Suggestion for a different rule set in EB multiplayer

[VikingPower]

Hello there

I am new to this forum and have recently played EB multiplayer under the name of Vicious-Little-Noob, but before that I had played for a ten days at the Rome total war vanilla through the Gamespy. I have noticed that the current rules in EB multiplayer are mostly bound to 36000 minai which makes it rather difficult for me to find a proper units for in whole, not because I favor the super-duper armies like at Gamespy online battles (like when players have a horde of Urbans cohorts or Cataphracts) but rather because I would like to have a more colourfull arsenal of every good units in mine army without being bound to pure-elite units army with only a heavy cavalry.

So mine suggestion is that player can choose from an yearly period (low-middle technological units) and from a later periods (middle-higher technological/reform units), where the former can have 36000 minai while the latter will have more money (like 45000-50000 minai), which is similar to the different periods in Medieval Total war.

When I go to EB custom battle or Lan battles then I have noticed that the available units for each faction are lot more than those units which are counted up at their homesite when you see the native and historical units that belong to each factions. For an example when I scroll through Averni units then I also see a lot of Iberian units and German units which do not show up at the EB homesite or at ones historical lands in the Single player, so when I am going to count up units which can belong to yearly period or a latter period then I will exclude those units from being counted with the native and historical units.
I have played EB single player with Carthage and Averni, so I am gonna count up an example what units I had in mine armies.

Averni high units (middle-high technological units, reform units, and units over 2000 minaii):

2 Gallic heavy swordsman
2 Gallic Noble infantry
2 Averni Nobles
2 Gallic Naked fanatic infantry
2 Helvetii Phalanx
4-5 Gallic slingers/Archers (Averni lacks a good ranged units so any can belong to high)
1 (General) Noble cavalry
2 Gallic noble cavalry
1-2 Belgae heavy cavalry
2 Celto-Germanic cavalry/ Gallic light cavalry

I did never care much for combining a cheap unit armies in EB single player so I will just count up an examples about units that could belong to the Yearly period.

Averni yearly units (low-middle technological units, cheap units under 1800-2000 minai):

Southern/Northern Gallic Swordsmen
Celtic/Germanic/Hellenic/Celto-Germanic spearmen
Any ranged units
Celtic/Alpine shortswordmen
Belgae any infantry
All light cavalry
Naked celtic spearmen
Norica spearmen
Axe-wielding infantry (rhaetic/celtic)
Gallic naked fanatic infantry
Helvetii phalanx

Now an example about the Carthage faction:

Carthage High units:

2-4 Elite african Pikemen
1-2 Sacred band infantry
1-2 Elite-Liby Phoenician infantry
2 Iberian heavy infantry
2 Iberian Medium Spearmen
1 General cavalry
1 Sacred band cavalry
1 Liby-Phoenician cavalry
1 Iberian heavy cavalry
2 Iberian Medium cavalry
2 Numidian archers
2 Baeleric slingers

About the Carthage yearly units then you get the drift about the rest of the cheap units that belong to the faction in custom battles, but the Iberian heavy infantry and Iberian Medium spearmen can also belong to it.


So when noticing all the units that belong to each faction then the higher technological units are mostly bound to 5-8 sort of infantry and maybe 3-4 cavalry, while the cheaper units are mostly about 10-15 infantry and 3-4 cavalry, so it is a good pattern for dividing them into two different periods.
So again when concerning this suggestion then it is not meant to replace the general rules but rather to be like a special option if the players want it to apply in their games, and these rules could apply at some later date after the tournament in July is over.

Thanks for reading this.

[vartan]

You're welcome Vicious. As for the extended rosters, those are certain things known as mercenaries, or simply "mercs". Where do you think the merc limit rule comes from? Would be pointless to have one if there were no mercs on the faction rosters. That's why the factional unit lists exist also. They're taken from the EB website. All others on the roster are mercs. By the way, why would you have more or less money than your opponent in an online battle?

I would like to have a more colourfull arsenal of every good units in mine army without being bound to pure-elite units army with only a heavy cavalry.
That really depends on what you call a "good" unit. Any 36k army I assemble is pretty much "good" in my eyes. You want every unit to be "good" without having all elites and heavy cavalry? I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to figure out what is "good" enough for you.

