[EB] EDU Balance Proposals [Archive]

View Full Version : [EB] EDU Balance Proposals

Lazy O

07-22-2011, 18:55

Hello people.

On behalf of two of the most loved generals of EBO (me and Robin) *snickers* we present to you, our proposals, faction wise, on what needs, according to our honest opinions, to be done about the current rosters. We aim to provide suggestions to make as much Units useable as possible .

Arche Seleukia

Eastern Axemen be made cheaper
Jewish spearmen be made cheaper, given more men.
Hypaspistai, and Elite Peltast be made cheaper, they are extremely cost inefficent compared to better elites such as TAB, they are worthelss.
Thureophoroi be given very_hardy and 1 extra point of morale
Klerouchoi Phalangitai, made into a sort of "inbetween" type of unit between the Pandatapoi and Pezhetaroi, cost reduced to 1.6 1.7k , given more morale, should lose to Pezhetaroi and win comfortably vs Pandatopoi.
Thraokitai be cheaper, mid 1.9k.
Argyraspides and elite phalangites in general be given 120 men.
Persian Archers still win against every archer in the game beside Bosporans, they be given -1 attack.
Peltastai be given more morale, more men, be made cheaper.
Arabian Light Infantry also need a cost reduction.
Median Cavalry be given more charge..
Hetaroi Aspidophoroi be made cheaper. They do not justify their cost.
Iranian Light Cavalry be made cheaper.
Galatian Heavy cavalry are ridiculously expensive, be made cheaper to around 3.3 , 3.4k region.
Global price reduction on skirmisher cavalry.
Shortsword still seems very underpowered, lethality should be upped to .17
Cappadocian Hillmen cavalry bonus be removed.
Hyrkanian Hillmen repriced to 1.1k 1.2k or 1.3k, 1.8k for such a light unit is just ridiculous.
Parthian Spearmen be made cheaper.
Probably the biggest proposal of all, Heavy Persian Archers be made into supermen, 1.4k price, 4 attack 100 men. Regular Persians should have 3 attack.

Archer Balance

Persian Archer < Cretans
Persian Archer < Imperial Roman Archer
Persian Archer < Syrian Archer
Persian Archer < Bosporan Archer
In all the above, the Persians successfully managed to waste the enemies ammo while being much much cheaper than their counterparts.
Bosporan Archers = Imperial Archers
Bosporan Archers > Kretan Archers
The Kretans cost much more for most factions and are very crap in melee.
All of the above mentioned armored archers do not manage to kill off their opponents completely.

Getic Skirmishers - Who to pick?

This is a slightly more complicated test. In this one, I pick 5 each of 4 different skirmishers,

- Komatai
- Komatai Elites
- Thraikian Peltast
- Komatai with 1 chevron

All the tests were carried out firing un-interrupted into the backs of 5 Roman Legionnaires.

Below are the results of what they managed to do, in the second screenshot, the last 5 Komatai are the ones with a chevron.

https://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2510/rometw2011072322104007.jpg
https://img143.imageshack.us/img143/4336/rometw2011072322103450.jpg

As far as I can see, it is not really worth it to get more than five of any skirmisher, and with the current system, do not bother at all with 80 man skirmishers, Gund-i-Palta and Akontisai could achieve similiar results as the Komatai, but they do not have the same melee capabilities.

Above all, this makes a really big case for the Iberi Velites and Numidian Skirmishers, both when upgraded with a chevron are reasonably cheap, though you would have to sacrifice significantly in other components of the army.

Baktria

First of all, for those who wish to know the background for these changes, here is the chatlog.

[21:43:32] is online
[21:43:38] << CHAT LOG BEGIN RECORD\
[21:43:41] << \lol
[21:43:42] << :D
[21:43:51] >> warning sign?
[21:43:57] << yea'
[21:44:21] << did you host?
[21:44:23] <> yes
[21:44:34] << ggarrrhh
[21:44:36] << reconnecting now
[21:45:04] [Brave Sir Robin - 5.213.159.137] messaging in on
[21:45:04] [Brave Sir Robin - 5.213.159.137] is online
[21:45:28] << idk what wrong
[21:45:46] [Brave Sir Robin] is offline
[21:45:46] [Brave Sir Robin] left all your networks
[21:45:59] [Brave Sir Robin] messaging in on
[21:46:01] [Brave Sir Robin - 5.213.159.137] is online
[21:46:10] << ............
[21:46:47] >> your not showing up in the lobby at all
[21:46:57] << see me now?
[21:46:57] >> can you see storm or vega?
[21:47:01] <> in the lobby? no
[21:47:22] << il try restarting my system
[21:47:28] >> its ok
[21:47:38] >> we don't need to be on the same loby
[21:47:40] << yea
[21:47:41] << ok
[21:47:43] >> we are just going over units lol
[21:47:45] << /CHAT RECORD
[21:47:48] <> baktria
[21:48:01] << now
[21:48:02] << z
[21:48:02] >> have it loaded up?
[21:48:07] << yea
[21:48:15] << lets elave the x amount of axe units :D
[21:48:24] >> yeah, we went over them
[21:48:30] << first of all
[21:48:33] << sreni
[21:48:33] >> and even ASM sees a need to change them lol
[21:48:35] << patt yodha
[21:48:46] <> fine
[21:48:51] <> fine
[21:49:12] << panda were done
[21:49:15] << peltast were done
[21:49:19] >> yes
[21:49:23] >> panda done
[21:49:29] << panda phalanx is fine already
[21:49:30] >> indo hellenic spears?
[21:49:32] << hmm
[21:49:35] << they use swords
[21:49:38] << shortword
[21:49:49] << id say they are a little tougher than thureos
[21:49:51] >> i think they are fine
[21:49:55] >> yeah slightly
[21:49:57] >> but no javs
[21:50:03] >> i don't like them but some do
[21:50:10] << bah these javs are pathetic
[21:50:23] >> not against my poor bataroas :(
[21:50:33] >> thats why i use teskastos now :)
[21:50:46] << lol
[21:50:56] << soo
[21:51:03] <> for their price they work
[21:51:16] << yea
[21:51:17] << as saka
[21:51:20] << they were awsome
[21:51:38] << now
[21:51:43] << baktrian royal guard
[21:51:57] <> they are similar to hypaspists
[21:52:24] << on the flank
[21:52:28] >> one higher attack
[21:52:31] >> one lower defense
[21:52:33] << idk
[21:52:39] <> slight lower of cost
[21:52:55] << if the hypasists do get changed
[21:52:57] << yea i agree
[21:53:01] << hmmm
[21:53:04] << skimming through
[21:53:08] << Indian longbows
[21:53:08] << wait
[21:53:09] << brb
[21:53:15] << you type your thought
[21:53:30] >> do indian longbows secondary still have ap?
[21:54:19] << let me check
[21:54:28] << and compare differences to june
[21:54:29] >> it looks like no
[21:54:35] << wait
[21:55:17] >> yeah not ap anymore
[21:55:18] << nope
[21:55:19] << no ap
[21:55:22] << +2 attack
[21:55:33] >> thats fine
[21:55:36] << lol
[21:55:40] << 2.6 lethality
[21:55:41] << :D
[21:55:45] >> yeah
[21:55:51] << id say they are fine
[21:55:52] >> they are expensive as shit for crap archers tho
[21:55:58] << though id do with more range though
[21:55:58] >> so thats fine
[21:56:00] << and more arrow
[21:56:12] >> nah, your not bring them to shoot stuff
[21:56:22] << we indians were known for our shootyness ;)
[21:56:24] >> they are more hybrid unit than archer
[21:56:33] << yea id agree
[21:56:48] << defence also got buffed
[21:57:03] << hmm
[21:57:04] << now
[21:57:07] << baktrian light infantry
[21:57:12] <> what about indo hellenci peltasts?
[21:57:23] << and most axe units have 8 attack
[21:57:26] << they have 8
[21:57:27] << oops
[21:57:30] << after these guys?
[21:57:38] >> ok
[21:57:54] << either give them 1 or 2 more attack or make them cheaper
[21:57:58] << thoughts?
[21:58:08] >> cheaper in line with other eastern axe unit changes
[21:58:14] >> they just happen to be skirms
[21:58:17] << yea
[21:58:19] << no
[21:58:24] << they dont have skirmish mode iirc
[21:58:26] << or do they?
[21:58:27] >> yes they do
[21:58:32] << ok then they are fine
[21:58:36] << but still too expensive
[21:58:39] << 1.2 or 1.3?
[21:58:43] >> yes
[21:58:54] >> we will see what the axe units get changed to
[21:59:02] >> 1.3 sounds goo
[21:59:03] >> d
[21:59:05] << yea
[21:59:09] << indo hellenic peltast
[21:59:22] >> good unit
[21:59:23] << buffed up hellenic peltast?
[21:59:24] >> i like them
[21:59:24] << yea
[21:59:25] <> maybe slightly higher jav attack
[21:59:45] >> they lost a point idk why
[22:00:18] << lemme check
[22:00:39] << no
[22:00:40] >> if any changes are made to regular peltasts, these guys should also benefit
[22:00:50] >> no?
[22:00:51] << no changes
[22:00:52] << to june
[22:00:55] >> oh ok
[22:01:01] >> im getting confused then
[22:01:06] << ok next
[22:01:13] << katas?
[22:01:15] << ive tested
[22:01:16] >> we can skip bg
[22:01:17] << kataphracts
[22:01:24] << lose to iberians lanceari 1v1 :D
[22:01:29] >> ?
[22:01:32] << yea
[22:01:35] << im not shitting here
[22:01:43] << when both use secondary
[22:01:46] << iberians win
[22:02:03] >> hmm
[22:02:11] <> probably because their defense skill is low
[22:02:16] << it seems appropriate though
[22:02:19] >> i think its fine actually
[22:02:19] << armor piercer
[22:02:21] << beats a tank
[22:02:22] << :D
[22:02:25] >> yeah
[22:02:38] >> they still kill infantry better
[22:02:40] << now the next units are fine
[22:02:43] << yes
[22:02:46] >> i was wondering
[22:03:00] >> could indian elephants be made a tad cheaper?
[22:03:08] << they were bigger
[22:03:13] >> people usually only bring the small african ones
[22:03:14] << id say more men and remove the archers
[22:03:22] >> because you get more elephants per unit and they are cheaper
[22:03:39] << or we could make the archers 1 attack so they dont matter and are just cosmetic
[22:03:43] << now
[22:03:50] << Baktrian Hippotoxotai
[22:03:54] >> they already don't matter lol
[22:03:56] << these are so crap
[22:04:01] <> for the price yes
[22:04:21] << yea
[22:04:34] >> can they get cantabrian circle at least?
[22:04:43] >> that would make them immensely more useful
[22:04:47] << lemme check if they have it
[22:04:52] >> they don't
[22:04:57] << no
[22:04:59] << they dont
[22:04:59] << yea
[22:05:04] << id say give it and make em cheaper
[22:05:10] >> yes
[22:05:25] << almost done
[22:05:37] << indo hellenic hoplite
[22:05:46] << elite
[22:05:52] >> i recommended to gg2 changing them to non-elites
[22:06:05] >> so there was a difference between them and baktrian and saka elites
[22:06:06] <> yeah something like that
[22:06:35] >> with a longsword :)
[22:06:37] << lol
[22:06:44] << INDIAN LONGSWORD BABEH
[22:06:46] << now
[22:06:51] << Taxilan Agema
[22:06:54] << crap?
[22:07:00] >> i wish they were good
[22:07:08] >> have you seen their armor ratings?
[22:07:14] << let me
[22:07:15] << check
[22:07:15] >> through the roof
[22:07:36] << w
[22:07:37] << o
[22:07:37] << w
[22:07:37] >> they have defense skill of 27 which is same as remi iirc
[22:07:41] << no
[22:07:42] << w
[22:07:45] <> they should be
[22:07:50] << much cheaper
[22:07:53] << about 3k
[22:08:00] << and 1 more secondary attack
[22:08:02] >> yeah
[22:08:07] << that should teach those lanceari ;)
[22:08:13] >> they are actually decent anti cata
[22:08:16] << yup
[22:08:24] << unexpected anti cata
[22:08:37] << baktria hippies
[22:08:40] <> fine as is
[22:08:47] << ok
[22:08:53] << /chat loggging offs
[22:08:55] << mehehehe

Change the Baktrian Elite Infantry on the same model as the Hypaspists
Reduce cost of Baktrian Light Infantry to around 1.25 or 1.3k , give 1 extra attack.
Give Indian Elephants more elephants, no price change.
Give Baktrian Hippotoxotai cantabrian circle and make them cheaper.
Change the Indo Baktrian Elites into a non elite heavy Hoplite with a longsword (Massalian Hoplite/Hypaspist Hybrid)
Reduce the cost of Taxilan Agema to around 3k Region, buff up sowrd attack1 or 2 points.

Well thats pretty much it, Baktria has a smallish roster so not much thought needed , just some sprucing up.

Hayasdan

Half Chat log (The first half was lost) :

[22:14:45] [Brave Sir Robin - 5.213.159.137] is online
[22:14:48] << /CHATBEGIN
[22:15:11] << we were at?
[22:15:22] >> umm the elite infantry
[22:15:24] << yae
[22:15:28] >> we decided to leave them as is
[22:15:31] << yes
[22:15:33] << next
[22:15:35] << caucasians
[22:15:39] >> fine
[22:15:42] << fine
[22:15:45] << 7 attack
[22:15:48] << when upgraded
[22:15:53] << but not enough armor
[22:16:09] >> scythians are fine as well
[22:16:12] << yes
[22:16:12] >> great range
[22:16:20] << Median Cav
[22:16:23] << are done?
[22:16:30] >> these are armenian mediums
[22:16:34] >> different
[22:16:37] >> better unit
[22:16:40] << they look better
[22:16:44] << but more expensive
[22:16:46] << no i dont like
[22:16:48] >> better morale, attack, defense
[22:16:49] << medians are better
[22:16:54] << because they are cheaper
[22:16:59] << and 2 of them still murder a cata
[22:17:14] >> well knock down the price by 100 then
[22:17:18] << yep
[22:17:21] << no stat change
[22:17:38] >> armored ha
[22:17:49] >> more expensive than pahlava ones but i think that is fine
[22:17:55] << are they better>
[22:17:56] << ?
[22:17:58] >> since hai should rely more on infantry
[22:17:59] >> no
[22:18:03] >> same i believe
[22:18:12] << parthia and steppes have discounts
[22:18:17] << fine unit
[22:18:19] >> thats why then
[22:18:29] >> yes its a good unit for its price
[22:18:37] << but takes an archer slot
[22:18:38] << ...............
[22:18:47] << we need atleast 4 persians
[22:18:51] << so 1 of these?
[22:19:02] >> ?
[22:19:08] >> hai can go steppe too you know
[22:19:13] << no it cant
[22:19:14] << iirc
[22:19:18] >> yes it can
[22:19:24] >> hai, baktria and getai iirc
[22:19:59] >> yes just confirmed it
[22:20:02] << yes
[22:20:05] << you are right
[22:20:08] << hmm
[22:20:12] << that opens a new chapter
[22:20:22] << Hai are no longer shit in my mind now :D
[22:21:16] << ok so armenians armoured HA are fine
[22:21:18] << next
[22:21:20] >> yeah
[22:21:24] >> their light HA are ok
[22:21:28] << georgians
[22:21:37] >> basically same as pahlava ones but a little more expensive
[22:21:47] >> pontic spears?
[22:21:54] >> scythian axes?
[22:21:56] <> ok
[22:22:03] << scythian axes....
[22:22:06] << pontus?
[22:22:10] >> sure
[22:22:20] >> gerogians swords are another eh unit
[22:22:30] << they sadden me
[22:22:35] << they could be awsome
[22:22:40] << if they costed as much as thureos
[22:22:47] << would not need to change price
[22:22:51] >> higher attack is needed tho
[22:22:56] >> 11 with shortsword
[22:22:59] >> is low
[22:23:00] << yep
[22:23:09] << +2 or +1?
[22:23:13] <> yes i agree
[22:23:20] << but no price hike
[22:23:26] << make em 1.4k
[22:23:26] >> no
[22:23:46] >> with +2 attack no price reduction is needed
[22:23:53] << ok
[22:24:05] << mardian archers
[22:24:05] >> mardian archers
[22:24:06] >> fine
[22:24:10] << never used these
[22:24:22] >> they are sorta in between steppe and persian archers
[22:24:36] >> more towards the steppe ones
[22:24:40] << ok
[22:24:43] << no change?
[22:24:49] >> nah
[22:24:54] << persians were done
[22:25:03] >> yes
[22:25:03] << medium easter cavalry?
[22:25:06] >> fine
[22:25:11] >> crappier version of medians
[22:25:15] << cheaper
[22:25:17] >> yes
[22:25:19] << do they have axe?
[22:25:21] >> yes
[22:25:25] << fine then
[22:25:29] << khuveshavagan
[22:25:35] <> good unit actually
[22:25:37] << 3.2k cata
[22:25:39] >> like them for the price
[22:26:05] << i think these got changed
[22:26:07] << gotta check
[22:26:51] << formation got changed somewhat
[22:27:01] << and price was increased
[22:27:06] <> they are not arrow proof
[22:27:31] << meh
[22:27:32] >> but thats fine
[22:27:34] << dont have to be
[22:27:42] << archer war will be either a draw or a win
[22:27:44] >> armenian catas
[22:27:49] << Hai cannot possibly lose the archer war
[22:27:55] << will have to see changes on these
[22:27:56] >> ...i liked them better before
[22:28:12] >> they used to be good stamina cataphracts with slightly less armor
[22:28:13] << hmm ok
[22:28:17] << armor got buffed
[22:28:21] << given full armored horse
[22:28:32] >> yes, bascially changed to the pahlav catas
[22:28:41] >> but more expensive since they don't recieve discount
[22:28:44] << defense skill got buffed
[22:28:45] << to
[22:28:45] >> i guess its fine
[22:28:55] << but price hike of 200 (!!!!)
[22:29:03] << morale got increased 2 points
[22:29:46] >> they are fine i suppose
[22:29:57] >> you have to pay more for cav as hai than pahlav
[22:30:09] >> but your infantry is better
[22:30:14] << somewhat
[22:30:22] << ok fine then
[22:30:24] << next
[22:30:24] >> it should be more than somewhat
[22:30:30] >> thats what these changes are for :)
[22:30:32] << yep
[22:30:34] << next
[22:30:43] >> scythian HA
[22:30:51] >> the reason you would never buy armenian HA
[22:31:02] << lol
[22:31:02] << ya
[22:31:05] << same as daha rider
[22:31:06] << s
[22:31:12] << steppe riders
[22:31:18] >> nah i talking scythian HA
[22:31:23] >> not scythian riders lol
[22:31:25] << crappier more expensive version of scythian riders
[22:31:31] << eh?
[22:31:33] << o ya :D
[22:31:44] << wao these are only 1k !! :D
[22:31:51] >> yeah lol
[22:31:52] << mercs?
[22:32:07] << pretty much done now
[22:32:16] << eastern lights are fine
[22:32:26] >> haha the scythians aren't mercs for hai
[22:32:51] << wao
[22:32:52] << ok
[22:32:54] << done?
[22:32:55] << lets play
[22:32:56] << now
[22:32:56] << :D
[22:33:03] >> ok
[22:33:08] << /CHATLOGGING OFF
[22:33:10] << mehehehehe
[22:34:27] << i deleted the previous one -.-
[22:34:34] << your have to correct some of my mistakes now :D
[23:08:23] << cannot see ur chat
-- load failed --

