know. Every cavalry unit has strengths you can utilize and weaknesses you can exploit. Your Brihentin are well armoured, fast, and have great stamina. Not to mention two deadly melee weapons. What more do you want?
Cataphracts are designed to withstand even numerically superior forces. Of course they will win a head on cavalry fight. If you want to beat them, use superior numbers, speed, and stamina. Or infantry.

[Genava]

Grivpanvar are the best heavy cavalrymen in EB, except for some bodyguards.
Yes I know, I made several tests of units for my curiosity :book: The Grivpanvar are the "late cataphracts" using during the Parthians wars.


Brihentin are not designed to combat such a foe, moreso as Celts of that period didn't have to deal with Parthian knights, unless some fat idiot dragged them to the Middle East for his own personal glory and left them to perish in battle against those same Parthians.
The Celts were very useful for the campaigns of Marc-Antoine and the Celtic cavalrymen represent the best warriors of Gaul during the 1st century BC. Except for Carrhae where they fought until death, the Celts fought well during the war.


Your Brihentin are well armoured, fast, and have great stamina. Not to mention two deadly melee weapons. What more do you want?
I don't want a best brihentin but simply decrease the fight ability or the armor of the heavy cataphracts.
Why? I made a second test, ten minutes ago. 101 Grivpanvar (no bonus) VS 202 Prima cohors reformata (no bonus). I play the Grivpanvar and I didn't charge the romans. I attack them at short distance... and I win. There remains 41 cataphracts and 26 romans.

Too strong! At the battle of Gindaros, the horse-archers are pushed back because the Romans and their camp are on a hill. The Romans charge at the last time to frighten Parthians. Then Pacoros attacks with its heavy cavalry. V.Bassus waits until the cataphracts are at 370 meters to send the totality of its army. The cataphracts could not charge correctly and the combat turned in their discredit. Pacoros was killed.


Edit: I want to show you several illustration (really historically accurate) of the warriors during the Parthian wars. :2thumbsup:

Source: http://www.stephane-lagrange.com

Centurion at Carrhae:
http://www.stephane-lagrange.com/images/stories/dessins/periode%20orange/Roman_Centurion_Carrhes(Correction).jpg

Aquilifer at Carrhae:
http://www.stephane-lagrange.com/images/stories/dessins/periode%20orange/Roman_Aquilifer_Carrhes(correction).jpg

Celtic cavalryman:
http://www.stephane-lagrange.com/images/stories/dessins/periode%20orange/Roman_GallicAuxiliary_Carrhes.jpg

Celtic legionary of Marc-Antoine:
http://www.stephane-lagrange.com/images/stories/dessins/periode%20orange/Roman_CelticLegionnary_Carrhes.jpg

Marc-Antoine's legionary:
http://www.stephane-lagrange.com/images/stories/dessins/periode%20orange/Roman_Legionnary_MarcAntoine(correction).jpg

Caesarean legionary:
http://www.stephane-lagrange.com/images/stories/dessins/periode%20orange/Roman_Caesar_Veteran_middleIBC.jpg

Parthians at Carrhae:
http://www.stephane-lagrange.com/images/stories/dessins/periode%20orange/Parthian_HorseArcher_Carrhes(correction).jpg http://www.stephane-lagrange.com/images/stories/dessins/periode%20orange/Parthian_Cataphracte_Carrhes.jpg

Herodian horse archer:
http://www.stephane-lagrange.com/images/stories/dessins/periode%20orange/Jewish_Herodian_HorseArcher_IAD.jpg

[tarem]

the question of cataphracts being too effective against (among other things) heavy infantry wiwthout spears or AP weapons has been mentioned before. i recall at least one thread in which (i think it was antisocialmonky) a proposition has been made to eigther decrease armor values to to cataphracts or give some AP/spear value/weapon to marian and postmarian cohorts. however i belive the idea was droped because of incoclusive evidence. namely while some opservations have been made in suport of the idea, others exist in wich light troops menage to rout the said cataphracts without too much bother (even archer or peltast units used in melee). i think the problem lies with the TW representation of charges and the vulnarebility of dense formations to those charges in opposition to the loose formation, which is afcorse inacurate in all cases except for the anti-elephant formation of Scipio at Zama :book:

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Well personally I still fail to see why a cataphract wearing the same protective armor as TAB's has an extra 5-8 points of armor.

