Cute Wolf
04-18-2010, 17:28
Ok, I post this in EB forum since the EB unit statistics is based on the deep researh about realistic fighting style and combat mechanics... a lot of excellent discussion had been there explaining in depth combat comparison, and yes, I know that only some nudist got 2 HP in official EB EDU.
By the way, I want to ask about how to portay some kind of unit comparison, let's said 2 type of longswordsmen, and their historical representation as well.
The first unit, say that was "faction A feudal swordsmen", is recorded on historical sources being armoured, more numerous, relatively affordable, but in recorded frontal battle with the second unit, they are often lost against them.
The second unit, say that was "faction B feudal swordsmen", is recorded on historical sources being wearing minimal armour, and often fought unarmoured, got decent martial arts training, but comparatively fewer in number than the first unit. Of course, they got several mentioning that in frontal combat against first unit, they almost always win, except when hopelessly outnumbered in 12 : 1.
And when I come to their statistics, let's said, being capable swordsmen, and wearing leather armour without helmet, the "faction A feudal swordsmen" is 100 men per unit, had 11 attack, 9 charge, 0.225 lethality, 6 armour, 13 skill, 3 shield value, and decent morale of 11,normal, trained.
and because of that historical portayal, let's say, I made the "faction B feudal swordsmen", is 80 men per unit with 2 HP, had 13 attack, 11 charge, 0.225 lethality, 1 armour, 15 skill, 3 shield value, and good morale of 13,disciplined, trained. of course they have price/upkeep that sightly higher than the first unit, to represent that they are harder to recruit.
The problem is... someone points out that 2HP units are quite overpowered, and suggest me to raise their defense skill and made them into 1 HP unit, but in custom battle tests, the second unit, always defeated in frontal combat against the first unit...
can someone helps to shed a light on this confusion? thanks :bow:
By the way, I want to ask about how to portay some kind of unit comparison, let's said 2 type of longswordsmen, and their historical representation as well.
The first unit, say that was "faction A feudal swordsmen", is recorded on historical sources being armoured, more numerous, relatively affordable, but in recorded frontal battle with the second unit, they are often lost against them.
The second unit, say that was "faction B feudal swordsmen", is recorded on historical sources being wearing minimal armour, and often fought unarmoured, got decent martial arts training, but comparatively fewer in number than the first unit. Of course, they got several mentioning that in frontal combat against first unit, they almost always win, except when hopelessly outnumbered in 12 : 1.
And when I come to their statistics, let's said, being capable swordsmen, and wearing leather armour without helmet, the "faction A feudal swordsmen" is 100 men per unit, had 11 attack, 9 charge, 0.225 lethality, 6 armour, 13 skill, 3 shield value, and decent morale of 11,normal, trained.
and because of that historical portayal, let's say, I made the "faction B feudal swordsmen", is 80 men per unit with 2 HP, had 13 attack, 11 charge, 0.225 lethality, 1 armour, 15 skill, 3 shield value, and good morale of 13,disciplined, trained. of course they have price/upkeep that sightly higher than the first unit, to represent that they are harder to recruit.
The problem is... someone points out that 2HP units are quite overpowered, and suggest me to raise their defense skill and made them into 1 HP unit, but in custom battle tests, the second unit, always defeated in frontal combat against the first unit...
can someone helps to shed a light on this confusion? thanks :bow: