View Full Version : [EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates
While I can agree to don't use guard mode, since afaik it can't be nerfed, I hope the EDU won't get too arcade removing features (even the history backed ones)...
antisocialmunky
10-27-2011, 19:03
Imma gonna use teh guard mode.
capomafioso
10-27-2011, 23:22
is there way to disable guard mode? it would encourage tactics instead of sitting and waiting, and charging would be less of a death wish, this would probably remove the value of pikewalls however, as the best defence becomes offense. btw nakeys should keep scarey, catas probably shouldnt, but should get some other buff to maintain their price.
Some units are useless or at least not as useful as they historically have been without guard mode. Especially hoplites are no good without guard mode.
gamegeek2
10-28-2011, 02:59
The strength of hoplites was historically in their shield-wall formation. Guard mode is a fine substitute for shield-wall, as it functions similarly in-game.
antisocialmunky
10-28-2011, 04:22
Change the radius and increase charge to 20ish, it helps reduce the importance of guard mode as units won't spend all their time spread out and unable to concentrate mass.
While I can agree to don't use guard mode, since afaik it can't be nerfed, I hope the EDU won't get too arcade removing features (even the history backed ones)...
When I call a feature an arcade one it means it isn't historical. History and arcade are meant to be opposites here in the terminology.
Some units are useless or at least not as useful as they historically have been without guard mode. Especially hoplites are no good without guard mode.
The strength of hoplites was historically in their shield-wall formation. Guard mode is a fine substitute for shield-wall, as it functions similarly in-game.
Why the common misconception that history and game mechanisms need a one-to-one correspondence? That's not how it needs to work. There are always more than trivial ways and alternatives to this superficial shield-wall?-let's-design-a-feature-called-shield-wall approach.
Change the radius and increase charge to 20ish, it helps reduce the importance of guard mode as units won't spend all their time spread out and unable to concentrate mass.
Case in point. Don't know if it works or not, but it's an example of what I describe above. And I'm not sure if the whole the-engine-sucks-so-let's-keep-features argument holds too strongly.
You complicate things far too much. There really is nothing special about the Celtic factions without fear. Since they cannot really hold their own without it.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
10-28-2011, 20:01
Anyway, scary should be removed from cataphracts. Their major weakness was that they tired quickly when moving into position for charges. Now they can do a good job of scaring infantry by standing still behind the lines therefore doing away with this weakness somewhat. The 1 shield value means that they don't have to worry too much about slingers when standing still either.
TheShakAttack
10-28-2011, 20:48
No scary should not be removed from catas.
Forget scary. I don't know which genius thought up the idea of that feature in the first place.
You complicate things far too much. There really is nothing special about the Celtic factions without fear. Since they cannot really hold their own without it.
You complicate things by maintaining an extra feature. Removing features is called simplification. Adding or maintaining them is called complication. If a unit cannot hold its own without fear, that unit's stats need to be reviewed, and this should go without saying. You cannot and will not comprehend this train of thought until you stop thinking in a framework which uses an attribute such as fear. Remove it from the equation and try to think of what that system looks like. This is hard but not impossible.
But vartan, scary barbarians is source backed, its removal would be going all arcade with the edu...
Why the common misconception that history and game mechanisms need a one-to-one correspondence? That's not how it needs to work. There are always more than trivial ways and alternatives to this superficial shield-wall?-let's-design-a-feature-called-shield-wall approach.
As long as we do no have another way to represent the function of hoplites, we should stay with guard mode. Only when we can find another way, we should thinking about deleting guard mode. One should not decontruct everything without any alternatives. If asms idea is working: perfect.
By the way I'm still not sure if it is possible to delete guard mode.
But vartan, scary barbarians is source backed, its removal would be going all arcade with the edu...
Indeed. What's the point of naked fanatics if not beeing scary (or/and perhaps inspiring). They surely did not have the best equipment, they had some fighting skill, sure, but without fear there is no reason to favour them before armoured troops. And as arjos and other already said, the scary effect of naked fanatics is not arcade or made up. It's pretty accurate historically.
TheShakAttack
10-28-2011, 23:05
Not this this has anything to do with the fear debate, but I wondered if you guys might be able to quote some sources as to when nakeds were found scary. With my limited knowledge, all I know is Telamon, where the nakeds did "impress" the Romans, but not in the way the game depicts it.... by lowering Roman morale. Elephants did that. Sources say that scythe-chariots did that pre-Alexander; but I haven't been able to find much re: nakeds. The info I've read indicates that they "inspired" their own troops more than they caused enemy morale to drop.
In that sense, I think Arjos' recommendation that fear be removed, and inspire (ie. eagle) adopted instead makes sense.
all I know is Telamon
That passage says it all: the Romani were intimidated, but since they were naked missiles and pila annihilated them...