I always felt as if armor for cavalry should be an average between that of the horse (0 or 1) and that of the rider. So a heavily armored horseman on an unarmored horse, say Thessalikoi Hippeis, should be somewhere around 8 armor instead of 14 or whatever they are. Then cataphracts would have armor around 12-20 instead of 25-30.

I never understood why cataphracts armor stacked.

[antisocialmunky]

That's assuming a horse is as squishy as a human. They aren't.

The armor levels are fine except vs sword infantry who completely die when they are out of stamina. As for Cav vs Cav, well what do you expect? Average Swordsmen vs TABs don't do work well either - neither do average heavy cavalry work vs the heaviest horses in the game. However if you throw even on infantry unit with spears into it, it works... except in multiplayer which is the problem with Post-Marian Rome.

On a side note: Try Epeiros BGs vs Other Cav, they are pretty much the best cavalry of the west and I'm not even joking.

All this is rather pointless as the most important combat attribute in MIITW is animation.

[tarem]

All this is rather pointless as the most important combat attribute in MIITW is animation.

what do you mean? what is determined my animation in MTW2?

[Moros]

what do you mean? what is determined my animation in MTW2?

a unit's effectiveness.

[antisocialmunky]

Rate of Fire, blockiing etc.

[tarem]

i didn't know this, i always thought it's still the basic stat system of RTW that drives MTW2 too. how do you mode units aniamtions to manipulate its performance then? i must be quite difficult...

[WinsingtonIII]

On a side note: Try Epeiros BGs vs Other Cav, they are pretty much the best cavalry of the west and I'm not even joking.

Epeiros Bodyguards are great. They never cease to amaze me, I think it's because they are faster and more maneuverable than the average Hellenic bodyguard cavalry but they are still quite powerful.

[mountaingoat]

i didn't know this, i always thought it's still the basic stat system of RTW that drives MTW2 too. how do you mode units aniamtions to manipulate its performance then? i must be quite difficult...

i am not sure how difficult it is , but faster attack animations = win ... people were complaining of peaseants wiping out heavy infantry when MTW2 first came out ...

most of the animations in MTW2 are bugged IMO .. many mods have done what they can to fix them , as far as i know EB2 is one of the few mods that is making new animations , which will be excellent :2thumbsup:

[antisocialmunky]

Epeiros Bodyguards are great. They never cease to amaze me, I think it's because they are faster and more maneuverable than the average Hellenic bodyguard cavalry but they are still quite powerful.

Its the defense stats due to the fact that the most effective weapon that cav have is an AP lance, less armor + more defense = more pwned.

Also the fastness is very nice too.

[Moros]

Thank you for a most valuable contribution my friend.


If we'd lower the armour value of cathapracts, we'd have to lower the value of armour for other horse units as well. Which would make the lighter horses worthless and would make most cavalry die like flies. The problem lies not in the stats so much, but in the limitations of the engine itself and the limitations of modding the game.

[Cybvep]

You don't have to do that. There is nothing wrong in adjusting certain unit stats after the application of the stat system, as "Excel balance" is one thing, but not necessarily the same as the game balance. We must judge the unit by its REAL effectiveness...

[Moros]

But we can't give a more heavily armoured unit the same defence stats as a more lightly armoured unit either, can we?

[Cute Wolf]

But we can't give a more heavily armoured unit the same defence stats as a more lightly armoured unit either, can we?

True, but remember that in M2TW, horsies actually had their secondery hitpoint and armour-skill counted... not only in auto calc, but also in straight battle, in their lastest kingdom patch (I read the Ritterbruder EDU has some extra Hp on horse, Christ Knight, and Dhievas' guards also had extra Hp)

[Moros]

extra HP would only make them truely invincible!

[Cybvep]

But we can't give a more heavily armoured unit the same defence stats as a more lightly armoured unit either, can we?

