EB Online EDU v2.1 - RELEASE!

[gamegeek2]

THE EB ONLINE EDU - VERSION 2.1

by gamegeek2

This EDU follows in the footsteps of the last in that it aims to create a more historically accurate and enjoyable experience by incorporating suggestions from the community and my own ideas into a new set of statistics for the most crucial file to EB Online - the export_descr_unit file.


Important Changes from Version 2.0

1. Resizing of Persian Archers and Archer Spearmen. These units now have a base unit size of 50, making them the largest archer units in the game. The Persians were known for mass levies of archers, and such troops would be the main local levy raised by the Seleucids, Baktrians, and Parthians (along with units such as the pantodapoi, but nobody uses those :yes: )

Gameplay Tips: Don't count on these guys to win archery duels (except against other low quality archers). However they are excellent at shooting into melee blobs, or murdering units from the rear. They will also chew up slingers very quickly, and are highly effective against poorly armoured enemies (like all archers).

2. Cavalry Swords, Axes, Maces, and Overhand Spears get +3 attack. The original EB stat system had these weapons all -1 attack compared with their infantry counterparts (except the overhand spears, which had their own independent stats). Now they are +2 attack compared with their infantry counterparts. I feel this is fair given the slower animations which cavalry use, and considering the advantage a horseman has against infantry. Also, underhand spears and lances were significantly better than all other cavalry weapons in almost every case; this is no longer true.

Gameplay Tips: For cavalry armed with lances and swords, it is highly recommended that you use Alt + attack (right-click on the enemy) to switch to and use the unit's secondary weapon, the sword, once in melee. Exception: against units with heavy armor, cavalry with non-ap longswords should probably continue to use the lance in melee.

3. Most Elite Infantry now have 80 men. I incorporated the same formula for all other infantry units and applied it to elite infantry. I also removed the stat pumps I gave to many elite units, and I lowered some attack stats as well, mainly for elite units that fight in tight formations. There are seven exceptions: Gaesatae, Tindanotae, Dosidataskeli, Dubosaverlacica, the Koinon Hellenon Bodyguard, the Saba Bodyguard, and the Suebic Bodyguard. Their stat changes are explained in the documentation, albeit in note form.

Result: Elite Infantry are generally cheaper and far more effective now. They are extremely effective and will regularly rack up twice their numbers in kills if used properly.

4. Infantry and Cavalry Skirmishers given +1 attack. Not actually that big, but for such a large category of units, I feel I should post that these units have been given a slight edge.

Result: This should increase the killing power of skirmishers' javelins by approximately 12%.

5. Phalanxes Now Have 0.3 Pike Lethality. This is to make it easy for phalanxes to steamroll through non-phalanxes, and to represent the extremely powerful "push of pike."

Result: Phalanx battles will now resolve very quickly. It should also be harder for you to just hold a phalanx with a single spear unit, or whatever you prefer.


vartan has kindly posted a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOjmV4q0RIU&feature=youtu.be) showing the new battle system.

NOTE: Do not expect any response from me until August 1st. I will have very sparse internet access throughout July.


--- DOWNLOAD LINKS (UPDATED 7/1/01 AT 1:57 EASTERN TIME) ---

Mediafire: http://www.mediafire.com/?6cr84vrnm7c86nb
Megaupload: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=J3DGA93D

[vartan]

Thank you very much again for your time and effort in this matter gamegeek2. Your work is always invaluable to EB Online. I'd like to wish you a fun and safe trip for this July. That being said, I will now embed the video you mentioned here in this second post.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOjmV4q0RIU

[gamegeek2]

A few fixes were needed. The link in the OP has been updated.

[antisocialmunky]

... You're not allowed to reenable pikes after you take them out of phalanx...

[Kival]

... You're not allowed to reenable pikes after you take them out of phalanx...

But that's only after fight contact, isn't it? It is allowed to take phalanx out before you got to a fight and reenable it before fight contact?

[Lazy O]

Yes it is.

[Kival]

Why is the galatian heavy cavalry so expensive in comparison to other heavy cavalry? They don't have better stats as far as I see.

[The Celtic Viking]

Pictone Neitos are counted as factional for Casse but are not on their roster. It's a shame because they would probably prove more useful to Casse than either of the Gallic factions due to the former's lack of access to the Gaesatae.

[Kival]

But why should they be factional for casse? They are mainland celts...

[vartan]

But why should they be factional for casse? They are mainland celts...
Remember, the basis for our factional lists were many pages such as the following: https://europabarbarorum.com/factions_casse_units.html

As such, there may be remnants of 'mistakes'. Nevertheless, that particular unit may indeed be factional in the game, and I assume it is since it is on the EB site under factional units for Casse. Now, perhaps it was never fielded by the Casse, I don't know. If they're really not on the roster, then either they must be removed from the factional list, or added to the roster.

*Roster changes are EDU changes and so will not be in effect until at least the next month.

[antisocialmunky]

I think we should consider experimenting with tweaks to assault infantry/hoplite density and mass, the amount of 'push' a unit has on the initial engage is due to mass and the difference between guard/non guard unit spacing. You can tweak. I think one of the major changes would be to potentially to tweak with forward/back spacing to give units more forward pushing power.

We may be able to make it so that certain units can break guard mode units.

[The Celtic Viking]

But why should they be factional for casse? They are mainland celts...

I know, yet as Vartan says, if they are to be considered factional, as is currently the case, they should be there. It's no weirder than having Noricenes as factionals for the Gauls (or the Boiis as you have suggested yourself), and from reading the unit description they do seem to have more in common with the Casse than with Arverni/Aedui. As being consistent with how we determine factionals could in this case give use to a unit that currently sees none, I think it's fair to give it to them.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

1438

Then you totally have avoided my suggestion :inquisitive:
Anyway, I've already tried this new vers. and I've found a too overpowered cavalry in melee, especially the kopis ones.
Also I still dislike those ridiculous overpowered two-handed guys: 2 indian longbowmen units kill quite quickly a cohors (or a thorakitai units).

[vartan]

Anyway, I've already tried this new vers. and I've found a too overpowered cavalry in melee, especially the kopis ones. Also I still dislike those ridiculous overpowered two-handed guys: 2 indian longbowmen units kill quite quickly a cohors (or a thorakitai units).
That was the whole idea. More fully, the job we wanted them to do is now being done, more satisfactorily.

[lmt96]

That's true because those indian boys have AP swords...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

That's true because those indian boys have AP swords...

But are quite allergic to arrows and not very cost effective as archers. There are downsides to them, trust me.

[antisocialmunky]

I think Indian units have both discipline and morale issues so they tend to mass mass mass chain rout.

[Lazy O]

They are also some of the worse archers in the game, without their melee ability, or other archer support, would be quite useless.

[antisocialmunky]

The fun army is the mass Lancer/Cata army with 10 indians.

[gamegeek2]

I suppose steppe rules DO allow for that...