P.S. You really had me there with the 2 to 4 African pikemen...

[Apázlinemjó]

If I remember right, we set up the 36k mnai limit in the last year tournament, because the people were fed up with the half-elite armies and the lack of levy units.

[Mediolanicus]

Averni high units (middle-high technological units, reform units, and units over 2000 minaii):

2 Gallic heavy swordsman
2 Gallic Noble infantry
2 Averni Nobles
2 Gallic Naked fanatic infantry
2 Helvetii Phalanx
4-5 Gallic slingers/Archers (Averni lacks a good ranged units so any can belong to high)
1 (General) Noble cavalry
2 Gallic noble cavalry
1-2 Belgae heavy cavalry
2 Celto-Germanic cavalry/ Gallic light cavalry


Now an example about the Carthage faction:

Carthage High units:

2-4 Elite african Pikemen
1-2 Sacred band infantry
1-2 Elite-Liby Phoenician infantry
2 Iberian heavy infantry
2 Iberian Medium Spearmen
1 General cavalry
1 Sacred band cavalry
1 Liby-Phoenician cavalry
1 Iberian heavy cavalry
2 Iberian Medium cavalry
2 Numidian archers
2 Baeleric slingers



IMHO those are unbalanced elite armies. And things would get very boring very quickly if everyone could field such elite armies.

Tactically things are more fun when you have core of line infantry (levies to medium infantry), backup by 2 ranged units, 2 flanking units, 2 elites, 2-4 cavalry. That way you have to pick your units with care and place them on the battle field with care.

[Apázlinemjó]

IMHO those are unbalanced elite armies. And things would get very boring very quickly if everyone could field such elite armies.

Tactically things are more fun when you have core of line infantry (levies to medium infantry), backup by 2 ranged units, 2 flanking units, 2 elites, 2-4 cavalry. That way you have to pick your units with care and place them on the battle field with care.

Exactly. Also with 50k, the Eastern factions could dominate the battlefields with their extra heavy cavalry and mass armoured horse archers.

[mountaingoat]

less mnai = better multiplayer IMO

using all elite armies...... is like playing SP near the end of your campaign or something .. though they do have their place ... i just prefer when you decide if bringing an extra 2 or so elites is really worth the cost .. when you could bring about 4 line infantry for the same price.

[vartan]

Nothing wrong with Clash of the Elites: An EB Online Mini-game.

[Cute Wolf]

someone should made official EDU update that increase the prices of the Elites :grin:

[vartan]

Have you lost it? Elites cost too much as it is.

[Cute Wolf]

I Meant the "cheap elites" such as triarii, and those darn romaioi elites.... they should have different prices in singleplayer and multiplayer (note, that just need to got a new EDU fle for MP)

[Apázlinemjó]

I Meant the "cheap elites" such as triarii, and those darn romaioi elites.... they should have different prices in singleplayer and multiplayer (note, that just need to got a new EDU fle for MP)

They are cheap, because their prices are representing the manpower what the SPQR had. In MP pre-Marians are forced to use less mnai, so they aren't OP there either.

[vartan]

They are cheap, because their prices are representing the manpower what the SPQR had. In MP pre-Marians are forced to use less mnai, so they aren't OP there either.
3.000 mnai less is a lot of money, at least money-wise. Might not seem like a lot when choosing your armies. Frankly, I don't know what to say. What do you wish to see guys, pre-Marians with budgets in the mid-20k range? Haha. I wish I had the answers to all the questions.

[Apázlinemjó]

3.000 mnai less is a lot of money, at least money-wise. Might not seem like a lot when choosing your armies. Frankly, I don't know what to say. What do you wish to see guys, pre-Marians with budgets in the mid-20k range? Haha. I wish I had the answers to all the questions.

Dunno why you quoted me, when I like the 33k rule.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I think he meant to quote Cute Wolf.

[vartan]

I think he meant to quote Cute Wolf.
That's right. My quote simply builds on your statement Apaz, just like this one does with Ibn's. It's an extension.

[Apázlinemjó]

That's right. My quote simply builds on your statement Apaz, just like this one does with Ibn's. It's an extension.

I see.

[antisocialmunky]

To be quite honest, a Mnai cap of 30K would actually probably result in better games since light troops would be worth it to outnumbering/filler.

[vartan]

Right. I am also for under-20-slot armies, as once you get to 20, then you really start to see ridiculously unnecessary imbalances in army sizes. Besides, you can play 2v2 and 3v3 on huge if you have only 10 to 15 slots per army per person. 30k sounds pretty cool. Now, where does that leave Polybians: 26k or 27k? or am I off?

[mountaingoat]

25 - 30 k games ftw ... that puts the romani on 15 - 20 k ? =D

[Jebivjetar]

30k sounds pretty cool.

We can always try it out and see how it works. + just as you mentioned, 2vs2 and 3vs3 battles could perform better with smaller armies because we always have that terrible and annoying lag when we play 2vs2.


that puts the romani on 15 - 20 k ? =D
Have mercy, give em 10k! :laugh:

[antisocialmunky]

I have no idea. You guys should test it but I think the Romans are discounted by... 20%? So I took about 8% of their total costs off which would be around 28K for 30K. I dunno, test it. My only concern would be that a lower mnai would over power factions like Getai or Sweboz that have dirt cheap ultra deadly units. But it would give skirmishing a purpose...

I would like to allow for viable skirmishers because they are key in stopping cavalry in heavy infantry factions but at higher budgets you have to buy for heavy infantry if the opponent does.

[VikingPower]

I have recently been going over the units selection with three different faction (Averni, Rome, Getai) in order to find a proper units, and I have had a better success in mixing a good units with a medium ones, so that I will forfeit mine previous selection of elite-units with its estimated minai from 45000-50000. As an answer to your question which are ‚good units‘ then I would say that is units which are over 2000 minai and the infantry have a defense of 22 and up, while the medium units are from 1500-2000 with a defense of 18 to 22, but the cheap units are under 1500 minai and with a lesser stats.

However even that I have a good mix of units then it still feels about 3000 minai short from having a full stack army (need to two slots of units). Here I will make an example:

Mixed units of Averni.

Belgae Heavy cavalry 1
Gallic noble cavalry 1
Celto-Germanic cavalry 1
Ligurian cavalry 1

Hellenic Slingers 4 (upgraded 1)

Gallic Noble infantry 1
Gallic naked fanatic infantry 1
Averni Nobles 1
Gallic heavy swordsmen 1
Helvetii Phalanx 1
Belgae swordsmen 1
Boi Swordsmen 1
Norica spearmen 1
Rhaetic axemen 1
Druids 1

So it is 4 cavalry, 4 ranged units, and 10 infantry
If I would have about 3000 minai more then I could add let‘s say 1 North Gallic swordsmen and 1 Naked celtic spearmen.

Here is another example if I would have a picked Averni army:

Gallic noble cavalry 2
Celto-Germanic cavalry 1
Ligurian cavalry 1

Hellenic slingers 4 (upgraded 1)

4 Averni Nobles
6 Gallic heavy infantry

So it is 4 cavalry, 4 ranged units, and 10 infantry
If I would have about 3000 minai more then I could add let‘s say 2 Boi swordsmen.

The similar thing has applied when I attempt to create a mixed army with Getai and Sweboz. I have noticed that some native units are more expensive then other general units even that they have a lesser stats. For an example then a Boi swordsmen are cheaper and have a better stats then a Belgae swordsmen, and the similar thing applies about a classic hoplites in comparison to other spear-units with Getai. Does it then not encourage players to have a lot of such units in comparison to their native units? Would it not be historically incorrect to field many such units to armies while neglecting the more native ones?

But if the money limit rules (36000) are mostly made to preclude the players from having too many elite units, then could then not be made rules which limit elite units to only 4 infantry and 2 cavalry and 2 ranged units (or maybe that only one elite infantry can be picked from each sort in regard to medium sized factions – excluding AS, Rome, Carthage), while a little increased money (3000-4000 minai) are supposed to encourage a more flexible selection of native medium units that belong to each faction.

[Apázlinemjó]

To be quite honest, a Mnai cap of 30K would actually probably result in better games since light troops would be worth it to outnumbering/filler.

I think 36k is better, with 30k you couldn't field any elites if you wanted a proper army without being too low in numbers.