Give armenian medium infantry +2 attack
Armenian Spearmen to be cheaper.[LIST]
Knock down the price of Armenian Medium cavalry by 100 or so.
+2 attack to the Georgian Infantry.
Well thats about it, hopefull more attack will solve Hai infantry being incredibly useless compared to everything else in this game.

For the Saba, the only thing robin says is Red Sea axemen should be cheaper.

[B]Makedon

Chat Log

[00:05:23] [Brave Sir Robin - 5.213.159.137] is online
[00:05:29] >> ok start makedon
[00:05:31] >> ?
[00:05:37] << /START TEH MAKEDON
[00:05:39] << WROOM WROOOM
[00:05:40] << lol
[00:06:12] >> galathraikes
[00:06:21] << good unit
[00:06:24] << longswords
[00:06:27] << though morale
[00:06:29] << is finicky
[00:06:34] << and not enough armor
[00:06:37] << to warrant that price
[00:06:37] >> they have excellent morale
[00:06:40] << 12
[00:06:43] << no 13
[00:06:47] >> that is good for a barb unit
[00:06:48] << 13 is finicky :D
[00:06:50] <> medium hacking infantry
[00:07:15] >> sorta like the belgae swords
[00:07:19] >> but not quite as good
[00:07:25] >> and priced accordingly
[00:07:27] << than they should be something like 1.6 or 1.55
[00:07:35] >> no they are fine
[00:07:41] << they do not have the "push" of the milnaht
[00:07:51] >> their formation isn't as tight thats true
[00:07:59] >> but milnaht also cost more
[00:08:05] << hmm yeah
[00:08:08] << still they are good unit
[00:08:14] << a great use of a merc slot
[00:08:17] >> and these are in rosters of civilized factions
[00:08:31] >> so they fulfill a different role
[00:08:49] << i stand corrected
[00:08:52] << they are an awsome unit
[00:09:00] << in 2,1
[00:09:02] << 2.1
[00:09:11] << jav range got decreased a few.11
[00:09:14] << BUT
[00:09:17] << morale
[00:09:19] << got bugged
[00:09:22] << buffed*
[00:09:24] << 2 points
[00:09:26] << to 15
[00:09:32] << impetuous was removed
[00:09:33] << and
[00:09:35] >> who are we talking?
[00:09:37] << diciplined
[00:09:38] >> agrianians
[00:09:39] >> ?
[00:09:40] << galathraikes
[00:09:44] >> oh
[00:09:46] << id say
[00:09:50] >> lets move on
[00:09:51] << these are line infantry mate
[00:09:54] >> they are fine as is
[00:10:00] << ok
[00:10:02] << agrianians
[00:10:06] >> also fine
[00:10:10] >> i love me some agrianians
[00:10:15] << they are unchanged
[00:10:17] << yes
[00:10:23] << Makedons answer to thorkies
[00:10:28] << love these guys
[00:10:40] >> skip lugoae
[00:10:43] << yes
[00:10:47] << triballi
[00:10:48] >> triballi
[00:10:53] >> these are tricky
[00:10:59] >> do they have higher armor than galas?
[00:11:02] << wait
[00:11:07] << armor or defence as a whole?
[00:11:13] >> armor soley
[00:11:15] >> defense is the same
[00:11:28] << yes they have more armor
[00:11:44] >> morale?
[00:11:53] << same
[00:11:55] << impetuous
[00:12:03] << more expensive
[00:12:05] << hmmm
[00:12:05] << idk
[00:12:11] >> lower jav attack
[00:12:19] << does not matter that much
[00:12:34] >> yeah but for a more expensive unit it does
[00:12:48] << yea theyd need a bump
[00:13:00] << unchanged they are
[00:13:26] >> maybe change their defense skill to be equal to galas?
[00:13:30] << yes
[00:13:33] >> or maybe +1 attack
[00:13:41] << make the more expensive unit worth it
[00:13:47] >> yes
[00:13:48] << on
[00:13:49] << no
[00:13:51] << longswords
[00:13:54] << id say
[00:14:00] << should have more or less uniform attacks
[00:14:04] >> lol
[00:14:09] >> gaesatae have 14 attack
[00:14:12] << yea that sounds wierd
[00:14:18] << most others mid tier have 10
[00:14:23] << above them
[00:14:29] >> yeah
[00:14:32] << thigns like galathraikes and triballi 11
[00:14:37] >> ok
[00:14:43] >> then higher defense skill
[00:14:48] << yeah
[00:14:57] >> makes sense
[00:15:02] >> and i like triballi
[00:15:08] >> i'd like to see them succees
[00:15:12] >> succeed
[00:15:20] << price should still be the same
[00:15:24] >> yeah
[00:15:26] >> moving on
[00:15:29] >> elite thracians
[00:15:32] >> fine
[00:15:33] << fine
[00:15:37] >> orca
[00:15:38] >> fine
[00:15:39] << orca
[00:15:40] <> love these guys btw
[00:15:48] >> one of my fav units now
[00:16:01] << hyps and peltast done
[00:16:09] << classical hoplite and thureos done
[00:16:11] << pez done
[00:16:17] << deuteroi phalanx...
[00:16:19] >> celto hellenics are fine too
[00:16:20] << what are these
[00:16:34] >> can we do a test of deuteroi against panda real fast
[00:16:36] >> ?
[00:16:40] << ik
[00:16:42] << k
[00:17:08] >> i hope i picked flat map
[00:20:45] << ok
[00:20:56] << so Deuteroi need a bigger pike attack i thinks
[00:21:15] >> lets compare their stats
[00:21:23] >> including morale, discipline etc
[00:21:30] << k
[00:21:45] << you tell the panda stat
[00:21:47] <> i got deuteroi
[00:21:57] >> first
[00:21:58] << k
[00:22:04] >> 14 attack
[00:22:10] >> 8,7,2 defense
[00:22:18] << yes
[00:22:21] >> 10 morale, normal discipline, highly trained
[00:22:26] << mine is 772
[00:22:27] >> hardy
[00:22:38] << 9 morale low highly trained
[00:22:50] >> they got extra armor point i guess
[00:22:55] << hardy
[00:22:56] >> and morale
[00:23:00] << they need that extra attack
[00:23:10] >> they need to be cheaper i think
[00:23:16] >> they are still levies
[00:23:18] << yes
[00:23:19] << 1.3
[00:23:32] >> after all these are greeks fighting for greeks
[00:23:37] >> not foreigners fighting for greeks
[00:23:42] <> yeah
[00:24:01] >> so drop the cost
[00:24:10] >> that helps makedon and epeiros a lot too
[00:24:17] >> since they can afford other shit
[00:24:36] << yes
[00:24:38] << moving on
[00:24:44] >> ok pez we did
[00:24:49] >> argyraspides we did
[00:24:55] << we did?
[00:25:00] <> for AS yes
[00:25:07] >> no change
[00:25:07] << ye i remebmers
[00:25:14] >> tho gg2 may change them himself
[00:25:20] <> yes massive
[00:25:49] << like
[00:25:50] >> to 2.4 or 2.3
[00:25:52] << same as pontice
[00:25:54] << eya
[00:25:56] << well
[00:26:00] << id say thats a given
[00:26:04] << and the rest is fine with maks
[00:26:11] >> agreed
[00:26:32] << ok
[00:26:43] >> what about galatian shortswords?
[00:26:43] << man its raining so heavily i cant hear myself
[00:26:50] << didnt we do them?
[00:26:52] << as AS?
[00:26:53] >> idk
[00:27:08] >> i think we agreed that all shortsword units should be cheaper
[00:27:15] >> if we weren't going to raise lethality
[00:27:20] >> or we could raise attack
[00:27:24] << yes
[00:27:27] >> from 12 to 13-14
[00:27:27] << ok
[00:27:29] << moving on
[00:27:32] << next faction?

Buff Triballi defence skill, 12 or 13 . Or add an extra attack.
Reduce cost of Deuteroi phalanx, make a difference in quality mor noticeable to the Panda phalanx.
MASSIVE cost reduction needed for the Hysteroi phalanx, make those reformed pikes worth it, cut price down to 2,3 or 2,4k , same as the Chalkispededes.

Well thats pretty much all there is, just reducing the cost of pikes allows Makedon to afford some of their better non pike units.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-22-2011, 19:12

If I may refine what Lazy O is saying about some of these things since our chat log was deleted and I think he confused a few things and I would like to make others more clear.

The Jewish spears just need to be cheaper, not more men. That is what we agreed. Somewhere in the range of 100 less would be desirable. All eastern axe types are too expensive, especially the ones with javs. They are basically glorified skirmishers with their armor and they rout very easily.

As far as Theurophoroi they should be in between Thorakitai and Peltasts but right now they are basically just bad Thorakitai. The extra stamina helps here and 1 more morale bridges the gap as well.

Klerouchoi Phalangites were useless imitations of pez. Don't think morale is needed but price should just be reduced. Elite phalanx should keep the 120 men since their price is already considerably higher than other elites yet they don't fare well outside phalanx mode.

Persian archer spam is the new heavy archer spam. Needs to be nipped in the bud so -1 attack would help. They are basically levies anyway. Meanwhile we felt that heavy persian archers should be better and therefore they get the extra men but also a big price increase. Choosing between the two should now be a matter of quality over price where before it was quality and price with the regular persians. Personally I feel that 1.5k is appropriate.

Hykanian hillmen were grossly overpriced and need a reduction similar to other eastern axe units. Similarly Parthian spears were pricy for a light spear unit with fidgety morale. Galatian heavy cav shouldn't be comparably expensive to cataphracts and somewhere between lonchophoroi and catas.

Of course this is just what we think but all the players feedback would be appreciated. We will try to get to all factions in due time.

Lazy O

07-22-2011, 19:18

Whatever he said :2thumbsup:

gamegeek2

07-22-2011, 22:05

Right, here´s some things.

1. If we want all these implemented for August we must delay the start until August 2nd as I can only resume work August 1st, is this acceptable?
2. Hypaspistai fight in very tight formation. They´re elite hoplites with swords. As for the Makedonikoi, yes I will look at that. Do they have very hardy right now?
3. Jewish Spears change sounds reasonable. Would have to follow stat guidelines but I think its doable.
4. I´m thinking of boosting Thureophoroi to 100 men. Not sure if that´s unreasonable or not.
5. Klerouchoi change is a good idea. I´ll definitely implement that.
6. Persian archer spam is historically accurate. Now, they have 4 atk atm you say? I could give them 3 attack and a cost reduction of 100 or so I guess. Wouldnt they still get chewed up by Bosporans though?
7. Heavy Persians 100 men sounds good. I will have to look at it more.
8. Eastern axes will either get cheaper or receive the ¨barbarian bonus´ - which do you want?
9. Elite phalanx with 120 men would mean they cost about 4000 again. I could stat them as veterans though, not elites, and reduce the cost significantly, while still having them as better than regular phalanx. What say you?
10. Galatian Heavy Cav cost the same as Remi Mairepos, IIRC. They are very hardy and have 25 defense IIRC.

vartan

07-22-2011, 22:14

I would like to hear multiple voices in this thread. I'm also not going to be giving my thoughts on these matters (I do have opinions, we all do, but impartiality is needed here on my part). Also, this should not be implemented until after August unless you would like another 2.1, in other words, another poor production full of mistakes that went unnoticed (it's true). Good luck.

gamegeek2

07-22-2011, 22:17

Poor production? Hey, I fixed most of those mistakes before the tourney began in earnest. :(

vartan

07-22-2011, 23:36

Poor production? Hey, I fixed most of those mistakes before the tourney began in earnest. :(
Look at the latest tournament score report.

The Celtic Viking

07-22-2011, 23:46

How about reducing the cost of artillery? And making the three-span arrow projectors either as good as the Roman Scorpions or just make them slightly cheaper? (Both costing the same when Scorpions are simply better can't be right.) At least those two should be a reasonable option to bring.

gamegeek2

07-23-2011, 02:48

Look at the latest tournament score report.

Player skill not a factor

Lazy O

07-23-2011, 06:54

I do not know about the phalanx, I do not use them, The only time I used an elite phalanx, was against vega when i wanted a flank completely protected, the African 120 man 2.7k phalanx did that comfortably.

On the Remi Issue, the cost as iti s now is very unreasonable, nobody will use them for that price, something in the range of 3.3 3.4k will make them be considered as buffed up Brihentin.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-23-2011, 07:24

As far as Persian Archers go, we havn't tested per se which archer defeats which. But from in game experience i can honestly say that the new Persian Archers and Archer-Spearmen seem to beat or match every archer unit in the game except for Bosphorans who are heavily armored and have a 2 shield value iirc. I think they are an even match for Imperials and possibly Syrians. They beat Cretans. This makes no sense for a unit that costs so little and gives a HUGE advantage to any eastern faction which can recruit them. Not to mention they simply rain death down upon the lightly armored troops that many barbarian factions bring.

I'm unsure, so what again is the barbarian bonus? I'm not sure whether cheaper or bonus would be better.

We didn't go over gallic factions yet but the concern with Galatians is the same as the concern with Remi. They are better than Brihentin, but not 700 so. The fact that they cost not even 200 less than Hell Cats is absurd considering their comparable vulnerability and lack of mass and charge. Yes they move like light cav, but that is still not worth it when you can recruit Hell Cats instead who tear apart opposing cavalry and rout infantry with one momentous charge all the while being arrow proof. About 3.4-3.5k sounds reasonable.

As for phalanxes, you are right. They do tend never to break so I guess 3.1k is an acceptable price.

I'd also like to point out to Vartan, if you were referring to my score in terms of an unbalanced edu, if anything, Gamegeek slightly debuffed the gauls going into this month. He made chariots pricier and took away command eagles from the druid unit.

Lazy O

07-23-2011, 08:13

How about doing it today? Would take about half an hour to test which archer beats what. I cannot do it with the AI.

-Stormrage-

07-23-2011, 11:56

I dont think elite phalanx's need +20 men they are fine just as they are.

Persian archers cant possibly compete with imperials or cretans or bosphorans or syrians what are you talking about. Persian archers dont even have armour and they have what only 4 attack?

@lazyo , im always up for testing.

Lazy O

07-23-2011, 13:30

Archer results are up now. Thanks to stormrage for the tests. And gg2, do not do to the thureophoroi what you did to the Libyans, if you increase to 100 men and make them 1500, they become useless for that price since they cannot kill anything, low lethality, and -4 penalty for light_spear attack.

antisocialmunky

07-23-2011, 15:49

Lazy O

07-23-2011, 16:39

-Thureophoroi are just a heavy skirmisher basically. They should not be too good - pretty much average. I think they are pretty good where they are as KH. Very hardy would make them extremely potent against barbs so I would down vote this change. They are what they are, put one XP on them for a 1400 unit that is mostly immune to scaries.

They are meant to be an in-betweenish sort of unit to the Peltast and Thorakitai, with 11 morale, crappy attack and defence, they just do no justify their

-Peltastai are actually great units. The main failing being morale. I would infact, bump their morale up just a tad.