[Lazy O]

Yes, Asya Badarai, Saka Body guards, Roxo Lancers, Roxo Nobles ...Fun

[Kival]

I know it is based on the website but I've found some inconsistensies for the romans...

The Samnitici Milites (Samnite Heavy Infantry) are supposed to be factional for Camillians but are not part of the roster.

The polybian factional list ist stripped from any samnite units which does not make sense as far as I know. It's correct that in the polybian era after (!) the incident with Hannibal the romans no longer trusted their italian allies but then bruttians etc. should be stripped too from the factional list (and one would need to add some gallic and hispanic allies).

[Kival]

Is their any way to repair the galatian heavy spearmen? Can they be changed to use spears as primary and swords as secondary weapons?

[vartan]

Is their any way to repair the galatian heavy spearmen? Can they be changed to use spears as primary and swords as secondary weapons?
There are a myriad of units that have this 'problem'. I'm no modder but I recall reading something about having to modify models, that simply 'switching' primary and secondary proves to be problematic for whatever reason.

By the way there were a couple of units in this EDU that gamegeek2 told me to tell y'all not to use. I can't find my note paper on that but I do remember for sure that one of the units was a 'Lugii Swordsman'. I can't find that unit but that's what gamegeek2 said.

[Kival]

ad 1) Ah i feared something like that :/

ad 2) Essentially nobody should use the sweboz as far as I remember his saying(s?). The Lugii were not supposed to have ap (by gamegeek) weapons. At the moment they have higher lethality AND AP which makes them OP.

[vartan]

We might be able to have a quick fix for you guys for the Lugii and other problem(s) I can't recall as a patch to 2.1 for August, albeit with a delay of a few days (as gg2 return to us on the first of August).

[antisocialmunky]

I know it is based on the website but I've found some inconsistensies for the romans...

The Samnitici Milites (Samnite Heavy Infantry) are supposed to be factional for Camillians but are not part of the roster.

The polybian factional list ist stripped from any samnite units which does not make sense as far as I know. It's correct that in the polybian era after (!) the incident with Hannibal the romans no longer trusted their italian allies but then bruttians etc. should be stripped too from the factional list (and one would need to add some gallic and hispanic allies).

I think that the game would explode if you had pedites and milites because they share the same model. I think Camillian Triari have the exact same model and pedites already use the merc trick... I think.

[Kival]

I think that the game would explode if you had pedites and milites because they share the same model. I think Camillian Triari have the exact same model and pedites already use the merc trick... I think.

But in SP rome can use milites? I'm no modder but Camillian Triari are a hoplite unit how could they use the same model? In the EDU under soldier they do not have the same modelnames... if i understand correctly.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

But in SP rome can use milites? I'm no modder but Camillian Triari are a hoplite unit how could they use the same model? In the EDU under soldier they do not have the same modelnames... if i understand correctly.

You are correct. Samnites are classified as the merc unit. It's easy to tell when you look at the unit rosters of every faction in multiplayer custom battles as the units which use mercenary models are listed towards to bottom. Hence Polybian Principes being near the bottom for the Romans as they share a model with the Hastati.

[antisocialmunky]

Should be a 1 line fix.

[vartan]

Should be a 1 line fix.
You have amazing predictive powers.

[Lazy O]

Samnitici Milites are not in Romes roster.

[Kival]

Samnitici Milites are not in Romes roster.

That's exactly what we are speaking about?

[Lazy O]

I did not see what you guys were speaking about, Vega just asked the same thing yesterday :D

[antisocialmunky]

We're talking about this:
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_romani_units.html

Which is actually reporting units from the release before the final EB release so while outdated, it still gives you a good idea what a roster SHOULD look like.

[Vega]

This is not maybe good thread to reply but is this possible, why in kolonion hellenon Epilektoi Hoplitai (Hellenic Distinguished Hoplites) have ATK 16 DEF 29 and Spartiatai Hoplitai (Spartan Hoplites) have ATK 16 DEF 28 and they are more expensive than Epilektoi I think that historicaly Spartan Hoplites are best greek unit ever trained :DD

[Ludens]

I think that historicaly Spartan Hoplites are best greek unit ever trained

Well, in the land of the blind...

Until after the Peloponnesian war, the Spartans were the only-city state with a full-time army. With the exception of some elite forces (the Theban Sacred Band is the best known, but there were others) all other hoplites were part-time warriors. The reason the Spartans could do this is because their citizens did not have to farm or attend to business. They had helots to do that for them.

However, because of constant warfare and increasingly sophisticated government, other Greek city states began to acquire experienced, full-time warriors as well. And from that point onwards, the Spartans suddenly look a lot less invisible. After the defeats at Leuctra and Mantinea, the Messenian helots were freed, and the Spartans could no longer their full-time army or their agoge.

Also, they were never quite invisible to start with: the battle of the champions shows that 300 picked Argives were quite a match for an equal number of picked Spartans. In other words: the cream of the Spartan hoplite-force wasn't any stronger than that of other powerful city states: Sparta's superiority lay in their rank-and-file, not the top-end. Off course, by the time EB starts, Sparta is still a powerful city-state with a proud culture, but they no longer had the monopoly on (or even a large number of) full-time hoplite-soldiers.

In EB, the Spartan hoplite simply represent the regional equivalent of the Epilektoi: a city's brightest and best, equipped with the finest arms and armour that money can buy. The only difference is their culture (morale bonus) and the fact that Spartans were an old-fashioned Pylos helmet. Hence the -1 armour.

I agree there is, at the moment, no point in preferring Spartans over ordinary Epilektoi; but the reasoning for not making them supermen is sound.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

In EB, the Spartan hoplite simply represent the regional equivalent of the Epilektoi: a city's brightest and best, equipped with the finest arms and armour that money can buy. The only difference is their culture (morale bonus) and the fact that Spartans were an old-fashioned Pylos helmet. Hence the -1 armour.

I agree there is, at the moment, no point in preferring Spartans over ordinary Epilektoi; but the reasoning for not making them supermen is sound.

Spartans also possess better stamina than Epilektoi. But yes Vega, make these posts in the edu threads.

[Vega]

I didnt tell you to make superemns of them but spartans must be stronger than that elite army, why should they be more expenisve than them when they are weaker... its look that spartans is uselles in this game...

[gamegeek2]

I hope people noticed that I fixed the mistakes that I said there were...unless i didnt fix kluddargos...

Commentaries on the specific changes? I should be able to answer them within a few days to a week.

Spartans stamina advantage makes them very very good...heavy armor plus very good stamina is hard to come by.

[Kival]

AP twohanders were statistically very overpowered. The change was necessary if we were to implement the elite size increase. Rhomphaiaphoroi regularly rack up over 200 kills on large size still, and Kluddargos use a statistically identical weapon (in the new EDU).

I´d like to hear some commentary on other major changes, particularly on cavalry secondaries and elite size increases.