I have recently been going over the units selection with three different faction (Averni, Rome, Getai) in order to find a proper units, and I have had a better success in mixing a good units with a medium ones, so that I will forfeit mine previous selection of elite-units with its estimated minai from 45000-50000. As an answer to your question which are ‚good units‘ then I would say that is units which are over 2000 minai and the infantry have a defense of 22 and up, while the medium units are from 1500-2000 with a defense of 18 to 22, but the cheap units are under 1500 minai and with a lesser stats.

However even that I have a good mix of units then it still feels about 3000 minai short from having a full stack army (need to two slots of units). Here I will make an example:

Mixed units of Averni.

Belgae Heavy cavalry 1
Gallic noble cavalry 1
Celto-Germanic cavalry 1
Ligurian cavalry 1

Hellenic Slingers 4 (upgraded 1)

Gallic Noble infantry 1
Gallic naked fanatic infantry 1
Averni Nobles 1
Gallic heavy swordsmen 1
Helvetii Phalanx 1
Belgae swordsmen 1
Boi Swordsmen 1
Norica spearmen 1
Rhaetic axemen 1
Druids 1

So it is 4 cavalry, 4 ranged units, and 10 infantry
If I would have about 3000 minai more then I could add let‘s say 1 North Gallic swordsmen and 1 Naked celtic spearmen.

Here is another example if I would have a picked Averni army:

Gallic noble cavalry 2
Celto-Germanic cavalry 1
Ligurian cavalry 1

Hellenic slingers 4 (upgraded 1)

4 Averni Nobles
6 Gallic heavy infantry

So it is 4 cavalry, 4 ranged units, and 10 infantry
If I would have about 3000 minai more then I could add let‘s say 2 Boi swordsmen.

The similar thing has applied when I attempt to create a mixed army with Getai and Sweboz. I have noticed that some native units are more expensive then other general units even that they have a lesser stats. For an example then a Boi swordsmen are cheaper and have a better stats then a Belgae swordsmen, and the similar thing applies about a classic hoplites in comparison to other spear-units with Getai. Does it then not encourage players to have a lot of such units in comparison to their native units? Would it not be historically incorrect to field many such units to armies while neglecting the more native ones?

But if the money limit rules (36000) are mostly made to preclude the players from having too many elite units, then could then not be made rules which limit elite units to only 4 infantry and 2 cavalry and 2 ranged units (or maybe that only one elite infantry can be picked from each sort in regard to medium sized factions – excluding AS, Rome, Carthage), while a little increased money (3000-4000 minai) are supposed to encourage a more flexible selection of native medium units that belong to each faction.

Half of your armies are heavy infantry/cavalry or elit units, that's what the mnai rule tries to prevent and forces you to use levy units too. Also With 50k an eastern faction like Pahlava could field at least 3 or 4 late cataphract unit and several armoured horse archers, which is probably an insta-win against anything.

For example, an 50k Pahlava build:
4 Late Cataphracts
4 Armoured HAs
4 Regular HAs
4 Persian Hoplites
2 Parthian Hellenic Infantry
2 Coastal Levies

[vartan]

I think 36k is better, with 30k you couldn't field any elites if you wanted a proper army without being too low in numbers.
What is a proper army and do you really want to fill all 20 slots? Why do you suppose under-20-slot armies are too low in number? There is a setting for huge unit size, after all. 15 units on a huge setting are still prone to causing lag. Most online battles you see don't have many if any elites as it is. People tend to find numbers and overall strength and cost-effectiveness much more important to success--that is, they find success and victory the eventual goal in battle, not simply the fielding of a...proper army, for the sake of fielding a proper army. After all, this is a game.

That being said, let us suppose we're dealing with a 30k budget cap, and 28k for pre-Marians. Now, presumably you can still field 20-slot armies, or just for example a 15-slot more heavy-oriented army. Currently, because 20-slot armies are so ubiquitous in our 36k model, we don't provide proportions (i.e. percentages) for skirmishers, archer/slingers, cav--heavy cav, and so on and so forth, but rather we have slots. That is, we don't say maximum 20% army can be archer/slingers, but we say 4/20 slots. If we were to reduce budget to 30k or whatnot, would we still maintain same system and same numbers of slots, or would we have to resort to proportions? When using proportions, this would bring about more complexity in that the player, when creating his army, must consider that each time he uses one more slot, the percentages adjust. Integers are simple. Percentages complex (relatively, i.e. in this scenario). What say you?