While if we take Carrhae, the panic was caused by the arrows forcing a tight formation on which the cataphracts inflicted many casualties...
Also if we compare the two, on one side you have the Romani actually scared and preferring to throw javelins; on the other you have the Romani trying to even charge at the cataphracts, because they saw how keeping ground was only working to the Parthian's advantage...
The two mentalities, imo, clearly show which was scary...
TheShakAttack
10-29-2011, 01:50
That passage says it all: the Romani were intimidated, but since they were naked missiles and pila annihilated them...
While if we take Carrhae, the panic was caused by the arrows forcing a tight formation on which the cataphracts inflicted many casualties...
Also if we compare the two, on one side you have the Romani actually scared and preferring to throw javelins; on the other you have the Romani trying to even charge at the cataphracts, because they saw how keeping ground was only working to the Parthian's advantage...
The two mentalities, imo, clearly show which was scary...
Ok, I was about to go to sleep till I saw this; so I'm blaming you for sleep deprivation, lol. I think you are taking a very subjective intepretation in comparingTelamon and Carrhae. Polybius did not say that the reason Romans used pila was because they were scared (ie. did not want to fight hand to hand). He does not say that Romans were scared and preferred to throw pila. What he does say is that the Gaesatae shield's were too small to be effective vs the pila volley. After suffering significant casualties, the Gaesatae (presumably) realised they were getting slaughtered and needed to do something, and they decided to charge the Roman lines. And were shrugged off.
It would have to be an incredibly stupid commander who gave the order NOT to use pila against an unarmored foe with small shields- especially considering that it was the standard Roman practise to throw pila before engaging in hand-to-hand.
In other words, the fact that they threw pila does not indicate that they did so because they were "scared" of fighting hand-to-hand. They were just following standard procedures; and a procedure which would be doubly effective due to a lack of enemy armor. If the Romans broke and fled when the Gaesatae charged, or engaged in hand to hand, it would be indisputable evidence of the "fear" effect as represented in RTW. That did not happen.
Its also interesting to note that in that particular instance, the Gaesatae were being prima donnas- one of the reasons Polybius gives for them taking off clothes is because they did not want them to get caught in the brambles. Polybius also mentions that they were "equal to their foes [Romans] in courage". Obv Polybius is not going to say anything bad about the Romans, but it is interesting to note that he commented that "Roman courage" was equal to Gaesatae courage.
The situation in Carrhae was very different. The cataphracts were on horses, and Crassus was acting like a moron. There was no way they could really rely on throwing pila against the cataphracts as they would need to brace, and because of limited amount of pila per man. Also, keep in mind that even against units that are very scary, professional soldiers will initially follow orders and only later on, "when the going gets tough" lose heart and flee. Very rarely is there a total break of morale upon sight of an enemy unit.
Lastly, Crassus was leading a body of professional troops (this was post Marian-reforms), whereas in Telamon, they were old school citizen levies.
As a post script, I'd like to add, I am not advocating for removal of naked fear (unless of course there are other factors like fear being removed generally). I was just curious about what the sources were. I felt I had to respond to Arjos' post since it took a very slanted view.
Also, I am not entirely sure they used pila since I seem to recall pila was adopted after Telamon- but I am using that word since Arjos did, and since he is a most learned chap.
I must say that I'm not too sure about when the pilum first appeared, I thought was with the camillian reform post Allia...
As for my interpretation, Polybius was saying:
Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight.
And yes in this case were javelin throwers, point is that they preferred to hail missiles against a relatively small band (compared to the whole host)...
While about Carrhae, Crassus' mistakes were more about the route taken and the poor scouting, as you said the army was made of professionals (even veterans from Gaul), they reacted in the best way possible, and despite the horrible situation they still charged to respond the cataphracts...
The retreat was sounded because they didn't have any weapon to retaliate against such numbers of cavalry and the wounded were piling up, the frontal charges didn't rout them: instead they counter-charged...
Looking at Magnesia for another example (and with non-professional troops), we see the 1.200 roman equites still charging towards the overwhelming royal squadron of Antiochos, and they routed only when they got outflanked...
All this didn't make the allied left panic, not even the camp guards: bottom line is that Romani had no second thought about facing cataphracts, but tried to avoid full confrontation with naked Keltoi, ofc they were easy targets for missiles, but at the same time any slash could've impaired their limbs, still this wasn't recommended...
Also considering how the Gaisatoi were much praised mercenaries, sought by various coutries, doesn't give the picture of a burden nor a useless component for an army, what really happened at Telamon was that the Insubres and Boii let them choose whatever they wanted, instead of supporting them...
The Celtic Viking
10-29-2011, 03:48
Its also interesting to note that in that particular instance, the Gaesatae were being prima donnas- one of the reasons Polybius gives for them taking off clothes is because they did not want them to get caught in the brambles.
