[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates [Archive] - Page 3

TheShakAttack

10-02-2011, 23:55

I strongly disagree with this entire line of reasoning. Presumably the reason the declaration of era is necessary is because otherwise saka would be overpowered (OP). I think this is unnecessary, unfair and inconsistent.

I will be making a lot of comparisons with AS, and this is purely because they are the easiest faction to compare against.

First, lets look at the "high quality" infantry saka have access to. The contendors are:

Srenis (who cost 2.5k atm)- very expensive, not very highly armoured nor very spamable.
Hoplitai indohellenikoi - same as thueros minus the javelins. they costthe same despite this lack of jav.
Hoplitai indohellenikon - Realtively similar to hoplites but heavier. Just as crappy in offense, marginally better in defense.
Agema indohellenikon - Once again a variant of hoplites. Good infantry but very expensive (2.8 k) and fewer men.
Peltastai indohellenikoi - similar to peltastai but better melee. decent light infantry unit.
Noble hoplites- Very heavy hoplites but a 70 man unit.

One very obvious point is lack of any serious assault infantry (srenis are quite lightly armored for cost and very expensive). I acknowledge that cheaper cav would mean that expensive infantry is less of a problem, but still, srenis are quite expensive.

There are many factions that have rosters which are significantly superior to saka. They too have access to HAs and catas and a wider range of infantry, not to mention access to superior infantry and great cav. The most obvious example is AS.

Sauro is not terribly far off in terms of infantry. They have access to (upto 4) hoplites. The "good infantry" saka has are just variants of hoplites. Sauro is more diverse as it has access to fear inducing infantry (which are cheap) (slavic spearmen), germanic swordsmen who are pretty decent offensively, bosphorans, komatai, 2 diff kinds of axemen, and bastarnae. true a lot of these are mercs, but sauro has a higher merc allowance.

So whilst saka can play a good defensive infantry game, they are terrible in offensive infantry, and quite literally have no readily affordable "killers".

This is why I disagree that saka have an OP roster- just compare them to other rosters and you can see they do not really have any significant superiority that requires one to go out of their way to address it.

The second reason I disagree is because it is inconsistent. Various factions went through similar "transformations", pahlava being one, who do not have to declare anything. Pahlava get access to pandas, babylonian spearmen, parthian theros, which occured after they settled. The Gallic factions, Sweboz etc also experienced similar changes. AS historically did not start training catas until they came into contact with parthia. To apply it to a single faction smacks of unfairness.

The third reason is that Saka have a relatively small roster as it is. Splitting up Rome into different eras is acceptable due to how big their roster is- Saka, not so much.

The fourth reason is that during EB time period, Saka were pretty kickass. They were able to combine their cultural inheritance of horsemanship with the superior infantry and metalworks of the places they conquered. Very similar to how AS were able to make great use of Cav and eles available in Anatolia and further east with their inheritance of great infantry. If AS awesomeness is being portrayed in EB and EBO, why shouldn't saka?

Lastly, I note that there is truth to saka being able to make use of their cav discount and combine with their good quality defensive infantry. But why is this not acceptable? AS are able to make use of their fantastic infantry with catas, cheap light cav, and an incredibly diverse roster. Historically, where good quality cav was available, relatively cheap, and the terrain made them usable, civilisations tended to go cavalry heavy as they were very effective for both mobility and battle effectiveness. The Eastern Roman Empire became progressively cav heavier as their access to cav improved, and they began neglecting their infantry. Of course the truth is a great deal more complicated than what I have written above, but I think the above is an acceptable generalisation. The reason I brought up this example is simply to note: why should this not be reflected?

On a last note, steppe armies, whilst very annoying to play against, are not unbeateable. Esp with changes made to HA. The fact that they are hard to play against should not really be a reason to make changes like the one proposed. Of course, if they are unbeatable, then it is different and might be modified for gameplay reasons. I do not think this is the case. Further, steppe factions can always be countered with other steppe factions. I hope this doesnt sound rude, and it is certainly not aimed at any of the people who have already posted (except storm :P) but, lack of ability on the players part to counter steppe armies should not be a reason to shackle a faction (not that I am saying this is why; but I do think this is why steppe armies are highly unpopular with a lot of EBO players and therefore does influence matters).

I hope that is fairly clear. The main thrusts of my argument being saka infantry roster is not "all that" great, and very one-dimensional; that historicity should be reflected; that there are factions who enjoy privileges in EBO because of how powerful they were during EBO time period; and that other factions also went through similar "evolutions" who do not have to make such declarations.

PS. This has been written when I am not at my most sober, and written fairly rushed. Please let me know if anything is unclear and I will clarify :)

vartan

10-03-2011, 01:09

So basically, Saka deserves a two-way era division but no obligation to name era pre-battle?

TheShakAttack

10-03-2011, 01:47

So basically, Saka deserves a two-way era division but no obligation to name era pre-battle?

Sorry for lack of clarity, lol. Figures that I forgot to clarify the central point of argument :D. They deserve neither a two-way era division nor an obligation to name era pre-battle. I doubt they will deserve this for reasons outlined above; though I am confident that should they be OP, and I change my mind, I will tell you guys. May I suggest that we start off without any such limitations, do a few test battles, and then decide on this particular issue? I hope this is a decent compromise?

antisocialmunky

10-03-2011, 01:54

We can figure out Saka after we make it. Afterall Macs can take a mass hoplite + companion army of arguably similar effectiveness.

vartan

10-03-2011, 01:59

True. We never had an OP issue with the steppe factions, even Saka. Perhaps this is more due to the civ vs steppe legacy army compositions. Brave Sir Robin, you brought up the division proposition. Do you think without the civ/steppe division, a freehand Saka player will have an OP faction in his hands? I certainly hope not, but after y'all play around with Saka upon its being ported to the 3.0 system, we can figure out if indeed such a divide is needed.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-03-2011, 02:33

I think Shak, that you are vastly underestimating the Saka infantry capabilities. The Guild Warriors are basically an AP equivalent to Thracian Elites/Kluddargos and cost less than either. They are an absolutely devastating weapon when you gain the missile advantage. Both the Indo-Greek Nobles and the Saka Elites have longswords with their 0.235 lethality or whatever it has been changed to. They are also defensive infantry par excellence as you point out. Saka Heavy Hoplites and Indohellenikoi Hoplitai are both competant medium/heavy infantry units, especially on defense which is probably where you will be after winning the missile duel. Saka doesn't have phalangites which Pahlava does but the Pandas are a disadvantage against any faction that can bring phalanx, since you will likely lose them without doing much damage, severely weakening your main line. Sauros can't take Bosphorans if they take 4 Hoplites since both count as Greek mercenaries afaik. Neither Pahlava or Sauros get factional heavy infantry with excellent morale which can act as phenomenal anvils for your "hammer" of steppe cavalry.

Comparing them to AS, the AS does not receive any discounts while Saka would be in line to. Basically they would gain an easy cavalry advantage which would negate the slight advantage AS would gain in infantry since Saka could afford either more heavy cav or more heavy infantry to match the Seleukid forces.

The reason I would give Saka two distinct eras is that they were pushed from the steppes by the Yuezhi and therefore migrated into Baktria and eventually India. The Pahlava meanwhile, maintained their steppe homeland throughout the majority of their existence as an empire.

Oh and I somehow missed the later posts but as to Vartan's post, I think that you won't know whether to prepare for a steppe army from Saka or a heavy infantry based one similar to the Hellenistic factions. With the variety of heavy infantry and steppe units Saka has, it negates the duplicate unit limits (and merc limits)which other factions like the AS or Baktria face when trying for a steppe flavor (ie AS can't take too many Dahae Riders but Saka has several types of lighter HA) or a more heavy infantry one which Pahlava and Sauros run into while also having trouble with merc limits in the latter case. (ie Pahlava runs into merc limits with Babylonians as well as unit limits with units like Parthian Theuros while Saka has about 3-4 different heavy/medium infantry units that are relatively affordable). Basically the point I am raising is that Saka is probably the most flexible faction in game, if not in pure unit diversity like the AS or Carthage, then in play style which imo, is the more important distinction. Gamegeek originally raised the concern about Saka being imbalanced, and I agree with him to an extent after thinking about it further, so it would be a good idea to include him in the discussion and to hear his opinions on the matter. I'm not tied irrevocably to this idea, I'm just putting it forward with an argument and see what becomes of it. I think a discussion among EBO players will lead to the proper answer that we are looking for. After all, most of us are a rational bunch.

gamegeek2

10-03-2011, 04:34

Right, here I shall outline some propositions.

Vartan and I have agreed that from now on units that cost between 1850 and 2500 mnai will be limited to 4 of a single unit. This is in response to a few things:

a. The possibility of a spam of Cretan Archers, particularly by the Koinon Hellenon, or (less importantly) Dacian Elite Archers by the Getai.
b. The "arms race" of phalanxes in which players are obligated to bring only Pezhetairoi as Hellenistic factions or lose to the other player's phalanx. We feel that this will help mitigate this and free up some cash in the Hellenistic fight, and we don't want to make exceptions to our rules.
c. The low cost of some key heavy units such as Indo-Hellenic Heavy Hoplites and Thorakitai. Spams of these haven't popped up by I don't want to take chances.

Next, something a bit more hard-hitting

Division of Sauromatae into Two Army Types: "Bosporan" and "Sarmatian"

Currently, the Sauromatae are forced to have limits on the number of key Greek troops they can bring, while they are allowed an expanded number of non-factionals to fill their infantry needs. I feel that this division would allow for more factions to be represented in EB Online, and remove the need for restrictions such as this. A player would need to announce which army type he brings.

The "Sarmatian" Army
-Not allowed to bring Bosporan factional troops (except Scythian units) - this includes Bosporan Archers!
-Rest of roster is fully available.
-Maximum of 6 non-factionals allowed.

The "Bosporan" Army
-Different list of factional troops.
-Not allowed to bring Sarmatian factional troops (except Scythian units and some exceptions to be added)

I would add a host of troops to the Sarmatian roster to enable the "Bosporan" army including:

-Thraikioi Peltastai
-Thraikioi Hippeis
-Thraikioi Prodromoi
-Hoplitai Haploi
-Peltastai
-Thureophoroi
-Pontikoi Thorakitai (maybe) - to represent the later Bosporan legionary imitations
-Thorakitai (maybe)
-Epilektoi Hoplitai (maybe)
-Hippeis
-Lonchophoroi Hippeis
-Hippeis Xystophoroi (maybe)

This would be made possible via editing of descr_model_battle

The steppe factions are well overdue for an overhaul in their 3.0 stats; I will redo all of their stats in this regard at the same time as I stat the Saka.

--- Saka Proposal ---

I fully support a division of Saka into "Steppe Saka" and "Indo Saka" but I'm not sure how I'd work this out.

Lazy O

10-03-2011, 12:12

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-03-2011, 12:30

Give back cantabrian circle. The ones who have been affected the most by its removal are the noble horse archers. They still die to arrow fire and cant avoid it anymore. Thus losing their dual role and being extremely limited during the archer war because you cannot afford to waste such expensive units.

Well you have to take foot archers as steppe factions now to absorb arrows. Nothing too difficult to figure out about that. Use the noble horse archers after your enemy has expended the majority or all of his missiles. They can harass from the back while posing a constant threat of a charge to the rear.

TheShakAttack

10-03-2011, 12:59

Hey

2 very interesting posts to respond to. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do them both justice right now, and they both deserve well formulated replies given the issues that have been brought up.

I will respond to gg2 for now since I think it will take less time.

The Sauro split should be interesting; seems like a “creative” way to work in a Bosphoran Faction ;)

In fact, if anything, Sauro becomes the Bosphoran Kingdrom rather than being Sauro :P

It’s quite clear that the path envisioned for Sauro and Saka are remarkably different than they have been previously. Though the plans have not been fleshed out, it appears that to choose Sauro (sarmatian army) or Saka (early era), means bringing incredibly large numbers of HA, some heavies and almost non-existent infantry. Now, this is not terribly far from how the historic armies would have been (though of course, HA units would be much larger, and have more ammo), but, in terms of gameplay, I think it would be too restrictive unless these cav get some kind of serious bump. It would be quite easy to bring a lot of heavy spears, some slingers and heavy archers, and 1-2 heavy cav to counter this type of an army.

I’ll wait to hear more about this split. I would be particularly interested in seeing the proposed unit lists of the 2 eras/armies for the 2 factions. Maybe after seeing the lists, things might not seem so gloomy.

Robin, I will defo get to your post since it deserves such due to how informative and cogent it is.

On the note of Saka, might I suggest that something similar to the previous steppe declaration be implemented? I was speaking to Robin yday, and he said his main concern is that he wouldn’t know what kind of army he was up against, an infantry based or cav based one. Perhaps we could implement something whereby any more than 7-10 infantry units would need to be declared as infantry based (rather than limiting which units can be taken)? I hope I am not misunderstanding him when he said that this was a proposal worth considering when he said “stfu you idiot”.

-Stormrage-

10-03-2011, 13:20

I fully support a division of Saka into "Steppe Saka" and "Indo Saka" but I'm not sure how I'd work this out.

Game over Shak , you have no chance.

I know from Experience, maybe he will give you a .1 here a .2 their but thats it.

Lazy O

10-03-2011, 14:02

Tell me, what reason do you have to justify this? All other factions underwent a change, if we are going to do this, why not limit gauls into 3 eras? Why not the carthaginians as before rome or after rome? Why not limit catas for Seleucids unless they are facing the Parthians? Hey, what are the sweboz even doing here without any metal, how did they even get 36000 mnai in the first place, lets impose 10000 denarii limit on them just to make sure the game is historical. Have you ever heard of Sarmatians fielding Falxmen and Germans and Baltics? I most certainly have not.

antisocialmunky

10-03-2011, 15:24

gamegeek2

10-03-2011, 16:12

One by one:

Why not limit catas for Seleucids unless they are facing the Parthians?

Under current rules, the Seleucids can only take two cataphracts anyways.

Why not the carthaginians as before rome or after rome?

272 BC onward can be called "after Rome" as the Punic Wars start a decade into our timeframe.

Have you ever heard of Sarmatians fielding Falxmen and Germans and Baltics? I most certainly have not.

Contemporary historians didn't distinguish a Baltic speaker from a Germanic one. The fact remains that in the immediate area west of the Sarmatian core territory, river-traversing East Baltic tribes made their homes, and they fought mainly as spear-armed infantry, with some archers and cavalry among them. Germanics would be more elusive, which is why I intend to reduce the Sarmatian options in that regard, but please note that many of the "Germanic" units are also used as placeholders for other troop types. For example, undoubtedly the East Balts had a core of experienced veterans such as the Dugundiz, but EB has no such East Baltic unit; hence the Dugundiz serve as a placeholder.

Hey, what are the sweboz even doing here without any metal, how did they even get 36000 mnai in the first place, lets impose 10000 denarii limit on them just to make sure the game is historical.

Now you're just being silly. Certainly the Sweboz had limited access to metal, but towards the later part of our time-frame (on which we focus for the Sweboz, the Gauls, etc.) a large industry of bog-iron smelting developed in the region, and access to iron greatly improved. Tacitus writes of fire-hardened wood later, but keep in mind that his account was second-hand at best, and perhaps limited by Roman stereotypes.

Give back cantabrian circle. The ones who have been affected the most by its removal are the noble horse archers. They still die to arrow fire and cant avoid it anymore. Thus losing their dual role and being extremely limited during the archer war because you cannot afford to waste such expensive units.

Absolutely not, when the result of giving it back would be to make foot archers once again useless at shooting circling horse archers. I can re-power the HA by giving their arrows full strength at their entire range; I may grant HA greater numbers, and I have already given them a slight accuracy pump. But the fact is, foot archers were the best counter to horse archers historically, and I want to make sure that's true in EBO as well. And I remember us testing horse archer armies at full power and you complaining about how it was a total slaughter...

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-03-2011, 16:54

You know what the weakness of saka was before? Your infantry line had crap morale and heavy hoplites were stupidly fragile compared to regular ones and prone to massive chain routs.

Since there is no missile limit anymore, I don't think its a problem. I don't really want to see an eras division. I don't really mind seeing a Thorakitai HA army. I can take one already as KH.

The only problem with this is that most Saka infantry units are in line to receive excellent morale on par with standard hoplites. The Indohellenikoi have excellent morale already and I would figure the Saka Heavy Hoplites will as well since they possessed it in 2.1. Going against the Sauros, you can drive their HA away with an archer slinger combo and then target the mostly unarmored infantry line to inflict severe casualties but there is no such hope against the heavy infantry of the Saka. Saka does, for the record, possess a cataphract unit as well as a cataphract archer so they can be nearly as flexible as Pahlava in this sense as well. Maybe the heaviest of Saka cavalry should be in smaller numbers? I'm not sure what proportion of steppe armies were based on heavy cavalry rather than light HA.

Lazy O

10-03-2011, 17:38

@Robin; I think we discussed this before, idk, Saka Heavy hoplites had 11 morale. Same as the indo hellenic hoplites. I say steppe armies, before settling in, would be probably 90% horse archer 10% cata. Now, that would be pretty cheap too, problem is getting those few units of catas to do some serious damage, which im sure almost everyone here can avoid.

And gamegeek2, you still have not given a reason for dividing the Sakae into eras, on the sweboz part, I say they should not even be included in the factions list, same goes for the saba.

TheShakAttack

10-03-2011, 19:14

I think the point Lazy was making (about unit eras, not C. circle), whilst more symbolic/ranting than literal, makes sense. Dividing saka into 2 eras does not make much sense, especially since the EBO roster is very happy to incorporate "later era" units with older ones in other factions. In fact, I think if you really want to dig into Lazy's argument, it is very tenable. BUT I think to delve into that would mean that we get dangerously and fruitlessly sidetracked, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Plus, are there any historical sources which indicate that Saka did not have ANY HA (the light types) when they settled (what is proposed to be the "later era")? Certainly I would agree they might have been in a lower proportion (not 60-90% light HA anymore).

I would like to repeat the following to ellicit a response from Robin and GG2 who seem to have the most concerns re: saka. Robin, am I correct is saying the following from my earlier post?:

"...[Robin] said his main concern is that he wouldn’t know what kind of army he was up against [if his opponent was saka], an infantry based or cav based one. Perhaps we could implement something whereby any more than 7-10 infantry units would need to be declared as infantry based (rather than limiting which [combination of] units can be taken)? I hope I am not misunderstanding him when he said that this was a proposal worth considering when he said “stfu you idiot”."

I'd also love to hear GG2s concerns about saka.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-03-2011, 20:05

Well its somewhat possible to tell infantry based or cavalry based by looking at army numbers. However, there are numerous ways of disguising this, with units like Persian Archers being used to mask a cavalry heavy army. This would be my main concern though Shak, you are correct. Generally against Sauros you know you are facing a majority cavalry army since their factional infantry is, well, awful. And with Pahlava, you can deduce much the same thing although the infantry is now slightly better than it once was. With Saka, there is no need to pigeonhole yourself as a majority cavalry army. In fact, 50/50 seems somewhat logical for them with exceptions made on which factions you are facing.

gamegeek2

10-03-2011, 20:09

I think the point Lazy was making (about unit eras, not C. circle), whilst more symbolic/ranting than literal, makes sense

I hesitate to say this, but I am not at this moment prepared to take LazyO seriously, because I can hardly tell if he's trolling or not; he honestly is proposing to eliminate the Sweboz as a faction! Saba I can see an argument for, but the Sweboz?!?!? Certainly they need some sort of fix, but eliminate them?

...are there any historical sources which indicate that Saka did not have ANY HA (the light types) when they settled (what is proposed to be the "later era")?

This is a straw man. None of us are arguing that the late Saka should not be able to recruit light HA. What we want to place is a limit to promote historical army-building, either by disabling some of the Saka light HA units during the later era or placing a categorical limit on light horse archers. They'd be less available, but if a player wanted to take a good 6 or so of them that would be an option.

TheShakAttack

10-03-2011, 20:39

Hmm, interesting points GG2. I think I can understand you a bit better now. I think the best thing for me to do is to wait until I see what you are proposing and then comment- for all I know what I fear u may do might be v diff from ur actual plans.

I dont think Lazy seriously meant Sweboz and Saba should be eliminated (at least I hope not! lol!), I only meant his initial post has a grain of truth in it.

@Robin, as I said, personally, I have no problem with Saka having to declare if they are bringing more than a certain amount of infantry units so that the opponent is not caught off guard facing 15 infantry units; at least to try it out as a compromise and see if it works.

Lazy O

10-04-2011, 09:35

You can only have so much historical accuracy, if we push it to the max, like you seem to be focused on, then there is no point of having Saba or Sweboz . It was an example. How nice of you to dismiss it as trolling.

And Saka bringing 15 infantry units is highly unlikely. Even 10 is a gamble. If they do bring that many, you will have an instant advantage since Sakae infantry with the exception of the Indian Srenis are pathetic and only good at holding a line, not winning a battle.

gamegeek2

10-04-2011, 11:32

Actually, the Saba WOULD be significantly better if I could conjure a few historically accurate units out of thin air but I can't do that.

Are you honestly suggesting that we not maximize historical accuracy in the effectiveness of given units?

I apologize for my inclination to dismiss gramatically incorrect, punctuation-lacking posts with otherwise ridiculous content as trolling. This isn't Hamachi chat.

TheShakAttack

10-04-2011, 11:52

I think what he meant to say is that given the parameters we are working with in EB (not being able to add more units etc), let’s not be inconsistent and impose a limitation for saka under the guise of “historical accuracy” given that most other factions suffer under no such limitations. In other words, if “historical accuracy” is to be implemented in determining saka's army composition, it should be done uniformly and apply to all the factions equally. I do not think LazyO’s was aimed at any particular units.

I am more interested in seeing the proposals before discussing the issue above personally. When do you think the proposed rules/composition will be ready (no pressure, just asking for approx)?

TheShakAttack

10-04-2011, 11:54

And Saka bringing 15 infantry units is highly unlikely. Even 10 is a gamble. If they do bring that many, you will have an instant advantage since Sakae infantry with the exception of the Indian Srenis are pathetic and only good at holding a line, not winning a battle.

True. And let's not forget that you can only bring 2 srenis under duplication rules.

Lazy O

10-04-2011, 11:55

Yes, I much prefer hamachi chat. Why are you never on? And why are you still awake while posting that post? :D

The Celtic Viking

10-04-2011, 12:13

I think what he meant to say is that given the parameters we are working with in EB (not being able to add more units etc), let’s not be inconsistent and impose a limitation for saka under the guise of “historical accuracy” given that most other factions suffer under no such limitations.

Most others. The key word here is most, which means that some already do. In other words, it would not be inconsistent to impose such a limitation; in fact, it would be inconsistent not to.

Also, Gamegeek2, when will you come around to answering my questions?

TheShakAttack

10-04-2011, 12:49

Most others. The key word here is most, which means that some already do. In other words, it would not be inconsistent to impose such a limitation; in fact, it would be inconsistent not to.

Also, Gamegeek2, when will you come around to answering my questions?

Lol. I knew I should have clarified this in my post, but I did not want to do so since it would muddle the main issue. However, since you brought it up, I will clarify.

Since we’re getting all semantic, what you have written is inaccurate. In the example we are talking about:

The key word here is most, which means that some already do.

Agreed. Only one does though: Rome, which for reasons discussed earlier and I will discuss again below, is v diff from saka.

In other words, it would not be inconsistent to impose such a limitation

Not necessarily. It could still be inconsistent if it is inconsistently applied. If A, B, C and D should all be treated to a limitation, and only A and B are treated to it (C and D are not), it is still inconsistent.

in fact, it would be inconsistent not to

Not necessarily. Taking above example again, if A, B, C and D should all be treated to a limitation, and only A is treated to it right now, whilst B and C are not (and will not be), it is not inconsistent if D is not treated to limitation like A (given that B and C are not either).

Now, in above examples, A = Rome.

The only faction which has an era split (on EBO) is Rome. If you look at the Roman roster and the Saka Roster, you will notice how many more units Rome has than Saka. For obvious reasons, the EB team decided to use a lot of units to detail the evolution of Rome’s army. This has not been done, and cannot be done now with Saka.

Rome is basically in a league of its own. I do not think it is fair to compare Rome with other factions due to how purpose built their roster is, and the sheer range of units they have.

Other factions went through transformations/evolutions similar to Saka, but EBO rules do not require an era split for them. It is with these ppl that Saka should be compared to

I have already said all this TCV, thanks for making me waste time at work repeating it again :P

The Celtic Viking

10-04-2011, 15:28

Not necessarily. It could still be inconsistent if it is inconsistently applied. If A, B, C and D should all be treated to a limitation, and only A and B are treated to it (C and D are not), it is still inconsistent.

Yes, but it is only inconsistent in that C and D are not getting the treatment, so by arguing for consistency, you must argue for implementing this limitation on Saka. You're not, so either argue that Rome should not have the limitation, or drop the consistency argument altogether.

The only faction which has an era split (on EBO) is Rome. If you look at the Roman roster and the Saka Roster, you will notice how many more units Rome has than Saka. For obvious reasons, the EB team decided to use a lot of units to detail the evolution of Rome’s army. This has not been done, and cannot be done now with Saka.

Yes, it has been done with the Saka, just not to the same degree as for Rome. If it hadn't, we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place, since there wouldn't be any units to divide up: they'd already be from the same reform era.

Rome is basically in a league of its own. I do not think it is fair to compare Rome with other factions due to how purpose built their roster is, and the sheer range of units they have.

Then drop the consistency argument.

Other factions went through transformations/evolutions similar to Saka, but EBO rules do not require an era split for them. It is with these ppl that Saka should be compared to

No, I think the Saka reform is in a major way different than, say, the Gallic reform. The effect of the Gallic reforms is adding mail clad infantry and (recruitable) cavalry, removing certain units like Cidainh, Lugoae and Teceitos, but leaving the type of army very much the same. The Sakae reform is on the other hand more fundamental, giving access to heavy infantry which it did not possess before. That's very different, and a valid point for discrimination.

I have already said all this TCV, thanks for making me waste time at work repeating it again :P

In that case you were wrong then too, which I already pointed out, which means you wasted your own time. Now also mine. Thanks. :p

Edit: I should perhaps state my own position on this, which - as the True Swede I am - is quite neutral. If it is implemented, I could easily see the reasoning behind it. If it isn't, I'm fine with that as well, so long as they don't turn out OP, which as I've gathered is GG2 and BBSR's concerns here. All in all, I suppose I am an adherent of the view you've espoused here: try it without the limitation first and see if that does make them OP. If it does, then we can implement the limitation; if it does not, then from what I've gathered the push for this would be abandoned anyway.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-04-2011, 16:13

I'd agree with testing them first without the limitation as well. I just have the feeling that there may be problems which is why I am putting forth this idea along with GG2 so that if they do prove to be OP, then we will quickly have a solution on hand. Playtesting will be key of course.

gamegeek2

10-04-2011, 16:33

Also, Gamegeek2, when will you come around to answering my questions?

I'm sorry - which questions do you want me to answer? I'd go ahead and answer them, but I'm not on my home computer and don't have the time here to search through the thread and dig up what exactly that was.

The only faction which has an era split (on EBO) is Rome. If you look at the Roman roster and the Saka Roster, you will notice how many more units Rome has than Saka. For obvious reasons, the EB team decided to use a lot of units to detail the evolution of Rome’s army. This has not been done, and cannot be done now with Saka.

The fact that there were not many new units created does not mean that there isnt a fundamental change going on. I would interpret this decision by the EB team as a result of a severe lack of evidence for specific units in the Indo-Sakae and Indo-Hellenes compared with that for the Romans. Thus a few general units had to be created; units such as Indohellenic Peltastai and Hoplitai, which are the sort of general-purpose well-armored Hellenic troops common elsewhere.

Having a look at an excerpt from the Saka Heavy Hoplites' description:

Historically, when the Hellenic and the Steppe cultures and infrastructure met, adaptation ensued. The Hoplitai Hellenikon are one such adaptation; the natural result of the military traditions and designs of both. To the North of the Oxus, the Sakae hordes massed; clad in their superb armor, while to the South, the Hellenes prepared their ordered phalanx to meet the furious onslaught with cold discipline. When the Sakae did secure the settled cities of the Hellenes, many were able to maintain a great deal of their Greek culture and most retained the majority of their original population. Though now operating as the suzerain of these new possessions, many Sakae Kings chose to allow older Hellenic governors to retain local posts, permitting them to (to a certain extent) take advantage of the pre-existing Greek military infrastructure. Having wisely maintained the old systems, they could then draw on some of their Hellenic subjects as regular soldiers, calling on local Hellenic meridarchs or even the petty princelings or rajakumara of tiny hill kingdoms in the South-East to levy them on their behalf.

I have a hunch that anyone would interpret this as the following:

1. The Sakae clearly had a major transition from nomadic confederacy to hegemony over a population of largely 'civilized' people, who fielded heavy infantry for their armies.
2. There was a fusion of Saka and Hellenic tradition in the creation of this unit, thus producing a very heavily armored heavy hoplite infantryman.

Thus, the Hoplitai Hellenikon will be represented as a heavier, if more expensive, version of traditional hoplitai, with either less 'discipline' (resilience to morale shocks) or 'morale' (general resilience to routing) due to a lack of the sort of motivation that fighting for one's own city-state would inspire in a man.

TheShakAttack

10-04-2011, 16:43

Hahahaha.

On one hand, I completely agree with your conclusions. On the other hand, I like arguing for the sake of argument, so I will continue this discussion.

First of all, I think you misunderstood the argument re semantics (“ABCD”)- it was restricted to semantics only.

Secondly, I think you are comparing Rome’s “era” limitations inappropriately.

The central thrust is that you have to correctly identify which factions you should compare Saka against.

In the entire game, Rome is the only faction which can feasibly support a clear era division. The Roman roster has been designed to do this specifically by EB team. Further, for gameplay purposes, it is quite feasible due to the enormous (and high quality) roster Rome enjoys. There are no other factions who can support an era division as comfortably as Rome. Their roster has not been purposefully designed. I hope I am not being rude in stating this is obvious. Rome stands in a league of its own and cannot be compared to other factions in terms of ability to support era division.

If you could make new units to add units to Saka’s roster (so as to allow the division into eras to be less painful), then it would be acceptable. But this can’t be done.

What we have instead, is a plethora of other factions who experienced different “eras/evolutions” within the EB time period. Gallic factions, Sweboz, Pahlava, Hayasdan and to a minor extent Sweboz, Carthage and AS. Now, these are the factions Saka should be compared to. Saka roster’s ability to support a division in era is far closer to these factions than Rome. The approach in making rules for these factions should form the basis of how Saka is dealt with (NOT Rome).

If Saka era divide is to be implemented: implement similar restrictions on these factions. If it is historical accuracy one is striving for, then Pahlava, Hayasdan, Gallic factions should suffer under that as well etc. For instance, in your example above, if a Gallic faction is bringing mail clad infantry and the recruitable cav, you should not be allowed to bring in tecitos. But to go to such an extent would be overbearing and unduly restrictive.

Regarding the other point you bring up, about saka getting access to heavy infantry- ive dealt with this earlier, so I wont go into it again.

EDIT: This post is stricly in reply to TCV's post. I didn't see GG2s post right before mine, so it does not refer to him when it says "you".

vartan

10-04-2011, 17:01

There is heavy theoretical debate going on right now. So all you Karl Marxes and Young Hegelians, when wilst thou begin the practical side of actually field testing to see what seems intuitively better in practice? o.0 far-fetched suggestion of mine, or perhaps what I would do had I all the time in the world...

EDIT: Other than Rome, which factions of ours actually went country-wide military reforms? I don't know of any. There were changes, of course, and EB team has implemented these. But don't wrongly misinterpret these as systematic military reforms by the state. Life went on as usual. Outside of the SPQR, it was usually a matter of adding on or revising what was fielded before. So perhaps in that sense I wouldn't go so far as division of eras. But that's just more theory! Now, with a division-less Saka...why so worried? Just do some field testing and discover the strategy against them.

The Celtic Viking

10-04-2011, 17:43

I'm sorry, Shak (or is that Marx/Hegels? :p), but when I have GG2's attention that takes priority. I hope you can understand. :p

I'm sorry - which questions do you want me to answer? I'd go ahead and answer them, but I'm not on my home computer and don't have the time here to search through the thread and dig up what exactly that was.

Well, I'll go from memory here:

1) Why were the Ordmalica (Goidilic two-handed hammer guys) taken out of the game?

2) The Germanic levies cost very slightly less than Illyrian levies, but are significantly superior. (+2 attack, +3 defence, +3 morale and better stamina.) This despite them also having the same number of men in their units. Is this really correct? If so, how?

3) Gaelaiche are identical to Gaeroas, in cost and stat, except that Gaeroas have a better charge and a longer jav range. Is this correct? It used to be that the Gaelaiche were slightly superior but also slightly more expensive.

4) Golberi Curoas are identical in stats to Bataroas, but still cost 1503 (IIRC) while the latter cost 1472 (again, IIRC). Did you forget to lower their cost? (To anyone who may wonder: this question is very old; indeed, I think it dates back to the very first version of 3.0. The Bataroas/Golberi Curoas had their stats decreased and made identical, but only Bataroas became cheaper.)

5) Is the EDU documentation kept up-to-date? I have come to the conclusion that it is not, but I might as well ask again for confirmation.

Those are it, I guess. However, I can add a few new ones as well, since you've gotten my hopes up (~;)):

6) This new Bosphoran faction within the Sauromatae faction you're planning, what would their general's unit be?

7) In this note, why did some general's bodyguard unit lose their eagles while others retained them?

8) On that note (yeah, I just keep on going!), why did Uirodusios lose their eagles?

That's all I can think of for now. I think. I'll get back if I come up with any more. :wink3:

Oh, and @Vartan: the Saka roster hasn't been finished, so we can't do any field experiments with them yet. That's why we've kept it on the theoretical battlefield.

Lazy O

10-04-2011, 19:24

@Gamegeek2; I think fighting for ones life is motivation enough. Since these are not some random levies picked up and thrown into battle without any preparation whatsoever. Are the normal greek hoplites not fighting for some random general they could not care less about?

gamegeek2

10-04-2011, 22:02

Arjos

10-04-2011, 22:45

About eagles, wouldn't foot nobles or agema or royal guards inspire troops?

antisocialmunky

10-04-2011, 23:43

I dunno, foot guards didn't keep the rest of the army from cheesing it at Pydna.

Arjos

10-04-2011, 23:57

Or just to show that gone the elite, the rest goes bananas :P

vartan

10-05-2011, 02:12

Or just to show that gone the elite, the rest goes bananas :P
That's the problem. We wouldn't want instant losses upon rout of the elite. I'm grossly not expanding on this right now, but in terms of gameplay, we don't want this to happen. I know because I formerly was wondering why elite military units amongst all factions weren't given eagles. This is why I wouldn't give them eagles.

Arjos

10-05-2011, 02:19

It would still make sense, historically speaking, but yes can see the "officers sniping" spoiling the game...

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-05-2011, 03:32

7. Which ones lost their eagles?

8. Why should Uirodusios have an eagle? It's a bunch of naked fanatics - scary opponents, but I don't think they'd inspire you on much, like a general would.

Gallic generals are missing the eagle.

As far as Uirodusios and eagles, I believe that seeing members of your own tribe willing to fight naked was considered by the Gauls a great sign of bravery and inspired them to fight on as they would want to match their comrades. This is different from the Gaesatae who were from a separate tribe and were hired as mercenaries by Gallic leaders.

antisocialmunky

10-05-2011, 04:27

Does anyone know what the crap warcry even does?

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-05-2011, 05:08

Does anyone know what the crap warcry even does?

I think it gives an attack bonus for about 15-20 seconds. Not really the most powerful thing especially since the two units that received it are both magnets for archer fire and would do well to not remain exposed for the duration of the cry.

The Celtic Viking

10-05-2011, 08:04

1. The Ordmalica were, it seemed, a rather gross inaccuracy, much as the Merjoz of old. One could argue the same for several of the Goidilic units, but I decided, for now, just to remove one offender.

2. The Germanic levies are intended to be significantly superior to any other levy with comparable equipment - as are the celtic ones. I may make the Illyrian levies stronger, good thought.

4. I think I intended for the mercenary version to be more expensive, but this wasn't done systematically, so I should probably change it.

5. The documentation is mostly up-to-date. I intend to expand upon it in later updates.

6. I'd probably give the new Bosporan faction either the Aeldary Ambaltae (albeit with unit size re-reduce) or perhaps I'll give the Hellenistic Mercenary General better stats, the standard general unit size, and other perks and make that their bodyguard.

Thank you.

3. As of right now, the Gaeroas have better charge and javelin range while the Gaelaiche have better morale. I think I differentiated them this way arbitrarily just to make them different, when I should just make them identical to each other; or, even better, I could get a better proposal from one of you guys (which is what I really want).

Is this a change you made with the very last update? It was not so when I (originally) asked that question, but maybe that's changed. I'll check it again later today. Personally I think we should keep the Gaelaiche slightly superior to the Gaeroas, as they are reform units from Transalpine Gaul while the Gaeroas are "basic" Cisalpine Gauls.

Perhaps making Gaeroas better able to skirmish (i.e., not make them outright skirmishers, but better at filling in that role) while the Gaelaiche are better melee fighters is a reasonable distinction. This because the Gaeroas' description outright says they can be used as "impromptu skirmishers" - while already true, they could be made superior to other units like it. It's an idea.

7. Which ones lost their eagles?

The Brihentin have, as Robin said, lost their eagles. I *think* the Somatophylakes Strategou also have. I can check out more completely later today.

Edit: no, the SS were fixed now; only Brihentin generals still lack eagles of the "playable" factions.

8. Why should Uirodusios have an eagle? It's a bunch of naked fanatics - scary opponents, but I don't think they'd inspire you on much, like a general would.

I think Robin's correct, but I can't help think that it has something to do with the Uirodusios' association with Casse as well. Their rampant hero worship, and general fighting doctrine, seems to indicate to me that someone fighting naked would be one of such leaders in their army, rather than one of the followers.

Arjos

10-05-2011, 11:06

I wanted to ask, purely on a technological side, were the Kretikoi bows so advanced? Shouldn't they be quite inferior compared to eastern and steppe ones?

Tuuvi

10-06-2011, 02:11

According to my quick research, the Cretans used horn composite bows similar to what the Scythians, etc. were using. So the answer is no. Here's a reproduction of a Cretan bow I found, but I think it's from before the EB time frame. http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/19534

Arjos

10-06-2011, 02:28

Cheers!
So in a way Krete was the westernmost hub of eastern archery tech, with a ready to take mercenary pool; had some talks whether their fame was mostly related to their melee capabilities, giving them a plus over any regular western psiloi, or actual ballistic...
Thanks again :)

antisocialmunky

10-06-2011, 04:33

Crete: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

vartan

10-06-2011, 06:18

Crete: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
This.

And oh I didn't know Crete was taking in eastern archery technology. I thought it was independently developed. Thanks for clearing that up for me Arjos. You're the man!

Ludens

10-06-2011, 08:34

Interesting. I did wonder about the Cretan bows.

So in a way Krete was the westernmost hub of eastern archery tech, with a ready to take mercenary pool; had some talks whether their fame was mostly related to their melee capabilities, giving them a plus over any regular western psiloi, or actual ballistic...

There is a factor other than bow-technology or melee skill that could explain the reputation of Cretan archers: aggression and tactical skill. For example: Napoleon's light infantry didn't use special muskets or engage in close-combat fighting more often than other skirmishers, but they were very effective. This was the result of aggressive deployment and good leadership; I read that their marksmanship skills were actually poor.

Also, the TW games restrict the fighting to large-scale battles, but especially light troops would spend most of their time patrolling, skirmishing or raiding. Better bows or more accurate rifles won't make a great difference in these situations, since the enemy will often get too close for them to matter. Aggression and clever deployment are the deciding factors here.

This cannot be properly simulated on the TW engine, though.

TheShakAttack

10-06-2011, 10:46

Hey

Interesting discussion. I wanted to see what others said before I weighed in.

As far as I know, Cretans used composite bows which were not recurved (as many of the steppe peoples used) made out of locally available materials. Whilst these composite bows were more powerful than the self bows used by the vast majority of mainland Greeks, they would not be as powerful as the composites used further east or in the Steppe. It is very likely that they picked up some of the knowledge on bow-making from these regions, though there is nothing to indicate that they could replicate the same quality of bows. Even though they used composites, obviously not all composites are made equal (due to variations in materials, technology, know-how, etc). Even is the East and Steppe regions, there were significant variations in quality- a good quality bow could take upto 10 years to make (aging/gluing materials etc).

Just a quick note on the earlier link. Whilst it is incredibly interesting, the author of that post does not make his sources clear, nor which time period the bow he used refers to. I am generally reluctant to rely on such material.

The only source I have been able to find which speaks of Cretan bow range (Anabasis by Xenophon) explains that the Cretans were not able to match the range of Persian slingers or archers. Do keep in mind that Xenophon wrote earlier than the EB time period, though by this time, the Greeks had exchanges with Scythians (and would presumably have had an opportunity for trade and exchange of knowledge).

I am very inclined to agree with Ludens in his assessment of Cretan archers- namely that the reason for their renown is due to their aggression, ability to understand and follow orders and high morale rather than their prowess as marksmen or the power of their bows. Being scumbags also gives them that distinctive touch :).

Though this is purely conjecture, I think another reason for their frequent use and mention may well be because they were the only decent archers that the earlier Greeks, and most civilisations west of them, would have access to. By the time of Diadochi and late republic Rome, they already established a “brand name”. Plus, they would have been easier to integrate into a Western/Hellenic army (due to common language, culture and ethos) than say a band of Scythians or Persians.

I have always thought that a significant, unsubstantiated bias was given in favour of Cretan Archers in EB (strictly) in terms of their bow range and attack; and lately, accuracy. I think they should be inferior to Eastern and Steppe archers (even the medium-quality ones) in terms of range, attack. Accuracy should be same-ish as medium-quality, and slighly higher than persian levies. Melee and armor should remain the same though. They were noted as being crazy in melee and relatively heavily armoured.

Lazy O

10-06-2011, 12:45

All hail the Shak. Making long posts so I dont have to. Yay

Arjos

10-06-2011, 13:22

Interesting. I did wonder about the Cretan bows.

I wasn't much thinking about accuracy, as with such big numbers in battle something is to get hit...
But rather penetration and missile speed, then yes I agree that battlefield awareness must have been a nice addition, not to mention they spoke greek, which must have been a plus considering the employing "nations"...

vartan

10-06-2011, 17:08

So we wait and pray for gg2 to correct the Kretan monsters? Bahahah. Bosphorans remain the top dog then, eh? Those Greeks in the East must have learned quickly then!

Lazy O

10-06-2011, 17:11

I dont believe they were greeks, who says they were greeks? Isnt it much more probable that they were Scythians?

And what happened to your presentation?

-Stormrage-

10-06-2011, 17:47

I found a cheap way to win, a very cheap exploit . replay (http://www.mediafire.com/?saeplbzlyqyd1h7)

Who needs archers just get all infantry and some cav . and even if the guy you go up agaisnt brings archers and slingers he wont do anything .

vartan

10-06-2011, 18:26

I dont believe they were greeks, who says they were greeks? Isnt it much more probable that they were Scythians?

And what happened to your presentation?

The Greeks colonized from Iberia to the Black Sea. :book2:

It had great reception. People asked many questions about EB, and I answered the best I could. If only presentation could be dedicated to the multiplayer aspect alone!

Lazy O

10-06-2011, 18:57

Sure they colonized, but how do you know they were great enough archers that we justify their place as the best in the game? If it were scythians I would be fine with it but....

Arjos

10-06-2011, 19:10

Sure they colonized, but how do you know they were great enough archers that we justify their place as the best in the game? If it were scythians I would be fine with it but....

Much like the mercenaries reaching Pontos during the Anabasis, didn't see the people living in the colonies as "fully Greeks"; so it was in all the other areas so far from Hellas (due to political or geographical matters)...
It wasn't a black or white thing, it was all grey...

gamegeek2

10-06-2011, 20:21

I dont believe they were greeks, who says they were greeks? Isnt it much more probable that they were Scythians?

And what happened to your presentation?

Ah, now I understand why you don't like historical accuracy as a stat system's basis!

Anyways, I like the interpretation of Cretans' effectiveness put forward by Shak and Ludens. This would leave Bosporans and Elite Dacians as the only expensive foot archer units, assuming we reduced Cretans' accuracy and cost to tier 2 levels.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-06-2011, 20:38

I'm in favor of this as well, if only because so many factions can get Cretans, it makes it difficult to determine who will go archer heavy. Also making Cretans somewhat cheaper gives factions like Makedonia better missile options since it can be hard to build a decent army with them and not end up taking psioli units as your only missiles.

antisocialmunky

10-06-2011, 22:12

So basically Cretans are like peltastai with a bow?

TheShakAttack

10-06-2011, 23:19

So we wait and pray for gg2 to correct the Kretan monsters? Bahahah. Bosphorans remain the top dog then, eh? Those Greeks in the East must have learned quickly then!

It's likely that a large number of the "Greeks" you mention would either be of mixed race or ehtnically Scythians due to heavy Scythian settlement. Secondly, the access to the more powerful bows would be much, much greater as many Scythians lived in these Greek colonies and they were bordered by Steppe tribes. Lastly, they would really be forced to adopt the more effective bows and train archers to fend off raids by steppe tribes. So whilst Cretans trained for the sake of being mercinaries, these guys would need to train for the sake of defending against horse archers etc. In other words, their need for archery was more urgent; their access to superior bows greater.

Sure they colonized, but how do you know they were great enough archers that we justify their place as the best in the game? If it were scythians I would be fine with it but....

I kind of agree with this in the sense that I think a lot of eastern/steppe foot archers should have attack/range/accuracy at the highest level (equal to bosphorans); however thats not the same thing as saying they are the best archer unit (since bosphorans have heavy armor, they can resist arrow fire much better). This will also work in favor of Cretans.

This would leave Bosporans and Elite Dacians as the only expensive foot archer units, assuming we reduced Cretans' accuracy and cost to tier 2 levels.

I don't think their nerfing should be limited to accuracy, it should also include bow range and attack (not a huge nerf, but significant enough). I also do not think their cost should be decreased too significantly, since they were mercs, and would be pretty expensive to hire (apart from KH factional units maybe). They were also in relatively low numbers. Basically, the same logic as applied to Baelaeric slingers should apply to them as well...low unit numbers, relative higher cost than factional units.

To balance it out historically, I'd say maybe take away cav fighting penalty and increase morale by 1 (they were after all crazy mofos...sorry for language, thought it was appropriate tho :) ).

To be honest, I am not sure why Dacian elites are so powerful, but since I know little of history there, I won't venture any opinions, though I would be happy if someone could point me to a source about them (Dacian archers) so I could learn more. I guess since they lived in such close proximity to Scythians, it is logical they needed to develop units similar to Bosphorans as anti HA units and foot archer units.

On this topic, shouldn't toxotai syrakoi be a bit more powerful given that unit description says they are heavily armored (maybe they should be on same level as bosphorans?) and have better range/bow attack than they do right now(powerful large composite bows). Once again, dont know much about these guys- just going on unit description here. Though they would certainly have access to great armories and composite bows.

So basically Cretans are like peltastai with a bow?

Kind of, except they used more expensive equipment (composite bow and arrows) and should be a medium-quality (in terms of archery) unit.

antisocialmunky

10-07-2011, 00:22

A 1600 missile unit would be pretty good. I think.

Also I'm going to put forward a request to take scary off nakeds and catas and increase charge. I think the scary effect should only be reserved for chariots and elephants. The range of scary is just too large right now.

I'm also going to request that lighter cavalry units be given faster animations if possible. Currently all cavalry still run at the same speed so catching catas with even the lightest armed cavalry is basically impossible. :|

TheShakAttack

10-07-2011, 00:51

Also I'm going to put forward a request to take scary off nakeds and catas and increase charge. I think the scary effect should only be reserved for chariots and elephants. The range of scary is just too large right now.

If this is going to get implemented.....I don't think all chariots should be scary. They were incredibly outdated by EB timerange. Scythed chariots might be the exception....

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-07-2011, 01:42

All I can think is good luck playing Casse without scary chariots or nakeds. Druids only get you so far.

TheShakAttack

10-07-2011, 01:45

All I can think is good luck playing Casse without scary chariots or nakeds. Druids only get you so far.

And good luck playing Saka split into 2 eras :P

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

vartan

10-07-2011, 02:12

Sure they colonized, but how do you know they were great enough archers that we justify their place as the best in the game? If it were scythians I would be fine with it but....

Enough of this mistake of imposing modern notions of West vs East, race, ethnicity and others on the past. Stick to the :book2: and the digs. Deal with the contemporary context, not the out-of-place.

gamegeek2

10-07-2011, 02:38

So basically Cretans are like peltastai with a bow?

I find that a funny comment, because Cretans actually fielded excellent Peltastai as well as Toxotai!

It's likely that a large number of the "Greeks" you mention would either be of mixed race or ehtnically Scythians due to heavy Scythian settlement. Secondly, the access to the more powerful bows would be much, much greater as many Scythians lived in these Greek colonies and they were bordered by Steppe tribes. Lastly, they would really be forced to adopt the more effective bows and train archers to fend off raids by steppe tribes. So whilst Cretans trained for the sake of being mercinaries, these guys would need to train for the sake of defending against horse archers etc. In other words, their need for archery was more urgent; their access to superior bows greater.

Essentially; the dominant elements of the Bosporan population would be largely composed of Greeks, Thracians, and wealthy Scythian colonists. Likely elements of all of these would be present in the archer units, and almost certainly intermarriage was common. Nonetheless, the Greek culture was by far the dominant one, as shown in the language used for day-to-day affairs. Militarily, however, the Scythian elements were extremely important. Not only were numerous Scythian allies used, but many of the wealthier Bosporan citizens equipped themselves as well-armored horse archers with bow, lance, sword, and scale armor. Sadly we don't have any such Bosporan Cavalry in EB. The foot archer in Greek-style armor and wielding a Scythian bow and typically a spear (not a long sword, which would mainly be a cavalry weapon) would also be a very important part of the army. In addition, the Bosporans' hoplites (mainly in the earlier part of the Hellenistic period), being quite wealthy in general, would often wear metal cuirasses of some sort; either muscled or scale, with scale-reinforced linothorax being probably the minimal amount of armor they'd wear.

I kind of agree with this in the sense that I think a lot of eastern/steppe foot archers should have attack/range/accuracy at the highest level (equal to bosphorans); however thats not the same thing as saying they are the best archer unit (since bosphorans have heavy armor, they can resist arrow fire much better). This will also work in favor of Cretans.

So, the proposition is that Bosporans should be first among equals, rather than in a class of their own? The danger I see in this is that this makes factions like Pontos easily win the missile duel without spending significantly more than their opponents on archery troops. Should I just implement this anyways and see how it works out?

On this topic, shouldn't toxotai syrakoi be a bit more powerful given that unit description says they are heavily armored (maybe they should be on same level as bosphorans?) and have better range/bow attack than they do right now(powerful large composite bows). Once again, dont know much about these guys- just going on unit description here. Though they would certainly have access to great armories and composite bows.

The Toxotai Syriakoi are well armored, but recall that they aren't professionals, rather they are more of a 'pressed' unit, one fighting for a foreign master. They currently function as one of the more important archer units available to the Seleukids, Ptolemaioi, and Hayk so I don't really see a problem with them as of now. Their bows aren't really any better than those of the Persians.

I'm also going to request that lighter cavalry units be given faster animations if possible. Currently all cavalry still run at the same speed so catching catas with even the lightest armed cavalry is basically impossible. :|

What are you talking about???

antisocialmunky

10-07-2011, 04:28

The speeds of cavalry have always been a problem but it is especially problematic with scaraphracts. It doesn't matter what the cavalry is, it is basically impossible for 1 cavalry unit to catch another cavalry until unless the lighter cavalry is a very fast fresh unit.

I think it would also be interesting if you made mercenaries generally slightly better and more expensive (they can afford to grow beards) than their normal counterparts. Mercenaries often had quite a bit more money and experience than the normal middle class guy who fights only when they need to.

vartan

10-07-2011, 06:05

I think it would also be interesting if you made mercenaries generally slightly better and more expensive (they can afford to grow beards) than their normal counterparts. Mercenaries often had quite a bit more money and experience than the normal middle class guy who fights only when they need to.

Really guys? :dizzy2:

Why do you want to test out normalizing Bosporans gg2? Why don't you leave them in a class of their own? Makes it an interesting and unique investment if you ask me.

-Stormrage-

10-07-2011, 08:42

Also I'm going to put forward a request to take scary off nakeds and catas and increase charge. I think the scary effect should only be reserved for chariots and elephants. The range of scary is just too large right now.

ASM doesnt like scary, and wants as few units as possible to get scary becuase scary is the weakness of his faction rome. the weakness of rome is Scaries everyone knows that. The only reason that you give is "range of scary is too long" a player who doesnt use scaries would say this is bad. a player who does use scaries would consider this good.

TheShakAttack

10-07-2011, 08:47

ASM doesnt like scary, and wants as few units as possible to get scary becuase scary is the weakness of his faction rome. the weakness of rome is Scaries everyone knows that. The only reason that you give is "range of scary is too long" a player who doesnt use scaries would say this is bad. a player who does use scaries would consider this good.

I'm in a rush so I cant respond to other posts, but storm, ASM's faction is not Rome. If you played as often as you complained, you'd see that :P

Lazy O

10-07-2011, 08:49

Leave the Bosporans as they are, they already cost 2.1k and arrows do not scratch shielded infantry.

And I think speeds have something to do with the unit model (iirc) so I do not think gg2 has the time to change all of them.

-Stormrage-

10-07-2011, 08:53

The speeds of cavalry have always been a problem but it is especially problematic with scaraphracts. It doesn't matter what the cavalry is, it is basically impossible for 1 cavalry unit to catch another cavalry until unless the lighter cavalry is a very fast fresh unit.

I agree 100% . but i think its impossible making the animation faster. Ive talked to gg about this, I cant rememebr what he said.
and there is another problem is that it takes time for cav to catch up to running infantry. Cav speed is just marginally faster

antisocialmunky

10-07-2011, 14:22

Yeah, I figured but it is completely annoying especially if they are sporting the scary ability since they just need to be near by to apply scary. They already do morale damage by just being behind your units.

TheShakAttack

10-07-2011, 17:48

Standing close with scaries is how most ppl use scary units. Though there might be something to say about the large radius it affects, I think this is quite justifiable. Plus, standing close but not engaging is how barb fear units are usually used (except Gaesatae). Fear is a very psychological thing, and the mere sight of things like eles and catas are likely to affect the average trooper.

Re: Bosphorans, I think lets try them out as they are. They are not particularly cheap (though an excellent bargain as they double as melee units). We can always tweak later if they turn out to make Pontos too OP.

Re: Persian bows- they should be just as powerful as steppe bows iirc. Certainly their proximity to steppe peoples, the fact that Persian warfare historically relied upon archery heavily, and that many Persian dynasties has steppe-ish origins would indicate so. Though this is merely conjecture, it would be like how the Romans adopted the Gladius, which was in its early form an iberian weapon. Romans liked sharp pointy things, saw that the gladius was excellent for packed troops to use in close combat and upgraded their own weapons to suit.

Am I wrong to think this re persian bows? Are there any sources on this to prove otherwise?

Lazy O

10-07-2011, 20:05

You are right.

From the top of my head if I put it rougly

Aryans=Persians=Scythians=Sarmatians=Iranians=Whatever

vartan

10-07-2011, 23:18

Wow. More of the same modern nonsense. This is getting more exciting as the days go on.

TheShakAttack

10-07-2011, 23:29

Wow. More of the same modern nonsense. This is getting more exciting as the days go on.

Are you referring to me or Lazy?

antisocialmunky

10-08-2011, 00:17

I just refer to Armenians as Vartans.

I'd also just like to point out that step archer size is still tiny...

Kival

10-08-2011, 00:44

Are you referring to me or Lazy?

Lazy. He's mixing up modern terms of nationality and ancient cultures. I also had some impulse to ask if he really wants to base his criteria for marksmanship on genetics after his last post.

vartan

10-08-2011, 05:09

gamegeek2

10-08-2011, 05:19

You are right.

From the top of my head if I put it rougly

Aryans=Persians=Scythians=Sarmatians=Iranians=Whatever

Well, technically the language of the first branched into that of the fifth, which branched into that of the second, third, and fourth.

Once again, it surprises me little that you dislike historical accuracy as a basis for balancing stats.

I have...erm, other work to do this weekend, so don't expect an EDU update till the second half of October rolls, or perhaps not until the end.

Lazy O

10-08-2011, 06:20

Lazy. He's mixing up modern terms of nationality and ancient cultures. I also had some impulse to ask if he really wants to base his criteria for marksmanship on genetics after his last post.

Hmm, I cant really say, but the general conception is that the Easterns trained with the bow since they were children, and hence, "should" be much better than anything else, Cretans included, note, I am not referring to bosporans, as I think they are fine as is, my only issue is with the machine gunning cretans which are somehow better than any eastern archer unit bar the Bosporans.

@GG2; What are you talking about? Since when did I say we should not be using history as a base for stats? Besides the cretans I have not even been talking about stats. Oh and, Indian Archers need a buff, they were a class of professional soldiers trained from birth to fight.

And the thing I posted before, It actually has no order, I just said that all of them are more or less the same people.

vartan

10-08-2011, 06:51

Hmm, I cant really say, but the general conception is that the Easterns trained with the bow since they were children, and hence, "should" be much better than anything else, Cretans included, note, I am not referring to bosporans, as I think they are fine as is, my only issue is with the machine gunning cretans which are somehow better than any eastern archer unit bar the Bosporans.
Right and Westerners trained with the Nintendo so they should be "much better" gamers? :laugh4:

Nice.

EDIT: Please don't post any claims about history if you don't have a respectable idea of what you will be posting. Thank you.

Lazy O

10-08-2011, 06:58

Tell Herodotus. Im not saying that :P

----

Come on hamachi, I know youre not doing anything right now.

vartan

10-08-2011, 08:05

Tell Herodotus. Im not saying that :P

----

Come on hamachi, I know youre not doing anything right now.

You do not need to know what I'm doing right now. Herodotus is problematic, to make a great understatement with regards to historiography. I'm not going to lecture you, this is an EDU-related thread.

Lazy O

10-08-2011, 08:18

Why? I like your overly philosophic lectures. Really :2thumbsup:

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-08-2011, 15:15

Arjos

10-08-2011, 17:19

Speaking of archers, why KH doesn't have the thureopherontes?

Lazy O

10-08-2011, 18:15

Why should they?

Arjos

10-08-2011, 18:20

You mean that an inland anatolian faction, who took 170+ years to get to the bosphorus, has more credit than the motherland of such colonies, who kept trading and friendship relations with them?

Lazy O

10-08-2011, 18:25

Do they own the bosporus at the game start? And I dont support Pontus having them either. All I know is, the greeks had them before, but they were removed.

Arjos

10-08-2011, 18:29

Own it no, but they had an alliance with Athens...

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-08-2011, 18:33

I still find it ironic that the KH, the most backwards in terms of military advancement faction in the game, ends up being the most cosmopolitan because one coalition of two greek cities has been expanded to include greek colonies all over the mediterranean.

gamegeek2

10-08-2011, 19:29

Own it no, but they had an alliance with Athens...

The colonies of the Bosporan kingdom were founded by Miletos (Pantikapaion), Herakleia Pontika (Chersonesos Taurike), and the fleeing citizens of Teos (Phanagoria) and by now they were part of an independent Hellenic kingdom anyways.

TheShakAttack

10-08-2011, 19:40

TheShakAttack

10-08-2011, 19:48

Herodotus is a problem, but he is also one of the only glimpses we have into the non-Greek world before Xenophon shows up. I wouldn't believe all that much that he says as he is prone to exaggeration and is not a first hand observer much of the time, however there are likely grains of truth in just about everything he says, we just have to sift through and pick out the facts from the fiction.

We all know the line that Persians are taught three things from youth: to shoot a bow, to ride a horse, and to speak the truth. Well this probably applies only to the Persian nobility first off as most people would not own horses. As such, it is not necessarily true that the general levy (i.e. Persian Archers/Archer Spearmen) would be trained in using the bow any more than a western levy of Celtic Archers. Obviously there was a tradition of archery in Persia that did not exist in the West so bows were a more prevalent weapon in warfare, therefore the Persians come in larger sizes. Also, they had access to superior bows and therefore they have better range. However, it does not necessarily make them any more accurate with that weapon as individuals.

The Heavy Persian Archers may be a more professional fighting force though I am unsure of this and would defer to others. However, they are already represented as such in game so no problems there.

Sorry for double post. This is a very good post and I would agree with this with the exception of 1 point.

1) I think the levy persian archer accuracy should basically be a bit better than celtic levy archer accuracy. It's like how gaul and germania raises decent quality melee troops as levy. These melee levy troops, would not be able to beat the more expensive persian infantry (like babylonian spearmen), but, they provide decent stats for their cost compared to other factions.

Secondly, it was my understanding that stats were based on weapons used, and in the case of archers, this would attack and range. In this, I would imagine the persians levy unit would have good stats. I am not saying they do not already as I have not looked at them in any detail. I will do so and get back to you guys.

Lastly, I think this is a good point and is imp that it gets highlighted:

"The Heavy Persian Archers may be a more professional fighting force though I am unsure of this and would defer to others. However, they are already represented as such in game so no problems there"

I feel their bows are pretty sucky (range and attack).

Arjos

10-08-2011, 19:59

The colonies of the Bosporan kingdom were founded by Miletos (Pantikapaion), Herakleia Pontika (Chersonesos Taurike), and the fleeing citizens of Teos (Phanagoria) and by now they were part of an independent Hellenic kingdom anyways.

Weren't the Spartokidai very close with Athens?

vartan

10-08-2011, 20:39

Brave et al are prime examples of how pervasive and prevalent the Greco-Roman perversion of the east remains to this very day. How could one forget the great arduous work undertaken by historians and others in the past decades (and century) on native sources within the near east... Old Persian. Akkadian. Aramaic. Babylonian dialect Akkadian. And so much more. Josef Wiesehöfer does a good job of pointing this out in his Ancient Persia...

gamegeek2

10-08-2011, 20:46

Sorry for double post. This is a very good post and I would agree with this with the exception of 1 point.

1) I think the levy persian archer accuracy should basically be a bit better than celtic levy archer accuracy. It's like how gaul and germania raises decent quality melee troops as levy. These melee levy troops, would not be able to beat the more expensive persian infantry (like babylonian spearmen), but, they provide decent stats for their cost compared to other factions.

Secondly, it was my understanding that stats were based on weapons used, and in the case of archers, this would attack and range. In this, I would imagine the persians levy unit would have good stats. I am not saying they do not already as I have not looked at them in any detail. I will do so and get back to you guys.

Lastly, I think this is a good point and is imp that it gets highlighted:

"The Heavy Persian Archers may be a more professional fighting force though I am unsure of this and would defer to others. However, they are already represented as such in game so no problems there"

I feel their bows are pretty sucky (range and attack).

Stats are based on both the man and the weapons he wields. The Celtic archers are often drawn from hunters, whereas I believe the Persians are drawn from a more agrarian population. That's why the Celtic archers have better accuracy but worse bows and smaller numbers. While the Persians' numbers are typically exaggerated by Greek sources, the Iranian folks from which the "Persian Archers" of EB are drawn are from rather numerous nations. The Sassanid Empire at its greatest extent is estimated to have controlled more than 1/3 of the world's population; the Achaemenid, 20%.

Heavy Persians are quite good, the only modification I would consider for them is +5 ammo.

TheShakAttack

10-08-2011, 21:13

Why is the range lower for persian archers (archer spearmen, levies, and heavies) than steppe and dacian bows though?

vartan

10-08-2011, 22:56

Why is the range lower for persian archers (archer spearmen, levies, and heavies) than steppe and dacian bows though?

Lowest to highest range IMO would be Persian Archer-Spearmen, Persian Archers, and Persian Heavy Archers. Only the heavy archers would approach Dacio-steppe ranges. Sound about right?

TheShakAttack

10-08-2011, 23:58

Lowest to highest range IMO would be Persian Archer-Spearmen, Persian Archers, and Persian Heavy Archers. Only the heavy archers would approach Dacio-steppe ranges. Sound about right?

Sounds correct, but i meant what is the historical basis esp compared to Dacian bows. Persian composites were just as good afaik.

At a very cursory glance I found these links (they do not show much, nor am I relying on these solely):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perso-Parthian_bow

http://www.salukibow.com/28.html

Tuuvi

10-09-2011, 01:09

Just a quick note on the earlier link. Whilst it is incredibly interesting, the author of that post does not make his sources clear, nor which time period the bow he used refers to. I am generally reluctant to rely on such material.

Yea the main reason I posted the link was because it was interesting, I didn't expect it to show exactly what a Cretan bow would've looked like. The bowyer said he had a difficult time finding sources. As for the time period someone posting in reply mentioned the Mycenean era so I'm guessing that's when it's from.

Re: Persian bows- they should be just as powerful as steppe bows iirc. Certainly their proximity to steppe peoples, the fact that Persian warfare historically relied upon archery heavily, and that many Persian dynasties has steppe-ish origins would indicate so. Though this is merely conjecture, it would be like how the Romans adopted the Gladius, which was in its early form an iberian weapon. Romans liked sharp pointy things, saw that the gladius was excellent for packed troops to use in close combat and upgraded their own weapons to suit.

Am I wrong to think this re persian bows? Are there any sources on this to prove otherwise?

I know a little bit about archery mechanics and physics and I agree. The steppe peoples and the Persians both used recurved composite bows, so I see no reason why they would perform differently. Sure not all composite designs are created equal and some are better than others, but the difference in performance wouldn't be enough to change their effectiveness in combat, in my opinion. Plus performance can vary between bows of the same design, so when you get hundreds of composite bows massed together the difference evens out.

vartan

10-09-2011, 01:11

Sounds correct, but i meant what is the historical basis esp compared to Dacian bows. Persian composites were just as good afaik.

At a very cursory glance I found these links (they do not show much, nor am I relying on these solely):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perso-Parthian_bow

http://www.salukibow.com/28.html

Just as good as the Scythian ones, yes. Persians beat the Scythians during the 6th century BC. I don't think the discrepancy would be immense by the 3rd century. I don't know about Dacian archery. I wouldn't be surprised if it was influenced heavily by archery of the steppes...but definitely would question any purported superiority of the Dacian archery over the Persian, at least amongst the trained.

gamegeek2

10-09-2011, 06:39

As it is the Persians are statted with a cheaper, lower quality bow to represent the cheap bows that the lower level Persian archers sometimes used. The Dacians on the other hand use fully-blown steppe composite bows. I can definitely change this, and almost certainly will for the Heavy Persians.

Lazy O

10-09-2011, 06:57

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 11:24

Good. Now what about the Indian Longbows?

Hopefully this will give you an idea that these were not peasent levies running around naked but one of the most advanced military cultures of the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7URDyZsbobE&feature=player_embedded#!

@Shak; Makes nice music for slaughtering our enemies no? :clown:

We pushed back Alexander. I demand justice be done to Indian units.

Hahahaha. Ok first of all I want to clarify I do not think they deserve to be awesome units just bcoz someone descended from that region :P

Secondly, I will actually have to disagree with you about the armor. The indian levies (and I believe the unit depicts levies as opposed to the warrior caste, kryshtias), would more often than not wear a simple cotton shirt with (at most) a heavily padded shirt. Few could afford to wear decent armor or actually bothered to wear armor since they knew they would not be expected to get into heavy melee though they were pretty capable of melee considering they were levies (their swords were cool).

Thirdly, a movie/tv show made by Indians will obviously glorify Indian history with little notion of historical accuracy :P I do agree with you that they had one of the most advanced armies and weaponries of the time period though since this is reflected in many sources and esp under Maurayan Empire.

Lastly, in line with my previous posts, I agree that the longbow they used is still not powerful enough to reflect their actual power in history. They should be more powerful than even large composites, due to the size and construction of the longbow (it was not a selfbow i.e. just a piece of long bamboo), with a nerf to accuracy since these were anchored on the ground with the left foot and would likely have been less accurate. Arrian (Alexander's historian) wrote that arrows launched from these longbows were capable of punching through even the most powerful armor and shields. The second way to implement it would be to give them equal stats (and accuracy) to the highest tier if it is felt that giving them too high an attack will spoil gameplay.

EB2 unit description:

" These men a re armed with the weapon most closely associated with the ancient Indian warrior: the longbow. The longbows would have been made of either bamboo or wood, and it would have been drawn in a particular fashion, described by ancient authors...In addition to the bows, these warriors also carry a broadsword. According to Arrianos, the broadsword and the bow were the weapons of choice of Indian warriors, and the sword was used in a slashing fashion. There were several different types of swords, some of native Indian design, but through foreign influence, other types, such as the Hellenic kopis made their way into the hands of Indian warriors...Most of the warriors are dressed in their everyday clothing, which includes loincloths, skirts, and short-sleeved shirts. The majority would have fought bare-chested, however. Some of the warriors wear a simple type of armour corselet, made from strips of hardened leather and tied at the back by what is in the epics referred to as a corselet strap...These archers can use their bows with great efficiency, and though they may not have the best aim, the power and range of their weapons more than make up for this. Though their broadswords make them more capable in mêlée than most archers, they are primarily ranged warriors, and may break if facing better trained warriors in hand-to-hand combat."

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=466774

Arrian on Indian longbows:

Indian war equipment differs; the infantry have a bow, of the height of the owner; this they poise on the ground, and set their left foot against it, and shoot thus; drawing the bowstring a very long way back; for their arrows are little short of three cubits, and nothing can stand against an arrow shot by an Indian archer, neither shield nor breastplate nor any strong armour. In their left hands they carry small shields of untanned hide, narrower than their bearers, but not much shorter. Some have javelins in place of bows. All carry a broad scimitar, its length not under three cubits; and this, when they have a hand-to-hand fight -- and Indians do not readily fight so among themselves -- they bring down with both hands in smiting, so that the stroke may be an effective one.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/arrian-bookVIII-India.asp

The quote indicates they should get shields too, but since the unit model doesnt have any, i will not push for this.

Arjos

10-09-2011, 11:54

Weren't the Spartokidai very close with Athens?

To add:

The inscription from the Acropolis in honour of Spartocus III (B.C. 287/6), speaks of such statues set up to his ancestors in the Agora and in the Emporium and of an offensive and defensive alliance concluded with them

So after Athens broke free from Polioerketes, Spartokos III renewed the symmachia with the polis (this friendship having a very long history going back to Spartokos I), because Athens allowed the Bosphorans to take part at the Panathenaic games and helped his dynasty to seize supremacy in the past...
Deal which gave recognition to the thracian dynast, legitimizing him as a greek monarch; while for Athens it meant cheaper grain and help in possible future expeditions...