Thats what we said, 1 point of morale imo, and moar javelins :D I feel javelin units as a whole do need a buff to make people actually use them effectively.

-I do think that Klerouchoi Phalangitai are somewhat redundant but their purpose is to be a widely recruitable phalanx unit. Do you think it would be feasible to reduce Pez be 200 and elites be 160 instead of 240? I know its somewhat heretical to not make something as near to 256 as possible but I think it would better depict Diadochi man-power shortages for high quality Alexandrian phalanx. Have Klerouchoi and cheaper phalanx fill the 240 man roll.

Talk in large scale, and recruitment options and "availability" does not apply here. As of now, they are a worthless unit compared to the Pez, and not as cost effective as the Levies.

-I think you should re-stat the Hyps and Mak Peltastai to be a little cheaper. TABs at the elites, these are shock troops that hsould be in the 2.4K range if silver shields are in the 3K range.

Thats what we said.

-Shortsword is fine depending on the unit.

The low tier units are useless, more lethality and attack will fix that.

-Iranian light cavalry is the heaviest light cavalry in the game. They should not be made cheaper.

Even prodromoi have a better charge, they need a stat buff.

-The axe units are only ineffective due to upping of the sword sword attack on everything and giving everything 'hardy.' They should be cost down or have their attacks statted up. The western axes were similarly hit but there are more axes in the east than the west.

Your point is? We leave crap as is and do not worry about useless stuff cluttering up the roster?

-Can we take fear off everything not naked or chariot? Its really making a wide range of 'average' units useless. :\

Id be pretty frightened facing up to a TAB.

-Hetaroi Aspidophoroi is a missile resistant cav unit so I'm not sure if you want to cost down them. I think there's been insufficient tests on cav since people have been taking mass infantry armies and you should hold off on any rebalancing of that.

Incorrect. No cavalry is immune to missiles. Just being immune to missiles does not mean you are useful. To be useful, you have to do damage, you could get Prodromoi for the same price who do much more damage. The Hetairoi belong to factions who almost all the time have missile superiority so being immune to missiles does not matter much.

I would also oppose taking 'good against' cav off the hillman. I don't think it was a mistake that its on there and it adds some flavor and uniqueness. We want to make every unit useful, not ever unit hot swappable and interchangeable.

What sense does it make for a lowly axe armed peasant to have a non sensical bonus against cavalry? Please elaborate.

My main observation for Baktria is they lack good ranged archers for dualing so giving them access to Persian heavies would solve most of that and we can deal with balancing later. Baktria is fairly powerful but it lacks the missile protection other factions have. I would also say that Persian heavies should be kept mostly where they are. They are somewhat underpowered in vanilla but I think just a tiny change would help them out quite abit.

The Persian archers are protection enough , they make enemies waste so much ammo they make high end archers useless, and are too dangerous to infantry to be left alone.

Kival

07-23-2011, 17:03

Hui, so many things... most important for me is:

1. No additional lethality for shortswords! There should be a noticable difference to bigger swords. I'd agree to increase the attack value of shortswordunits and this would make a lot of sense, becuase it's easier to wield a handy weapon as a big monstrum.

2. Axemen should be buffed in some way. I'd give them their old lethality back, because axes are very lethal and deadly it's just more difficult to fight with them properly (so low attack + ap + medium lethality makes sense). I can not agree with axes having the exactly same lethality as _short_swords!

3. It makes sense for me to give thurophoroi very hardy because they should have very high stamina, they are meant to fight light cav, skirms etc. They are actually not so bad and the light_spear attribute only reduces their defense.

4. Persian archers are devastating. Perhaps they lose the missile duel - though I did not think so - but they are really devastating for light infantry with their 100 men=arrows. They are too cheap for that. Archer-spearmen are cheaper and have spears too! They cannot be killed by cavalry, other archers need a lot of time and they can also kill many many light infantry units with their arrows.

5. Additional fear effect for some units (like TAB) makes sense but perhaps it should cost more.

Lazy O

07-23-2011, 18:14

Check Aradans EDU guide on TWC, light spear is -4 attack.

vartan

07-23-2011, 18:36

What sense does it make for a lowly axe armed peasant to have a non sensical bonus against cavalry? Please elaborate.
I've probably played as the Hai more than all of you combined. That unit is less useful than fecal matter on the battlefield. Maybe you'll get your javs out. Maybe you'll charge in. But unless you have two supporting units, you're going to be sent to hell for it. Even the Baktrian Light Infantry stands a 1-on-1 chance in the stead of the hillmen, even if it comes down to their slightly higher morale.

EDIT: Robin, gg2, 2.0 was tested to some extent, 2.1 less so. When is this roller coaster going to stop going downhill and actually take a swing upward?

Lazy O

07-23-2011, 18:50

When you show it a direction and come on hamachi more often :P

------------

Heres to anybody who thinks the Persian archers are balanced

http://www.mediafire.com/?4gn4tgllfd9hzny

Also posting Getai Skirmisher tests soon. Thanks much to vega for that.

Vega

07-23-2011, 19:24

Its a pleasure to help you guys :yes: :bow:

Kival

07-23-2011, 19:35

EDIT: Robin, gg2, 2.0 was tested to some extent, 2.1 less so. When is this roller coaster going to stop going downhill and actually take a swing upward?

The changes were not so bad. There are not many if any real mistakes. One can complain about some decisions, but they were not game breaking.

Lazy O

07-23-2011, 20:08

Im actually surprised nobody exploited persian archers against Robin yet....

Kival

07-23-2011, 20:33

Check Aradans EDU guide on TWC, light spear is -4 attack.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111344

light_spear: Gives default bonus of +8 to defence vs cavalry, and penalty of -4 to defence vs. infantry. Offers less pushing power than spear.

antisocialmunky

07-24-2011, 00:33

They are meant to be an in-betweenish sort of unit to the Peltast and Thorakitai, with 11 morale, crappy attack and defence, they just do no justify their

They are fine, they feel fine for a 1300 cost unit.

Talk in large scale, and recruitment options and "availability" does not apply here. As of now, they are a worthless unit compared to the Pez, and not as cost effective as the Levies.

Nah, rather see historic stuff represented in some way. Its still EB and would be a feasible way of differentiating phalangites. You didn't even talk about it it, instead you ranted something about them being a crap unit.

The low tier units are useless, more lethality and attack will fix that.

Or you can make them cheaper spam unit by costing them down. Its useful to have decent filler units.

Even prodromoi have a better charge, they need a stat buff.

Unless something has seriously changed, they were the criteria we used for heavy\light cav distinctions.

Your point is? We leave crap as is and do not worry about useless stuff cluttering up the roster?

... I'm saying how to fix them.

Id be pretty frightened facing up to a TAB.

I think its taking away from the game that scary is so prevalent.

Incorrect. No cavalry is immune to missiles. Just being immune to missiles does not mean you are useful. To be useful, you have to do damage, you could get Prodromoi for the same price who do much more damage. The Hetairoi belong to factions who almost all the time have missile superiority so being immune to missiles does not matter much.

Again, missile resistant. Big shield. READ.

What sense does it make for a lowly axe armed peasant to have a non sensical bonus against cavalry? Please elaborate.

No reason but I don't think it was left in unintentionally.

The Persian archers are protection enough , they make enemies waste so much ammo they make high end archers useless, and are too dangerous to infantry to be left alone.

I really wish you would actually read stuff seriously, maybe I could take you seriously because you're just going 'LOL, LISTEN TO ME BECAUSE I PLAYED THIS GAME.' No, Baktria gets shot apart because you cannot deal with heavy and steppe archers. I've played them for 2/3 months last year and they still have this hole and all their very good units are low armor.

Im actually surprised nobody exploited persian archers against Robin yet....

Archers aren't very useful when melee happens that quick :p

@GG2 - I think you guys shouldn't tweak this EDU too much, we still don't know the full effects of the big big EDU changes like the cav and stuff. All you're going to do with big changes is going to make it harder to balance because you're see sawing balance too much. The game feels much better balanced so I don't think anything really drastic is needed. The main thing is some of the light AP units feel a little underpowered. The sized 200 Celtic axes barely breakeven on Thorakites which doesn't feel right.

vartan

07-24-2011, 05:57

@GG2 - I think you guys shouldn't tweak this EDU too much, we still don't know the full effects of the big big EDU changes like the cav and stuff. All you're going to do with big changes is going to make it harder to balance because you're see sawing balance too much. The game feels much better balanced so I don't think anything really drastic is needed. The main thing is some of the light AP units feel a little underpowered. The sized 200 Celtic axes barely breakeven on Thorakites which doesn't feel right.
http://www.cherrealestate.com/files/536118/CheckMark.gif This.

P.S. EDU 2.0 was of course a clear shift from the original. Nevertheless it still utilizes EB's costing schema, and you can still count on many stats in the original unit lists (i.e., the deviations are not as drastic as the version number would imply). As long as changes in stats do not deviate more than a couple of integers or a few percentage points, and the costing is done the same, the changes won't be drastic and will aim to improve specific problems in the game, which is precisely what we're hoping for here (unless I'm mistaken and the majority of people are hoping for a new costing and stat schema).

Lazy O

07-24-2011, 06:33

That would be a false hope, GG2 cannot possibly have enough time to come up with a whole new system.

-Stormrage-

07-24-2011, 14:21

I think, the missile system needs to be reworked. First of all the difference between the low tier and high tier archers is huge, i mean whats the point of having these weak light archers in the first place they are not even used becuase almost all of the factions have the high tier archeers and these just devastate low tiers archers. i think the gap between high tier and low tier archers MUST be reduced. antoher way you can improve this horrible unbalance is by removeing the archer limit. What this archer limit does is it removes the million dollar question in strategy games, Quality or Quantity. This is NOT in EB sadly please please please give us the ability to decide between quality or quantity . right now this doesnt exist, right now , the question is , Do you have best quality archer'? if yes then you win no strategy no nothing the factions with weak archers cant do anyhting to touch you because they cant use their strategy which is bringing quantity. This is the essense of balance Quantity and quality.

To some things up, if you want to take one step closer to making EB balance, then this is what MUST happen "
1) reduce the massive armour difference between light and heavy archers ( heavy archers have as much armour as infantry.
2) Take away that archer limit to encourage factions to choose between having many light archers OR few Heavy archers.
3) Off topic- The heavy cavalry limit is NOT necessary , Heavy cavalry is expensive and if someone brings too much heavy cavalry then he will not have money for infantry and archers. In other words heavy cavalry spamming is not possible, so why the restrictions ? if someone WANTS to sacrifice infantry superiority for heavy cavalry superiority he should have that option.

antisocialmunky

07-24-2011, 14:48

Lazy O

07-24-2011, 16:04

Use CWB Rules.

/This post is a joke, people here are getting carried away.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-24-2011, 16:25

I would like to point out to ASM that Baktria no longer has the problem of inferior archers. I played as them last month (June) like you once did and they were inferior in the archer department and I suffered a few losses out of that. However with the 100 man Persians new to July's edu, as Lazy has shown, they no longer have to worry about heavy or steppe archers since those Persians will soak up all the arrows just fine, thank you. This is no longer the weakness of Baktria with the new edu.

Lazy O

07-24-2011, 16:42

Id also say that things are not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be, Presently, id count only Sweboz and Makedonia as underpowered factions.

Btw Robin, please do come on today, alot of things to talk about.

vartan

07-24-2011, 17:09

We could run an anything goes tourney. Its more feasible now that infantry is stronger. If we eliminate the limits, I think it'll be easier to balance. After all, the limits are another balancing system and using two systems at once is a pain. Also steppe is overpowered in the current setting. We could remove everything but merc/phalanx limits.
Would the mercenary and phalanx limitations be applied across the board or would we still need to make a distinction between what a 'civ' and 'steppe' army are, so that distinct phalanx limits would be implemented?

antisocialmunky

07-24-2011, 18:22

I was not aware that they were sized 100 now. That changes quite abit. I can still imagine that fighting scaries is horrible since your units generally aren't that scary resistant and the weakness of light axe infantry in the current EDU probably underpower the majority of your infantry. When I played them, I took mass levy phalanx + eastern axe AP spam armies as indo-hellenic hoplites were fairly mediocre line infantry only suitable for combating certain factions.

Would the mercenary and phalanx limitations be applied across the board or would we still need to make a distinction between what a 'civ' and 'steppe' army are, so that distinct phalanx limits would be implemented?

No steppe/civilized distinction but limit of 5 mercs (faction flavor) and 8 phalanx (no retarded .3 lethality boxes).

vartan

07-24-2011, 18:41

Boxes are retarded indeed. But the high lethality is there so that the phalanx kills from the front at a more pleasing rate. How do you compensate the two?

antisocialmunky

07-24-2011, 18:55

I don't understand why you are asking that. I'm saying keep hte 8 phalanx limit so people can't phalanx spam/box.

vartan

07-24-2011, 23:25

They can't do that anyway. Or rather they still do, even if it's not 360 degrees...people do a lot of things.

antisocialmunky

07-25-2011, 02:09

I'm the only one here who knows how to control infantry well enough to chew my way through one (legally).

Besides, we can only play so many games a month. How much time do you want to waste on listening to Phalanx spam complaints when people whine about Cohort spam?

vartan

07-25-2011, 09:20

I don't know anymore...

Vega

07-25-2011, 15:10

Currently watched lazyo's archer balance and i totally agree persians can match with imperials and cretans and they are much cheaper then them..

Lazy O

07-25-2011, 18:14

^Because he experienced it first hand :)

-Stormrage-

07-25-2011, 20:42

Here are some more balancing suggestions :

Archers need to get a decrease in moral (so they dont stand in the face of a cav charge and fight like heavy infantry)

i dont know anything about this but is are helmets supposed to have a value of 4 armour ?

how about a new way of going about making heavy archers. instead of making archers heavy by giving them tons of armour, why dont we give them medium armour and a little more sheild, so that they dont act like heavy infantry when their arrows run out. heavy archers right now have 10 armour (imperials) the same value as pontic heavy infantry, and 7 armour (bosphorans) i beleive the same as some of the medium infantry. I would say 5 armour with 3,4 or 5 shield is better.

Vega

07-25-2011, 21:14

storm i know you are talking about imperial but every roman soldier have big morale that is their biggest wapeon and about routing why should they route from 1 cavarly charge if they are four unit of them and if they have around them a lot of roman legionaries and general :DD

antisocialmunky

07-25-2011, 22:55

Its less of an issue of high morale and more of an issue of loose formations jacking up cavalry charges.

Kival

07-25-2011, 23:37

And we will not give a unit which historically HAD the same armour as a legionair a armour value which is worse. Bospharan Archers are MEANT to hold in melee... etc.

@storm

I fear, you do not understand the basic concept of EB: to represent the historical troops as accurate as possible with the engine of Rome. There is no "heavy archer" concept. A unit does not (only) get stats because it belongs to some artifical category.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-26-2011, 02:14

The solution to heavy archers is to make them more expensive. Archers equipped like heavy infantry that are also a professional force should be priced like heavy infantry.

Vega

07-26-2011, 02:53

Ok guys i know that my thinking is not so much important but lets be clear is this balancing game that all factions must be almost same or game based on historical facts where every faction have their benefits and weakness... :DD

antisocialmunky

07-26-2011, 02:58

They cost equivalent to better melee infantry. :\

They feel stronger because they are shooting and not losing much stamina and end up fighting tired units.

Lazy O

07-26-2011, 06:53

-Stormrage-

07-26-2011, 13:19

save us gamegeek kenobi you are our only hope

antisocialmunky

07-26-2011, 15:05

Nevertheless, Archers rout too slowly to cavalry, you would need a cata charge at the very least to insta rout them. Melee cavalry, with their intended use being to kill all these archers and skirmishers, actually are crap against them since they die too fast to arrows and the archers take too long to rout.

Yeah, the main issue with fighting archers is if you guard mode them they will shoot arrow instead of melee like Legolas or something. You need sufficient mass to rout them instantly or its never worth it to charge them. Cost up may be a good solution but high end skirms do the EXACT SAME THING and have MOUNT EFFECT so if you're going to nerf archer screwing up cav, you should nerf skirms screwing up cav.

Its not pure RPS logic in EB and you really need to take advantage of cavalry mass to make cav cost effective (as in 3 cav charge 1 unit that's vulnerable). I suppose a suitable counter would be to make it so medium cav comes in like slightly bigger units. One of the biggest morale penalties in this game is being attacked by something larger.

Also, would it be possible, since slingers are quite underpowered to make them bigger?

-Stormrage-

07-26-2011, 15:54

Also, would it be possible, since slingers are quite underpowered to make them bigger?

Where were you when i was ranting about this the other day.

and i totally agree about decreasing archer and skirmisher morale that will solve the problem of skrewing up rear cav charges AND will effectively stop archers fighting like heavy infantry.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-26-2011, 15:59

Slingers underpowered? 4 slinger units following up an army are sufficient to destroy any heavy cav or at least keep them away while your infantry wins the battle before they are killed off by enemy archers.