Now I think that's completely unfair, so I'll come to the defence of these my glorious nudes and point out that that's quote mining. The full quote given by Polybius is this:
... but the Gaesatae had discarded these garments owing to their proud confidence in themselves, and stood naked, with nothing but their arms, in front of the whole army, thinking that thus they would be more efficient, as some of the ground was overgrown with brambles which would catch in their clothes and impede the use of their weapons.
My emphasis added. As you can see, they are reported to having done so for practical and tactical reasons, not out of some vanity of not wanting their clothes to get ripped (or whatever your insinuation is exactly). Please don't insult their honour as the Men of Men again. ~;)
But vartan, scary barbarians is source backed, its removal would be going all arcade with the edu...
You still don't get it? Ever tried designing a game? (It doesn't have to be a video game.) Just because certain real-life warriors were 'scary' doesn't mean you need to create a game mechanic called 'Fear Effect' in your game in order to illustrate this. In fact, you don't need to illustrate it so blatantly at all. You can do just fine making sure they act as 'fearsome' warriors by making them fight better by way of stats. That's called inheritance. The warrior's fighting ability stats inherit the fear feature as a modification, an adjustment.
As long as we do no have another way to represent the function of hoplites, we should stay with guard mode. Only when we can find another way, we should thinking about deleting guard mode. One should not decontruct everything without any alternatives. If asms idea is working: perfect.
ASM has stood out more than anyone else to me in terms of thinking of concrete possible ways of managing this issue. The truth is, though, you'll never see functioning hoplites in EB, and if they are still missing weaponry and any primitive shield-wall feature (which iirc is lacking in M2TW:K), then you won't even see it in EB II. So we'll have to drop the whole attempt at making hoplites function as hoplites and have them function as freelancing warriors dancing on the field with their aristeia instead of the traditional phalanx. Cause the phalanx won't be there. It can't be there.
By the way I'm still not sure if it is possible to delete guard mode.
You supposedly can using in-battle scripts but I'm against any 3rd-party stuff like that for security reasons.
gamegeek2
10-29-2011, 05:59
The way battle dynamics play out with fear-inducing cataphracts is excellent, and fits well with historical observances. The cataphracts are slow, clunky, and vulnerable in melee (particularly against lighter horsemen with AP weapons), but resistant to missiles and devastating upon impact.
Cataphracts are not slow. Light Cavalry barely outruns them. They can just sit around for the whole battle behind a line and they eat up every other cavalry in the game bar the Sacred Band and Lanceari/Ambakaro, couple this with superior missile power of the Hellenistic factions, they are basically invulnerable to all but the most crazy of tactics (hehe shak :P), wheares all other heavy cavalry are extremely vulnerable to missiles and barbarian factions get screwed even harder because they do NOT have missile superiority, cannot protect their flanks now(sorry robin, spear infantry does not work anymore with cataphracts :( ) and their already fragile morale is further disrupted by the presence of fear, previously being their only trump card.
That concludes my defense of the barbarian factions.
I would also like to say that balance is being skewed more and more towards the Hellenistic factions and normal horse archers are SHIT as the main component of steppe armies.
Forget scary. I don't know which genius thought up the idea of that feature in the first place
OK im that genius who begins this discussion, so i see that im not the only one who is GENIUS and dont agree with me, remove fear from catas and give them eagle...
TheShakAttack
10-29-2011, 11:27
Awesome. Lot's of juicy stuff to reply to.
First of all, @ TCV- I was only saying that tongue-in-cheek.
@ Arjos- you are still taking a very slanted view. The Gaesatae were acting as a rear guard, and they were facing "half" of the Roman army. As I said before, it would be very stupid of a commander NOT to use javs against them. It's like in EBO where you have falxmen/Bastarnae in front of you during skirmish stages and you choose NOT to use arrows/javs against them (where you have the option of doing so), and instead, charge them with infantry. Does that mean as a general you are scared of them, or you are making best use of resources? Undoubtedly there is some argument that these dudes were given some respect, but I wanted sources where their capacity to lower morale was clear.
@Lazy- I do not think catas slant dynamics signifcantly towards Hellenistic factions. Catas are pretty easy to counteract. I've played against hellenistic factions many times and taken non hellenic whilst doing so. I've even had battles against 4-6 catas (in a 2v2) with me and my ally as non cata factions, and it was pretty easy to beat them. Pontos, Carthage, Ptoles, Sweboz for instance are great anti-cav factions. I am not 100% sure how the barbs fare since I am still a noob at controlling celtic armies.
Also, catas are very slow and cumbersome. Try running around very tired cataphracts. They get to that state very quickly, recover stamina very slowly compared to other cav. When facing them, you just have to wait for an attack and keep ur cav/spears in reserve.