I wouldn't mind it if there was a purpose to such action. If a given unit seems overpowered, then its stats must be changed. What do you prefer - "logical" stats or balanced combat?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I wouldn't mind it if there was a purpose to such action. If a given unit seems overpowered, then its stats must be changed. What do you prefer - "logical" stats or balanced combat?
Logical stats must necessarily lead to balanced combat.

[antisocialmunky]

Logical stats result in predictable combat.

[Cybvep]

The point is that "logical" stats would lead to balanced/realistic combat only in a perfect simulation. In case of RTW stats can be very logical in Excel, but it does not mean that they will give desired results in gameplay. There are engine, animation and practical reasons that, when considered, makes it illogical to pursue the "logical" stat system ;) . Look at it like this - if a given stat system gives great results in 75% cases, then there is absolutely no reason to change those 75%, but there IS (or SHOULD BE) one to change the 25% that are inaccurate. We will not achieve 100% accuracy, but it does not mean that we cannot make the gameplay results more fitting.

[tarem]

someone probably thought of this before, but what if some untis that had good score against cataphracts had at least one set of AP weapons? maybe the roman pilum, or some heavy swords?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

someone probably thought of this before, but what if some untis that had good score against cataphracts had at least one set of AP weapons? maybe the roman pilum, or some heavy swords?

Pilum are effective against Cataphracts. Only problem is that the Cataphracts will hit them on the charge before the pila are released.

[IrishHitman]

Epeiros Bodyguards are great. They never cease to amaze me, I think it's because they are faster and more maneuverable than the average Hellenic bodyguard cavalry but they are still quite powerful.

I prefer Companions any day of the week, for the simple reason that you can throw them back into the fight many more times..

[antisocialmunky]

Pilum are effective against Cataphracts. Only problem is that the Cataphracts will hit them on the charge before the pila are released.

Naw, that's fine. Fresh legionaires have a chance. The problem is that you don't have enough Pilums nor do you have spears or AP.

[WinsingtonIII]

I prefer Companions any day of the week, for the simple reason that you can throw them back into the fight many more times..

I mean they are both excellent cavalry units, and I enjoy using both of them. Realistically if I had to pick between Molosson Agema and Hetairoi, in most cases I would pick Hetairoi, because they not only have superior armor, they also have better morale.

However, when it comes to between the Epeiros Bodyguards and the Makedonian/AS Bodyguards, the morale gap is gone, as both have 18 morale. The Epeiros BG's lack armor in comparison, but they have a slight edge in defense skill, and they are faster and I believe have more stamina, so you can use them to make more effective charges before they get tired (as you can do with the Molosson Agema as well). Sure you can throw Hetaroi and Mak BGs into more prolonged melees, but the Epeirote cavalry can run circles around the slower Mak heavy cavalry if need be, and due to superior stamina they can bring home more charges without getting tired.

It really depends on the circumstances of the battle you are in, and on personal preference. Plus, I have seen Epeiros Bodyguards defeat Makedonian Bodyguards in a one-on-one prolonged melee. However, this was in campaign, so my Epeirote general unit may have had some traits or ancillaries that gave his BGs the edge.

[antisocialmunky]

I can attest to the Epeirote BG superiority. It happens online as well.

[Grade_A_Beef]

Wait so what about Getai BGs? I checked the stats and Getai BGs are in general superior. The only thing Epeirote BGs really have over them is very good stamina as opposed to good stamina. The Getai BGs get a much better secondary, a shield, and have the same lethality spear.....am I missing something here?

[WinsingtonIII]

Wait so what about Getai BGs? I checked the stats and Getai BGs are in general superior. The only thing Epeirote BGs really have over them is very good stamina as opposed to good stamina. The Getai BGs get a much better secondary, a shield, and have the same lethality spear.....am I missing something here?

Wow, I didn't realize Dacian BG cavalry had 0.225 lethality long swords as secondaries (which is ironic considering my sig...). I've always loved the Getai, but in all of my campaigns I guess I never realized the true potential of these guys (although I certainly realized they were good), maybe because I go very infantry heavy as the Getai. That said, stats can be misleading, I haven't seen a one on one match up of Epeiros BG's and Getai BG's, so I am unsure as to how it would turn out. I'm fairly sure that in addition to somewhat better stamina, however, Epeiros BG's also are faster than Getai BG's. Of course, I may be wrong, because that stat is not listed in the online unit list, and I am not on my gaming comp with the EDU right now.