Kival

07-26-2011, 16:14

What's wrong with strong spear skirmishers beeing able to stop cavalry? Or is it only about skirmishers in skirmish-mode? I really can't see that cavalry is so disadvantaged, good players with cav (not me!) win with their cav and players who are not so good lose because they've not yet learned to use them properly. One cav-charge of one unit does not root much but with some more charges (depending on the actual cavalry) you still can kill a lot.

gamegeek2

07-26-2011, 17:57

Im thinking right now a couple of tweaks:

-Another 1 attack point for javelin skirmishers
-Persianarchers get 6 or lower morale (they should be instarouted by cavalry)
-Archer spearmen get 8 morale but 3 arrow attack

-Stormrage-

07-26-2011, 18:18

persians and spear archers arent even used . Our problem is imperial ,bosphoran, and cretan archers, those are the archers that need de-moralizing.

skirmishers should get low morale too.

The reason behind lowering morale for ALL archers and skirmishers is so that people stop using them too ruin cav charges. But maybe skirmishers and archers WERE historically used to stop cav charges.

Edit: i dont think +1 attack for javelins will do anything especially since almost allEB units have ALOT of armour. Either decrease armour value of grieves, helmets, body armour etc. or give a mega boost to javs i was thinking 16 jav damage ,some of u might think its OP but you must remember javs are NOT AP and all EB units have alot of armour ( even naked people have 4 armour) .

Lazy O

07-26-2011, 18:36

Correction. If they are not fixed, you people will curse the day Persians were made into 100 men because of what ive planned for august.

And all skirmishers and archers should have 6 morale. I dont care, a simple village dud with a spear and small shield cannot stop a cavalry man. Elite Archers like Bosporan I suppose are fine as is, but beside them, even cretans and Imperials, every armoured archer should be 6 morale.

The biggest thing that would do is to stop people sitting around with 5 archers infront of 15 infantry with no cavalry and think they can win.

Vega

07-26-2011, 18:53

Lazy you are rightbut i think that rome is exeption about this they had won battles with infratry no with cavarly :D

Kival

07-26-2011, 19:07

Correction. If they are not fixed, you people will curse the day Persians were made into 100 men because of what ive planned for august.

Persians are a problem but that is no reason to lower the morale of every skirmisher and archer unit.

I dont care, a simple village dud with a spear and small shield cannot stop a cavalry man.

What are you speaking about? Luso skirms are described as part of the warror class, thrakian peltasts and dacian elite skirmishers are not just village duds...

And I still do not see a problem people using armies without cavalry.

Lazy O

07-26-2011, 19:15

Thracian Skirmishers... Yeah, It does not go down with me that Archers and Slingers stand up to cavalry charges. This is why your Overhand cavalry are so crap.

And so what if they are a warrior class? Cavalry would still mow them down.

-Stormrage-

07-26-2011, 19:34

we can make exceptions about ELITE skirmishers becuase they are expected to stand and fight in melee thats why they have .26 secondaries and high armour. but archers and lighter skirmishers cannot be expected to stand in the face of a cav charge.

here's the deal:
- 6 morale for light skirmishers and light archers, 7 morale for the heavier trained archers such as bosphorans, imperials, cretans, and syrians.

- +1 attack for all archers (since most EB units got lots of armour and to make up for the lower morale)

- jav damage raised to 16,17,18 ( due to the incredibly high armour of most eb units, even naked units have 4 armour)

P.S another thing i find very weird is that maces and axes have the same lethality as those knives(short swords) skirmishers use as secondary. come on even I know an axe is more lethal then a butter knife.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-26-2011, 19:41

-Stormrage-

07-26-2011, 19:57

I did not understand a word of that, but i understand your concept.

Basically your saying increase heavy archer's price to match heavy infantry. I think that wont solve our problem of people using 2 heavy archers in loose formation to ruin cav charges .

I move :

-lower archer morale to prevent use as medium-heavy infantry and charge disrupters.

-to increase all archer damage by 1.

-to increase jav damage by 10.

(again the reasoning behind this is the amount of armour most eb units have , even nakeds have 4 armour because of a helmet.)

-increase Axe and Mace lethality

antisocialmunky

07-26-2011, 20:58

How did we get to lowering skirmisher morale? They are bad enough already without routing from behind your lines because there are some nakeds in front of them. The only units that may need morale to be lowered would be archer units but I think the solution lies in making heavy archers more expensive rather than lowering morale. Light archers already pretty much insta rout from cavalry charges when properly executed, especially if they have lost 20% or more of their men.

The problem is thus for example. Player 1 is playing as Pontus, Player 2 as Getai. Player 1 takes 5 bosphoran archers and handily wins the missile duel over player 2's 5 dacian archers with about 2/3 of his archers left. Now, the difference in price between a dacian archer unit and a bosphoran unit is about 500 mnai. That means that player 2 has about 2500 extra mnai for other things. We will say that he uses that for an extra unit of cav. What can 2500 mnai get you (for any faction's cavalry)? Light charge cav which dies in droves to missiles or skirmish cav which does the same and won't have any effect charging heavy archers. Meanwhile, 2/3 of those bosphorans are around to finish off their arrows and then act as worthwhile medium infantry. There is no way you can tell me that having an extra about 250 medium infantry is not worth 2500 mnai. Yes you have paid a little extra to kill off his missile units but you have also scored extra infantry in the process. Now you tell me which player you would rather be?

As this is a historically based game, cost is really the one factor we can play with which does not affect that aspect. Playing with armor or morale does, but cost does not.

StormRage storms and rages against everything. Under that system, Bosphorans/Imperials should be ~1600 mnai because they melee fairly well. That brings them in line with the high-end line infantry cost (1600).
Syrians/Cretans are alright for their current ~1400 mnai.

Of course, in response, you'll probably need to adjust the cost of the persian archers because those were balanced for the current pricing.

I also like my idea of increasing cavalry sizes for things like cheap javelin cav as well as non-elite cav. I think that'll solve some problems with under powered non-lancers and non-routing archers since outnumbering is a big deal. You may also feel it useful to take the 'disciplined' and other tags off the ones that do to increase morale decay.

-Stormrage-

07-26-2011, 21:16

Cav is not cheap, worthless javelin cav costs atleast 2300. increasng jav cav is an interesting suggestion.

Kival

07-26-2011, 22:10

I also like my idea of increasing cavalry sizes for things like cheap javelin cav as well as non-elite cav. I think that'll solve some problems with under powered non-lancers and non-routing archers since outnumbering is a big deal. You may also feel it useful to take the 'disciplined' and other tags off the ones that do to increase morale decay.

That sounds like a really interesting idea. It would not overpower the (higher tier) lancer-cavalry but give more value to the other cav units... this could also increase the use of elite non-lancer cav which lack any use for their costs at the moment.

Cav is not cheap, worthless javelin cav costs atleast 2300. increasng jav cav is an interesting suggestion.

What are you speaking about? 2,3k is the cost for the heavier javelin cav but not for the usual light cav.

-Stormrage-

07-26-2011, 22:45

usual light cav costs 1.9k while the light cav with javs cost 2.3k and javs are worthless.

antisocialmunky

07-26-2011, 22:49

I think the Akonistai on horses is like 1.4k. That unit is actually fairly decent as harass cav.

@Stormrage - are you sure some of the problems you are running into aren't due to your internet connection? Its hard to micro units when its lagging so bad.

-Stormrage-

07-26-2011, 23:09

what problems asm?

i am merely giving suggestions to get EB as fair and balanced as possible.

You should re-read my previous posts.

antisocialmunky

07-26-2011, 23:42

Joke.

Also, it seems that Mak may very well be unplayable against nakeds due to phalanx kill rates.

Kival

07-27-2011, 00:02

Also, it seems that Mak may very well be unplayable against nakeds due to phalanx kill rates.

Would you care to elaborate?

@stormrage

I'm not sure about which faction you're speaking here but most have javelin-cavalry which costs less.

antisocialmunky

07-27-2011, 00:13

Pez have 12 morale, the bare minimum to deal with scary (anything less is a bad/bad/bad idea). You need about 14 morale to really really be reasonably safe against routing until its all gone to hell. Phalanx vs phalanx features massive kill rates that drive morale into the toilet. That + nakeds makes it so pez is weak.

I also noticed that Pez, merc Pez, and the KH equivalent aren't disciplined. That seems very odd when they are the professional line and file Successor Infantry. It also may be useful to make silvershields carry an eagle of some sort. They did have a tendency to fight to the last.

Observations form testing:
-Mak elites are definitely a little too expensive. :[
-On the plus side, melee cav is definitely really good. The big aspis 3 shield cav are fairly missile resistant if you park them still to get the double shield bonus for a total of 16 armor from the front.
-I'm wondering if it is a good idea to tweak cav so they are 2 HP. Right now they just die like flies in melee (for cost against archers lol?). It may actually be worth giving them more attack bonus due to them being above the enemy. Alternatively, increase the - vs cav value for short weapon armed infantry dudes. I think increasing the penalty against cav is the best bet of making cav more useful.
-Lonchophoroi die to Cretans if you use the secondary. That's retarded. I mean that's just kinda sad. Either the secondary is just terrible or something else is seriously wrong...
-Increasing the size of the lowest tier of unarmored javelin cav may be useful. Not the medium sized ones. I think you need to increase javelin damage from cavalry since in real life they would ride up and throw to increase the speed of the projectile by like 30 MPH. Its crap right now. Maybe something like 30-50% bonus for cavalry javelins.

Kival

07-27-2011, 00:20

I see; you were speaking about phalanx vs phalanx in combination with scary infantry. I like your other ideas, too, though I'm not sure if too high morale/disciplined etc. would not make a phalanx too invulnerable to flanking.

The Celtic Viking

07-27-2011, 00:28

I think the skirm cav idea is one definitely worth trying out.

What are you speaking about? 2,3k is the cost for the heavier javelin cav but not for the usual light cav.

IIRC Thraikian Hippeis cost 2.3k, and they're not especially heavy.

Kival

07-27-2011, 00:38

IIIRC Thraikian Hippeis cost 2.3k, and they're not especially heavy.

Yeah, I was not precise: Medium armored javelin cav was meant by "heavier" like "heavier than light". Light skirmisher cav cost (mostly?) less than 2k: Leuce Epos, hippakontistai, arabian light cavalry, iberian and cantabrian light cav, etc.

gamegeek2

07-27-2011, 04:14

I was thinking 60 men for all light cavalry, including light horse archers (especially the ones with shitty charge).

Other things

-There will definitely NOT be an axe or mace lethality increase. Statistically, it´s fine as is. I do intend to buff axemen in other ways. For example I fully intend to lower the cost of Eastern axemen or give them the ¨barbarian bonus. I also think raising the unit size of Teceitos to 100 is a good idea.
-Considering reducing Marian and Imperial heavy cost reduction to only -15%, still quite high.
-Almost certainly making all elite phalanxes veteran level. Also considering lowering Pezhetairoi to 100 men, for reasons already discussed, so they dont completely maul Pantodapoi as much but are more affordable as a well disciplined phalanx. Would allow players to recreate alexandrian armies more effecitvely.
-Considering 2 additional jav attack for skirmishers instead of 1, and giving this bonus to Peltastai Makedonikoi as well (they have no skirmisher bonus ATM but they are Peltastai, this seems a mistake. They would end up being about the same as Ambakaro in skirmishing quality).
-Considering giving slingers 80 men.
-Definitely going to depower Dosidataskeli a bit, not too much though.
-Hypaspist cost will likely be lowered

Also, there seems to be a failure to notice that Remi Mairepos have better morale, 2 more defense, 1 more attack (2 for sword) and 3 more charge than Brihentin, but also have very hardy. They can be run around like Prodromoi and still hit hard. They also have shields, small ones but still a useful attribute.

Since we will use 2.1 for next month´s tourney, I have a syggested ruleset for civilized and steppe armies:

CIVILIZED ARMY COMPOSITION:
-7 cavalry max, of which 3 can be heavy cavalry. Assuming 20 unit armies, this is guaranteed to not produce an army with any greater than 25% cavalry, which is the maximum I´ve heard of for the ancient world. Heavy cavalry was rarely even half of an army´s cavalry in this period: an army heavy on cavalry would almost certainly not have more than half heavy cavalry.
-8 phalanx max
-7 skirmisher max - does NOT include skirmisher cavalry
-7 archer max, of which 3 may be heavy archers - DOES include horse archers, DOES influde slingers
-5 non-factional max

STEPPE ARMY COMPOSITION
-No maximum of cavalry
-5 skirmishers max
-Phalanx use prohibited
-Maximum of 10 infantry units
-2 nonfactional cavalry max
-4 nonfactional infantry max

FACTION EXCEPTIONS

--- SABA ---
Is permitted to use 40,000 mnai if it does not field elephants (not sure about this one)

--- ROMANS ---
Not permitted to use phalanx mercenaries

--- SAUROMATAE ---
May use up to 8 nonfactional infantry while using a steppe army composition

ALL FAIRPLAY RULES AND CHEVRON RESTRICTIONS APPLY, CURRENT FACTIONAL UNIT LISTS APPLY

antisocialmunky

07-27-2011, 04:41

I like it.

-I'm kinda curious, why are Persians are sized 100 and the other Iranian and Steppe foot archers are standard sized. Is this because of population densities for that part of the world? I mean, under your new ruleset, they would be the only ones with 100 sized archers that are spammable.
- Hypaspists - They are royal guard probably on par with KH elite hoplites. Since KH Thorakitai Hoplites use a heavy AP sword, why don't you give them the same AP sword and make them an high-end, take all comers in defense, cut through almost anything super flexible unit. After all, all the other greek 1500+ (Samnites + Pedites) sword armed units have AP. Would make them worth their cost. nvm, diff sword model
- What do you think about some more cav melee increase? Lonchrophoroi dying to a unit of Cretans in melee is kinda pathetic.
- I disagree with making the elite phalanxes 'veteran' level. They should be where they are and they cost accordingly. The main issue with the old uber expensive units was that they can in too small of numbers. :\ There's not real problem with them at size 100 and ~3K.
- Pez at 100 was an idea I supported. However, its not really and issue right now. I think phalanx are remarkably not imbalance. The main issue is discipline currently because it causes them to lose morale and chain rout like crazy. I mean, I wouldn't be against that. I don't know about Hysteroi though. I really like them as a 120 unit especially since its recruited from a wider pop base, basically its
-Oh yes, can we get AP back on falxs, Getai is throughly uninteresting. Like Sweboz without AP.

Don't forget Lusto and Carthage rules.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-27-2011, 04:48

Agree with many of these changes except for the following:
The Saba change is still not going to make people play as them so I don't think it's worthwhile.
Please don't downgrade the elite phalangites. They historically were and should be an elite and are priced accordingly. One unit of these does not bankrupt an army.
I don't think that slingers should get 80 men. They already murder cavalry, I'd hate to see what they would do if there were more men in the unit.
Lastly, not sure why you would raise the archer limit. I have no particular problem with it, I was just wondering your reasoning.

Also what would classify as heavy archers? I would assume Persian Heavies and everything above? i.e. Bophorans, Cretans, Imperials, and Syrians

Last also: Hypaspists are fine as is, their sword is .225 lethality which is great. However, they are a bit pricy compared to other elites that AS, Epirus or Maks can get like Thracians, Orca, etc and that is the main problem. Also the Peltasti Makedonikai have a shortsword and cost even more. They need help from the pricing department too.

Kival

07-27-2011, 06:47

-Oh yes, can we get AP back on falxs, Getai is throughly uninteresting. Like Sweboz without AP.

Yeah. Perhaps the lethality could be decreased to compensate it though I would not say they are uninteresting ;-).

Lazy O

07-27-2011, 06:51

Vega

07-27-2011, 07:30

Gamegeek rules sounds good, but there were phalanx in camilian and polybian era, we was discusing about removing phalanx because they didnt exist in marian and imperial era :DD

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-27-2011, 08:13

Well that would be hoplite phalanx not phalangite phalanx. But I digress...

-Stormrage-

07-27-2011, 11:27

There is also the issue of people maxing out their heavy cav limit by bringing a general and 2 catas. The general shouldnt be classified as heavy cavalry or maybe the heavy cav limit should be increased to 4 to make up for the popular use of Generals on horseback.

GG: Can Axemen get a boost to their armour. right now they got 1 armour which will get them killed in melee by almost any unit.

These new rules are not to my liking. First, Some Factions have cheaper heavy cav then other meaning they can afford to bring more heavy cav, but with the restrictions both you and your opponent can bring the SAME amount of heavy cavalry, so its impossible for the faction with cheap heavy cavalry to get an advantage.
Second, Increasing archer limit to 7 was good but you ruined it when you said there was a heavy archer limit of 3. Give us the ability to bring as much heavies as we want. and What happened to the pricing heavy archers like heavy infantry idea. someone suggested 1.6k.

Why all these restrictions i thought we agreed to a "anything goes tourney" if someone brings to much cav his infantry and archer funds will run low, and if someone brings too much archers then he wont have slots for infantry.

Edit: The rule about saba getting 40k is very interesting but when i play with saba i feel like i have Extra money to spend .

Lazy O

07-27-2011, 11:44

I do not think even with 1 chevron Saba can utilize 40k. And storm, heavy cav limit was not increased. GG2 did not say that.

And the 3 heavy archer limit sorta fixes the problem of archer balance and them being used as heavy infantry.

-Stormrage-

07-27-2011, 12:58

how about giving saba ability of 2 chevron use.

Lazy O

07-27-2011, 13:09

Yea lets just make our rules so ******* complicated, even the 5 out of 100 people I tell about this and agree go away because of the damn rules, Good Idea!!

-Stormrage-

07-27-2011, 13:17

Yea lets just make our rules so fucking complicated, even the 5 out of 100 people I tell about this and agree go away because of the damn rules, Good Idea!!

So your saying we need to get rid of rules.
This is exactly what the "anything goes tourney" is about. why are you fighting against it in the other forum.

Lazy O

07-27-2011, 13:55

We need rules, I was saying that at present, they are alreayd too complicated.

antisocialmunky

07-27-2011, 14:47

Well at least we are making progress, that is a very plausible ruleset, though unlesss you are saka i do not see what difference the cavalry rules would male, and I strongly disagree with increasing cavalry sizes, already we play on large, they are too cumbersome moving about.

... we used to play on huge because it was the best balanced.

The cav size bump would be mostly for lightly equipped cavalry and it'd buff special units for luso, numidia, and HAs. The main failing in the rules is the bumping up of archers it basically forces barb armies into the scary ball. Your skirms are toast and so are any cavalry you bring. If you're going to do this, you should consider bumping up slinger sizes an extra notch for barbs above what you will end up with kinda like you did for their archers, if only to soak up damage.

I don't like having a 'heavy' archer classification tbh. You should figure out another way of doing it like decreasing size maybe?

gamegeek2

07-27-2011, 15:16

One more rule: generals do not count towards the heavy cav or caav limit.

Lazy O

07-27-2011, 16:04

Slow cavalry is dead cavalry, applies with much greater consequences to light cavalry.

antisocialmunky

07-27-2011, 18:00

One more rule: generals do not count towards the heavy cav or caav limit.

Is there a limit?

-Stormrage-

07-27-2011, 18:59

Currently it is 3 heavy cav max, dont ask me how you classify heavy cav thats a whole other complicated process in itself.

Kival

07-27-2011, 19:35

STEPPE ARMY COMPOSITION
-No maximum of cavalry
-5 skirmishers max
-Phalanx use prohibited
-Maximum of 10 infantry units
-2 nonfactional cavalry max
-4 nonfactional infantry max

Sounds interesting while complicated. At least the issue with steppe + phalanx would be solved this way...

antisocialmunky

07-27-2011, 20:26

Is it your intent to make it so people are spamming elite phalanxes as pontus?

-Stormrage-

07-27-2011, 20:34

Is it your intent to make it so people are spamming elite phalanxes as pontus?

What are you talking about?

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-27-2011, 20:52

They are too cheap. That is what he's talking about.

gamegeek2

07-27-2011, 21:04

How would you like all elite phalanxes to be like that, but 100 men and less cost?

Kival

07-27-2011, 21:07

How would you like all elite phalanxes to be like that, but 100 men and less cost?

I don't know though the other elite phalangites should still be better than the pontos ones. The pontos elite phalanx should still be somewhere between pez and elite phalangites.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-27-2011, 21:10

Agree with Kival. Chalkaspides are mere imitations of the true successor elites. That said, they are an elite in and of themselves if you get what I'm saying.

gamegeek2

07-27-2011, 22:35

antisocialmunky

07-27-2011, 23:22

Current stats almost doom them to be superior, if that can be counted as doom. Therefore I think making ¨^elite phalaxes Tier 3 units is the wisest course of action. There would be statting to make the African Pikemen and the Chalkaspides inferior to the successor elites.

That'd be good.

I'm wondering, kopis armed sword cavalry seems strictly inferior to asian axe armed cavalry. Lonchophoroi/Successor Skirmisher cav for instance die to them quite hard. Most of the cavalry form the range of 2k-3k will die to these guys when you use their axes including hippies type cav. Yet, they cost only 1.8/1.9k. I think you should consider stating axe attack down a little bit to atleast reign in the ridiculousness. :)

gamegeek2

07-27-2011, 23:48

Ive been considering plus 1 attack for kopis armed for some time now. Youve convinced me.

Other proposals I have in mind:

-Stat Peltastai Makedonikoi and Hypaspistai as a high-quality veteran units, rather than an elite ones.

antisocialmunky

07-28-2011, 01:55

You should stat the Peltastai as vet and Hypaspistai as Royal Guard so pretty much like the Agema that everyone else gets.

Javelin cav seems woefully ineffective also :\ I dunno if you can make them 'effective against cavalry' or whatever. I know the idea is that they harass cav but it seems like they can never hit anything...

vartan

07-28-2011, 06:43

Currently it is 3 heavy cav max, dont ask me how you classify heavy cav thats a whole other complicated process in itself.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8pgdrJqBnJBNTIxYzVhZWQtZGU0Yy00MGVlLWFlNzItM2FlNmFjOGRiNmNl&hl=en_US

I'm sure a couple of levels into ESL is enough for anyone to understand how heavy cavalry is determined. I would skip the first page because it contains the most English.

----------------------------

What a mess.

Lazy O

07-28-2011, 09:24

Post it on the website in the rules section

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-28-2011, 14:45

Post it on the website in the rules section

Where are your manners?:laugh4: Please post it on the website in the rules section.

Lazy O

07-28-2011, 15:38

The vartan does not require manners.

-Stormrage-

07-28-2011, 16:53

The vartan does not require manners.

Seconded.

The Celtic Viking

07-28-2011, 19:39

Perhaps not, but he certainly deserves it.

To return to the topic, I believe you missed to up the Numidian archers' ammo, as they still only have 20. Small thing, but it's just something I noticed.

vartan

07-28-2011, 20:15

The vartan does not require manners.

Seconded.
Speak for yourselves please. Thank you.

Perhaps not, but he certainly deserves it.

To return to the topic, I believe you missed to up the Numidian archers' ammo, as they still only have 20. Small thing, but it's just something I noticed.
Thanks, and gg2 just mentioned it to me. We'll be fixing that certainly.

gamegeek2

07-29-2011, 05:16

Right, heres a list of suggested changes and ones I have thought of that Ive compiled.

1. Increase Teceitos, Indian Longbowmen, and Drapanai to 100 men unit size (Large)
2. +1 sword attack for kopis and falcata armed cavalry. Kopides are statted so they are approximately identical in effect to axes and maces, but cost slightly more. The kopis was a superb cavalry weapon, therefore it seems reasonable for it to receive a slight bonus for cavalrymen who wield it.
3. Stat elite phalanxes as Tier 3 veterans, not Tier 4 elites, so they are a reasonable cost.
4. Increase light HA and skirmish cavalry numbers to 60 men (large) and some medium cav units (medians, armenians, hippeis, and equites mainly)
6. Increase the skirmisher javelin bonus from +1 to +2, and apply it to Peltastai Makedonikoi and skirmisher cavalry
7. Increase slinger size to 80 men
8. Increase the shield value of some light barbarian units and increase costs correspondingly. Gaeroas are almost unuseable simply because they die SO easily to missiles. A big shield should block missiles at least somewhat effectively.
9. Increase Georgian infantry morale to 13, Peltastai morale to 11
10. Make Dacian elite skirmishers capable of skirmishing, and make them better at it (same with Thracians on the second bit)
11. Make Cretan archers better in some manner, perhaps by giving them their massive range back.
12. Make Indian elephants either cheaper or increase their numbers.
13. Make Indohellenic noble hoplites Tier 3, not Tier 4, to differentiate them

--- MAJOR HA PROPOSAL ---
1. Remove cantabrian circle from horse archers
2. Increase numbers of Rider units to 60 men
3. Increase numbers of common HA units to 70 men (the ones with shortswords)

The point of this is to make it so there need not be any restrictions on steppe cavalry and missile limits, moving towards the no-rules highly-balanced zone that I think we want to be in. As of right now an HA in cantabrian circle defeats a Persian or similar archer, but foot archers should easily outshoot horse archers. We may even be able to remove the HA attack reduction if this is done.

For archers screwing up cav, my suggestions are:

1. Stat heavy archers with more archer skill so they cost more to bring but are better as archers.
2. Lower morale of light archer units (6 for persians sounds good).

antisocialmunky

07-29-2011, 05:38

-Wait... you can make 70 man units?
-I'd HIGHLY discourage stating down elite phalanx. There's no reason to, they are fine. Who the heck ever assembled an army that was all silvershield/bronzeshield?!? You can already and it should be discouraged.
-Can you make the lightly armored barb units just have more men instead?
-I like the idea of removing cantabrian but I rather keep it. :p
-I'd say limit cav size to 60 max.

You don't need to balance everything at once, just make some small tweaks and see if it works first.

Btw- I noticed that some skirm cav have jav range less than skirm range so they never actually lob their missiles.

-Stormrage-

07-29-2011, 11:24

I Like the suggested changes.

Can someone please explain to me the TIER system?

I too dont think elite phalanx should be cheeaper, i would love it if you did,but i think elites are fine as is.

INCREASING ARCHER SKILL,can you do that!?!? cool.

i suggest +1 for archers,whatt do you think GG. its a BIG change.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

07-29-2011, 14:16

Agree with many changes except statting down elite phalanx and also giving 70 men to light HA units. 60 is a big enough change and should suffice. Also don't feel as changing the shield of light barbarian units is the answer. They are already pretty cheap. The extra men solution would work, but I still don't feel like you would see many on the field for the corresponding price increase that would come. Barbarians generally just have better infantry options and so do the successors that can also use them.

gamegeek2

07-29-2011, 15:42

Right, the other option is to keep elite phalnxes at 100 men and current prices. If thats fine, then we are OK.

I say light HA to 70 men (not including the riders) because of a few reasons:

1. If we are to remove cantabrian, they would get shredded by foot archers too easily for their cost. They will still lose costwise, I just want the steppe factions to have a fighting chance with steppe armies vs foot archers, if we are to ever reach the no army comp rules point.

2. They can

Also the current system for archers/slingers and javelins (respectively) works as this and I say we discuss it:

Bow determines base attack, range, and ammo

Levy/Crap: -1 attack, -10% range, +0 base cost
Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +.15 base cost
Good: 0 attack, +10% range, +.35 base cost
Very Good: +1 attrack, +12% range, +.6 base cost

Javelin determines base attack range and ammo

Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +0 cost
Good: +1 attack, +5% range, +.2 base cost
Very Good: +2 attack, +10% range, +.45 base cost

I wont get into base cost details on how it works because thats very confusing, all I will say is that +.2 base cost is between 100 and 200 more usually, depending on unit size. Cavalry are costed as if they have twice as many men as infantry, so they would go up a bunch too (this is what drives up javcav costs).

I feel this system needs changing.

Lazy O

07-29-2011, 16:06

Come on Hamachi.

NAO

-Stormrage-

07-29-2011, 16:39

I feel this system needs changing.

YES, THANK you. Our missile system IS crap, we need some changes.

What would you suggest?

Vega

07-29-2011, 20:14

Guys just to know are you planed to test roman faction, will be there major changes to them ?? I can help if you want.. Cheers

gamegeek2

07-29-2011, 23:24

YES, THANK you. Our missile system IS crap, we need some changes.

What would you suggest?

This plan is my current, modest proposal. A more radical plan would involve altering the descr_projectile_new file, to change missile accuracy.

Bow/sling and ammo determine base range and cost of weapon

Levy/Crap: -1 attack, -5% range, +0 base cost
Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +.15 base cost
Good: +1 attack, +5% range, +.3 base cost
Very Good: +2 attack, +10% range, +.45 base cost

Javelin determines base attack range and ammo + cost of weapon (technically it does vary, i forgot to mention that)

Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +0 cost
Good: +1 attack, +10% range, +.15 base cost
Very Good: +2 attack, +20% range, +.3 base cost

Foot Skirmishers: +2 additional attack, +10% additional range
Cavalry Skirmishers: +4 additional attack

Id also want to increase cohors cost so its just above 1800, only so cohort only armies are not possible. Im thinking to reduce marian and imperial cost reduction to -17.5% to do this (currently it is -20%).

-Stormrage-

07-30-2011, 00:51

about the cohort spamming, i thought roman armies were historically cohort spams.

about the javs, only +2 attack do you think that will make a difference.

increasing accuracy sounds like a drastic change, i like it. from the front it might not matter cuz units have shields but attacking from the rear would be devastating thus rewarding the player who managed to maneuver his slings behind the enemy. Personally i support the idea.

P.S Any chance Thracian peltasts can get AP back?
and consider looking into agrianian assualts ,They might be under powered not getting much kills in my games. Same goes for the thracians even with high lethality taking away AP from them was a big attack nerf.
Here's a suggestion, because they lost AP how about increasing their attack.

gamegeek2

07-30-2011, 01:11

Roman armies were historically roughly half legionaries and half auxiliaries. This translates as about 9-10 cohort units (yes, a spam), not 19 units and a general.

No chance they get AP back, with AP they were even more OP than AP Drapanai, which is saying something.

antisocialmunky

07-30-2011, 05:09

This plan is my current, modest proposal. A more radical plan would involve altering the descr_projectile_new file, to change missile accuracy.

Bow/sling and ammo determine base range and cost of weapon

Levy/Crap: -1 attack, -5% range, +0 base cost
Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +.15 base cost
Good: +1 attack, +5% range, +.3 base cost
Very Good: +2 attack, +10% range, +.45 base cost

Javelin determines base attack range and ammo + cost of weapon (technically it does vary, i forgot to mention that)

Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +0 cost
Good: +1 attack, +10% range, +.15 base cost
Very Good: +2 attack, +20% range, +.3 base cost

Foot Skirmishers: +2 additional attack, +10% additional range
Cavalry Skirmishers: +4 additional attack

Id also want to increase cohors cost so its just above 1800, only so cohort only armies are not possible. Im thinking to reduce marian and imperial cost reduction to -17.5% to do this (currently it is -20%).

Looking forward to the results.

-Stormrage-

07-30-2011, 14:12

No chance they get AP back, with AP they were even more OP than AP Drapanai, which is saying something.

Then how about giving them attack to make up for the loss of AP.
If you look closely only units with AP are stated at 8 or 9 attack, this is natural so they dont become OP. but thracians lost their AP and they are still at 9 attack.

Lazy O

07-30-2011, 15:43

There are some cheap longsword units ( pretty tough nuts ) with 9 attack, Thracians also have a longsword (sorta) and have a decent melee attack for a skirmisher.

gamegeek2

07-30-2011, 15:51

Do you understand lethality, storm? BTW before the new EDUs, Thraikioi had 7 attack and AP.

Lazy O

07-30-2011, 16:33

Check the recommendations with Makedon.

Also, skirmishers and arhcers/slingers mass is VERY bugged, they make cavalry stop to a halt, Ok, I understand, Elite Skirms could do that, im okay with it, but Balaeric Slingers? Gund i Palta? Crap Archers? I understand Bosphorans were melee troops as well thats fine but all the other missile troops should not be able to stop cavalry this is just ridiculous, I had 3 whole units of Aspidophoroi stuck in shepherd Slingers, in the same battle, Robin had 2 Lanceari units halted by Persian LEVY archers.....

gamegeek2

07-30-2011, 17:21

I think its horse mass being somewhat lower than in other mods and vanilla. Maybe I could lower archer and slinger mass as well, though.

Lazy O

07-30-2011, 17:43

Hmm, horse mass would be the main factor, but would that not be editing the mounts_database file?

I dont know if you guys have seen this before, but I found it interesting, essentially a wargaming group, made up of actual and professional historians.

http://www.byzant.demon.co.uk/dbm.htm

antisocialmunky

07-30-2011, 19:19

Yeah, I generally agree with the changes. I think that the greek phalanx levies should have some sort of reason for their pricing. A morale bonus would be nice.

I think Elephants unit size/cost need to be rethought. We need to do some research on actual elephant number in armies. I know it used to be that elephants cost as much as 3 heavy cav but could only fight 2 head (which is not using them correctly because if you bring supporting cav, you can pin and then flank rofl pwn cav). The main issue is that its kinda a pain to control them because their formations are so spread out. I like elephants at half the size of vanilla EB due to that. Thus you should try and make it so each of the base elephant units is about as effective as a heavy cav unit as a base-line.

Lazy O

07-30-2011, 19:28

Heavy Cav kill Elephants 1v1. There is no contest. They simply stink too hard. If you bring a simple 800 mnai skirm, it wastes so much enemy money, and basically every other unit in the game has javelins, making elephants a SERIOUS liability.

antisocialmunky

07-30-2011, 20:18

You can make them more cost effective but I'm not comfortable with 1 unit of elephants being more powerful than a single unit of high end heavy cavalry. They do need to be most cost effective agreed since while Carthage used elephants, they weren't exactly all that common. India has a long history of elephant use.

Kival

07-30-2011, 21:57

I'd like cheaper but less effective elephants, too. You should be able to use elephants without choosing crap units for the rest of the army.

-Stormrage-

07-30-2011, 22:12

how about 7k for decent elephants. and why is cavalry supposed to be better then elephants?i thought elephants scare horses.