@GG2- I completly agree with you. Having said that, I admit to the proponents of cata fear removal that it is absurd that an exausted, severely depleted cata unit lowers morale in the vicinity when it is running around- however, the same can be said of exhausted, depleted naked unit. I personally use Gaesatae to do that many a times- run them around purely to use fear effect. In fact, if anything, I use it more with Gaesatae than catas, since catas are a very expensive unit, and I cannot really afford to run them around purely for using fear effect.
Remove shield values from armored archers please. And horse archers are a no no as the main component for steppe factions. FIX THIS GG2 I EXPECT BETTER FROM FELLOW SAUROMATAE
Remove shield values from armored archers please.
On which basis should shield value be removed? Bospharans, Cretans and Syrians do have shields, they used them, you cannot artificially remove them for any kind of gameplay reasons. I think heavy archers have their problems now because they are so expensive.
you are still taking a very slanted view. The Gaesatae were acting as a rear guard
They were surrounded by two armies, they were the front line on that side, and it's not a slanted view, it wasn't common for the Romani to prolong the missile engagement as much, even against the Galatikoi, Vulso ordered such measures: it wasn't a good move to engage them in close quarters...
At Cannae the Gaisatoi are said to have been naked from the navel upwards, so maybe wasn't about the nudity, but the mobility these units had, and I think that falxmen worked the same way...
But their status still gave them a mental edge over the enemy...
Missiles were their weakness, and even superior armoured infantry avoided clashing with them, it was sure the right thing to do (throwing javelins at them), but at the same time this show how keeping a distance was preferable...
On which basis should shield value be removed? Bospharans, Cretans and Syrians do have shields, they used them, you cannot artificially remove them for any kind of gameplay reasons. I think heavy archers have their problems now because they are so expensive.
They make them invincible to arrows. Ok they were armored but still small shields will not have this big an effect.
They make them invincible to arrows. Ok they were armored but still small shields will not have this big an effect.
At least cretans and syrians are not invincible to arrows. Perhaps shield value for bosphorans should be reduced, I'd need to think about that but otherwise I can't see the problem. You propably did not bring your archers close enough?
Just because certain real-life warriors were 'scary' doesn't mean you need to create a game mechanic called 'Fear Effect' in your game in order to illustrate this.
I disagree, "barbarians" were masters of psychological warfare, pure superiority in fighting skills would be an over simplification...
The cataphracts are slow, clunky, and vulnerable in melee (particularly against lighter horsemen with AP weapons), but resistant to missiles and devastating upon impact.
And how fear plays out in those parameters? Even without it they'd still be slow, vulnerable in melee, resistant to missiles and with a devastating charge...
The biggest problem with cata-fear is that spear infantry does not do very well against them. I'm no expert for cataphracts but should they not still have to avoid spear infantry?
gamegeek2
10-29-2011, 18:24
Why, exactly? Cataphracts would be quite experienced dealing with spearmen, as would their mounts. Note please that the catas' lances are a lot longer than infantry spears. However they are quite vulnerable in melee with spearmen.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
10-29-2011, 20:07
All I know is that its about 6-2 against giving cataphracts the fear bonus. A month of testing has been done with the Eastern Hellenistic factions, more with Pahlava and Hayasdan, and the majority of us have found the fear factor to be imbalancing. Yes, cataphracts are counterable though some factions have more trouble with this than others. However, the ability to stand your cavalry behind your infantry with no way to charge the enemy and still have the enemy be afraid of the cataphracts is silly. And this is how cataphracts are used now.
Also Shak, you mentioned that to fight cataphracts you just have to defend against them when they swing around your lines. What about factions like the Lusos, the Celts, Sweboz, and to a somewhat lesser degree the Getai (who have good ranged options at least)? They can't just sit around and let their lightly armored infantry get shot up by 120 man persian units or elite and accurate Cretans, Syrians or Bosphorans. They need to attack. And this plays right into the cataphracts hands as instead of having to run to get to you, they can wait for you to come to them, all the while sowing fear amongst their enemies from a standstill position.
Aulus Caecina Severus
10-30-2011, 00:54
I've test this edu and I think something still not work:
1-Cretans very overpowered
2-imperial cohors and evocata overpowered
3-kopis infantry overpowered
4-kata and extraordinarii lightly overpowered
5-principes and hastati very underpowered
6-overhand hoplites underpowered
7-eastern archers quite underpowered
8-axemen lightly underpowered
The phalanx and light cavalry are good.
gamegeek2
10-30-2011, 01:46
Yes, cataphracts are counterable though some factions have more trouble with this than others. However, the ability to stand your cavalry behind your infantry with no way to charge the enemy and still have the enemy be afraid of the cataphracts is silly. And this is how cataphracts are used now.