[Apázlinemjó]

What is a proper army and do you really want to fill all 20 slots? Why do you suppose under-20-slot armies are too low in number? There is a setting for huge unit size, after all. 15 units on a huge setting are still prone to causing lag. Most online battles you see don't have many if any elites as it is. People tend to find numbers and overall strength and cost-effectiveness much more important to success--that is, they find success and victory the eventual goal in battle, not simply the fielding of a...proper army, for the sake of fielding a proper army. After all, this is a game.

That being said, let us suppose we're dealing with a 30k budget cap, and 28k for pre-Marians. Now, presumably you can still field 20-slot armies, or just for example a 15-slot more heavy-oriented army. Currently, because 20-slot armies are so ubiquitous in our 36k model, we don't provide proportions (i.e. percentages) for skirmishers, archer/slingers, cav--heavy cav, and so on and so forth, but rather we have slots. That is, we don't say maximum 20% army can be archer/slingers, but we say 4/20 slots. If we were to reduce budget to 30k or whatnot, would we still maintain same system and same numbers of slots, or would we have to resort to proportions? When using proportions, this would bring about more complexity in that the player, when creating his army, must consider that each time he uses one more slot, the percentages adjust. Integers are simple. Percentages complex (relatively, i.e. in this scenario). What say you?

In my mind a proper army has one or two elite, some heavies and mass medium/levy units. The others' PCs won't handle the Huge size, even if we use only 15 units. There are people who don't use all the slots even with 36k. Online battles are about victory, but how will you achieve that? I personally more like when I don't have to spam a very cost-effective unit to win. If we reduce the budget too much, we will begin to see exactly the same units and builds everywhere, everybody will buy the cost-effective one, because they won't have more mnai to buy a bit better. I see 36k as a balanced budget.

We could use the units by percentages with 36k too. (The slot system being replaced with the % one is appealing.)

[vartan]

We could use the units by percentages with 36k too. (The slot system being replaced with the % one is appealing.)
I myself wouldn't want that pessimistic scenario to play out as well and do find 36k a fine number, but am trying to remain impartial and hear what people have to say. The current system does take into account percentages, except that a 20-slot army is assumed, hence the slot numbers.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I'd just like to point out that stats alone don't make a unit combat effective VikingPower. You used the example of Boii swordsmen and Belgae swordsmen saying Boii have better stats but are cheaper. However if you match the two up, the Belgae will win. In fact I don't even think it would be all that close. The increased lethality of their swords plus their tight formation makes them extremely effective medium/heavy infantry.

[The Celtic Viking]

Err, since when are lethality and formation tightness not stats? ~;)


For an example then a Boi swordsmen are cheaper and have a better stats then a Belgae swordsmen

What do you mean by "better stats"? The Milnaht have 11 stats that are better than the Cingetos, while the Cingetos only have 8 that are better than the Milnaht (two of them being their cost). The Milnaht have 4 more morale, higher defence value, higher sword lethality, higher javelin attack and range, better training, tighter formation, higher mass and are more hardy to name a few.

You really can't go by what the in-game cards show you, because you don't get the full picture that way.

[vartan]

Exactly, and that's why it all comes down to what happens when you actually put the two together on the field. It's hard to predict a win when two units are not clearly different (i.e. one has certain better stats and vice versa).

[VikingPower]

Well, regardless of the unit comparison with the Boi swordsmen and a Belgae swordsmen then I still propose that the max minaii will be raised from 36000 to 39000 and that each army
is only limited to 3 elite infantry and 2 elite cavalry.

[mountaingoat]

i am all for lowering the mnai and no cap on the elites ... this makes it more tactical (imo) when deciding what units to bring ... this also can help when organising who brings what in 2v2 , 3v3 etc

[Burebista]

I'm totally agains giving more mnai. the reason behind this is that this would favor hugely the Cataphract factions which already are a majority.

Lowering this ammount might however make Sweboz/Getai feasible ( or changing the maps to smthing with trees:)).