I'd propose not to increase the size of the two-handed-swordsmen but give them ap. Their unit description fairly directly state their weapons as AP-weapons. Whereas the two-handed-swordsmen have their use without AP, Drapanai and co are useless now and can't see any reason why their weapon which are meant to be ap-weapons should not be ap-weapons.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, they should finally be big enough of a unit to do something now lol.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I hope people noticed that I fixed the mistakes that I said there were...unless i didnt fix kluddargos...

Commentaries on the specific changes? I should be able to answer them within a few days to a week.

Spartans stamina advantage makes them very very good...heavy armor plus very good stamina is hard to come by.

I'm backing up the Drapanai being useless now. They need ap back.

[vartan]

I hope people noticed that I fixed the mistakes that I said there were...unless i didnt fix kluddargos...
Look into it when you come back from the trip. You told me I should let people know not to use the Lugii and the Kluddargos.

EDIT: I understand recent concerns. In fact, I think it was a compromise between would you like your unit smaller but with AP and higher stats or larger with slightly lowered stats (if at all) and possibly an AP removal. Not for all units, of course. This was something for elites and falxes and some others I think. For instance, notice that there is no longer a limit on the Bastarnae Falxmen. This is why. That AP trait does make a big difference though, and it could prove quite unfortunate not to have it on some units.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Look into it when you come back from the trip. You told me I should let people know not to use the Lugii and the Kluddargos.

EDIT: I understand recent concerns. In fact, I think it was a compromise between would you like your unit smaller but with AP and higher stats or larger with slightly lowered stats (if at all) and possibly an AP removal. Not for all units, of course. This was something for elites and falxes and some others I think. For instance, notice that there is no longer a limit on the Bastarnae Falxmen. This is why. That AP trait does make a big difference though, and it could prove quite unfortunate not to have it on some units.

Well the main concern with Drapanai and Bastarnae is that they are not elites and yet still lost the ap attribute. Their unit size was not increased to compensate a la Thracian Elites, and while I believe the attack was modified some bit, it still doesn't seem to matter much against armored opponents. The armor piercing attack was much more important to these units than the extra 2 or 3 attack they received.

I understand the concern that the Bastarnae in particular were considered OP, being readily available as mercs to some factions, but increasing cost would go a long ways towards fixing that rather than changing the unit itself. These two units in particular were always somewhat risky plays as they died in droves to any sort of missile attack. However, their tangible upside was clear. If an opponent spent all their missiles or did not think to use them on these units, then they would play a very important role on the battlefield. As it is now, they play a much, much smaller role while still having the obvious weakness.

[vartan]

I have to agree with that viewpoint, because making it so that neglecting the enemy's falxmen can prove fatal to your cause is probably one of the more exciting possibilities there ever was with regard to falxmen in the first place. Non-AP falxmen sound simply like better swordsmen to me.

[antisocialmunky]

It would be nice if rhomphs got their AP back. Getai is now quiet dull. They weren't broken or imba except for the fact that they could take a charge to the face and live.

The change was kinda a weird one that not a whole lot of people really wanted as far as I know.

[vartan]

Two questions for both gamegeek2 upon arrival as well as everyone else now:

What do you think about SPQR bringing more than 1 First Cohort to the field? Is that problematic?
Should SPQR not be able to hire mercenary phalangites? Does their mixing with Roman cohorts become problematic?

Thanks.

[Lazy O]

1.No

2.Its kinda wierd that Imperial and Marian troops fight alongside them, ahistorical IMO, but not problematic.

[Kival]

I would agree. The "problem" wiht imperial troops is just that they cost nothing compared to their heavy armour but one has to accept that I think. It's also ahistorical to use no cav at all with them etc. but it should not be forbidden.

[Lazy O]

They do not have enough armor to make up for their pitiful attack.

[-Stormrage-]

, Come get your 3 in 1 package now, it comes fullly equiped with roman cohorts , gallic soldiers AND PHALANXES. :D

[Kival]

They do not have enough armor to make up for their pitiful attack.

11 attack with 0,15 lethality from 100 (!) men is not that bad. They have AP-Javelins etc. Surely they are not good for fast killing but they are nearly unbreakable for such low costs.

[-Stormrage-]

why dont normal skirmishers have AP or atleast more attack?

[Kival]

We have spoken about that before stormrage...

[-Stormrage-]

we did but i didnt get a satisfying answer, they are still worthless

[antisocialmunky]

They do not have enough armor to make up for their pitiful attack.

Its alright now that stamina and lethality are all tweaked up.

[Lazy O]

Why in bloody hell do Roman archers have 10 armor?? Arent they supposed to be carbon copies of the Syrians?

[Kival]

Why in bloody hell do Roman archers have 10 morale?? Arent they supposed to be carbon copies of the Syrians?

They have very different stats so I don't think they are supposed to be copies of Syrian Archers (what is a carbon copy?).

[-Stormrage-]

Why in bloody hell do Roman archers have 10 armor?? Arent they supposed to be carbon copies of the Syrians?

I agree 100% , romans imperial archers are way overpowered, i dont know about you but rome was famous for having a superior infantry force, giving them superior archers as well is overdoing it. The imperial roman archers dont even have a sheeild and they can last ina fight with the best sheilded EB Archers, they are tanks. I brought 8 slingers each with one chevron as saba, i made 4 slingers shoot at 1 imperial archer the other 4 shot at another, they got 3 kills (1 volley) WOW, i'm sure no one will think there is anyhting wrong with that, no thats completly natural right.Imperials were historically armoured tanks that got 3 kills when 240 stones were getting hurled at them at (insert LARGE number here)/mph

[Kival]

You still do not understand that masses of arrows/stones does not mean that masses of them are able to hit the unit. You'll get nearly the same with just one or two slingers for one imperial archer. You're argument is wrong also because historical Rome used eastern archers in the imperial time! One could argue to exclude the imperial romans alltogether but not excluding only the archers. Something like "beeing famous for" does not mean much. Romans are also famous for their lorica segmentata though they do not have it in this timeframe.

To give you some quotes from the unit descriptions (I'll not do any deeper historical research for you here, you can do that yourself):



The imperial army's archers are more heavily armoured than their counterparts, with shirts of lorica squamata or hamata (scale or chain mail), conical iron or bronze helmets and small shields protecting their left arm. They use long ranged recurved composite bows with bone ends and bracers to protect their forearms from the sinew, together with multiple types of arrows: three bladed heads to inflict heavy wounds at un armoured targets, thin needle like, pyramidal shaped armour piercing heads and flaming arrows, carrying an ignition load in a kind of small metal cage incorporated into the arrowhead.