The same argument applies to Vojinos, Uirodusios, Pictones, Gaesatae, and the like; especially the former two. Would you suggest I remove fear from those units as well? I might from Vojinos, but the Uiros and the Gaesatae?
The fact is that the fear and command abilities in general open up this kind of abuse. Command for generals is fine; command and fear on other units leads to some bad ingame results.
The cataphracts , I dont care about historicity in this case, remove their fear, it can be abused far more than other stuff.
And yea, remove it from the Vojinos, why would someone fear being eaten AFTER he is dead?
capomafioso
10-30-2011, 04:21
The cataphracts , I dont care about historicity in this case, remove their fear, it can be abused far more than other stuff.
And yea, remove it from the Vojinos, why would someone fear being eaten AFTER he is dead?
because hugely superstitious ancient peoples usually wanted to go to the afterlife with their limbs uneaten, secondly, the best way to keep meat fresh is to keep it alive, so im assuming it would more be fear of capture.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
10-30-2011, 06:34
The same argument applies to Vojinos, Uirodusios, Pictones, Gaesatae, and the like; especially the former two. Would you suggest I remove fear from those units as well? I might from Vojinos, but the Uiros and the Gaesatae?
The fact is that the fear and command abilities in general open up this kind of abuse. Command for generals is fine; command and fear on other units leads to some bad ingame results.
Ah yes, but the weaknesses of these units are not stamina or maneuverability. Rather this is considered one of their strengths as they lack armor. Standing still is not too big a deal for units with great stamina but for units with poor stamina, its an advantage as they don't need to waste their energies.
Remove shield values from armored archers please. And horse archers are a no no as the main component for steppe factions. FIX THIS GG2 I EXPECT BETTER FROM FELLOW SAUROMATAE
Perhaps we should have it so that 75% of arrows from 175m afar from atop swiftly moving mounts should strike and kill their targets? I can only think of one word for this: genius. I hope you concur.
I disagree, "barbarians" were masters of psychological warfare, pure superiority in fighting skills would be an over simplification...
Wake up call: nobody is saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is that fear in RTW isn't fear. It's an asinine feature that needs to go. I have a hatred for many of the design features of the RTW engine I doubt most could understand.
Also Shak, you mentioned that to fight cataphracts you just have to defend against them when they swing around your lines. What about factions like the Lusos, the Celts, Sweboz, and to a somewhat lesser degree the Getai (who have good ranged options at least)? They can't just sit around and let their lightly armored infantry get shot up by 120 man persian units or elite and accurate Cretans, Syrians or Bosphorans. They need to attack. And this plays right into the cataphracts hands as instead of having to run to get to you, they can wait for you to come to them, all the while sowing fear amongst their enemies from a standstill position.
When we balance, we don't try to balance all matchups. You can't get all MUs to balance. And you don't want to. So if the fact is that Cata vs Barb faction is in advantage of the Cata, we're not going to try to modify it so that it's even. This ruins the balance on the other ends. If you tried increasing barb power to compensate, they become OP vis a vis other factions. Underpower the cata faction and it becomes UP vis a vis other factions. This is what I want people to understand.
-------------------------
Fact is, the debate over the fear issue is a bit more insightful if you start thinking in terms of the bigger picture. Think of fear and command, as gg2 mentioned. Start putting them on a plethora of units and you're just asking for a mess. Keep command exactly that, a leader (commander) bonus, and take the broken fear feature out of the picture, and you're left with a cleaner system to mold and work with. Truly, you're better off making barbarian warriors fearful by improving their fighting capabilities (and this wouldn't be ahistorical) instead of making them bull dung and having fear on them. I hope people see the sense in this because it's really a disgusting issue in my opinion. Mostly this and the whole notion of making all MUs "balanced". Heh...
But but but, they did shoot from 175m afar, if you bring them closer, they will get ripped to shreds, as moving fast apparently has no effect on the other units accuracy, and you are basically asking to die.
I agree, in June, they were OP, foot archers could not touch them with the cantabrian circle, but now, with it removed, it has made them pretty useless, especially since we do not have any missile limits, many factions can bring 8 (in the case of AS, even more) armored archers and completely nullify the historical advantage of steppe armies, their archery.
gamegeek2
10-30-2011, 13:56
It's decided. Steppe horse archers will have better accuracy as foot archers. I can justify this because horse archers typically have a lifetime of training, I think.
Let's leave it this way: fear is not leaving the cataphracts unless it also leaves the Gaesatae. The only units I MIGHT consider keeping fear for, were it removed from these two, would be the black-painted nakeds that the Sweboz have.
Also, does anybody else feel like those Harii naked infantry deserve 2 HP? They don't do drugs (but it's very suspect whether Gaesatae did drugs, either) but it would do a lot of good to balance that unit, given its small shield (which I need to reduce back to 3) and it would feel appropriate IMHO.
-Stormrage-
10-30-2011, 14:13
I support GG's Position.