[vartan]

Wait so what about Getai BGs? I checked the stats and Getai BGs are in general superior. The only thing Epeirote BGs really have over them is very good stamina as opposed to good stamina. The Getai BGs get a much better secondary, a shield, and have the same lethality spear.....am I missing something here?

I don't know their stamina values. I believe the Getai have 0.225 lethal sword, Epirote 0.11. Getai have 1 more armour, and 3 shield (which Epirote do not have). Lance is same but Epirote has 2 extra charge. Don't forget though, that the Epirote has AP sword. All this considered, they seem equal to me.

You are referring to the Somatophylakes Strategou (Hellenic Bodyguard Cavalry) and Phylakes Daoi (Dacian Bodyguard Cavalry), are you not?

[machinor]

Epeirote BGs are the Molosson Agema, not the usual Hellenistic Somatophylakes Strategou. Molosson Agema have less Armor but more Stamina (not sure about the charge).

[antisocialmunky]

Molosson Agema have Stamina + Defense + Speed.

[ziegenpeter]

Epeirote BGs are the Molosson Agema, not the usual Hellenistic Somatophylakes Strategou. Molosson Agema have less Armor but more Stamina (not sure about the charge).

Well are you sure its the regular Molosson or is there a BG version? Their charge is lower, their armor and morale aswell.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well are you shure its the regular Molosson or is there a BG version? Their charge is lower, their armor and morale aswell.

There is a BG version. It is called Somatophylakes Strategou just like the Mak and AS BG's, but it has different stats that are pretty much identical to the Molosson Agema. The only difference is that the BG version has more morale, 18 instead of the normal 16.

[Grade_A_Beef]

No, I'm not by my computer and haven't played as Getai for a while, but I'm pretty sure they are also fast moving. The Epeirote BGs have very good stamina as opposed to good stamina with regards to speed. It's also listed that the Epeirotes are Very Hardy as opposed to the normal Hardy of the Getai BGs. The Hardy trait slows down stamina drain and boosts stamina recovery, right? I'm not sure.

And from what I can tell from the tests on secondaries (Pahalava late vs Baktrian late), .225 lethality trumps .11 lethality with AP...and that's with the Baktrians having the armor advantage. That advantage of the longsword will probably be even more pronounced considering the Getai and the Epeirotes have comparatively lower armor values.

[antisocialmunky]

Lance is still better for horse vs horse....

[Grade_A_Beef]

Can't argue against that.....but still, the longsword is much more useful in general than the kopis.

I'm very very biased against the kopis, despite using secondaries in a melee and having AS as one of my favorite factions....

[antisocialmunky]

True, and they are much much better against unarmored infantry/horse.

[gamegeek2]

For all interested, I'm working on balancing the Broken Crescent units to function like units in EB. I've been pretty successful so far, and will post some screenies.

It is for medieval units, but it's on the M2TW engine and there are analogous units.

[gamegeek2]

One thing I didn't do was make the lances AP - I tested it and it had significant balance problems, mainly being overpowered since lethality can't really be adjusted to EB levels anymore. The charge values are still high, but not as high as EB ones, though significantly higher than M2TW ones; the base attack of lances is small, making them nigh-useless in melee. This gives units that have a lance as a secondary a problem in melee, while those that use a small spear in melee get significant advantages over the ones with lances.

The following trial is on VH battle difficulty, which does not give unit bonuses/penalties in M2TW AFAIK.

http://img1.imagehousing.com/100201/d161714b98c2fcfe326fe96b5426b6cd.jpg

These are the Khwarezmian Cataphract Lancers, our stand-in for sword-armed cataphracts. Here are their stats:

Primary: Lance; Atk 1, Chg 20
Secondary: Sword; Atk 6, Chg 2
Defense: 23 armour, 8 skill, 4 shield
Mount Mass: 3.9

http://img1.imagehousing.com/100201/0277f031c83da8dc0c610cf20a801143.jpg

These are the Royal Ghulam lancers, our stand-in for Hetairoi (and very analogous in stats compared with other units). They have a lance, and their secondary weapon is an armour-piercing mace, which receives the same stats as a kopis under my system. They use their shield in melee, but not when charging.