During the decades of his rule following the end of the civil war, Augustus reformed the imperial army significantly and created a standing army with 28 legions as its core. In many fields a systematic approach replaced the improvisation of the late republican era. Most important was that the auxilia, with its indispensable cavalry and archer units, became a regular arm of the professional army and its second base. Trained to the same high standards of the legions they should cooperate with, these excellent soldiers were equipped in the Roman fashion, and well commanded first by proven Centurions, transferred from the legions, and later by a corps of equestrian officers.

And so on... one could perhaps argue about the missile attack value but the armour is fixed because of historical reasons. If you want to stay historical and balance them more you could increase the cost (or decrease number for cohorts) which both still are the biggest problems.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

And so on... one could perhaps argue about the missile attack value but the armour is fixed because of historical reasons. If you want to stay historical and balance them more you could increase the cost (or decrease number for cohorts) which both still are the biggest problems.

I think a 5-10% cost increase on all cohort units would be sufficient and would stop the spamming we often see with Rome players, especially of first cohorts.

Actually, when I think about it, it makes more sense just to increase the cost of the first cohorts. Bringing more than 1-2 of them should not be cost effective as it currently is.

[-Stormrage-]

Forget historical accuracy for one second kival, The gameplay is suffering because roman archers are medieval tanks, to put it simple they need a decrease in armour for the sake of good gameplay , in GAMEPLAY slingers kill armoured units thats what they are there FOR, imperial archers are armoured units with no shield infact and right now even under concentrated slinger (ANTI-armour) fire they are not dying , this is faulty gameplay .

EDIT: ok i want to "argue about the missile attack value" increase slinger damage so we have something that can counter these imperial tanks. I personally dont think that will happen. hoe about decreasing the armour of all archer units (bosphorans scyhtians crytians imperials) so that they die a bit faster and at the same time they will still be balanced the best armoured will remain the best armoured, the only diference is they will no longer be tanks.

[The Celtic Viking]

If you want to forget about historical accuracy, boy are you playing the wrong game, Storm.

[Kival]

Forget historical accuracy for one second kival

No, I'll not do that.


The gameplay is suffering because roman archers are medieval tanks, to put it simple they need a decrease in armour for the sake of good gameplay , in GAMEPLAY slingers kill armoured units thats what they are there FOR, imperial archers are armoured units with no shield infact and right now even under concentrated slinger (ANTI-armour) fire they are not dying , this is faulty gameplay .

I've said something about this, too. You just ignored it, I don't know why. It does not make sense to reduce armour of this one unit because you think they should die more easily to them. In fact for the imperial archers one could argue to give them a shield after the unit description!

In fact slingers are better against them than archers and that's what defines them as AP-unit. If you want slingers to kill armoured units better, you'd have two possibilites:

a) Make a proposal for a higher attack value of slingers
b) Make a proposal for lower armour values for *all* units.

It's not logical to reduce armour for one unit with chain mail but not for another with chainmail!

You've done a) but you did not get many people to agree. So you can try to give better arguments but it will not help just to reiterate your old arguments.

[vartan]

If you want to forget about historical accuracy, boy are you playing the wrong game, Storm.
I was thinking that he's been playing the wrong game since day 1. I hope I'm wrong.

Storm if 1 volley got the amount of kills you wanted, I'd make sure to see to it they didn't. You realize how short a time span 1 volley is? You can't close that distance quickly enough. So to lose 90 percent of your men by the time you've reached that missile unit is not good. I hope you see how far-fetched your claims/desires/wishes are.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I think it is also worth noting that archers are generally support units, not the main reason for victory. If archers rack up the most kills on the battlefield it is usually because they engaged in a missile duel first or maybe targeted some low armor units.

There are many ways to counter an opponent that brings superior archers as well. You can get him to waste most of his ammo on inferior and much cheaper archers and slingers or you can simply recruit extra infantry or cavalry and swamp his men so you can engage his archers in melee or drive them off. Too many people get suckered into thinking that missile duels decide battles. They typically don't. Usually they just force one player into doing something rash which is the cause of his defeat.

[antisocialmunky]

The Romans were able to recruit some of the best archers in the world and deck them out in the best possible equipment. Roman archers are extremely good but like all the top tier archers are low on ammunition (25ish). I mean, it is quite annoying that missiles are basically impossible to counter asymmetrically but its not as game breaking as it used to be with the ammo nerfs.

Slingers do need a slight buff. 1 attack slingers are basically worthless units.

[Lazy O]

Did they not use Syrian Archers? Do the syrian archers have 10 armor? Were not the kretkioi and bosporans supposed to be the best in the game? Inconsistencies....

[Kival]

@asm

With a chevron they are not useless but I'd think one could increase the attack of the 1-attack ones to 2-attack.
The roman archers have 30 arrows as the bospharans and syrians have, too. The cretans have only 25.


Did they not use Syrian Archers? Do the syrian archers have 10 armor? Were not the kretkioi and bosporans supposed to be the best in the game? Inconsistencies....

You could read <s>my quotes</s> the unit description and you would get an answer. In short: They are mostly eastern archers (syrians but not only syrians) but they get (slightly) better armour! They should still lose against Syrian archers because Syrians have 9 armour and 2 shield... you need to pay attention though because the shield does not always count as we know. Bospharan Archers are perhaps the only archers which surely will win a direct fight against the roman ones (they have 10 armour + 2 shield).

And there is no such thing as a "best archer", the top tier archers have different areas where they excel. The roman archers will perhaps win the most archer duels but they have less missile attack than cretans and elite dacian archers and so are less effective in killing other units.

@Vartan

Shall we discuss roster-questions and/or questions about factional units also here or somewhere else? I'd like to ask why pontos has lost the bosporans as factional units...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I'd like to ask why pontos has lost the bosporans as factional units...

They havn't. Bosporans are listed under Pontos's factional unit list. You have to scroll down to see them. Maybe thats why you missed them there.

[Kival]

They havn't. Bosporans are listed under Pontos's factional unit list. You have to scroll down to see them. Maybe thats why you missed them there.

I really should sleep more...

[vartan]

I really should sleep more...
Hehe. Feel free to discuss anything here because these EDUs are directly tied to rosters as well as indirectly to factional lists. And these are of course all factors when it comes to EB MP in general.

[Vega]

Ok guys i just saw all posts about this edu but so many questions about SPQR?! Why you guys want to make it weaker and weaker, for the god sake, yes they have good infratry, and yes they have good archers, but what about cav ?? Cav is so uselles and expensive and about mercenaries, romani never hire phalanx mercenaries in their legions ?? I dont think so. I dont ever know why you just hate romani faction.. :furious2: cheers :D

[Kival]

Ok guys i just saw all posts about this edu but so many questions about SPQR?! Why you guys want to make it weaker and weaker, for the god sake, yes they have good infratry, and yes they have good archers, but what about cav ??

What about cav? The Extraordinarii and Celtic ones are not that bad. It's only a question if the very low costs for (first) cohorts could really be justified for MP.


Cav is so uselles and expensive and about mercenaries, romani never hire phalanx mercenaries in their legions ?? I dont think so.