Well if you all see fear as a broken feature, let's test its complete removal...
But how on earth are the Woithiz Wāthā more deserving for it? Those warriors painted themselves to avoid being spotted in night ambushes, in daylight they are just Uirodusios...
^This.
Ok, remove fear, but, compensate for it for the celtic factions
Brave Brave Sir Robin
10-30-2011, 15:43
GG2, I'm gonna sound rude saying this but so forgive me in advance:sweatdrop: but what makes you the final decision maker regarding the edu? Yes you have put the time and effort into putting it all together which we are very(!) thankful for, but I don't understand how that makes your decision "right" and everyone else's wrong. It is still just your opinion. Shouldn't a vote of the regular players be the way to solve this?
Also, if we remove fear it would be wise to re institute a missile limit. IMO we should do this anyway as every battle begins with missile duels with even more missile units being held in reserve causing 2v2's to take over 45 minutes which is absurd.
For the record, I don't see fear as a broken feature. If this is the case, then we should limit cataphracts to one charge a battle. It's a broken feature that they can charge 4-5 times before being exhausted. Engine limitations (i.e. 3 levels of stamina or representing fear) exist people, don't act like they don't.
If per Vartan's recommendation, we would remove fear from say, Uridusios, they would need somewhere around 20 attack and defense to justify their price, unless we of course lowered the price to 1000 or so. Even without fear, they'd be the first target for archers and larger sized levy units with bigger shields would become better options. Making them ahistorically better fighters than anyone else because they are naked is just as silly as the fear bonus.
gamegeek2
10-30-2011, 18:34
Robin, the mechanic prompts exploitation no matter where you put it. Ergo, I propose cutting fear from all units except MAYBE the black-painted Suebian warriors. Uirodusios would get command back but lose fear. Gaesatae woud lose fear. Et caetera.
The problem here is that everybody is proposing to gut one unit type's abilities because they feel it is easy to exploit, but they aren't going after others simply because they aren't used as often. By comparison with how Epeirote players make use of Uirodusios, Cataphracts are completely fair! I have actually seen people park their Uirodusios right behind their phalanxes and have them just sit there to scare the enemy. That is far worse than any cataphract exploit, because you at least aren't putting 4000 of your mnai to actual combat use if you just leave your cataphracts sitting there. But if you leave your naked sitting there, you have spent far less mnai and are getting the same result. Plus, the naked units can still throw javelins (Gaesatae are particularly effective with their javelin attack) or do similar things (cataphract archers can do that too, I suppose).
So if I am to cut fear from cataphracts, fear is leaving the naked units, Pictones, etc. as well.
Also, does anybody else feel like those Harii naked infantry deserve 2 HP? They don't do drugs (but it's very suspect whether Gaesatae did drugs, either) but it would do a lot of good to balance that unit, given its small shield (which I need to reduce back to 3) and it would feel appropriate IMHO.
I'd second that. I don't see any reason to favour the gaesatae ove the harii. And I don't think that gasatae could be represented well without the second HP. I'd give a second HP for all no to light armoured troops which are known for fighting further when (heavily) wounded.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
10-30-2011, 19:26
Robin, the mechanic prompts exploitation no matter where you put it. Ergo, I propose cutting fear from all units except MAYBE the black-painted Suebian warriors. Uirodusios would get command back but lose fear. Gaesatae woud lose fear. Et caetera.
The problem here is that everybody is proposing to gut one unit type's abilities because they feel it is easy to exploit, but they aren't going after others simply because they aren't used as often. By comparison with how Epeirote players make use of Uirodusios, Cataphracts are completely fair! I have actually seen people park their Uirodusios right behind their phalanxes and have them just sit there to scare the enemy. That is far worse than any cataphract exploit, because you at least aren't putting 4000 of your mnai to actual combat use if you just leave your cataphracts sitting there. But if you leave your naked sitting there, you have spent far less mnai and are getting the same result. Plus, the naked units can still throw javelins (Gaesatae are particularly effective with their javelin attack) or do similar things (cataphract archers can do that too, I suppose).
So if I am to cut fear from cataphracts, fear is leaving the naked units, Pictones, etc. as well.
Infantry already receive a morale penalty when fighting cavalry and the charge itself is scary in a sense that it destroys about a quarter of even heavy infantry units instantly from the front. Cataphracts don't need the frighten_foot attribute to actually cause a morale shock to units while infantry do because charges don't work as well as we'd like and infantry don't kill fast enough to lower morale significantly. My arguments are being mostly based on gameplay rather than realisms sake for the record. I don't think the engine can properly simulate a realistic battle and so I feel that gameplay needs to be in balance with historical accuracy, especially with something which is not so clear cut as fear effects in battle situations.
Oh and naked or lighter armored fear units parked behind phalangites or any composition of main line are an easy target for missiles, something cataphracts are not.