P.S GG i think you forgot to add the "bonus when fighting cavalry" trait to some phalanxes and i think spearmen should also get a bonus . i think you can contort the bonus value with "Spear_6" or something like that.

antisocialmunky

07-31-2011, 03:10

I'd say give Indians a discount of about 10% on elephants. Have the base naked (unarmored lol) one cost ~4500 (base 5000 * 90%) and have the same amount of numbers. Then make the elephant cataphracts a 1/2 sized unit that costs 5400 (6000 * 90%). You don't really need to make elephants worse since one or 2 skirm units will beat multiple ones (sad). You may want to make them slightly more vulnerable to missiles.

You should also make phalanx counter elephants to a certain extent as well because right now, you can't kill them/stop them with any sort of infantry. You'd also need to tweak their moral up (probably need to give them the discipline tag as well).

Kival

07-31-2011, 03:14

I'd say give Indians a discount of about 10% on elephants.

Who is Indian for you? Baktria and Saka?

antisocialmunky

07-31-2011, 03:48

Probably both. I suppose the reasoning is to make them cheaper (more common) than the African Forest Elephant which later went extinct.

Kival

07-31-2011, 03:55

So you'd want the Indian elephants to cost 4500 and 5400 (at least for baktria and Saka Rauka) but the african elephants should stay the way they are?

antisocialmunky

07-31-2011, 04:24

Rebalance them too. :]

I'm tired today.

Kival

07-31-2011, 19:20

I see.

Another proposal:

We should increase the javelin attack of all skirmisher-like units too not only for the ones which have skirm in their name or the skirm ability. For example garamantine infantry should get a bonus, too. In my own EDU modification I increased nearly all javelin attack stats but that would perhaps be too much and not solve the problem that most skirmishers are useless in comparison.

antisocialmunky

07-31-2011, 21:11

That would be useful as well but we would need to figure out the AP javelin vs non-ap javelin balance so we would have to include AP javs in any new proposed system.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-01-2011, 04:27

Personally, I feel as if line infantry have decent enough javelin attacks as is. They usually ranged anywhere from 6-8 or 4-6 for ap ones. Skirms are usually more in 5-6 range which is no good since they derive almost their full value from those 6 or so javs. Afaik, there are no skirmisher units that use AP javs so if we don't bother changing the values of the heavier javelin-throwing infantry units then we don't need to worry about that balance.

gamegeek2

08-01-2011, 04:49

Right, well light skirms with no skill bonus, like Artish Pada, are now at 6.

Kival

08-01-2011, 09:41

We really need to find a way to improve sweboz. The suggestion to lower their costs will not really help because all units just die too easy and do not really kill much.

Cute Wolf

08-01-2011, 11:20

We really need to find a way to improve sweboz. The suggestion to lower their costs will not really help because all units just die too easy and do not really kill much.

I'd said we should gave em better numbers, at least they should function more like Zerg

antisocialmunky

08-01-2011, 13:18

That may be feasible especially with new data on population densities of central Europe.

I'd also say it may be good to remove 'fights well in trees' or add it to skirms and loose order units. Right now its too imbalancing to even think about fighting barbs in trees.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-01-2011, 14:57

vartan

08-01-2011, 15:19

I'd also say it may be good to remove 'fights well in trees' or add it to skirms and loose order units. Right now its too imbalancing to even think about fighting barbs in trees.
I'm not buying it until you tell me how often you fight on a map with more than 1% tree coverage.

http://ebwiki.tk/wiki/Category:Maps

Lazy O

08-01-2011, 15:21

More numbers dont help, with such low armor, youd be lucky to get away with 70 men before the fight starts.

-Stormrage-

08-01-2011, 17:05

More numbers dont help, with such low armor, youd be lucky to get away with 70 men before the fight starts.

LOW ARMOR!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA nice one

Lazy O

08-01-2011, 17:31

Erm... Yea, majority are porrly armored.

Kival

08-01-2011, 17:40

Indeed. They have three units with armor above 10, one unit with 6 armor and the rest is below 4 armor with most having only 1 or 2 armor. They suffer the most from reducing of club lethality and increasing of jav-attack. Though this changes are reasonable for itself, they are making sweboz the more useless. Perhaps we should think about increasing the shield value for all big shields. It would help the poorly armoured sweboz and similar units which have a big shield which should give some decent protection vs missiles.

vartan

08-01-2011, 18:23

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-01-2011, 18:45

Well the difference between Sweboz and Gauls should go a little like this imo. Gauls are better armored, Sweboz are more disciplined. Unfortunately, we have a situation where armor basically trumps all, especially with archers being so powerful. Therefore, the extra discipline doesn't help them all that much.

Kival

08-01-2011, 18:50

Would this be a deviation from the consistency we've adhered to so far, where all units of all factions with a certain shield/size get a certain shield value? i.e., will the changes be Sweboz-exclusive? I suppose they would have to be in order to "fix" the Sweboz, no? since applying the same bonuses to others would only bring us back to square 1...I think.

I'd give all units with big shields a better shield bonus and I don't think that it needs to be sweboz exlusive to help them. In fact nearly all sweboz units have big shields, so it would help them much against missiles (face to face) which are the biggest problem for sweboz. In melee it would not help so much as other factions would have better shield values too (though not all have so big shields). Sweboz specific changes should be according to historical evidence as gamegeek suggested: Good levy units together with nearly elite retainer units. The retainer units would need better stats in skill and attack (and morale?) but this alone would not help the missile problem. We should also try to evaluate why their elites are not as useful as they should be (if my impression here is true).

Sweboz would still be highly vulnerable to missiles from the side and back but it would not be possible to devastate them with missiles face-to-face.

---

By the way I don't see the forest problem. Nearly all factions have (not only) barbarian auxiliaries which have wood fighting boni so if the players really play in a somewhat forested place they can bring those. It's also a tactical consideration in a slightly forested map not to go in the forest against sweboz and co.: what's the problem with it?

antisocialmunky

08-01-2011, 22:46

I'm not buying it until you tell me how often you fight on a map with more than 1% tree coverage.

http://ebwiki.tk/wiki/Category:Maps

We did it for fun :]

Kival

08-02-2011, 05:00

Though gamegeek improved the thracian cavalry and they are very viable as "light" heavy cavalry Getais do not have there historical cavalry in multiplayer because of the small numbers of bodyguard cavalry.

]The strong ties developed between royalty and the ktistai priesthood made these zealots the perfect recruitement basin for the king's guards. The beltistai's loyalty is unquestionable and their ferocity unmatched.

Historically, the numbers of these guards would have been greater than presented in-game, thus acting as a nucleus for the royal cavalry. (...)(

I'd suggest increased numbers for the getai bg unit to represent that and give them at least one cavalry unit with defense over 25. The best would be to make an additional non-bg unit of Phylakes Daoi but I fear that's not possible.

Lazy O

08-02-2011, 09:05

That is very possible. EB does not fulfill all unit slots iirc.

vartan

08-02-2011, 15:04

That is very possible. EB does not fulfill all unit slots iirc.
Where have you been?

Lazy O

08-02-2011, 16:06

Under a rock.

raest

08-06-2011, 13:35

i'm not sure if it was intended (or even if i'm posting in the right thread since it seems there's no thread for the 2.1.1 EDU) but i noticed that the Ambakaro have not received a boost to their javelin attack, unlike their mounted counterpart. the Jugunthiz also seem to be forgotten, as was the Taxilan Agema.

and while we're at it, is there some specific reason why some Celtic units received no charge bonus (i mean, if it hard to believe that lowly units like batacorii or batroas have more charge than pictones and eiras)?

Lazy O

08-06-2011, 14:21

Ambakaro are not skirmishers, they are elite troops.

raest

08-06-2011, 14:27

Ambakaro are not skirmishers, they are elite troops.

the same could be said of the Pheraspidai.. i mean "Peltastai" Makedonikoi. they're elite the assault troops of the Hypaspistai, not skirmishers (dunno why they changed their name). and a similar case could be made for the Komatai Epilektoi

The Celtic Viking

08-06-2011, 14:33

and a similar case could be made for the Komatai Epilektoi

Elite skirmishers are not skirmishers? :inquisitive:

raest

08-06-2011, 15:07

Elite skirmishers are not skirmishers? :inquisitive:

as you may have noticed, the english translations (or even the actual unit names) may deviate from the actual purpose of the unit. if you bothered to read the actual description of the unit at hand, you may have noticed that nowhere does it state that they were actual skirmishers like their lesser brethren, but actually light line infantry. plus, as the sentenced you have quoted explicitly states, i said "similar case" (not the same) and "could" as in "if one wished, one could (like i just did)" nothing else. just sayin'

EDIT: although, to be fair, there are instances of the unit description being quite a bit different than than the actual model ingame (like the thracian prodromoi mentioning shields when there are none on the model, or the lucanians mentioning knives when in fact they're equipped with spears)

Lazy O

08-06-2011, 15:57

Your point is...?

The Celtic Viking

08-06-2011, 16:01

as you may have noticed, the english translations (or even the actual unit names) may deviate from the actual purpose of the unit. if you bothered to read the actual description of the unit at hand, you may have noticed that nowhere does it state that they were actual skirmishers like their lesser brethren, but actually light line infantry. plus, as the sentenced you have quoted explicitly states, i said "similar case" (not the same) and "could" as in "if one wished, one could (like i just did)" nothing else. just sayin'

EDIT: although, to be fair, there are instances of the unit description being quite a bit different than than the actual model ingame (like the thracian prodromoi mentioning shields when there are none on the model, or the lucanians mentioning knives when in fact they're equipped with spears)

Well, unit descriptions really mean nothing for GG2's stating; in fact, some changes go directly to contradict unit descriptions. This isn't something I defend - it's just how it is. :shrug:

In any case, I've read their description and I don't see anything contradicting their use as better skirmishers. In fact, considering that this is Getai, their description specifies hit-and-run tactics and that they can stand in the battle line, I would see it as perfectly fair to interpret them as such.

Your point is...?

His point is surely that if the skirmisher bonus is applied to one non-skirmisher unit, by what criteria do you deny it to others?

Lazy O

08-06-2011, 16:43

I do not think that was intended. Non Skirmishers are not supposed to get the bonus, that is, javeling units without the Skirmish mode option

raest

08-06-2011, 17:04

Well, unit descriptions really mean nothing for GG2's stating; in fact, some changes go directly to contradict unit descriptions. This isn't something I defend - it's just how it is. :shrug:

In any case, I've read their description and I don't see anything contradicting their use as better skirmishers. In fact, considering that this is Getai, their description specifies hit-and-run tactics and that they can stand in the battle line, I would see it as perfectly fair to interpret them as such.

it says that Getai had a penchant for hit-and-run (as kind of a "historical excuse" for lightly armoured elite line/ambusher/flanker units). by that same logic, the Ambakaro should also get the skirmisher bonus since the Lusos are prone to hit-and-run and ambushing tactics, or at least the Caetrannan (since it even mentions they were ideal skirmishers due to their light equipment and usual tactics. and no, they don't get the +2 skirm bonus. hell, they didn't even get the +1 like the balearics). anyway, i can "let slide" the Ambakaro (and totally disagree with the Makedonikoi and Epilektoi), but i really don't understand the omission of the javelin bonus to the other 2 (and digging a bit more i saw that the Balearic Light got only +1 and not +2 and they are a light infantry/skirmisher unit), or the barbarian charge bonus deliberately applied to some units and not to others with no apparent reason

His point is surely that if the skirmisher bonus is applied to one non-skirmisher unit, by what criteria do you deny it to others?

something like that, yeah. or maybe even, "how do you differentiate light/assault infantry with 6 ammo from "real" skirmishers"

I do not think that was intended. Non Skirmishers are not supposed to get the bonus, that is, javeling units without the Skirmish mode option

neither the epilektoi nor the makedonikoi have the Skirmish mode option

Vega

08-06-2011, 20:12

I am suggesting to increase Cohort Pilla atack by +1, its stupid that most famous roman javelin have atack 4.... I think that this suggestion is fair because Carthage Iberians have pilla atack 5 :inquisitive:

vartan

08-06-2011, 20:38

Raest you make a point which I agree with. And TCV gg2 has actually come to me more than once with why a certain unit's stats should be altered because of such and such a line in their descriptions. I think he did this recently with some Lusitanian units, that were in some sort of cult of devotion and that they would fight to the death. And so he gave them a morale rating that I completely disagree with, but it's from the description. Now the description doesn't read, "Notice to all modders: You may want to increase the morale of this unit to 25 sometime in the near future." Rather, it's his interpretation of the historical description.

Regarding some units gaining a jav bonus and some not. Here's how it works. If the unit has a skirmishing ability and it's clearly noted as a skirmisher, it got the bonus. Some units I initially forgot and Kival spotted them and fixed those for me. But a unit which has only a couple of javelins that is intended to be a front line warrior that may be used as a skirmisher does not make it a 24/7 skirmisher, so to speak. As for the Germanic skirmishers (Jugunthiz), you're completely right. It's one of those that neither I nor Kival spotted. I'm sorry about that. If it is any consolation (though no real excuse), these bonuses will really be of no consequence within a month's worth of time if we're able to release a new EDU balancing system. That would not necessarily be using all of these arbitrary bonuses we're currently using. Does that help explain?

I am suggesting to increase Cohort Pilla atack by +1, its stupid that most famous roman javelin have atack 4.... I think that this suggestion is fair because Carthage Iberians have pilla atack 5 :inquisitive:

AP weaponry is meant to have a lower attack (roughly accuracy of striking) rating than its non-AP counterparts for obvious reasons. At the end of the day, the minor difference in attack rating is negligible because the effectively higher lethality (due to AP) more than makes up for it, by far, as seen in many cases with AP usage. Same applies to the pila, except only a couple are thrown and that's that, so you don't see prolonged use of them and the outcome of their effects as you would with melee AP weaponry for extended periods of time.

raest

08-06-2011, 23:00

Raest you make a point which I agree with. And TCV gg2 has actually come to me more than once with why a certain unit's stats should be altered because of such and such a line in their descriptions. I think he did this recently with some Lusitanian units, that were in some sort of cult of devotion and that they would fight to the death. And so he gave them a morale rating that I completely disagree with, but it's from the description. Now the description doesn't read, "Notice to all modders: You may want to increase the morale of this unit to 25 sometime in the near future." Rather, it's his interpretation of the historical description.

Regarding some units gaining a jav bonus and some not. Here's how it works. If the unit has a skirmishing ability and it's clearly noted as a skirmisher, it got the bonus. Some units I initially forgot and Kival spotted them and fixed those for me. But a unit which has only a couple of javelins that is intended to be a front line warrior that may be used as a skirmisher does not make it a 24/7 skirmisher, so to speak. As for the Germanic skirmishers (Jugunthiz), you're completely right. It's one of those that neither I nor Kival spotted. I'm sorry about that. If it is any consolation (though no real excuse), these bonuses will really be of no consequence within a month's worth of time if we're able to release a new EDU balancing system. That would not necessarily be using all of these arbitrary bonuses we're currently using. Does that help explain?

thanks for the explanation. i totally get the "his interpretation of historical description" and that's exactly why i was asking, to see if it's just a matter of disagreement over the interpretation or if it was a mistake that slipped past QC ;)

RE: skirmishing ability
iirc, if a unit has the "prec" attribute it doesn't have skirmishing, correct? well, Makedonikoi Peltastai and Komatai Epilektoi do have said attribute/cannot skirmish but they still got the bonus, that's why i asked why other units that cannot skirmish but have lots of ammo (i.e. 6; some might say a "skirmishing amount of ammo" ;)) did not receive the javelin +2 bonus (among them are the Ambakaro (which seemed weird to me since its mounted counterpart got the bonus), Caetranann, Gestikapoinann, Balearic Light Inf (they received only one) and the Taxilan Agema) and was curious behind the rationale for the "barbarian charge bonus" of some celtic units (or more appropriately, the lack of it :)), chief among them the Eiras and Pictone Neitos (since the former are quite elite and relatively similar to the Calawre which got a substantial bonus of +4, while the latter are noted in the description to have had a powerful charge)

it was mostly out of curiosity since i'm using a custom EDU for singleplayer that's for the great part based on this one (for now i do not play MP online but i though others that do might want to know about such minor details, so that they can be more easily addressed for a future version:creep:)

Burebista

08-06-2011, 23:56

thanks for the explanation. i totally get the "his interpretation of historical description" and that's exactly why i was asking, to see if it's just a matter of disagreement over the interpretation or if it was a mistake that slipped past QC ;)

RE: skirmishing ability
iirc, if a unit has the "prec" attribute it doesn't have skirmishing, correct? well, Makedonikoi Peltastai and Komatai Epilektoi do have said attribute/cannot skirmish but they still got the bonus, that's why i asked why other units that cannot skirmish but have lots of ammo (i.e. 6; some might say a "skirmishing amount of ammo" ;)) did not receive the javelin +2 bonus (among them are the Ambakaro (which seemed weird to me since its mounted counterpart got the bonus), Caetranann, Gestikapoinann, Balearic Light Inf (they received only one) and the Taxilan Agema) and was curious behind the rationale for the "barbarian charge bonus" of some celtic units (or more appropriately, the lack of it :)), chief among them the Eiras and Pictone Neitos (since the former are quite elite and relatively similar to the Calawre which got a substantial bonus of +4, while the latter are noted in the description to have had a powerful charge)

it was mostly out of curiosity since i'm using a custom EDU for singleplayer that's for the great part based on this one (for now i do not play MP online but i though others that do might want to know about such minor details, so that they can be more easily addressed for a future version:creep:)

1. you can use the Komatai Epilektoi to shower the enemy with javelins in a skirmish-like manner . try doing that with Ambarako. They will be focused down ASAP due to lack of shield. this unit is not made for skirmishing , but for full-on combat against highly armoured elites or heavy spearmen
1.a Balearic light infantry have the largest jav range in the whole game. I do not think that they should surpass numidian skirms in attack for example

2.on the barbarian charge bonus , i agree for the Eiras and the pictone neitos.

raest

08-07-2011, 00:11

1. you can use the Komatai Epilektoi to shower the enemy with javelins in a skirmish-like manner . try doing that with Ambarako. They will be focused down ASAP due to lack of shield. this unit is not made for skirmishing , but for full-on combat against highly armoured elites or heavy spearmen
1.a Balearic light infantry have the largest jav range in the whole game. I do not think that they should surpass numidian skirms in attack for example

1. i'm not sure i follow... the Ambakaro do have a shield (only -1 compared to the Epilektoi) and a significantly higher armour than the Epilektoi (overall only slightly inferior to the Makedonikoi, but significantly higher morale)

1.a) also the Hyrkanian Hillmen, Tabargane Eranshar, Ambakaro, Iabarannta all have the same range (and the Iabarannta have a better attack by 1), while it's explicitly stated that the Balearics were elite skirmishers and outstanding mercenaries so i don't see why they shouldn't have the same attack value (derived from that +2 bonus) as the Iberian Ambushers and Numidian javelinmen

Kival

08-07-2011, 01:17

The change of the elite skirms of the getai would be my mistake by the way. I proposed and made the change while checking the cav skirm changes. I thought that they are very strictly speaking a skirmisher unit just lacking the skirm ability and be similar to the peltastai makedoni in this regard.
That would be true for some Iberian units too though they have mostly ap- javs, a change here would be problematic. For every unit which actually has the skirm ability but did not receive the bonus it's just an application mistake not a disagreement. I did only check the cav skirms because I did not know of any missing foot skirm unit.