Could you give any excample where post-marian rome used phalangites? They cannot be used as wings and typically rome used allied troops/"Mercenaries" for the wings. They were at least not that common any more in marian times as Lazy stated below.

[Lazy O]

Ok guys i just saw all posts about this edu but so many questions about SPQR?! Why you guys want to make it weaker and weaker, for the god sake, yes they have good infratry, and yes they have good archers, but what about cav ?? Cav is so uselles and expensive and about mercenaries, romani never hire phalanx mercenaries in their legions ?? I dont think so. I dont ever know why you just hate romani faction.. :furious2: cheers :D

It did not even exist by Marian times :D

[-Stormrage-]

Slingers do need a slight buff. 1 attack slingers are basically worthless units.

I love you man.

i think the best proposal for getting imperial archers, which are not sheilded, to die realistically to slinger fire would be to decrease all archer unit armour. OK i get that imperial archers were awsome great excellent archers, but that does not mean you make them tanks that wont even die to slinger fire. i hope you understand my issue here. Ill make it plain when i want to kill an armoured unit that has no sheild i get the unit which excells in killing armoured units , SLINGERS. what pisses me off is to see my slingers getting butchered by something they should easily Counter. I want you to put yourself in my situation, as saba i got 8 slingers witch chevrons for the sole purpose of killing the imperial archers of my enemy, so i come to the feild with 8 slings my opponent 4 imperial archers, i move my slingers to the side so 4 of my slingers target one of his imperial archers and the rest cant attack me. i make them run to attack the unshelded helpless archers. i look at 4 slingers discharging their stones i move to the imperial archer unit expecting it to get devestated. long story short they got 3 kills and got butchered. I dare anyone to tell me that i am wrong , that slingers were not meant to kill these, that imperials were historically armoured tanks.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I love you man.

i think the best proposal for getting imperial archers, which are not sheilded, to die realistically to slinger fire would be to decrease all archer unit armour. OK i get that imperial archers were awsome great excellent archers, but that does not mean you make them tanks that wont even die to slinger fire. i hope you understand my issue here. Ill make it plain when i want to kill an armoured unit that has no sheild i get the unit which excells in killing armoured units , SLINGERS. what pisses me off is to see my slingers getting butchered by something they should easily Counter. I want you to put yourself in my situation, as saba i got 8 slingers witch chevrons for the sole purpose of killing the imperial archers of my enemy, so i come to the feild with 8 slings my opponent 4 imperial archers, i move my slingers to the side so 4 of my slingers target one of his imperial archers and the rest cant attack me. i make them run to attack the unshelded helpless archers. i look at 4 slingers discharging their stones i move to the imperial archer unit expecting it to get devestated. long story short they got 3 kills and got butchered. I dare anyone to tell me that i am wrong , that slingers were not meant to kill these, that imperials were historically armoured tanks.

Storm, I agree that slingers should be somewhat more effective against Imperial Archers than other heavy archers because they have no shield but you are missing the bigger overall picture. And that is?

That the counter to slingers is...wait for it...wait some more...

Archers! Archers will generally always beat slingers, even the lowly toxotai.

Its also worth noting that the Saba have no counter to heavy archers. If you want to win as Saba, you are probably going to have to bring elephants or at least fool your opponent into thinking you have brought elephants so they waste slots on skirmishers. Thats the deal with that faction and there is no way around it. A line of Sabaen soldiers are an archers dream.

[Kival]

i think the best proposal for getting imperial archers, which are not sheilded, to die realistically to slinger fire would be to decrease all archer unit armour.

Sorry, but you do not understand how armour values are calculated. You have a formula for that (Like this helm +2, chainmail +6, etc.). This are all just imaginary numbers but you should get the basic. Imperial archers get the exact amount of armour which is calculated for their equipment. For some units it's more difficult because they did not all have the same equipment but for the imperial archers it's fairly easy because they are very much uniformed in comparison to other units. So one could reduce armour for *all units* if you change the formula (for the example it would be perhaps only +1 for helm, +5 for chainmail). It would be wrong to give two units with the same armour different armour values!


I want you to put yourself in my situation, as saba i got 8 slingers witch chevrons for the sole purpose of killing the imperial archers of my enemy, so i come to the feild with 8 slings my opponent 4 imperial archers, i move my slingers to the side so 4 of my slingers target one of his imperial archers and the rest cant attack me. i make them run to attack the unshelded helpless archers. i look at 4 slingers discharging their stones i move to the imperial archer unit expecting it to get devestated. long story short they got 3 kills and got butchered.

That's not normal. One slinger unit does not get butchered by any archer unit and landed only 3 kills until he's butchered. They can surely lose but they don't do nothing in dozens of volleys.

[-Stormrage-]

i made them attack a volley each thats 4 slingers, they got 3 kills so i pulled them the hell out of there and got butchered as they were retreating, so on top of archers getting more armour they also got more range. we will wait until GG2 gets here and ask him what to do.

[Kival]

i made them attack a volley each thats 4 slingers, they got 3 kills so i pulled them the hell out of there and got butchered as they were retreating, so on top of archers getting more armour they also got more range. we will wait until GG2 gets here and ask him what to do.

How many units do you want to be killed by one volley? Be precise.

[vartan]

First, slingers should not be able to take out archers. You shouldn't be aiming at archers with your slingers to begin with. Second, even if changes are to be made, it isn't to the archers, it's to the slingers. By the way, you could give any unit the lowest attack integer of 1 and they'd still kill. If I understand the system correctly, it has a minimum chance to kill. There's a reason why even if your attack is lower than the enemy's armour, you can still kill that enemy. It isn't as straightforward as attack minus defense.

[-Stormrage-]

4 slingers SHOULD be able to DEVASTATE armoured archers VARTAN>\, especially since the archers in question have no hseild just tons of armour. I think the base attakc of the slingers hsould be raised to increase the chance of a kill on impact. i mean with 240 stones falling down on 80 men and only 3 dye, some of the stones must have hit them en but the men didnt die becuase they have so much armour. so that the man dies on impazt or atleast a 50 percent chance of death. 3 kills out of a possible 240 thats insane where the hell did the other rocks go lol. im assuming some stones hit but didnt do anything to the archer is that the way it should work ?

[Kival]

First, slingers should not be able to take out archers. You shouldn't be aiming at archers with your slingers to begin with.

I'd slightly disagree here, against heavy archers it's actually not a bad idea to use slingers.


im assuming some stones hit but didnt do anything to the archer is that the way it should work ?

Sure. Some attacks does not even hit (that's for missiles only), most attacks are stopped by armour, shield and defense (that's for melee only) and some attacks do not kill but only throw the enemy down (that's for melee only). That's the system. It would be crazy if every hitting stone would kill the unit.

Just to let you know: It's mentioned that in fact the imperial archers used shields, they should get MORE defense against missiles not less.