Remove fear and let's see what happens, but from all units...
I don't like it one bit though...
But best historical solution is this:
removal of Gaesatae replacing it with Uirodusios, Pictone lose fear, give slighty better stats to Uirodusios and Woithiz Wāthā, they keep fear and catas get inspire...
Harmata Drepanephora keeps fear and Cidainh gets it replaced by inspire...
This is following ancient sources, rest is arcade and not liking RTW's features...
capomafioso
10-31-2011, 00:19
i agree that cataphracts sitting behind the phalanx scaring enemy infantry is ridiculous, i dont see why fear should be removed as a mechanic but if people are gonna insist on abusing fear then its not very fair, however i was reading an account by suetonius on the invasion of anglesey i think, and he described the druids as not doing anything, but the soldiers believed they were the furies, and so were scared despite not being attacked by the druids, with these kinds of units the fear mechanic isnt broken, its working exactly as historically described.
there must be a way to maintain historical accuracy while also maintaining balance, cataphracts for the sake of balance shouldnt get fear, units like gaesatae should have their armor reduced or something so if a sneaky player decides to just sit them behind his line they can be easily destroyed by archers . as arjos said, why not change some of the fear units to inspire instead? idk im just saying id really like to not have to simplify the game
TheShakAttack
10-31-2011, 11:24
Just though it would be interesting to add- Roman legions were scared of slaves as well (during revolt of Spartacus). I do say that slightly tongue-in-cheek Crassus had to decimate to make them more scared of him than the slaves.
Also, Roman soldiers did not think druids were the furies, they thought the women running around screaming were the furies. They very soon recovered and killed all of them.
This kind of reaction against the unknown is very common- troops just get slightly taken aback.
BTW- the above was not to make any particular argument- just interesting info relevant to fear debate.
TheShakAttack
10-31-2011, 18:31
Hey guys, this might be irrelevant to this post, but I'd be grateful if someone who is currently on the Hamachi network but not playing leaves. I am trying to join, network is full.
Hey guys, this might be irrelevant to this post, but I'd be grateful if someone who is currently on the Hamachi network but not playing leaves. I am trying to join, network is full.
Sames situation here i cant join as well... :(
Shak made a back up room at:
id: EBOnline
pass: eb
antisocialmunky
11-01-2011, 01:32
Compensate with ridiculous charge values. That is the equivalent of localized fear. Charge, inflict enough casualties to quickly break. I'd say reduce stamina due to ferocity of attack for the nakeds. Drugs or not, you're going to get spent fairly quickly.
Also add warcry.
I agree, in June, they were OP, foot archers could not touch them with the cantabrian circle, but now, with it removed, it has made them pretty useless, especially since we do not have any missile limits, many factions can bring 8 (in the case of AS, even more) armored archers and completely nullify the historical advantage of steppe armies, their archery.
Thanks for bringing this up. I wish there was a way we could modify exactly how the CC affects the HAs, both offensively and defensively. As it is I think the effects are not programmed correctly as they can kill more than they should and don't die as much as they should. Too bad it's hardcoded cause you don't want to try to compensate (in vain at the end of the day) foot-A and HA for CC because it carries over into foot vs non-HA duels. That we can't touch CC except to enable or disable it is beyond annoying.
GG2, I'm gonna sound rude saying this but so forgive me in advance:sweatdrop: but what makes you the final decision maker regarding the edu? Yes you have put the time and effort into putting it all together which we are very(!) thankful for, but I don't understand how that makes your decision "right" and everyone else's wrong. It is still just your opinion. Shouldn't a vote of the regular players be the way to solve this?
We've yet to take a democratic approach to the EDU-editing process...
Obviously I'm kidding. What do you think we've been doing this whole time? It's been about people's opinions the whole time. In fact, I think community opinion is #2 on gg's priority list of what he takes into account in the process (he posted this list somewhere a while back).
Also, if we remove fear it would be wise to re institute a missile limit. IMO we should do this anyway as every battle begins with missile duels with even more missile units being held in reserve causing 2v2's to take over 45 minutes which is absurd.
This is one concern I share. Perhaps a gameplay rule could be implemented? (Not a missile/unit limit.)
For the record, I don't see fear as a broken feature. If this is the case, then we should limit cataphracts to one charge a battle. It's a broken feature that they can charge 4-5 times before being exhausted. Engine limitations (i.e. 3 levels of stamina or representing fear) exist people, don't act like they don't.
Or perhaps two charges. This is also a concern I share and a big problem with the RTW engine. Perhaps another gameplay rule.
If per Vartan's recommendation, we would remove fear from say, Uridusios, they would need somewhere around 20 attack and defense to justify their price, unless we of course lowered the price to 1000 or so. Even without fear, they'd be the first target for archers and larger sized levy units with bigger shields would become better options. Making them ahistorically better fighters than anyone else because they are naked is just as silly as the fear bonus.