I think it's good to discuss some details here but as far as I know the new version will be a complete overhaul from the basic EDU by the way.

gamegeek2

08-07-2011, 02:14

Input from the fans is the second most important thing I take into consideration. Here is the order of priorities:

1. Historical accuracy
2. Fan Input
3. Game balance
4. GG2 and Vartan's opinion/debate

antisocialmunky

08-07-2011, 02:52

Hey, random questions, can we create a new thread for the new balancing system? This thread is about balance proposals and somewhat limiting. I'd like to see and talk about the system.

Lazy O

08-07-2011, 04:44

@raest; You look like a sensible person, why not drop by our networks? :D

raest

08-07-2011, 12:06

@raest; You look like a sensible person, why not drop by our networks? :D

hehe, i most surely will sooner or later. i just have to finish my master's thesis first (and practice in SP some more) :)

Lazy O

08-07-2011, 13:12

Practising in SP will do you no good, only harm.

vartan

08-07-2011, 17:19

Hey, random questions, can we create a new thread for the new balancing system? This thread is about balance proposals and somewhat limiting. I'd like to see and talk about the system.
I think we can just loosely interpret the title of this thread, if that helps. I'm sure the OP won't mind.

Lazy O

08-07-2011, 18:12

Does the OP ever mind anything?

Kival

08-07-2011, 19:33

I've already made this "proposal" in hamachi but I'll rephrase it here too: Infantry bodyguard should be increased to perhaps 60 men. A unit of 40 men is not of much use in melee and a small cav unit has much more possibilities (charge, running around to give command etc.) than a small infantry unit. In fact all infangry bodyguards were used in melee and are not meant to stay behind. To give them 60 men would be less of a sacrifice for the infantry line which makes sense for the infantry heavy factions. They still would be not so flexible as a cavalry bodyguard but in exchange they would be less of a sacrifice.

gamegeek2

08-07-2011, 20:52

Hey, random questions, can we create a new thread for the new balancing system? This thread is about balance proposals and somewhat limiting. I'd like to see and talk about the system.

I would love it if you did so. Post your questions and suggestions there, for 3.0...

antisocialmunky

08-07-2011, 23:45

I think you should do it if you want to have the system/suggests in the OP.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-09-2011, 19:28

I actually have a suggestion that will likely incite some argument. We all know that there has been a lot of complaining about Rome, both by Roman players and the opponents of said faction. The other day when Vega was raging about something, I made up some army comps to try to help him out. Most things were more or less fine, but I did notice one thing.

There is absolutely no reason for a player to select Marian Roman armies. Why? Well the main infantry contingent will be statistically identical to Imperials but they have no access to factional missile units like Imperials do. In fact, the only unit they have which Imperials do not is the Cohorts Evocata which are basically a redundant unit anyway with little use. Since both Marian and Imperial armies lack decent factional heavy cav (ridiculously crappy and overpriced Praetorians not counting), it is difficult for Marians to field a balanced army with the 5 merc limit. In fact, this sort of explains why many Roman players spam cohorts, simply because if they are taking Post-Marian or Imperial armies, they are somewhat forced to. The factional list for Rome is very small in these time periods.

Therefore, my proposal is that Marian Roman armies be given an additional 3 merc limit, up to 8. Historically, Rome relied a lot on auxiliaries which are personified in Imperial armies through the two spear units. However, Marian armies have no such unit while also lacking factional missiles, but still have the same merc limit as Imperials making them much less flexible. I feel as if this would add a bit of diversity to Roman armies and make people more willing to field Marian armies which I have never seen in tournament iirc. Also, the Samnite spearmen should be factional for Polybian Romans as they are for Camillan (this is the way campaign represents it), while the Samnite heavy infantry should be made available in the roster once again.

-Stormrage-

08-09-2011, 22:19

I move to give Saba Right of prima nocta, sorry just came back from brave heart, i mean Right of 2 chevron use.

antisocialmunky

08-10-2011, 02:07

No.

They only get a Historical I Win Button after Mohammad.

vartan

08-10-2011, 02:28

antisocialmunky

08-10-2011, 02:33

We could bump factions up to 10 for Rome since they relied extensively on allies and mercenaries. Carthage and Rome should both have high merc/ally counts.

gamegeek2

08-10-2011, 02:33

No.

They only get a Historical I Win Button after Mohammad.

Or when they are EBNOM Nabatu :D (with elite armored cavalry and axe armed agema :D )

Vega

08-10-2011, 13:33

We could bump factions up to 10 for Rome since they relied extensively on allies and mercenaries. Carthage and Rome should both have high merc/ally counts. Munky every word you said is in place :D i think that its true and that increasing mercenary slots for SPQR is good solution, and of course what ACS said fixing Hastati in polybian era as well

Aper

08-10-2011, 14:06

Hi all, first congrats for the new Battle System, the EDU really needed some updates and fixes.
My question/proposal: IMHO, it makes little sense that many longsword armed units have an extremely tight formation when all shortswords have an open one... Shouldn't be the opposite?? Why should anyone (I mean people with some cash like Boii warriors or Principes, for example) use a shortsword if not for fighting in closer spaces?? And how can soldurii or milnat use effectively their slashing weapons ammassed like they are?? Thanks

Burebista

08-10-2011, 14:08

Aper

08-10-2011, 14:19

Half the answer is the discipline and training the upper tier units get. What i mean is the more disciplined the unit is , the more trained to fight in enclosed space he is Sorry man, but the EB system don't work this way: check the hoplites for example, they get more or less the same values, levy or elite, despite the training. And BTW, why should you pick a weapon excellent in slashing to fight in close order, not using it at full effect? pick a gladius hispaniensins instead, like iberian celts did: still an excellent sword, but more adapt to the job.

EDIT: I think, to be more clear, that a width value less than 1 should be reserved for spears and shortsword only.

About shortswords, I felt bagaudas and their kin utterly useless, so I made them skirmishers, raising attack, ammo and range of the javs and removing the "prec" attribute: a sort of ambusher unit, quite effective if used in the right way... what do you think about that?

Lazy O

08-10-2011, 15:46

Unless you come on Hamachi, play some games, prove your point, your post makes no sense.

Kival

08-10-2011, 16:02

In general I agree with robin's idea.

There is absolutely no reason for a player to select Marian Roman armies. Why? Well the main infantry contingent will be statistically identical to Imperials but they have no access to factional missile units like Imperials do. In fact, the only unit they have which Imperials do not is the Cohorts Evocata which are basically a redundant unit anyway with little use. Since both Marian and Imperial armies lack decent factional heavy cav (ridiculously crappy and overpriced Praetorians not counting), it is difficult for Marians to field a balanced army with the 5 merc limit. In fact, this sort of explains why many Roman players spam cohorts, simply because if they are taking Post-Marian or Imperial armies, they are somewhat forced to. The factional list for Rome is very small in these time periods.

The auxilary cavalry is quite good light cavalry and the preatorian cavalry is not crappy, it's only very expensive.

Therefore, my proposal is that Marian Roman armies be given an additional 3 merc limit, up to 8. Historically, Rome relied a lot on auxiliaries which are personified in Imperial armies through the two spear units. However, Marian armies have no such unit while also lacking factional missiles, but still have the same merc limit as Imperials making them much less flexible. I feel as if this would add a bit of diversity to Roman armies and make people more willing to field Marian armies which I have never seen in tournament iirc. Also, the Samnite spearmen should be factional for Polybian Romans as they are for Camillan (this is the way campaign represents it)

I agree to increase the merc limit for marian armies but I'm not sure with the samnites for the Polybian Romans. After the Hannibal incident the Romans no longer believed in their italian allies and did not use them as allies to the same extent as before. It would make sense to get rid of all italian units in the Polybian Factional units roster and increase their merc limit, too. If you only add the merc units of the camillian era there is no reason to use camillian at all.

while the Samnite heavy infantry should be made available in the roster once again.

Agreed.

Or rather, messaged him about it. One thing you forget is that the Polybian SPQR also needs more mercs. They lack good fire support. So gg2 and I thought of 6 for Polyb/Marian. Now I'm thinking that one extra merc won't cut it.

I cant's see the reasoning here, other factions lack "good fire support" too and we would not give them more merc becaue of it.

We could bump factions up to 10 for Rome since they relied extensively on allies and mercenaries. Carthage and Rome should both have high merc/ally counts.

I cannot agree for Camillian and Polybian era. At least for Camillian most of the allies are already part of the factional unit list. If we bump up the the mercenary limit up to 10, we need to get rid of the italian units in the factional units list.

vartan

08-10-2011, 16:43

Italians could potentially be made 'mercs' if you think about it. Right?

And Aper, Romans used shortswords and they gave themselves more room to fight than is represented in the game. I think the EB team ended up balancing many factors, including the one of spacing, in order to make units perform how they wished. That being said, I don't know if other shortsword folk fought in such large per capita square footage as the Romans, but it shouldn't be much more or less than folk with other swords.

Aper

08-10-2011, 18:27

Unless you come on Hamachi, play some games, prove your point, your post makes no sense.

What's to prove? That the winner is right? your post make no sense.
I was proposing a new way to balance swords, making shortswordmen like Dunaminaca or Legionarii for example specialized in close order, tight fighting, while giving some longswordmen like milhnat or Arjos a little more relaxed formation, because their longswords makes them very efficient killers but should reguire a little more space between men in the battleline; most longswordmen like neitos are fine, it's the odd "longsword-wall" of massilian, hypaspistai, milhnat, soldurii, arjos and rycalawre that bothers me, because I think it's not very realistic. Isn't this a valid motivation for a proposal? :inquisitive:

I have modified my EDU, partially inspired by the great "Guard mode guide" from SFraser, simply reducing a bit the spacing of shortswordmen line holders (not touched light infantry) and giving them a little soldier radius reduction (that hidden value after mass) to make them fight more cohesively; OTOH I augmented the vanilla 0.85 formation width value of some longswordmen to 1: nothing spectacular, but should make the difference for a smart player...I'm currently testing the whole thing in custom battles.

Sorry if I bothered you, I thought this stuff could be food for thought... :shrug:

And Aper, Romans used shortswords and they gave themselves more room to fight than is represented in the game. I think the EB team ended up balancing many factors, including the one of spacing, in order to make units perform how they wished. That being said, I don't know if other shortsword folk fought in such large per capita square footage as the Romans, but it shouldn't be much more or less than folk with other swords.I didn't see your post :)
Well, AFAIK the issue of Legionarii spacing has never been really resolved, because the discussion is based the interpretation of a little ambiguous written source... but their equipment suggest a pendant for a very close combat in quite tight formations, because to take advantage of a gladius over a longer weapon you need to be very close to the enemy, and if you do that without comrades guarding your flanks, you are dead. I remember too of gladiatori instructors teaching the troops how to fight better in some dire situations... well, most gladiators used extremely short weapons in extremely close combat, so...
However, the point is not about the actual spacing of soldiers, that's quite irrelevant if taken out of its contest, but about how to achieve that elusive goal that is formation fighting fort shortswordmen line-holders, I mean that kind of organized combat that is stronger than the simple sum of the individual strenghts.

Lazy O

08-10-2011, 19:09

gamegeek2

08-10-2011, 19:55

because to take advantage of a gladius over a longer weapon you need to be very close to the enemy, and if you do that without comrades guarding your flanks, you are dead

Legionaries carry an enormous shield for this precise purpose (and to stop arrows, etc. of course)

raest

08-10-2011, 20:51

it's the odd "longsword-wall" of massilian, hypaspistai, milhnat, soldurii, arjos and rycalawre that bothers me, because I think it's not very realistic. Isn't this a valid motivation for a proposal? :inquisitive:

you have to remember that most of the units you mentioned (actually, all except for the milnaht) should use the spear as their primary, but they can't because of engine limitations (iirc, that particular spear animation (overhand?) cannot have a secondary weapon, so they switched them up). btw, to the power(s) that be: is there any way to switch the animation/skeleton/whatever for the aforementioned units (and others with the same problem like the various agemas etc..) with the one used by the Tikpanah so that they have spear as their primary and they can finally take a charge head on like they're supposed to? (i'd even take a "yes it's possible, here's a link, but we won't implement this in EBO" type of answer ;))

Aper

08-10-2011, 22:04

You did not bother me, if I might rephrase, come online so we can test stuff what you say. And all the units you mentioned work better when not in guard mode, and beside Milnaht, use their spears and not their swords. Thing is, if you bugger up formations of these units just on the basis of crappy guard mode you just get the regular longsword assault troop, they loose their uniqueness as ultra heavy line holders.It's not something we can test until we decide to change the EDU: thing is, I wanted to know if my reasoning and modifications seemed reasonable to you, before doing that.

About weapons, the problem is that I think units with 2 melee weapons don't work very well, they are known to be buggy: I wrote in another thread "longsword/spear works wonder... to frustrate you: making a unit that receive charges with swords and fights in melee with spears accomplish what? That the unit get slaughtered by cavalry charges and switches to low lethality spears when it's time to do the real kill" so removing the spears and make them pure swordsmen maybe it's not that bad, their high attack and high lethality longsword should perform well vs. cavalry too.

Legionaries carry an enormous shield for this precise purpose (and to stop arrows, etc. of course)
your shield will protect you from the enemy in front of you, not from his comrades on the flanks: you need to be well covered by your friends to attack with a short weapon a line of enemies and not be hit by flank attacks.

you have to remember that most of the units you mentioned (actually, all except for the milnaht) should use the spear as their primary, but they can't because of engine limitations (iirc, that particular spear animation (overhand?) cannot have a secondary weapon, so they switched them up). btw, to the power(s) that be: is there any way to switch the animation/skeleton/whatever for the aforementioned units (and others with the same problem like the various agemas etc..) with the one used by the Tikpanah so that they have spear as their primary and they can finally take a charge head on like they're supposed to? (i'd even take a "yes it's possible, here's a link, but we won't implement this in EBO" type of answer ;)) not through the EDU, and it will be probably a real PITA even with the right tools...

The Celtic Viking

08-10-2011, 22:22

vartan

08-10-2011, 22:55

Thanks for the visual TCV. That's why they need to be spaced apart further. This may solve some of the problems with the guard feature of RTW being improper at times (units not tiring quickly enough, having strange bonuses to their defense).

Aper

08-10-2011, 23:39

Just how far away from each other do you think the legionaries are from each other as is? Here's a picture:

https://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5482/rometw2011081023201087.jpg

This is not too loose an order to not be able to protect yourself well, not the least with those shields.Sorry but you are missing the point. I never stated anything like that: I was writing about the relative formation values of different armed line-holders, that make apparently not much sense, to me at least. Visually, no in-game heavy infantry seems much different in spacing from the others. But we know the slightly tighter formation of some units like hoplitai, that you can see only in stats, makes some difference on the outcomes; the same can be said about soldier radius tweaks: it's a fine balance, not something immediately evident, and more interesting because of that.

EDIT:
Thanks for the visual TCV. That's why they need to be spaced apart further. This may solve some of the problems with the guard feature of RTW being improper at times (units not tiring quickly enough, having strange bonuses to their defense).I don't exactly know what you mean with "improper", but high mass, highly trained units should behave exactly like that in guard mode IMHO: they tire slowly because the enemy cannot push them and forcing them to move, so the only soldiers consuming stamina are the ones in the first row that are actually fighting; they do not die because they present a very ordered and solid first line, never giving the enemy a chance to land a side attack.