Imo there's ground to give some Skuda units to the KH, I agree that they get quite cosmopolitan, but that's what the KH is about: a conglomerate of military alliances, in typical greek fashion, coming and going with the flow :D

Lazy O

10-09-2011, 12:39

@Shak; The Indian Guild warriors are not levies. And yes the rest of the post was a joke :clown:

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 13:00

Following on what Lazy said, proof in Indian longbow accuracy :clown:
:clown:

Check out from 1.51 for about a min for pure awesomeness :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcTtaI2vrKM&feature=related

Apparently they had gunpowder in their arrows.
And their bows were so powerful, they could cause hurricanes and even hurl pieces of furniture.
:clown:

The Celtic Viking

10-09-2011, 15:38

Hahaha! It's just too bad that fire arrows are banned. ~;)

gamegeek2

10-09-2011, 16:50

We pushed back Alexander. I demand justice be done to Indian units.

Well then, please wait for EBNOM where you will be playing with these indians:

2808

Indian Officer

2809

Indian Macemen

2810

Indian Light Spearmen

Better yet, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq3TH7ds6ZM

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-09-2011, 17:07

Wow what a display of accuracy. And those arrows with multiplying heads were awesome! Where can I pick up some of those?

And we complain about Hollywood historical inaccuracies lol

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 17:32

Wow what a display of accuracy. And those arrows with multiplying heads were awesome! Where can I pick up some of those?

And we complain about Hollywood historical inaccuracies lol

Haha, I know. In fairness tho it is depicting a religious epic, so it's kind of like clash of Clash of the Titans.

Lazy O

10-09-2011, 17:59

Aside from a the usual innacuracy here and there I do not see anything that makes it BS ala 300 Spartans

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 18:15

Aside from a the usual innacuracy here and there I do not see anything that makes it BS ala 300 Spartans

Lazy, we were talking about the clip I linked, not the one you linked.

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 18:41

Hey GG2, since you had to go I thought I might as well put this here for your convenience. I think your proposal to give +1 arrow attack to longbowmen would be good; but I think you should either decrease cost, or give them more men at current cost.

Also, they should really be AP... the two handed huge sword would surely provide just as much blunt force as a kopis or axe? I'd like to hear ur thoughts on why they shouldn't before I go further into any details. If you look at Arrian's quote on them (earlier post) the swords were pretty big and used with two hands.

Thanks!

vartan

10-09-2011, 19:09

IIRC the falxes got AP (again). The sword on the Indians is in a similar situation, no? Formerly AP. Now it does not have AP? We could replace the AP with the same reasoning for the falx, no?

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 19:15

gamegeek2

10-09-2011, 19:19

I'm going to have to oppose this extension of the reasoning, because scimitars can't puncture helmets, whereas falxes potentially can. Neither do these scimtars strike behind shields.

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 19:24

I'm going to have to oppose this extension of the reasoning, because scimitars can't puncture helmets, whereas falxes potentially can. Neither do these scimtars strike behind shields.

They were broad scimtars, similar to the kopis (according to EB2) rather than the true "scimitars" used by arabs and turks. Plus, being longer than a longsword (therefore heavy), and used with 2 hands, they would certainly exert more force than a kopis, and I wouldn't be surprised if force generated was similar to an axe (which was used with one hand....most EB axe units have a shield in other) or even greater.

The Celtic Viking

10-09-2011, 19:42

IIRC the falxes got AP (again). The sword on the Indians is in a similar situation, no? Formerly AP. Now it does not have AP? We could replace the AP with the same reasoning for the falx, no?

Yes, and while we're at it, how about the Rhomphaias and the Giant Swords of Terrible Ouchies that the British swordmasters and Lugians carry, eh? :wink3:

gamegeek2

10-09-2011, 19:43

A kopis is more like an axe that can also be used to stab somebody. The in-curving design increases the surface area of the blade, allowing for a better draw cut, and the weighting towards the end gives the thing a bigger wallop. So the weapon does hit hard, but it can't move aside defenses like a falx can, and it certainly can't get past armor. Frankly, the archers weren't even trained properly in the weapons' use, if we are to take Herodotus for his word on the issue.

I'd consider AP for the Rhomphaias, but for the Lugians and Kluddargos I'm going to increase lethality.

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 19:44

Yes, and while we're at it, how about the Rhomphaias and the Giant Swords of Terrible Ouchies that the British swordmasters and Lugians carry, eh? :wink3:

Actually you're right. If these dudes dont have AP, maybe longbows shouldn't have it either...

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 19:45

gamegeek2

10-09-2011, 19:53

Wait, sorry, I mean Arrian. The one who chronicled Alexander's adventures. :)

TheShakAttack

10-09-2011, 20:14

Wait, sorry, I mean Arrian. The one who chronicled Alexander's adventures. :)

Ahh right. If I understand correctly, I think he tried to speak more about morale rather than ability to wield. As in, they do not have morale or staying power of heavy infantry or infantry that were specialised for melee.

TheShakAttack

10-10-2011, 15:11

I'm going to do some research on those Indian blades and see how they compare to to lug. and kudd. My instinct is that it would not be a simple straight sword and would be heavily curved (most indian blades were very curved) in a very kopis-like design; either that, or it would be a Khanda [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanda_(sword)].

antisocialmunky

10-10-2011, 15:47

It depends. There are single sided straight swords which became more eccentrically curved during the hellenistic period due to the influence of the Kopis. It is difficult to find public sources documenting ancient Indian swords before the rise of Islam and those crazy scimitars. I've tried.

vartan

10-10-2011, 16:19

Shak, there's always Ctesias and his Indica. I'll PM you something that might start you on the right track. It doesn't talk much in depth about the swords themselves, about their design. But it'll help, I hope.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-10-2011, 21:15

GG2, you never replied to my PM about the Baltic Frontiersmen. Why are they so pricey if their unit size is so small and they are completely unarmored?

gamegeek2

10-10-2011, 22:21

GG2, you never replied to my PM about the Baltic Frontiersmen. Why are they so pricey if their unit size is so small and they are completely unarmored?

I intend to discuss this with you on Hamachi.

vartan

10-11-2011, 02:04

I intend to discuss this with you on Hamachi.
Oh snap!

Lazy O

10-11-2011, 09:53

Vartan I iz dissapoint. You dont say oh snap like that.

http://www.pacificfab.net/gallery/d/1563-1/Oh+Snap.jpg

TheShakAttack

10-11-2011, 13:21

TheShakAttack

10-11-2011, 14:51

GG2, you never replied to my PM about the Baltic Frontiersmen. Why are they so pricey if their unit size is so small and they are completely unarmored?

I think this is because (like steppe foot archers) these units face a cost penalty and unit number decrease to reflect the sparsely populated regions they inhabited, and the rarity of foot units?

Also, they liked fast cars and serious bling. :clown:

gamegeek2

10-11-2011, 16:23

Unfortunately I could not find very much on Indian swords apart from getting some things on google images. What is certain is that there was incredibly diversity in swords in that region. I will wait and see how other 2 handed sword units get dealt with, then consider an appropriate proposal for the melee of longbow units. My only concern is that it is highly probable that the quality of metal used by longbows is likely to be superior- and the design more capable of cleaving through armor- to those used by the 2 handed barbs.

Frankly, the Kluddargos unit shouldn't even exist at all. The Lugians are fine, as we have examples with very long swords with long handles from that region during the time of the Przeworsk culture; but I don't recall any contemporary examples from Britain.

I'm giving the 2-handed barbs 0.4 lethality and -2 atk. I may make them even better. The rhomphaiaphoroi got statted like falxmen, though I may raise their lethality slightly because of their long weapon.

-Stormrage-

10-11-2011, 17:41

Why dont you give them AP and make us happy ? We need Armour Piercing units in our Arsenal.

I told you guys when GG makes up his mind, he doesnt change it. Do you gg ? He gives some + attack here or in this case a little extra lethality here just to "shut us up" if you dont mind me saying so. Thats my view, im sorry its a bit harsh but thats what i think.

vartan

10-11-2011, 19:13

I told you guys when GG makes up his mind, he doesnt change it. Do you gg ? He gives some + attack here or in this case a little extra lethality here just to "shut us up" if you dont mind me saying so. Thats my view, im sorry its a bit harsh but thats what i think.

I wouldn't put it that way, but more or less. For instance, testing out 2 handed at higher leth and slightly less atk. Why?

Also, gg2 if the EB team found enough evidence to support a Klud unit, why would you alone have them removed? Did the evidence suddenly disappear or did the historian(s) for EB's Casse lose their mind during research?

gamegeek2

10-11-2011, 21:05

From Power2the1, one of EB's Celtic experts:

There are finds in the region where the Lugians lived with a sword/swords that are quite hefty, not slender like other blades. Until a time machine is invented we won't really know how that sword was wielded for sure, but could have been in some two-handed/bastard sword style, or it could have been a thick bladed one-handed sword. The Scordisci unit is backed by region finds of the greaves and the curved blade. There was a great article in Romanian and English on the finds of all this that I cannot find in my overflowing .pdf stash for some reason on the Scordisci unit. The Briton unit was, as already mentioned, a very debatable unit and the creators are no longer on the team.

I also haven't seen an archaeological basis for such a unit for the Britons; not one find of a long sword that would have been wielded in two hands. We do have such finds for the Przeworsk culture, i.e. the Lugiones.

vartan

10-12-2011, 01:52

The people you could debate with are no longer on the team. Enough said. So what? You're considering removing the unit from MP altogether? Why are we all of a sudden making historical judgements on the unit level now?

antisocialmunky

10-12-2011, 02:17

Its in Eb therefore it actually existed therefore you should keep it on the MP EDU.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-12-2011, 04:24

Yes, leave the newly available data (or lack thereof) to EB2 Online. For now, EB has created various units and we may as well use them.

vartan

10-12-2011, 04:53

The way I think of it is the following. We don't mess with what the developers have created in EB. What we do change are allocations and statistics. By allocations I mean which units belong on which rosters. And by statistics I mean the various attack, defense, and other values. The reasoning behind both types of changes can have a historical and/or gameplay basis. But we don't want to alter EB on a more fundamental level, if that makes sense.

Kival

10-12-2011, 11:15

Where's my posting? :inquisitive: However I mostly agree with the last postings: If we change units based on the EB II conception, we'd need to get rid of the whole Casse-concept, because we should try to be systematically. Just changing one brittain unit on lacking sources would not be systematically.

The Celtic Viking

10-12-2011, 12:08

Yeah, I agree with the Mighty V on this. Honestly, I think that the Ordmalica should be reinstated as well for the same reason; it's true that they were, unlike the Kluddargos, removed from SP, but so were Dubosaverlacica and Dosidataskeli, both of which are still in.

gamegeek2

10-12-2011, 12:20

Personally, I think we should eliminate the Dosis and Dubos as well.

Vega

10-12-2011, 15:46

Storm this battle is prove that archers are not useles, watch it when you have time, i hope this will stop you to complain about archers :D

http://www.mediafire.com/?f97oj1e20cfu5m2

vartan

10-12-2011, 21:39

Personally, I think we should eliminate the Dosis and Dubos as well.

Your conception of history aside, these units can still be made to work in MP just like all other units. It isn't like we're going to let a 1000 mnai unit out with 30atk 30def. Our intuition of what seems right and wrong in MP still remains present with these units in question.

Yavana

10-14-2011, 19:43

Can't join network - it is full :O

Lazy O

10-14-2011, 19:45

TIME TO PARTEH!!! MISSION SUCCESFULLL!!! Im leaving network you can join now.

Yavana

10-14-2011, 19:56

Thanks Lazy^^ Well I have started studing already tho:D

vartan

10-15-2011, 01:16

Can't join network - it is full :O

That's because people haven't read the million places and times I've mentioned not to go offline without leaving the network. Just to name a few, I mentioned to leave the network automatically when you join the network, I mentioned it in the EB Online sticky thread here at the Campus Martius (albeit in large bolded caps), in every monthly tournament thread, on the website, and so on...

antisocialmunky

10-15-2011, 01:48

Did we want to try wippien again?

vartan

10-15-2011, 03:14

Did we want to try wippien again?
I've already done all of the necessary testing. This game only works with Hamachi. It was conclusive a long time ago.

antisocialmunky

10-15-2011, 15:24

What about open VPN, it would require one of us to set up a server.

vartan

10-15-2011, 21:13

What about open VPN, it would require one of us to set up a server.
I know. But nothing we do could be as reliable as the commercial beasts out there, such as Hamachi. The issue with other commercial VPNs is that they don't work with games, especially this one. Besides, I don't think open VPN uses a mesh system. Therefore no server would be as fast as the direct peer-to-peer connections that Hamachi issues.

TheShakAttack

10-16-2011, 15:27

I think we're overreacting a little bit here. Hamachi is great; no need to change. Enough ppl are scrupulous so as to ensure that problems aren't caused. That day Yav couldn't make it online was a rarity as there were a lot of newcomers who came online, did not leave upon exit and a lot of people who were online at the same time.

TheShakAttack

10-18-2011, 11:23

*Crickets chirping*

vartan

10-18-2011, 18:16

*Crickets chirping*
Tell me about it ^^

Lazy O

10-18-2011, 18:46

Which is strange considering we are doing 3v3 on a daily basis

Vega

10-18-2011, 23:52

Your signature lazyo... :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

TheShakAttack

10-18-2011, 23:52

Your signature lazyo... :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

HAHAHAHA.... awesome sig!

The Celtic Viking

10-19-2011, 00:33

Kival

10-19-2011, 01:18

You guys know about privacy rules, do you? ;-)

gamegeek2

10-19-2011, 01:22

Who cares? Call out people. It's good. Let them defend themselves. You guys seem to have no problems calling me out, right? :)

Kival

10-19-2011, 03:24

I care. Hamachi chat, game-chat via hamachi connection etc. is private room whereas this forum can be watched publicly. So please refrain from quoting private conversations here without permission. I really don't like that.

antisocialmunky

10-19-2011, 04:54

Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

TheShakAttack

10-19-2011, 08:54

Hahahaha.

@ TCV Why can't I come up with brilliant strategies like that :( My new plan....get 30,000 spartans to turn flatlands into Thermopylae. :D

In fairness to Storm, I think its great he experiments with diff things.

@Kival, I think you make a good point, but, Lazy's sig is quoted from the main Hamachi chat, so I don't think it was intended to be private. Plus, this forum, while public, was made for EB purposes. As long as Lazy removes it should Gaius request for him to, I don't see a problem. I don't think that quote is particularly derogatory or offensive. It's fairly benign. Plus, I think we are are being a bit unrealistic if we expect this Forum gets a significantly wider following than the sausage fest on Hamachi. It's not like people who don't play RTW Online will know what "camping" is, nor who "Gaius" is.

It's just gently poking fun at someone :)

Lazy O

10-19-2011, 09:45

Gaius said its fine.

antisocialmunky

10-19-2011, 15:09

Gaius said its fine.