EDIT: Every reduction of armour would make the archer weaker against everything not only against slingers.

[-Stormrage-]

I have a friend that has experience with EDU's ill ask him about this .Maybe it is something more complicated then armour or attack maybe it has something to do with velocity, mass, weight ,(etc.), of the stone itself.

[vartan]

I'd slightly disagree here, against heavy archers it's actually not a bad idea to use slingers.
Trust me. You don't want to attack any archers with your slingers, unless you want to lose all of your slingers. Do you want to lose all of your slingers? That's the question. When you have a 60 man slinger unit against an archer unit of 80 men that was born to kill those 60 men of yours, is it really worth losing your 60 men and up to 600 or so mnai investment, only to take out 100 or 200 mnai worth of archers (a handful of men)?

[Kival]

Trust me. You don't want to attack any archers with your slingers, unless you want to lose all of your slingers. Do you want to lose all of your slingers? That's the question. When you have a 60 man slinger unit against an archer unit of 80 men that was born to kill those 60 men of yours, is it really worth losing your 60 men and up to 600 or so mnai investment, only to take out 100 or 200 mnai worth of archers (a handful of men)?

Perhaps this actually is what I want. The archers would devestate my more valuable units perhaps and it seemd to be useless to use a bad archer unit against them. It will have no chance at all, I thought, but now I've reconsidered it and the difference is not that big. I thought it would be like 3 vs 10 for the bad archer or 2 vs 5 for the chevroned slinger but one could actually chevron the bad archer and get a 4vs10 which would be the same as 2vs5.

[-Stormrage-]

Trust me. You don't want to attack any archers with your slingers, unless you want to lose all of your slingers. Do you want to lose all of your slingers? That's the question. When you have a 60 man slinger unit against an archer unit of 80 men that was born to kill those 60 men of yours, is it really worth losing your 60 men and up to 600 or so mnai investment, only to take out 100 or 200 mnai worth of archers (a handful of men)?

Ok, Vartan what if it is not a 60 man slinger against a 80 man archer, what if it is 240 slingers VS. 80 archers? and when you say archers are BORN TO KILL THESE MEN. The fact is VARTAN! that slingers are like wise born to kill this type of archer, does the word anti Armour mean anything to you. As archers are BORN to kill light units, slingers are likewise BORN to kill heavy unsheided units. As you stated the archers are doing what they are supposed to be doing slingers are getting devastated by archer fire, but our problem is heavy archers are NOT getting scratched by slingers. you claim that 80 man archers were born to kill 60 man slingers and i agree but are 240 slingers not born to kill 80 man archers?

[vartan]

240 slingers against 80 archers is overkill. Are you alright?

EDIT: Honestly, are you okay? Why are you attacking 4 to 1? No wonder you're losing your battles.

[Kival]

Stormrage you fail to consider that most slinger units are only levy troops not professional soldiers. They lack the training of the better archers. They cost less not without reason. Also you should understand that armour does not weaken a unit. A normal archer unit will win against a normal slinger and obviously the chances will not be better against an armoured archer. Slingers just have better chances to kill (very) heavy armoured units than archers but that does not mean they will win against heavy archers because the archers are also very good in killing the slingers. Another point you need to consider are the different ballistic curves. It's much easier to prevent units being hit by slingers than being hit by archers.

Your 240 slingers will kill 80 archers but not with ONE volley but with a dozen perhaps.

[antisocialmunky]

Slingers are really just there to kill cav in this game and suppress heavy infantry from moving. Their main purposes are to achieve asymmetric kill costs (a slinger costs 800/60 = 13.3 a man but a hoplite costs something like 16.25 and an elite infantry costs like 32.5 a man while chargers cost 100 man) and soak up arrows.

[-Stormrage-]

This is getting no where lets discuss some other issues.

Just a freindly question, what exactly is the proper way to use over hand spear cav. What is it good at killing?

[Lazy O]

Not much

[vartan]

Since 2.0 you want to use overhand spear cavalry to fight unarmoured men, while using any AP secondaries to fight armoured infantry and cavalry.

[Kival]

Since 2.0 you want to use overhand spear cavalry to fight unarmoured men, while using any AP secondaries to fight armoured infantry and cavalry.

Sure but is their any reason to use them? For what are they better than infantry or underhand spear cavalry? I tend not to use them though I'd really like to see some use for them.

[vartan]

People are afraid to use them, I think. I showed how they work in an early 2.0 beta and it's on my YouTube page. You can use light or medium cavalry with overhand spears to punish enemy foot missile units who have strayed too far forward, or whose player is being careless.

[antisocialmunky]

you may want to slightly bump up their missile defense values so they can do it without getting shot apart.

[Kival]

you may want to slightly bump up their missile defense values so they can do it without getting shot apart.

That's difficult. On which base should their shield or armour be increased? It would be wrong to give them 6 armour-points for the same armour another unit has witch 5 armour-points.

[vartan]

You don't need to raise their armour points. And they aren't going to get shot, since the enemy is shooting at something else. That's why it's called punishment.

[-Stormrage-]

+ most over hand spear cav have a shield , which does well in deflecting arrows.

[Kival]

You don't need to raise their armour points. And they aren't going to get shot, since the enemy is shooting at something else. That's why it's called punishment.

Sure. I just wanted to note that I don't see any way to make them more bullet/arrow-proof.

[antisocialmunky]

You don't need to raise their armour points. And they aren't going to get shot, since the enemy is shooting at something else. That's why it's called punishment.

... because their cav will prolly win anyway :D

I suppose that I need to test the rebalanced cav first :]

[vartan]

Not really. Two medium cavalry with axes defeat prodromoi and Hellenic Cataphract.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Ok a few things I noticed. One, why do cappadocian hillmen get a bonus against cavalry? Two, Klerouchoi Phalangitai also get a bonus while no other phalanx does though I believe this is an old EB mistake.

I also have a suggestion for skirmishers. Since we are not going to make them better, can we at least make them cheaper? Akontistai should be cheaper than slingers or archers at least, even though they do have more men in the unit since they are considerably more useless.

[antisocialmunky]

Ok a few things I noticed. One, why do cappadocian hillmen get a bonus against cavalry? Two, Klerouchoi Phalangitai also get a bonus while no other phalanx does though I believe this is an old EB mistake.

I also have a suggestion for skirmishers. Since we are not going to make them better, can we at least make them cheaper? Akontistai should be cheaper than slingers or archers at least, even though they do have more men in the unit since they are considerably more useless.

They kill elephants and dudes with little armor. Problem is they just insta-rout due ot scaries.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

They kill elephants and dudes with little armor. Problem is they just insta-rout due ot scaries.