However I'll run some tests with shortsword units to collect some evidence that the stuff I'm saying works with shortswords too, not only for hoplitai.

antisocialmunky

08-10-2011, 23:45

vartan

08-10-2011, 23:51

Guard mode isn't that bad anymore now that units don't usually get very close to exhausted until the game is already won. You might want to edit front/back ranks to be closer because otherwise the whole unit may tire with only a few units fighting. If you make units closer front/back but loser side-to-side then they are less prone to do silly things.
Units get tired just as quickly if not faster. What game are you talking about? As a general statement, I agree with your spacing idea, if in fact it ties in to how fatigue works in this silly game of ours.

antisocialmunky

08-11-2011, 00:19

GG2 gave almost every line unit 'good stamina' instead of just barbs.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-11-2011, 02:18

GG2 gave almost every line unit 'good stamina' instead of just barbs.

Why do you keep insisting this? Thorakitai and Neitos are two and I can't think of any others that received a bonus. Please give specific examples.

vartan

08-11-2011, 02:44

gamegeek2 almost always tells me all the changes he's doing, so I would have known if the majority of units got boosts in stamina. By the way, that's actually impossible since the majority of units in original EB were already hardy. What happened was this was changed. Now we have vanilla Rome stamina units.

The Celtic Viking

08-11-2011, 03:26

Why do you keep insisting this? Thorakitai and Neitos are two and I can't think of any others that received a bonus. Please give specific examples.

gamegeek2 almost always tells me all the changes he's doing, so I would have known if the majority of units got boosts in stamina.

Germanic units:
"-All unarmored infantry given "very_hardy" attribute"

Celtic units:
"-Caledonian nobles made very_hardy"
"-Many light units given very_hardy"
"-Carnute Cingetos (...) given very_hardy"
"-Neitos and Arjos given "hardy""
"-Goidilic cavalry given very_hardy"
"-Eiras given very_hardy"

Dacian units
"-Ktistai given (...) very_hardy"
"-Getikoi Stratiotai (...) given very_hardy"

Eastern unit changes
"-Many light units given "very_hardy""

Greek unit changes
"-Hippeis Thessalikoi given very_hardy"
"-Iphikratous Hoplitai given very_hardy"
"-Pheraspidai given very_hardy"
"... Cretan archers (...) given very_hardy"

Hellenistic unit changes
"-Iudaioi Taxeis made very_hardy"
"-Tarantinoi given (...) very_hardy"
"-Agema Hippeon Hellenikon given very_hardy"
"-Aspidophoroi (...) given very_hardy"

... really, I can go on, but I prefer not to. These are all quotes from GG2's documentation. Granted it's not from the latest version, but he hasn't undone this AFAIK.

antisocialmunky

08-11-2011, 03:42

He upped the stamina on vanilla Thuerophoroi (previously only the merc ones had it) and basically all the veteran units have some form of stamina IIRC. Atleast it feels that way. It used to be almost no higher-level infantry had stamina so things like Neitos and other units will beat Hoplites in guard mode now where they wouldn't before (hoplites ftw). Some combo of that and increased kill rates on some weapons really make guard-mode not that important anymore.

Your veteran and elite units can actually function like assault infantry without going tired immediately which is really nice :)

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-11-2011, 04:48

Ah I see. Granted most of the units receiving stamina boosts are cavalry, elites and light units, though the point is taken. Theurophoroi always had good stamina though, both factional and mercenary variants. In my Aedui campaign, I'm invading Egypt with armies of Theuros and Samnites I shipped over from Italy. Gotta restore balance in the East. :p

vartan

08-11-2011, 05:39

If you asked me, the following would happen:

Among infantry, there would be no units without hardy. Most units would be hardy. A select few would be very hardy.
Among cavalry, there would be no units with very hardy. Most would be without hardy. A select few would be hardy.

Why? I find it better this way. Reduce the emphasis on cavalry, and don't make it so that the average unit is exhausted before you can spell your grandmother's name.

Lazy O

08-11-2011, 09:19

Yea reduce the importance of cavalry, make the game even more slow, infantry spams for the win.

Booooooo

Burebista

08-11-2011, 09:48

Yea reduce the importance of cavalry, make the game even more slow, infantry spams for the win.

Booooooo

You forgot some factions don't use Cav , such as Gauls /Sweboz/Getai . We use Anti-cav :))

vartan

08-11-2011, 09:55

Yea reduce the importance of cavalry, make the game even more slow, infantry spams for the win.

Booooooo
You play too much vanilla. See below.

You forgot some factions don't use Cav , such as Gauls /Sweboz/Getai . We use Anti-cav :))
Don't mind Lazy O, he can be slow sometimes.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-11-2011, 13:57

You forgot some factions don't use Cav , such as Gauls /Sweboz/Getai . We use Anti-cav :))

I think Getai should use cavalry to reach their full potential. Thracian Mediums for example are gamechangers.

Lazy O

08-11-2011, 14:12

You are the ones who are slow. Turtles... Bahhh

antisocialmunky

08-11-2011, 14:28

The anti-cav is only due to barbs zerging.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-11-2011, 14:47

The anti-cav is only due to barbs zerging.

What should barbs do? Take their missiles to the body and like it? :P
I don't think Sotoroas have much of a chance against Bosphorans, Cretans, or even Persian or steppe archers. Charging is the only way, and honestly, much more exhilarating than lazily trading missile fire until both sides run out of ammo.

Aper

08-11-2011, 14:52

Hi, I have made few (because my brother chase away me from the PC were I have installed EB) tests 1 camillan hastati vs. 1 golberi curoas in custom battles.

I gave to the hastati a slight boost to mass (1.15 -> 1.2), a consistent reduction of soldier radius (0.4 -> 0.3) and formation width (1 -> 0.85), and better training (trained -> highly_trained): I improved them more then I feel right to better see the effects of the changes.
Also, I removed AP from the javs and doubled their attack (4 -> 8), because, AFAIK, pila were designed to pierce shields, not armors, and the only way to simulate this is to give them an high attack value.

I fought with my men on 3 ranks instead of normal 4 to avoid being flanked and truly test the frontal resilience on my formation, with guard mode and fire at will on; I did not attack, nor manoeuvre, apart from adjusting my front to be always parallel to the enemy line.

First results show that modified hastati are significally stronger than vanilla ones, because the celts find much more difficult to isolate single legionari: I noticed my first line remains solid and well ordered for the whole duration of the battle, something did not happened before.

However, I have to verify the impact of improved javs on the overall effectivness of my unit, and run much more tests to see a clearer pattern in the evolution of the battles.

Burebista

08-11-2011, 15:23

I think Getai should use cavalry to reach their full potential. Thracian Mediums for example are gamechangers.

Yeah , that is my best bet for charging cavalry , best can opener i really have tbh . But they won't win me any cavalry fights so it's not worth the effort. I can better invest in some skirmishing cav which are golden for their price.

As for the Getai's full potential , H Cav is only good if the enemy is pinned down , which i cannot do with the Getai (can't complain rly , i actually enjoy these kinds of mindgames which you are forced to do with the Getai) .

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-11-2011, 17:24

Getai actually have pretty good pinners but I'll leave that up to you to play around with.

Kival

08-11-2011, 17:36

Yeah , that is my best bet for charging cavalry , best can opener i really have tbh . But they won't win me any cavalry fights so it's not worth the effort.

They are actually suprisingly good in melee vs other cavalry. I also agree with Robin, Getai allows for pinning tactics, they are just better for other ones.

Lazy O

08-11-2011, 17:51

@Aper; In battle situation that Hastati is most likely to rout. And there is no way in hell that any smart player would attack guard mode units from the front unless they are elites and the guard mode unit is something like Gaeros.

I actually do not understand why you would want to mess with the Hastati, at least they are balanced now and not horribly OP like last year .

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-11-2011, 18:16

He is just testing on them Lazy.

Lazy O

08-11-2011, 18:25

If he has time he can test things which can be more helpful :P Like EDU 3.0

Aper

08-11-2011, 19:01

Yes, I used camillan hastati just because I wanted shortswordmen rather weak and poor equipped, to magnify the effects of my changes; and because I wanted to fight against gallic longswordmen, so I have to pick an unarmored opponent for the sake of fair play.

And even if I'd like to test 3.0, maybe I'm not the best person, having never played online so far... and it's a different kind of effort than testing a very limited modification regarding not many units... I fear I don't have that kind of time, sorry!

EDIT: I forgot to say I had such a passive behaviour, guard mode on, because I was mostly interested in seeing how better my men could keep their formation under enemy pressure. In the next tests I'll be more aggressive.:viking:

vartan

08-11-2011, 20:43

Burebista, try Getai steppe before underestimating their cavalry usage abilities.

And even if I'd like to test 3.0, maybe I'm not the best person, having never played online so far... and it's a different kind of effort than testing a very limited modification regarding not many units... I fear I don't have that kind of time, sorry!
If you have time to do what you already are, you have time to do this as well. Whether you should isn't the question. Whether you wish to is the question, one only you can answer.

Aper

08-11-2011, 20:51

If you have time to do what you already are, you have time to do this as well. Whether you should isn't the question. Whether you wish to is the question, one only you can answer.If you put it like that... give me the file and I'll do my best! But I expect many advices, because I'm totally new to this kind of work, and I have to know exactly what kind of goals you had in mind putting together this new version...

-Stormrage-

08-12-2011, 00:47

Why the hell do those Heavy hoplite phalanx dudes have No Stamina.

Note: Chevroned Thessalian heavy cav is Awesome. have you ever tried it. I played a game where i got 600 kills and 200 were from the chevroned thessalians.i should have got a couple more of those thessalians 2 more and that would equal 600 kills alone.

vartan

08-12-2011, 01:58

If you put it like that... give me the file and I'll do my best! But I expect many advices, because I'm totally new to this kind of work, and I have to know exactly what kind of goals you had in mind putting together this new version...
Haha. The file's not ready! And testing is preferably with humans. This is MP after all. Hence we use the EB Online network to test. Usually it's gamegeek2 and when he is online he will try to test with anyone else who is online and willing to test with him. Nothing overly systematic when it comes to the testing, but in-game you will likely end up in several battles with a diverse amount of units fighting individual skirmishes and taking notes on how these skirmishes progress, and so on. Nothing as formal as this (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8pgdrJqBnJBZGI5Mjg3NjctZDc3Zi00ZTdlLWJjMmMtOWIyYTAyN2JkNTY3&hl=en_US) but still extensive enough so as to gather some sort of idea of what's going on.

Why the hell do those Heavy hoplite phalanx dudes have No Stamina.

Note: Chevroned Thessalian heavy cav is Awesome. have you ever tried it. I played a game where i got 600 kills and 200 were from the chevroned thessalians.i should have got a couple more of those thessalians 2 more and that would equal 600 kills alone.
I'm starting to like this guy! lol, stormie! Send me some dates!

Burebista

08-12-2011, 08:04

Getai actually have pretty good pinners but I'll leave that up to you to play around with.

I hope you don't refer to the Komatai Thorakitai . They are awful , despite their stats , getting chewed through by cheaper units.

Anyway , with the Getai , what i feel is that they don't excel in cavalry and they don't excel in Infantry , but the army they field is great for helping one another and harrasing the hell out of an opponent.

Thank god for the celtic mercs.

I am curious though to hear from TCV . He announced to play with the Getai and am wondering what his oppininon will be after a few games.

Lazy O

08-12-2011, 08:16

TCV Has played with the Getai. We did some 2v2s.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

08-12-2011, 13:08

I hope you don't refer to the Komatai Thorakitai . They are awful , despite their stats , getting chewed through by cheaper units.

Anyway , with the Getai , what i feel is that they don't excel in cavalry and they don't excel in Infantry , but the army they field is great for helping one another and harrasing the hell out of an opponent.

Thank god for the celtic mercs.

I am curious though to hear from TCV . He announced to play with the Getai and am wondering what his oppininon will be after a few games.

Are you referring to the Stratiotai? They are not so good outside guard mode, but in it they do an amazing job of holding, tho this can be said of many units. Getai pinners are mostly guard mode pinners but there is nothing wrong with that. You will often win the missile duel so your opponent will have to move against you allowing you to accept their charge.

Burebista

08-12-2011, 14:03

Are you referring to the Stratiotai? They are not so good outside guard mode, but in it they do an amazing job of holding, tho this can be said of many units. Getai pinners are mostly guard mode pinners but there is nothing wrong with that. You will often win the missile duel so your opponent will have to move against you allowing you to accept their charge.

I can hardly call them "amazing" . They are designed as a versatile unit , being able to complement the lighter forces of a getai army , but they fail to do so as they suck in woods , don't move fast and can't win a fight by themselves.

A static Getai army is a dead army, ever since the "no AP for Falx " change. Just my oppinion.

antisocialmunky

08-12-2011, 14:13

The Celtic Viking

08-12-2011, 14:50

Are you referring to the Stratiotai? They are not so good outside guard mode, but in it they do an amazing job of holding, tho this can be said of many units. Getai pinners are mostly guard mode pinners but there is nothing wrong with that. You will often win the missile duel so your opponent will have to move against you allowing you to accept their charge.

I can't agree with that last point at all. Komatai Toxotai is the only sensible archers you have, but still they will lose against anyone who brings any non-crappy archers. The elite ones cost 1.6k, more than Bosphorans, and will still lose to any decent archers in a ranged fight. In fact, the only one in this tournament who can't bring archers that would shred any archer I could bring is you, Robin, and that's because you can't bring any archers at all. ~;p

gamegeek2

08-12-2011, 20:04

Yeah, the Falxes were grotesquely powerful in vanilla and I think they should be better than they are now. The celtic long swords were used as heavy/slashing/bashing type things while falxes are basically polearms.

Have you seen a falx? It's a lot more like a two-handed sword with a forward curving blade, and a handle as long as the blade.

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut2.jpg

Example of a falx brutalizing a shield. The shield is, however, stationary and hence poses a similar problem to the arrow-vs-chainmail target test; real shields and armor give.

http://www.copii-arme-medievale.ro/images/mari/sabii-spade-pumnale/20-falx%20dacic.JPG

Replica falxes.

Kival

08-12-2011, 21:06

I think he's not speaking about spear-polearms, he's speaking about halberd-polearms. The general definition of polearm is something like "long shaft with similar or smaller blade than the shaft". All in all the angular momentum is increased for a falx, a two-handed longsword is more balanced than a falx. And a falx is piercing whereas a sword usally is slashing, a falx concentrates it's power on a smaller field. I hope my english is good enough, so you can understand me here...

gamegeek2

08-12-2011, 23:18

Halberd: 6+ feet long
Falx: 4- feet long

And a falx is more of a slashing weapon, how else would it be known for lopping arms off?

vartan

08-13-2011, 00:54

Halberd: 6+ feet long
Falx: 4- feet long

And a falx is more of a slashing weapon, how else would it be known for lopping arms off?
So give it a ridiculous attack value, such as 18.

Kival

08-13-2011, 01:14

Halberd: 6+ feet long
Falx: 4- feet long

Nobody says it's the same as a halberd. The wikipedia article states that the two-handed version was actually 3+3 feet long but I'm surely no expert here.

And a falx is more of a slashing weapon, how else would it be known for lopping arms off?

It's both. Actually I'm not sure if evidence for any other "AP"-weapon is better than for the falx. However, I'd just to increase the strength of at least the two-handed falx in some way.

gamegeek2

08-13-2011, 01:16

Currently it is a cheaper longsword with .325 lethality, for 3.0

Kival

08-13-2011, 02:06

Currently it is a cheaper longsword with .325 lethality, for 3.0

Sounds interesting. How do you calculate attack value by the way? Is there any difference between weapons or is it only skill... or ;-)

antisocialmunky

08-13-2011, 14:14

I was referring to something like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagamaki

Multi-purpose medium length cutting/stabbing thing. The only difference is the shape of the falx lends to 'lopping' instead of smooth 'slicing' because it catches. I still think it should be an AP weapon because you can use it to stab and a downward motion. It also looks like it would be quite penetrating unlike a sword since in a swing, you'd connect tip first unless you were very close instead of blade first. It would just depend if you used it like momentum + tip first or you instead use short strokes for stabbing over shields/catch parts of people to unbalance them and then stab/slash at their vital spots. Depends on fighting styles actually used but it would seem to me that its a versatile weapon that could be used for stabbing from a swing, lopping from a swing if you are closer, or short stabbing/grabbing strokes.

Additionally you could probably catch people off horses.

gamegeek2

08-13-2011, 17:28

Versatile, sure.But I feel that it still fails to cut trough armor, is a poor pi an OK piercing weapon, but is best at chopping due to the forward curving blade, It lacks a sweet spot for chopping, meaning it can't deliver force in a manner like a kopis or an axe. Rather it strikes at weak spots, around shields, on bare skin; meaning the limbs, which it would lop off frighteningly, and thus the Romans adopted greaves and manica for the Dacian conflict.

antisocialmunky

08-13-2011, 22:57

Well looking at your docs, it seems like you're only giving AP to really heavy weapons so as long as it is consistent.