I saw the convo. Gaius said it's fine

Lazy O

10-19-2011, 15:24

So we are spamming now?

TheShakAttack

10-19-2011, 15:51

Any rough estimate as to when Saka might be ready?

-Stormrage-

10-19-2011, 16:26

Yeah. Almost as good as Stormrage explaining why he was deploying his units widely separated in a single line by saying that he didn't want to give the enemy a main line to break, and so he would let his units fight alone. I mean, is that brilliant or what?

When your going up against a Phalanx army would you make a nice little line for your enemy to line his phalanx against ?

Thats like saying here kill me, Your enemy gets phalanx and you make a line for him to attack brilliant.

Your just angry becuase you lost us the game. I was out flanking and you rushed it. I actually made theyre army into a right angle and was making the angle smaller and smaller and you blew it, you attacked without me. and lost to their combined forces. Reply to that.

antisocialmunky

10-19-2011, 16:35

You lose all the morale bonuses and rout, yes.

-Stormrage-

10-19-2011, 17:16

Nay he loses his phalanx wall protection, he is forced to separate his phalanx and enag each of my units alone. And infantry are more mobile and flexible then a phalanx i can move my infantry around and mess up his hwole army, Phalanx over here phalanx over there, each alone and sitting duck.

I feel the Best way to deal with a phalanx army is to not give him a line to attack in the first place.

Lazy O

10-19-2011, 17:49

Storm is so funny. :D

TheShakAttack

10-19-2011, 18:23

He raises a fair point though. Against a phalanx, offering battle head on is not always the best option.

antisocialmunky

10-19-2011, 19:55

You're better off just swivelling to non oblique angles or deploying in checkerboard. But in those cases, the phalanx player just uses 3/4 deep phalanxes to surround.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-20-2011, 05:18

Lazy you missed another 4v4 today!

antisocialmunky

10-20-2011, 06:10

Lazy you missed another 4v4 today!

Well he's lazy.

http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot

Lazy O

10-20-2011, 09:34

http://rlv.zcache.com/i_have_a_life_get_one_of_your_own_tshirt-p235144686989704576qift_210.jpg

gamegeek2

10-20-2011, 11:31

Send me the replay!

TheShakAttack

10-20-2011, 17:23

Ok. Will do when I get home.

The Celtic Viking

10-20-2011, 17:28

No need, I've already sent it to him. Just forgot to say it here. :embarassed:

TheShakAttack

10-20-2011, 19:08

Thanks.

TheShakAttack

10-20-2011, 19:30

Sorry for spamming, but just in case ppl had this thread on auto-email alert, can someone please help me out?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?138641-Hamachi-error

Kival

10-21-2011, 01:00

Is there any reason why makedon can not use thorakitai anymore? I'm missing them in the roster.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-21-2011, 04:30

Is there any reason why makedon can not use thorakitai anymore? I'm missing them in the roster.

Makedon has never had Thorakitai:no:

Kival

10-21-2011, 06:06

Oh. I see, I thought I've seen them in their roster sometime...

TheShakAttack

10-21-2011, 08:38

Haha, Hegemony is going to your head buddy :)

Vega

10-23-2011, 14:34

Hey gg2 before you release new edu be sure you removed testudo formation from pedites extraordinary :D

Lazy O

10-24-2011, 03:45

Make Balaeric Slingers useful again. I need something other than toxotai to brag about.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-24-2011, 06:34

Aren't you glad that Toxotai are useful now?

Lazy O

10-24-2011, 09:08

Why should I be glad that something as crap as Toxotai is the only viable option for me now ?0.o

TheShakAttack

10-24-2011, 11:50

I second Lazy's opinion that Baelrics are terrible. It was an interesting experiment to test with high attack short range, but its just not not workable very well. They should really be the best slingers afaik in the game as they were such historically (in EB time frame). Whilst they did use very heavy stones, it should be noted that they usually carried at least 3 different kinds of slings with them so they could switch as necessary. Rhodians are incredibly useful because of accuracy and range- baelrics die very, very quickly to archers since they need to come so close to be effective.

Lazy O

10-24-2011, 11:52

And scrap that shitty 60 man bullshit, make them as big as any other slinger unit.

TheShakAttack

10-24-2011, 11:59

And scrap that shitty 60 man bullshit, make them as big as any other slinger unit.

I do not agree here. The system that seems to be implemented is that the elite units have fewer men. For instance, Bosphorans have 80, whereas persians have 121. Also, the B islands would have a fairly low population and these mercs were in high demand. Man count can be low- please just ensure that they are effective units!

Vega

10-24-2011, 12:22

TheShakAttack

10-24-2011, 12:27

Baelarics useles ?! You must be kiding they are awasome if you keep them in reserve, catas are afraid of them, i really like baelarics.. dont know whats wrong :D Just keep them far from archers, they are very useful in team battles..

No need to be afraid of them. They need to come so close to attack, that you can just ram Cav or fast infantry into them. Whilst they can certainly be effective, I am saying, compared to Rhodian slingers, they are terrible. They can snipe catas from far far away. It is just unfortunate that B. slingers are so terrible when historically they were awesome, and in fact, they should be super awesome. They certainly did not limit themselves to heavy stones- they were just famous for their ability to use heavy stones accurately and well.

Lazy O

10-24-2011, 12:42

Whats the point of them being elite when they cant kill a chicken.

TheShakAttack

10-24-2011, 12:45

Whats the point of them being elite when they cant kill a chicken.

Admittedly a chicken is a small target :clown:

-Stormrage-

10-24-2011, 15:45

slingers are so terrible when historically they were awesome, and in fact, they should be super awesome.

Whats the point of them being elite when they cant kill a chicken.

I think i remember there was someone who said exactly the same thing about slingers. Hmmm cant remember who... I geuss some people have slow response rates. "Slingers suck" , people " No theyre fine" . 1 month later people"hey slingers suck"

and loooooooooooool
[21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting

TheShakAttack

10-24-2011, 15:48

I think i remember there was someone who said exactly the same thing about slingers. Hmmm cant remember who... I geuss some people have slow response rates. "Slingers suck" , people " No theyre fine" . 1 month later people"hey slingers suck"

and loooooooooooool
[21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting

No Storm, we are saying 1 specific unit of elite slingers are not as good as they should be :)

-Stormrage-

10-24-2011, 15:52

baby steps, baby steps :D

gamegeek2

10-24-2011, 16:05

I'll take your concerns into account.

Kival

10-24-2011, 16:35

baby steps, baby steps :D

You know that we are not happy with them after change and you were raging about them before they've been changed?

Burebista

10-24-2011, 21:59

getai :
rhomphs have 11 attack but no ap
Komatai agrianai - too damn expensive..1767

TheShakAttack

10-24-2011, 22:32

Rhomps have very high lethality and bonus vs cav though. They are getting AP back though afaik. Its a bit surprising that rhomp is getting back AP tbh.

Vega

10-24-2011, 22:48

Bring elephants back to rome roster please dont tell me that they didnt use them :P

TheShakAttack

10-25-2011, 02:08

That reminds me. Rome should get Tarantine cav as mercenaries.

Vega

10-26-2011, 21:47

I discussed on hamachi with some people about cata fear, also i wanna share my opinion to remove fear from helenic catas, i mean REAL catas should get fear effect :D, pahlava's and hayasdan's catas, or maybe just Grivnapar, personaly for me scariest unit in game next to elephantes, so what you think about this..? :)

TheShakAttack

10-26-2011, 22:02

gamegeek2

10-26-2011, 22:03

Wait, so better armed and armored cataphracts somehow aren't "scary" but their worse-equipped, otherwise identical Parthian Noble counterparts are?

Vega

10-26-2011, 22:08

Im posting again bcz i forgot to mention bactrian and saka catas as well :D they should keep fear wanna see your opinion about helenistics :D

Arjos

10-26-2011, 22:53

I ask what's scary about any cataphract?
People were afraid of their "heavier" charge, but what's scary of an oven-man?

Can't they get "inspire" instead and another stat tweak?

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-27-2011, 04:22

I agree, cataphracts don't need the fear effect and I'd prefer to have it removed.

vartan

10-27-2011, 08:23

TheShakAttack

10-27-2011, 08:33

Ok. I have to defend cata fear here. To put things in perspective, let's examine other units which have the fear effect. The two most absurd ones are chariots and uriodusios. Now, if I were a soldier, I'd be a lot more weary of oven-men crashing into my flank than seeing naked spearmen or outdated machinery like chariots. There would certainly be a psychological effect knowing that these guys who are crazy-armored on horses waiting to smash into somewhere. Certainly, fear would be greater seeing them and knowing they wait (even if behind enemy lines) moreso than seeing naked dudes or chariots standing behind the enemy line. Let's not forget that these bad boys were riding Nisean mounts, which were considerably larger and more powerful than most horses way back when.

All I'm saying is...compare it to some other units which have fear already.

@Vartan- I think that is a valid proposal. If you remove fear from whichever units have it, there would be no problems of inconsistency. Maybe let elephants keep them.

|Sith|DarthRoach

10-27-2011, 10:09

Worse equipped? I was under the impression that Greek cataphracts were equipped in roughly the same manner as their Iranian counterparts.

Although there are theories that they in fact lacked leg armor, apart from greaves.

Arjos

10-27-2011, 11:38

I think that all the fear units, historically, were actually more awe inspiring than scaring...
Exception for elephants, even though after few encounters everyone got accustomed...

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-27-2011, 13:06

How about we stop using the fear effect altogether. It is a great effect for an arcade game, but I presume as we are aiming for historicity we might want to keep such a funny game mechanic out of the picture altogether. Right? =) [bring it on guys!]

Ok, I think this is a misguided attempt to do away with an imperfect game mechanic. We are slowly coming to a balance with EB Online, that is, making the majority of factions playable in multiplayer. Yes, there are clearly stronger and weaker factions, but nearly every faction is playable in its current state (Saba and Sweboz excluded though Sweboz somewhat less so). However, once the Eastern Hellenistic factions were completed, what do we see in nearly every battle being fought? Thats right, its almost always a mix of Baktria, AS, Ptolies, Makedonia, Epeiros, and KH being played with our Rome fanatics putting in their two cents as well. Lazy plays Carthage and I'd say there are two or three players who actively use the so-called barbarian factions of the west. Removing the fear effect from units like Gaesatae or Uridusios makes the latter useless and the former not very impressive anymore. Factions like the Casse, god bless them, rely almost soley on the fear effect and getting quick chain routs started or else they will be shot to pieces by an opposing army composed of javelin armed troops and archers waiting it out in guard mode.

In fact, guard mode is the main reason that I would stress that fear must be kept intact. Guard mode encourages camping and forming nice little lines of men for your opponent to dash his soldiers on, like waves on a rocky beach. It does not encourage being proactive or creative in your strategies. Since there are very few units that can win head on against any sort of medium-heavy infantry in guard mode, the only way around this, especially for many barbarians without great cavalry, is to create a localized fear effect which will help maybe break one of those guard moded units and disrupt the tidy lines.

And I will conclude by saying that the fear effect must be removed from cataphracts. (clever Cato reference :p)

TheShakAttack

10-27-2011, 14:50

Haha. Your Cato the Elder reference is appreciated :P

As I understand it, your argument is gameplay based rather than historically/logically based.

I disagree with your argument. The way fear is important to making Western barbs useful, so too is fear needed for Parthia and Hayasdan. Parthia and Hai do not have good effective armies once cata fear gets taken away. Western barbs have access to high morale, relatively inexepensive, high quality infantry coupled with very workable cavalry. P + H on the other hand have terrible infantry (Armenian nobles being the exception, but they are only 70 men and are expensive). Fear is necessary to complement the really poor infantry.

With regards to Casse: if saba and sweboz can suffer poor, lopsided, relatively unworkable rosters, why can't Casse too? It's not as if they were particularly awesome in pitched battles historically.

To put it in another way, it would be incredibly inconsistent and illogical to let celtic factions/units keep fear, saying they are unplayable otherwise, whilst removing cata fear from P + H.

And, prepare for war, for you have found peace intolerable. (Scipio quote there)

-Stormrage-

10-27-2011, 15:26

I ask what's scary about any cataphract?
People were afraid of their "heavier" charge, but what's scary of an oven-man?

Can't they get "inspire" instead and another stat tweak?

Watch Brave heart, look at the scotish mans face when they tell him "300 heavy cavalry" he wets his pants. "300 heavy horse?!?!!

seee cav were scary , braveheart says so

The Celtic Viking

10-27-2011, 15:31

Brave Brave Sir Robin

10-27-2011, 15:42

Hayasdan would work fine without fear now as well. All they needed was a buff to their infantry which they received. Nothing more was needed. Over prevalence of fear makes some factions like the Lusotana difficult to play again. Almost every faction is capable of bringing some type of fear inspiring unit to the battlefield when previously it was only a handful along with factions that could get elephants if they so desired.

TheShakAttack

10-27-2011, 15:51

With fear for Pahlava, AS, Baktria and eventually Saka, Hayasdan with fear is meaningless anyway. Pahlava and Saka work fine even without fear (see for example Lazy as Saka in one of the tournaments), definitely so for Baktria as well. The only ones who would need it are Sauros (who don't get it) and Hayasdan, who as I said are negated by the better ones having it as well.

So, no, your argument doesn't work there.

Oh, and Gaesatae + Uirodusios don't get scare because of gameplay reasons. They get it because people who do not care about their own safety - which they appear not to do - are ******* scary opponents. It doesn't matter what equipment they've got - if you care about your life and your enemy appears not, he has a huge mental advantage over you. The fear factor for them is definitely warranted IMO.

---

BTW, if you allow me to brag, my indian kataphract elephants just had 956 kills. Beat that! :laugh4:

1) Looking at Lazy's result is not appropriate since its a different EDU. For one thing, HA have been significantly nerfed since then. Your other arguments re: cata fear are not backed up by reasoning or examples, so I will not respond to them. I will only say this:

The 2 Gallic factions are perfectly playable (I am not saying excellent) without fear units. The fear units make them particularly effective at certain strategies. Similarly, Pav + Saka + Baktria might be playable, but it will loose an imp edge. Why should 1 faction lose an edge and others keep them? Why is it ok for "barb" factions to have fear units, but not "eastern" ones?

You'll note I make no mention of AS. For the sake of gameplay, I think its fine if their catas no longer have fear.