Primary: Lance; Atk 1, Chg 18
Secondary: Mace; Atk 4, Chg 2; ap
Defense: Armour 17, Skill 8, Shield 4
Mount Mass: 3.2

On defense skill, under my system they both get a +4 skill bonus for being upper-tier elite troops, but a -1 penalty for being mounted. As they are heavily armoured, no bonus is awarded (a +1 is given for medium armour and a +2 for light armour). The base defense skill for all units in my system is 5.

http://img1.imagehousing.com/100201/6c2649a5e8647e0c136ac74a9890116d.jpg

Our cataphracts charge into the Ghulams and cause 3 casualties upon impact, before the melee ensues. It ensues continuously, and both sides reduce each other to half strength (25 out of 50 starting troops) at the same time.

I ran a reverse trial, with me commanding the Ghulams and the AI with the cataphracts. This time, both sides lowered lances and charged, but the cataphracts were a bit late in doing so, and only some got the charge bonus. 2 Ghulams and 4 Cataphracts were killed on impact. The melee was again continuous, and the Ghulams had 30 men remaining when the cataphracts were reduced to half strength.

I re-ran the trial, but this time, the Cataphracts fought the Monaspa Lancers, shown below:

http://img1.imagehousing.com/100201/3bdf96eed3dae847a7321deb3dd30d7e.jpg

Under my system they have the following stats:

Primary: Lance; Atk 1, Chg 18
Secondary: Sword; Atk 6, Chg 2
Defense: Armour 17, Skill 8, Shield 4
Mount Mass: 3.2

Their stats are identical to those of the Ghulams, except with swords instead of maces.

First I fought twice as the cataphracts, who both smashed into the Monaspa, causing 5-6 casualties upon impact (suffering none of their own), as the Monaspa were late in lowering to charge. It was a slaughter, with the Cataphracts having 41-42 men left when the Monaspa were reduced to half strength.

I switched sides and fought as the Monaspa twice. The cataphracts were a bit late in lowering to charge, but still dealt the Monaspa 2-3 casualties on impact, while the Cataphracts took 1-2. Both times the Cataphracts had 41 men when the Monaspa were reduced to half strength.

So, this system passes one test the EB system fails - making ap weapons good at their job (piercing armour).

[ziegenpeter]

Cool, please tell us, when its done. BC was always a very appealing mod - Except for the weird cav!

[gamegeek2]

I'm done with most factions - have to do Oman, Makuria, the Rajputs, and the various merc units - then I'll be done. First I'll release the EDU for unit balance, then I might make a cost balance one as well.

[bobbin]

Cool, please tell us, when its done. BC was always a very appealing mod - Except for the weird cav!

Seconded, I have yet to see a M2TW mod with decent cav stats.

[gamegeek2]

EDIT: Made a crucial update, added the descr_mount file, which is essential to the rebalancing.

[gamegeek2]

I've uploaded the modified EDU for Broken Crescent v2.0 - the download link can be found here (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=6723499#post6723499)

I'd love to hear feedback, preferably soon. Thanks guys!

[Bucefalo]

I've uploaded the modified EDU for Broken Crescent v2.0 - the download link can be found here (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=6723499#post6723499)

I'd love to hear feedback, preferably soon. Thanks guys!


What version of BC are you running? I tried using your EDU with BC 2.02 but i am getting a error just at the splash screen. The error have to do with aor units and nobles, so perhaps it is something added after BC 2.0? I will try to reinstall BC up to 2.0 (without 2.02 patch) and report if i manage to start the game with your EDU. I also encourage other people to try! :)

[gamegeek2]

I've updated it.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=6733621#post6733621

AOR units? Hmm...check system.log and tell me the error.

[Bucefalo]

Ok i reinstalled BC 2.0 and got it to work after installing a fix (CA_LIBS error). Then i placed your two files (edu and descr_mount) in data but the game is not starting now, this is the error in the log

15:00:20.000 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_unit.txt, at line 13111, column 1
Could not find soldier battle model for unit type 'ere_light_lancer'.