Well anti-elephant is a very small role that rarely makes itself manifest. Dudes with little armor are better dealt with by archers who can fire several volleys off before the skirmishers come into range. Since you are limited to 5 missile units I can understand the use but why not just take a cheap medium infantry unit with javs instead assuming you can afford it? They can at least fight in melee and from my experience, you are much better off with a medium infantry unit than 2 skirms. The 20 unit limit prompts this somewhat, especially if you are purchasing cheaper archers.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, skirms aren't counted as missiles and the anti-elephant role is important and not all skirms are crap. The Eastern ones are quite alright due to their AP. Complaining about greek skirms is like complaining about celts having garbage archery.

There is a 6 skirm limit currently but it is to prevent forever auto run away armies. I suppose we can lift it once Iberia is a little less ridiculous.

[Kival]

What's wrong with the lusos, now?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

The Eastern ones are quite alright due to their AP. Complaining about greek skirms is like complaining about celts having garbage archery.
I'm not complaining, simply pointing out that skirmishers have little role in most armies. How often does an opponent bring elephants? Once every 25 battles? And what eastern skirmishers are you referencing that have ap? The Baktrian Light infantry are the only ones I can think of. I'm not talking about peltasts or higher end skirmishers like baktrians, arabians or even the iberian types. I'm solely referring to the lowest tier of skirmishers. The gund-i-palta and akontistai types.

As far as them not counting towards the missile limit that I can appreciate, but I also appreciate that if you have 5 archers or slingers, spending some of the remaining 15 slots on skirmishers is probably a waste, especially the lowest tier.

[antisocialmunky]

The Iberian ones are pretty ridiculous form what I've seen last year.

[Kival]

The Iberian ones are pretty ridiculous form what I've seen last year.

Could you elaberate that? I've played them a few times now so I can perhaps say something about if they are still ridiculous.

[Lazy O]

The anti elephant slot can be taken up by charger cavalry.

[-Stormrage-]

First of all, Which SKirmishers have AP???

and

why is there a limit of 5 missiles, when the missile class includes Slingers Archers AND horse archers. While there is a limit of 6 skirmishers but the skirmisher class only includes ONE type of unit SKirmishers. It doesnt make sense though i can live with it.

and robin i think even if you make them cheaper they wont be any better, i dont see whats the point in making them cheaper , they will still be useless.What do you hope to get by making them cheaper ?

EDIT: and hey guys, those thraikian pelteasts are supposed to be the best of the peltestai , right? So i gotta ask what makes them better then all the other peltasts ?

[Lazy O]

Better javelins. Better armor. Better melee. Does not insta rout. All round awsome units.

[antisocialmunky]

Could you elaberate that? I've played them a few times now so I can perhaps say something about if they are still ridiculous.

Iberian ambushers have the crazy ability to murder the crap out of cavalry due to their high morale and ridiculous javelin count. Its the only faction that can feasibly actually get a bunch of their uber skirms and use them to flank and jav in the back.

Charger cav can counter elephants but that's when you have no clue how to use elephants.

I made the skirm rule do you couldn't spam an auto run-away army. I suppose we can lift skirm restrictions and just add something to fair play rules to deal with skirmishing stalling.

[Lazy O]

I say its fair game, cavalry will still beat skirms anyhow, I know gamegeek2 used that, but it failed miserably against gauls but did well enough against cavalry.

[-Stormrage-]

Better javelins. Better armor. Better melee. Does not insta rout. All round awsome units.

thraikians dont have better javelins. but the rest is true


I made the skirm rule do you couldn't spam an auto run-away army. I suppose we can lift skirm restrictions and just add something to fair play rules to deal with skirmishing stalling.

yes, i feel the skirmisher restriction is not fair for factions that rely heavily on skirmishers like luso for example. restricting skirmishers for luso is like restricting cohorts for rome.+ skirmishers are not that good so limiting them is unnecessary.

Lets say a person got an "auto run-away army" full of skirmishers , he wouldn't win a battle against a balanced army from ANY faction. That is what balance is all about its about having the EDU so balanced that spam army of any unit never wins against a well balanced army.

[gamegeek2]

I misplayed against that gaul army. Engaged too early. Also that Luso army wont work well now without goidils, but the new general bonus should help some.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Lusotann get no access to archers though and its hard to say that Balearics are worth their price when matched against archers. Therefore, most players will see those skirmishers shot to pieces by archers before they can get around back and start pelting enemy infantry.

[Lazy O]

They would be very much worth it if cavalry were real cavalry and could kill slings and archers within seconds!!!!!!!

And why in bloody hell do Chalkispedes cost only 2400? Being elites phalanx with 15 morale?

/rant

[Vega]

that is a stupid question lazy, what about iberian assault infratry whos can smash roman cohorts without problems and they cost only 2200 :book:

[Lazy O]

Because they are not very good against most other stuff?. neitos also cost 2200, cohorts are cheaper, so it makes sense that they lose.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Haha, cohorts are substantially cheaper in fact.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Haha, cohorts are substantially cheaper in fact.

Cohors are substantially underpowered as more as possible.
Playing mp, legionaries simply do not count.
Roman player could save himself only with his cavalry (at least decent), then not in roman way.

[-Stormrage-]

Cohors are substantially underpowered as more as possible.

Since when is a heavily armored, sword armed, 100 man unit, that costs less then 2000 minai, UNDERPOWERED?

im not very inteligble about roman troops so i might be missing something here.

[Kival]

Since when is a heavily armored, sword armed, 100 man unit, that costs less then 2000 minai, UNDERPOWERED?

im not very inteligble about roman troops so i might be missing something here.

You forgot the pilum which is an ap-jav. Roman Cohors are surely not underpowered.

[-Stormrage-]

You forgot the pilum which is an ap-jav. Roman Cohors are surely not underpowered.

Right you are.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

The fact that Roman players are not creative and willing to recruit various mercs as complementary pieces is what dooms those cohorts. Not their inherent abilities as units in and of themselves. In this sense I give Vega a good amount of credit. He tried and succeeded at implementing phalangites with his legions and he has shown a willingness to use various other mercenary units. In that sense, he has improved upon how he originally did as Rome and his recent tournament record bears that out.

[Vega]

Yes robin i agree, Rome is weak, but with removing some important mercenaries why make them weaker...

[antisocialmunky]

Cohors are substantially underpowered as more as possible.
Playing mp, legionaries simply do not count.
Roman player could save himself only with his cavalry (at least decent), then not in roman way.

You have elites like Praetorians now. Its not so much that legions are weaker but everything is better so you can't sit in guard mode forever :p

Also ACS used to use phalanx too in really annoying way.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Yes robin i agree, Rome is weak, but with removing some important mercenaries why make them weaker...

I think you are missing my point...

I don't think Rome is weak at all. I think people just rely on their legions to win battles themselves without any support and that is what makes Rome weak.

[vartan]

Rome is going to be "weak" as long as their units are not made to be God-like.

ASM, eastern skirmishers aren't AP.

Consider slingers that cost just as much as archers do, with the same amount of men.

[antisocialmunky]

I think you are missing my point...