[MisterFred]

Personally, my favorite mnai level is about 20k. All sorts of troops suddenly become much more desirable... and the few elites you see actually seem more elite since they're slaughtering lower-quality troops wholesale :).

[vartan]

Personally, my favorite mnai level is about 20k. All sorts of troops suddenly become much more desirable... and the few elites you see actually seem more elite since they're slaughtering lower-quality troops wholesale :).
I always feel good about myself every time I see a fellow Californian on the Guild. Anyway, I was thinking we could leave the rules as they are and have High-Money games and Low-Money games...assuming 36k to be the High-Money. Is 24k too high for a "Low-Money" game? It's two-thirds of 36k! I suppose it wouldn't be unfair to include low and high money games in the tournament (i.e. any low or high money game win counts equally as one point).

[antisocialmunky]

I think 24k is a good amount. I was just about to suggest this. 24K anything goes.

[vartan]

I think 24k is a good amount. I was just about to suggest this. 24K anything goes.
What do you mean anything goes? Does that mean the unit limits are off? So I can bring more than 4 archer/sling, etc.?

[mountaingoat]

i think around 28k .. it seems that you could bring close to , if not , a full stack ( with some factions ) and still bring a very decent army (with few elites).. else u could bring more an elite army with a half stack or so .. if you put both armies against each other ( more elites & less troop numbers vs the less elites & higher troop numbers ) either one could take victory.

there should still be limitations in terms of unit types for each roster .. elites should be uncapped ... archers and cav limited to factions (steppe get more) .. i have not read any of the current rules so i duno

[antisocialmunky]

I dunno, the idea was to make things not broken at 36K with those limits but at a lower price point those limits get more unbalanced. Probably the most important one is the Steppe Archer limit since armor values are going to drop like a rock at those price limits. Maybe you should bump up the archer limit by atleast 1 so we can shoot those down easier. We should also think about the 10K Elephant credit since they are comepletely unusable at 24K and it would not be fun without the chaotic random that is the elephant.

[vartan]

i have not read any of the current rules so i duno
Please read the rules on the website. It will prevent redundant and unnecessary posts, such as yours.

I dunno, the idea was to make things not broken at 36K with those limits but at a lower price point those limits get more unbalanced. Probably the most important one is the Steppe Archer limit since armor values are going to drop like a rock at those price limits. Maybe you should bump up the archer limit by atleast 1 so we can shoot those down easier. We should also think about the 10K Elephant credit since they are comepletely unusable at 24K and it would not be fun without the chaotic random that is the elephant.
Can you explain a bit more about what the elephant credit is, how it would work, and whether it should be exclusive to the 24k model and not the 36k model. And do you mean to increase the steppe archer/slinger limit from 8 to 9?

[antisocialmunky]

No, increase the civilized faction missile limit by 1 because infantry armor will generally decrease.

Elephant Credit was a 10K for anyone who wants to bring an elephant. Just set the mnai 10K more, the other person can't use that 10K, just the person with elephants.

[MisterFred]

Just remember Vartan that in the end, there will be no strong consensus. The benefit of being willing to go to the effort of setting up a website, forum topics, etc, is that you'll get (and need to make) the final say on posted rules. Otherwise... CHAOS

[antisocialmunky]

Actually I think 28K is probably better. I don't see how Hellenic Factions will be able to field even a few units of 2K Phalangites otherwise.

[MisterFred]

I'd like to add a suggestion I forgot to mention earlier.
NO MORE FIRE ARROWS.
So a-historical.

[vartan]

Actually I think 28K is probably better. I don't see how Hellenic Factions will be able to field even a few units of 2K Phalangites otherwise.
Most were levies.

[mountaingoat]

about 28k works for many factions ( at the leas the ones i looked at ) , letting them recruit a decent army ... though i have no idea if we are all going to come to an agreement .. maybe the "home" team can select from 2 or 3 mnai type games ( low mnai , high mnai ) .. eh i duno.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm aware of that but the money is just a little too low to afford some decent phalangites and some decent cavalry.