15:00:20.000 [data.invalid] [error] DATABASE_TABLE error found : error reading record from file broken_crescent/data/export_descr_unit.txt.

[gamegeek2]

I think I figured out what the error is.

I've put the fix on the TWC, and here's the link for convenience:

http://www.mediafire.com/?wz0yynznout

[ziegenpeter]

Thank you a lot!

[gamegeek2]

No problem.

It was a unit I had created myself whose EDU entry was hanging around in the uploaded files, so I cut that.

BTW, just put on another update balancing a few Georgian units.

Remember, changing descr_mount and EDU will NOT screw up your save games, but WILL take effect in your campaigns.

[Bucefalo]

This is very odd :S I´m having the same ctd at the splash screen as before (same error in the log)
I tried replacing this "ere_light_lancer" model in the entry with the one that was present in the original BC EDU "aor_wanatolian_nobles", so it looks like this:

type ere light lancer
dictionary ere_light_lancer ; Hosarii
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_cavalry
banner holy crusade_cavalry
soldier aor_wanatolian_nobles, 32, 0, 1
mount bc heavy horse
mount_effect elephant -4, camel -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, can_withdraw, can_formed_charge
formation 2, 4.4, 3, 6, 2, square, wedge
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 1, 12, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 4, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 25, 1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 8, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 5
stat_ground 0, -2, -4, 0
stat_mental 12, impetuous, trained
stat_charge_dist 45
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 860, 400, 120, 95, 860, 4, 180
armour_ug_levels 4
armour_ug_models aor_wanatolian_nobles
ownership byzantium, slave

but after doing that, i am still getting ctds but this time the log looks like this:

21:08:24.843 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_buildings.txt, at line 43, column 197
unit(ere light lancer) does not match up to the ownership for faction(france)
21:08:24.843 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_buildings.txt, at line 43, column 197
unit(ere light lancer) does not match up to the ownership for faction(poland)
21:08:24.843 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_buildings.txt, at line 43, column 197
unit(ere light lancer) does not match up to the ownership for faction(scotland)
21:08:24.843 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_buildings.txt, at line 43, column 197
unit(ere light lancer) does not match up to the ownership for faction(england)
21:08:24.843 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_buildings.txt, at line 44, column 187
unit(ere light lancer) does not match up to the ownership for faction(france)
21:08:24.843 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_buildings.txt, at line 44, column 187
unit(ere light lancer) does not match up to the ownership for faction(poland)
21:08:24.843 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_buildings.txt, at line 44, column 187
unit(ere light lancer) does not match up to the ownership for faction(scotland)
21:08:24.843 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_buildings.txt, at line 44, column 187
unit(ere light lancer) does not match up to the ownership for faction(england)
21:08:24.843 [script.err] [error] Script Error in broken_crescent/data/export_descr_buildings.txt, at line 45, column 54
Unknown unit type specified: aor anatolian nobles

I was wondering if the .cfg file may have something to do, i had to download one to fix a CA_LIBS error, mine looks like this:

[features]
mod = broken_crescent

[log]
to=logs/system.log.txt
level =ai.ltgd trace
level =game.script* trace
file = game.script* logs/script.log.txt
file = ai.ltgd logs/ai.log.txt

[ai]
ltgd_logging = true

[video]
movies = false

[gamegeek2]

You could try completely deleting the unit, not sure how that'd work out for you.

[gamegeek2]

I've started working on a version for BC 2.02.

[Kival]

You could try completely deleting the unit, not sure how that'd work out for you.

I've had that idea befor and tried it a few hours ago and it does not solve the problem. Do you want to know in detail which delete/copy actions I've tried and which failure occurs?

[darius_d]

@ gamegeek2, EB team

And do you consider another type of balancing - by quantity of soldeirs per unit?
In EB 1.2 there are just 2 sizes for cav units no matter which faction or unit type - 50 and 20 (for L size) - the latter for general bodyguards and chariots.
While for infantry the unit size changes from 80 to 100 to 120.

Do you plan to differentiate it more for cav in EBII? So, will a unit of - say - roman cavalry have the same size as a unit of parthian cataphracts or Saka's light cav?