2) Re why nakeds are scary. You did not follow the conversation. Robin was making the point that nakeds were imp, and the post u read was responding to him. Regarding your argument about nakeds, I do not disagree that it would be off putting to see guys who are so fanatic that they have come up naked to fight, not caring about dying or hurting their wee wees. What I am saying is that how can you argue that they should retain "fear" effect, whilst the historical equivalent of a tank does not? Try to understand that I am not saying cata should retain fear and celts lose it. I am saying for consistency's sake either everyone loses it (cept eles) or everyone keeps them along with nakeds and chariots.

Also, I'd like to point out that a lot of the factions Robin pointed out on his list (in last his post before this) are non cata factions. Catas certainly do not make the game unbalanced; they make life hard for the opponent. Same can be said of a barb fear rush.

Lazy O

10-27-2011, 16:04

Removing fear is retarded. What is the point of playing Aedui/Arverni/Casse/toalesserextentSweboz then? It completely makes them useless .

And how in bloody hell are Parthia and Hai useless without fear? Did Saka/Sauro not completely obliterate everything in June WITHOUT fear?

And roach basically did a 2v1 today with Parthia, not relying on fear effect, since the charge obliterates everything already. You have to realise giving scare to cavalry has a very negative effect because stuff like cata takes ages to kill and ruins balance.

TheShakAttack

10-27-2011, 16:37

POST RESPONDING TO LAZY:

June was diff EDU lazy.

Also, this is a really badly articulated post. I have no idea what you are trying to say about ruining balance or how saka and sauro winning in June has anything to do with Pav and Hai having fear.

You have also not bothered reading my argument. If you respond to what I've actually written, and bother to read it properly, I will do the same.

Calling Vartan's post retarded is not an appropriate reaction. He was just considering it and wanted our thoughts.

The Celtic Viking

10-27-2011, 16:37

Long version:

1) Looking at Lazy's result is not appropriate since its a different EDU. For one thing, HA have been significantly nerfed since then. Your other arguments re: cata fear are not backed up by reasoning or examples, so I will not respond to them.

That it's a different EDU is the very point because it's them without fear. HAs are less powerful, yes, but that's because they were simply OP before.

Your other arguments re: cata fear are not backed up by reasoning or examples, so I will not respond to them.

???

You were saying Hayasdan need fear to be useful. I said Hayasdan, if useless without fear, are useless with fear because Pahlava, Baktria etc. have it too. I.e., your "solution" to making Hay useful doesn't make them useful at all, ergo it doesn't work as an argument for giving cata fear.

Are you really going to dismiss that out of hand as "lacking reasoning or examples", or did you just misunderstand me?

I will only say this:

The 2 Gallic factions are perfectly playable (I am not saying excellent) without fear units. The fear units make them particularly effective at certain strategies. Similarly, Pav + Saka + Baktria might be playable, but it will loose an imp edge. Why should 1 faction lose an edge and others keep them? Why is it ok for "barb" factions to have fear units, but not "eastern" ones?

Strawman.

You'll note I make no mention of AS. For the sake of gameplay, I think its fine if their catas no longer have fear.

And here I disagree with you. If an "oven man" deserves scary trait it deserves it regardless of whom it serves. (I don't think it's possible to take away scare from AS cats without also taking it away from Baktrian cats, which you did mention.)

2) You did not follow the conversation. Robin was making the point they were imp, and the post u read last was responding to him. Regarding your argument about nakeds, I do not disagree that it would be off putting to see guys who are so fanatic that they have come up naked to fight. What I am saying is that how can you argue that they should retain "fear" effect, whilst the historical equivalent of a tank does not?

I did follow the conversation. If you don't agree with making choices for gameplay reasons such as what Robin did, then don't make arguments like that. You did, and thus I responded to it. If you wanted to be rhetorical, and didn't actually mean what you said, then it's up to you to be clear about it.

Anyway, to answer the question, I can perhaps put it like this. Yes, I would be scared shitless if cats attacked my back. I would also be scared shitless if non-cat heavy cav charged my back. How significant is the difference? Not too much, I would think. The difference between naked infantry and non-naked infantry is that the nakeds show exactly what I talked about in my previous post: they care not about their own safety, they care not about their own lives. That is a significant difference from other infantry.

Considering that cav already cause fear to infantry when they a) are at their flanks/behind, b) are charging them, c) are smashing into them or c) are fighting them in melee, and cats can easily rout units by charging into their rear even without the fear trait, I don't think they quite warrant the fear effect. This is, indeed, coloured by how strong the fear effect is - I would if I could make it less powerful. Perhaps then I could agree with cats having fear, but not when it is as it is.

Try to understand that I am not saying cata should retain fear and celts lose it.

Please try to understand that I have never claimed that you do, nor said anything that implies that I think you do. I was explaining that if gamplay reasons were the only thing speaking for Gaesatae/Uirodusios etc. should have the fear effect, then I would be against it. Likewise I am against giving cats fear effect because of gameplay reasons, like you were arguing.

I am saying for consistency's sake either everyone loses it (cept eles) or everyone keeps them along with nakeds and chariots.

... what? Lets pretend, for argument's sake, that GG2 went crazy one night and decided to give all the spear-armed levies the scare trait. If I then said, hold on, they shouldn't have the scare trait! Would you then argue that, for sake of consistency, either everyone should lose scare (except ele) or everyone keeps them along with nakeds and chariots?

It doesn't make sense, nor is it even consistent considering that you for this must rely on the premise that the argument is directly against the scare trait.

Also, I'd like to point out that a lot of the factions Robin pointed out on his list are non cata factions. Catas certainly do not make the game unbalanced, if anything, they have helped with the balance.

I disagree.

Short version:

I would want cats to have something like a fear effect as opposed to more regular heavy cav, but I think that, as is, the fear effect is too powerful for them to earn it. They don't need it to be very effective anyway, and does provide fear, although no more than regular cav does now. Perhaps making their attack/defence/both higher instead of fear might be more called for. Naked infantry does need it though because it really is the only way to simulate the mental effect that their fighting style had. That's why I think it should be removed from cats and kept for nakeds.

Arjos

10-27-2011, 17:04

Even when you look at ancient texts about cataphracts, no one speaks of how scary they are, but rather how majestic is their appereance, plus mentioning how devastating is their charge...
While naked warriors get words of how inspiring they were for their comrades and "off putting, nerving" for the opponents...
As TCV said, when we pile rear attack, charge, already engaged and fear it becomes too much of an overkill...

TheShakAttack

10-27-2011, 17:11

Tcv a lot of what you have responded to was my post to ok lazy not your. I am on train atm, will clarify @ home.

Lazy O

10-27-2011, 18:11

First off my apologies to Gaius.

Armored Elephants have to be nerfed. 2 Akontisai emptied their javs on one unit of eles killing only 3. At a price of 15000 this is definately overpowered. I suggest a ban on this unit for now.

TheShakAttack

10-27-2011, 18:23

Long version:

That it's a different EDU is the very point because it's them without fear. HAs are less powerful, yes, but that's because they were simply OP before.

Yes, and the vast majority of battles would have been won because they were simply OP. The fear does not compensate the nerf IMO. If you look at battles right now, Sauro are nowhere near as good as they used to be in JUne.

???

You were saying Hayasdan need fear to be useful. I said Hayasdan, if useless without fear, are useless with fear because Pahlava, Baktria etc. have it too. I.e., your "solution" to making Hay useful doesn't make them useful at all, ergo it doesn't work as an argument for giving cata fear.

I agree that with fear Pav and Bak would be better than Hai, but my point was not having fear makes Hai even more useless than they are right now.

Are you really going to dismiss that out of hand as "lacking reasoning or examples", or did you just misunderstand me?

I dismissed them out of hand because you did not explain yourself properly. I did not misunderstand you, you just did not give enough of an explanation to make clear what you meant. Now you have.

Strawman.

How is that a strawman? Having said that, with the further information you have provided, your perspective is much clearer and I would be inclined to express is less so as "Barb vs East"... I still feel it is a valid point. The fear makes each respective faction better at certain tactics which is historically, and should be retained thus or scrapped entirely.

And here I disagree with you. If an "oven man" deserves scary trait it deserves it regardless of whom it serves. (I don't think it's possible to take away scare from AS cats without also taking it away from Baktrian cats, which you did mention.)

This is a silly point. Whilst an "oven man" is not a desirable opponent, an "oven man" on a huge armored horse than can smash into you at high speed is a lot scarier.

I did follow the conversation. If you don't agree with making choices for gameplay reasons such as what Robin did, then don't make arguments like that. You did, and thus I responded to it. If you wanted to be rhetorical, and didn't actually mean what you said, then it's up to you to be clear about it.

Anyway, to answer the question, I can perhaps put it like this. Yes, I would be scared shitless if cats attacked my back. I would also be scared shitless if non-cat heavy cav charged my back. How significant is the difference? Not too much, I would think. The difference between naked infantry and non-naked infantry is that the nakeds show exactly what I talked about in my previous post: they care not about their own safety, they care not about their own lives. That is a significant difference from other infantry.

Considering that cav already cause fear to infantry when they a) are at their flanks/behind, b) are charging them, c) are smashing into them or c) are fighting them in melee, and cats can easily rout units by charging into their rear even without the fear trait, I don't think they quite warrant the fear effect. This is, indeed, coloured by how strong the fear effect is - I would if I could make it less powerful. Perhaps then I could agree with cats having fear, but not when it is as it is.

Ok. (1) Your post did not make it sound like you followed the conversation. I am in no way against deciding on stats based on gameplay- I am very aware a balance needs to be struck between historicity and gameplay. What I said previously in response to Robin was that Robin's post was highlighting the gameplay factors. He was shifting focus away from "what is scarier in real life" to how it works in EBO. A lot of my argument in the post you have quoted is therefore based on gameplay.

(2) I agree that any heavy cav flank attacks are scary; but i also think that catas would have more of a psychological effect due to how heavily armored they were in conjunction to the quality/size of their mounts. Enough of a psychological effect to warrant fear.

(3) I would also agree that the psych diff between naked and non naked infantry is larger than the diff between heavy cav and cata. But that does not address the point I was making. My point was: diff between catas on one hand, and, (for eg) nakeds and chariots on the other.

Please try to understand that I have never claimed that you do, nor said anything that implies that I think you do. I was explaining that if gamplay reasons were the only thing speaking for Gaesatae/Uirodusios etc. should have the fear effect, then I would be against it. Likewise I am against giving cats fear effect because of gameplay reasons, like you were arguing.

Ok. I'm glad you understood :) . In some sense I agree with you, that nakeds and chariots should not get fear purely for gameplay reasons, but, Robins post spoke mainly of gameplay reasons (he may well share your view that there are appropriate historical reasons as well), but I was only going on what the post said. Now, my reasons for cata fear are not strictly gameplay, though gameplay is the overwhelming part of it. I simply do not agree with nakeds and chariots having fear but catas not for reasons outlined.

... what? Lets pretend, for argument's sake, that GG2 went crazy one night and decided to give all the spear-armed levies the scare trait. If I then said, hold on, they shouldn't have the scare trait! Would you then argue that, for sake of consistency, either everyone should lose scare (except ele) or everyone keeps them along with nakeds and chariots?

It doesn't make sense, nor is it even consistent considering that you for this must rely on the premise that the argument is directly against the scare trait.

TCV, this is a silly point or rather, a silly way to express yourself. Your point basically relies on the assumption that GG2 went crazy and "just decided" to give catas scare trait, since in your example you are comparing catas getting scary to something as frivolous as levy spearmen getting it.

My argument is not against scare trait, it is for consistency. Either cats retain fear with nakeds, , or, it gets removed all together. I don't mind which. Or even Arjos' proposal that they inspire rather than cause fear.

I disagree [this was regarding the factions Robin posted as the most often used ones].

What? Here is what Robin posted: "Baktria, AS, Ptolies, Makedonia, Epeiros, and KH". How many factions have cata? 2. How many factions are non cata? 4. I would also add that Pontos is used often. They don't have catas, thats 5v2.

Short version:

I would want cats to have something like a fear effect as opposed to more regular heavy cav, but I think that, as is, the fear effect is too powerful for them to earn it. They don't need it to be very effective anyway, and does provide fear, although no more than regular cav does now. Perhaps making their attack/defence/both higher instead of fear might be more called for. Naked infantry does need it though because it really is the only way to simulate the mental effect that their fighting style had. That's why I think it should be removed from cats and kept for nakeds.

In some sense I agree with you. If it were possible to tweak the engine, I would happy for catas to lose fear and nakeds keep them on the condition that nakeds only cause morale drop to units they are fighting- not whilst they are standing behind enemy lines (as Uros are often used) or just chilling out nearby. Unfortunately, neither your proposal nor mine is possible. In that event, I stand by what I said: nakeds, chariots, druids lose fear with catas, or, catas keep them.

I hope that is clear?
OMG I HATE THIS FORMAT. lol. My post just ended up being part of the quote. I will try to rectify later. I'm tired now.

vartan

10-27-2011, 18:37

Calling Vartan's post retarded is not an appropriate reaction. He was just considering it and wanted our thoughts.
How dare someone insult the tournament god-king like that?! :laugh4:

I want to remind everyone that, believe it or not, you can actually give Armenian cataphracts the fear effect while removing it from the Pahlava. Remember, they're different units and so it isn't the case that both either have it or don't. This is not a suggestion, just a reminder for those claiming this or that about P+H combinations of fear or not.

Anyway, this is for Brave Sir Robin. My suggestion to remove the fear effect, while not an actual call to remove it but rather something to think about, was not misguided at all. You yourself said it best and surprised me with your observational self by pointing out another quite ruinous game mechanism, namely guard mode. In combination with use of the fear effect, we have such a problem, yes. But as we can all see, if you remove the fear mechanic while also removing the guard mechanic, you have essentially rid your game of this problem with both fear imbalancing as well as guard imbalancing. This is not about the volume of urine men peed on the battlefield upon spotting cataphracts, but rather about a gameplay mechanic which, in my thought, should have either 1) never existed, or 2) been improved upon (a non-trivial task). The truth is, when you balance your EDU with fear effects (and to a lesser extent, guard mode) in consideration, this is what happens. You get a situation in which you are now determining who gets which mechanic in order to find a balance, and then to justify it somehow, but never in a satisfying manner.

TL;DR Fear and guard go hand in hand in terms of their imbalancing effects. Remove both and you have removed such effects. Proceed to balance EDU knowing full well that fear and guard are out of the picture. If you would oppose this idea, resume justifying various combinations of imposing or ridding of these mechanisms. Good luck.