I don't think Rome is weak at all. I think people just rely on their legions to win battles themselves without any support and that is what makes Rome weak.

I suppose I should try my hand at post-marian again for unit testing. Post-marian is weak for lack of charge cavalry but I really need to test the jav cav.

[vartan]

I think the Marian-Imperials exclusively use Gallic cav as they're the only lancers.

[The Celtic Viking]

Is it just me, or does it seem a little weird that Dosidataskeli have 6 more armour and 10 more morale than Dubosaverlacica and yet only cost 300 more mnai?

[vartan]

Is it just me, or does it seem a little weird that Dosidataskeli have 6 more armour and 10 more morale than Dubosaverlacica and yet only cost 300 more mnai?
*jaw drops* Really? My my my that's so disturbing.

[Kival]

I should not have played against you, Viking ;-). The Thorakitai Argyraspidai have the same armour as the Dubosaverlacica but 2 morale less, 2 defense points less, 2 attack points less and cost 400 more... While I agree that it is odd I don't think that the costs can only be seen this way though I don't know how they were calculated at first. It's also obviously something different to have this kind of unit as a phalanx or non-phalanx nation etc. - difficult...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

TAB's are 80 men units while the Goildilic and Vasci units are 60, hence the cost difference. But something was seeming a little off with the Dosidatashkeli when I had those two units surrounded by literally 16 of mine and they still refused to rout.:dizzy2:

[The Celtic Viking]

Kival, I'm sorry, but I must insist that they are overpowered. Ordmalica charging from the front kills at most 15 of them before routing, and that's if they can envelope. If fighting straight from the front only, they kill 7 if they have no exp or 12 if they do, and that's if they can avoid those javelins. TABs only killed 12 before routing.

They do cost 3266 mnai and come with a 60 + 1 officer number, but they cause fear, are hardy, have two 7 attack ap javelins, a 19 attack spear, a total of 39 defence, of which 23 is armour, 12 is defence skill and 4 is the shield. Due to being disciplined and having 30(!) morale, they never rout either, even, as Robin said, when completely surrounded by a far more numerous enemy. With this in mind, that 3266 price tag is nothing.

They need to be nerfed.

[Kival]

@Robin

Oh, I see.

@Viking

I was only joking ;-). I think not-rooting is not the problem, the solduros do not root, too. But the armour seems to be somewhat overdone. As we don't know if any of this units is historical at all we could just adjust the stats to the stats of the irish guys. They would still be strong but not unbeatable, at least I was able to beat Vikings Dosidatiaskeli ;-).

[The Celtic Viking]

You mean my Dubosaverlacica. ~;)

Anyway, I know you better than to take you seriously, so I didn't (~;)). I just know you like them. Though, of course, I wasn't saying that "they can't be routed, so that in and of itself means they're overpowered". I was saying that, "they can't be routed, and that together with everything else, means that they're overpowered". It's a part of the equation, but not the whole of it.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Armor should be two higher than Dubos since they wear greaves, but this will be reflected in higher price.

[Kival]

You mean my Dubosaverlacica. ~;)

Yeah, this names are cumbersome...

[-Stormrage-]

ok here is the deal thraikian skirmishers should get either ap javs OR ap melee.\

becuase they are not living up to their title as best skirmishers, their jav attack is the same as an other skirmisher.

[Kival]

This "best skirmisher" thing does not have to be true. The iberian and lusotanian were also very renowned for their skirmishers as were the numidians.

[gamegeek2]

Dosidataskeli have more than just greaves as an advantage IIRC. I think I made sure of that. I probably ought to nerf them, I did stat on them almost every single possible bit of armor. I will likely remove some. 37 Im thinking and a small price reduction.

One question though: is having only 60 men (compared with other elite 80 men) not a big disadvantage? Did i forget to give them 60 men because thats all they should have.

Did I forget to give the Thorakitai Argyraspidai 80 men, because IIRC they have 80 men.

[Kival]

One question though: is having only 60 men (compared with other elite 80 men) not a big disadvantage? Did i forget to give them 60 men because thats all they should have.

They only have 60 men but 60 men which do not die are better than 80 or 100 who die ;-)


Did I forget to give the Thorakitai Argyraspidai 80 men, because IIRC they have 80 men.

Yes, they have, I've overseen that.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Yes oddly enough the TAB's which are 80 men only killed 12 of the 60 men in the Dosidatashkeli unit :(

[-Stormrage-]

Since EB is all about historical accuracy, didnt indian longbow men plant their bows in the ground, to give the bow more force and propell the arrow stronger and farther .

maybe a range boost would be represent this.

[antisocialmunky]

That may not mean much if the bow wasn't that great.

[gamegeek2]

Bamboo does not a good bow make. Cane, idk...

They are supposed to not die easily. Cavcharge from back maybe? Also yeah maybe a bit of an armor cut.

[antisocialmunky]

People aren't using as much cav as they used to which is odd to me.

[Kival]

People aren't using as much cav as they used to which is odd to me.

Why? And what does it have to do with the changes? The cavalry is made stronger not weaker. And for some factions or situations it can make sense to bring no cav or not so many. I don't think that it's caused by the EDU changes, it's a change in mentality. People do not longer think "I can have five cav and five archers, so I have to use five of them".

[Lazy O]

Id say its caused by 20 cohorts and Gallic fear armies, suddenly, 10 units of infantry does not seem like a very good idea considering how little damage archers do to armored infantry in EB.

[vartan]

People aren't using as much cav as they used to which is odd to me.
Then one of our goals has been accomplished :2thumbsup: You freakin' lancer spammers...

[antisocialmunky]

Id say its caused by 20 cohorts and Gallic fear armies, suddenly, 10 units of infantry does not seem like a very good idea considering how little damage archers do to armored infantry in EB.

Well, people have always taken 20 cohort armies and gallic fear armies. I think its just that stamina is up and infantry last longer so cav is much less immediately useful.

[Vega]

Ok guys one suggestion about mercenary phalanx in Rome roster, ok its maybe stupid to use them for marian and imperial era but i think that there should be special rule that SPQR players can use them in camilian and polybian era right?

[Kival]

That sounds sensible for me.

[Aper]

I found a typo: Mada Asabara have an overhand spear with a delay of 160: shouldn't be 0?

[Vega]

Guys just to inform you that ◦EB Historical Battles Pack by LDC link dont work when i downloaded files, my winrar says that files are corrupt i tried downloading it 3 times same happens :2thumbsup: :P

[vartan]

Guys just to inform you that ◦EB Historical Battles Pack by LDC link dont work when i downloaded files, my winrar says that files are corrupt i tried downloading it 3 times same happens :2thumbsup: :P
This really has nothing to do with MP and EBO. You should have PMed me. Your download should be approximately 36.7 MB and will unzip into an installer file, which you can then install by pointing it to your Rome installation folder. I just downloaded it again to make sure, and it works fine.