[vartan]

I'm aware of that but the money is just a little too low to afford some decent phalangites and some decent cavalry.
I'm aware that almost every single one of you people use the word decent too much for my liking. Sheesh. Decent phalangites? What do you want, pezhetairoi? Haha. Maybe you should stick to one of those, not four, five, or six. 36k is plenty. I've already upped the civilized range from 4 to 5 units. I've given nations a 4k discount when choosing to hire elephants (pre-Marians would be 37k, not 40k, as their 33k base still applies). There's a new line under the fair play section IIRC wherein is stated that no flaming arrows (also referred to as "fire arrows") will be allowed, whatsoever. Complain all you want. Play with munky, he'll show you what "Morale Modifier" really means. In-depth knowledge of engine = exploitation to the max. Keep on practicing, you guys really have me sweating with all the purging I need to do. I have to visit the Hamachi site more often now than my own email accounts. Jesus Christ.

[Apázlinemjó]

I always feel good about myself every time I see a fellow Californian on the Guild. Anyway, I was thinking we could leave the rules as they are and have High-Money games and Low-Money games...assuming 36k to be the High-Money. Is 24k too high for a "Low-Money" game? It's two-thirds of 36k! I suppose it wouldn't be unfair to include low and high money games in the tournament (i.e. any low or high money game win counts equally as one point).

Totally supporting this.

[antisocialmunky]

Well I guess if Hellenics factions suck at 24K, they can just do the 36K.

@Fire Arrows - Its a good idea to ban them for 24K atleast, 36K isn't a real problem as the Getai swarm tactics that I used don't really work anymore on anyone with decent skill :-p
Its more about Chariots.

[VikingPower]

I know that there is a Chevron limit of 1 for each unit, but can there be made an exception with low cost slingers which do only have an attack of 1 with their slingers (like the Shepherds of Lusotana faction or Celtic slingers), so that such units can be upgraded with 2 chevrons so their missile attack will be similar to an upgraded Hellenic slinger (base attack 2). For I have noticed another thread about the baeleric slingers that they have lesser ammo and other things which make them rather overrated in the game while one would rather field a cheaper slingers as an alternate option.

[MisterFred]

It's too narrow an exception, too many rules and its impossible to keep track of them all. Some factions just have better units in the same class (Roman 200 man quality infantry, Lusotann superior javelin range). Lusotann, for instance, has a much better selection of AP infantry than the KH, but they get crappier slingers. These things happen.

[vartan]

I know that there is a Chevron limit of 1 for each unit, but can there be made an exception with low cost slingers which do only have an attack of 1 with their slingers (like the Shepherds of Lusotana faction or Celtic slingers), so that such units can be upgraded with 2 chevrons so their missile attack will be similar to an upgraded Hellenic slinger (base attack 2). For I have noticed another thread about the baeleric slingers that they have lesser ammo and other things which make them rather overrated in the game while one would rather field a cheaper slingers as an alternate option.

It's too narrow an exception, too many rules and its impossible to keep track of them all. Some factions just have better units in the same class (Roman 200 man quality infantry, Lusotann superior javelin range). Lusotann, for instance, has a much better selection of AP infantry than the KH, but they get crappier slingers. These things happen.
That's right Fred, each faction has its pros and cons.

@VikingPower: Slingers going from 1 to 3 attack have increased attack by 300 percent. Archers going from 4 to 5 have increased only 25 percent. That's a force multiplication difference factor of 300/25 = 12. That's 12 times the difference in effect of 2 chevrons for a slinger and an archer. This is why all get 1 chev.

[Apázlinemjó]

That's right Fred, each faction has its pros and cons.

@VikingPower: Slingers going from 1 to 3 attack have increased attack by 300 percent. Archers going from 4 to 5 have increased only 25 percent. That's a force multiplication difference factor of 300/25 = 12. That's 12 times the difference in effect of 2 chevrons for a slinger and an archer. This is why all get 1 chev.

Also 2 chevrons raise the moral by 4!!!

[vartan]

Also 2 chevrons raise the moral by 4!!!
Supposedly. I've never read anything about morale boosts.

[antisocialmunky]

+2 morale for 1 Chevron. You really need it to counter scary. I think Ludens said it was +1 if its not the first one of a color.

[vartan]

+2 morale for 1 Chevron. You really need it to counter scary. I think Ludens said it was +1 if its not the first one of a color.
Well Ludy is the only guy I truly trust completely so I'll go ahead and take that. Thanks.