Exactly, why do you think I'd rather fear wasn't removed from the catas alone? There's a huge cost discrepancy as it is between the two.
Compensate with ridiculous charge values. That is the equivalent of localized fear. Charge, inflict enough casualties to quickly break. I'd say reduce stamina due to ferocity of attack for the nakeds. Drugs or not, you're going to get spent fairly quickly.
Also add warcry.
Vanilla players will agree that this is by far one of the most OP mechanisms.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-01-2011, 01:57
Well as to your last point Vartan, fear wasn't present with cataphract units prior to the 3.0 edu. The only faction with access to cataphracts which, imo, needed to be fixed for 3.0 in order to make it competitive was Hayasdan. Pahlava, Saka and the two Hellenistic factions were fine as they were without fearful cataphracts. In fact, the limit on 2500+ units is another bonus for Hayasdan, Pahlava and Saka as they can bring more super heavy cavalry than anyone else now. In fact, I've seen Pahlava army comps with 6 cataphract units used in battle, something no other faction can possibly hope for (and an absolute pain in the rear to deal with I might add). That point aside, Hayasdan's weakness wasn't in cavalry, it was in infantry and that has been satisfactorily addressed. Therefore, I am unclear as to why fear needed to be added in the first place. I would be afraid of any sort of cavalry charging me, cataphract or not.
Also one last point as devil's advocate. Why is there a dividing line between fully armored horse and mostly armored horses as the Hetairoi and Roxolani Nobles represent? Are these less scary because the horse has no neck armor?
gamegeek2
11-01-2011, 04:19
It also has to do with historical accuracy reasons. Sarmatian horses weren't known to be overtly armoured, nor were hetairoi horses. Cataphract horses were of course very well armored. I have to fuse this with the games representation as best as I can.
Implementing charge limits is just draconian...Perhaps we are getting a bit too far? Can we not just nerf cataphract stamina further?
The Celtic Viking
11-01-2011, 12:41
Unfortunately, no. There are only three stamina choices: none, hardy and very_hardy. Cats already have none.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-01-2011, 12:49
Unfortunately, no. There are only three stamina choices: none, hardy and very_hardy. Cats already have none.
Yes. They may have a slower skeleton, moving slightly slower than other cavalry so this hurts their stamina as it takes them a bit more time to get from A to B. However, this is minimal.
And I thought Sarmatian horses were often depicted as covered in scales, aka the armor they wore? Or is this from beyond our time frame? The reliefs I'm thinking of may come more from the time of the mid to late empire.
TheShakAttack
11-01-2011, 13:18
Robin, you're correct- it is later in time than EBO time period afaik.
-Stormrage-
11-01-2011, 13:19
Weve gone low enough to make limits on the number of charges a player can make .
Gotta love eb rules. thats what it takes to make the game fair huh
Speudogordoz lacking a secondary weapon are invulnerable to rear cavalry charges, and maybe this makes them incredibly high on morale: is as if they always fight frontally...
The Celtic Viking
11-01-2011, 15:33
Yes. They may have a slower skeleton, moving slightly slower than other cavalry so this hurts their stamina as it takes them a bit more time to get from A to B. However, this is minimal.
Oh, right, forgot about that way. Can it be done, though? I thought they already had the slowest one, but maybe I'm talking out of the night cap.
gamegeek2
11-01-2011, 15:43
Yes. They may have a slower skeleton, moving slightly slower than other cavalry so this hurts their stamina as it takes them a bit more time to get from A to B. However, this is minimal.
And I thought Sarmatian horses were often depicted as covered in scales, aka the armor they wore? Or is this from beyond our time frame? The reliefs I'm thinking of may come more from the time of the mid to late empire.
There arent many archaeological finds of horse armour.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-01-2011, 20:54
There arent many archaeological finds of horse armour.
Depicted, as in reliefs.
3011
This is from Trajan's expedition however, about 100 years out of our timeframe.
I think he meant of steppe people, those should be Parthians I think no?
Rob this has already been mentioned I think but fear is more useful for the Hai. On Pah and Sak it's more overkill. But it wouldn't seem "right" if we cherry-picked like that. I'd be asking for flames.
gamegeek2
11-02-2011, 00:02
Depicted, as in reliefs.
3011
This is from Trajan's expedition however, about 100 years out of our timeframe.
I know this sounds incredibly, but that depiction is just not accurate. In fact, IIRC some Roman sources say that many Sarmatian lancers were easily killed when they were knocked off their mounts because of their light armor. The idea of a Sarmatian cataphract is a stereotype, and it's not even very realistic. Sarmatian nobles had nothing like the funds of great Azats when equipping themselves for war.
The depiction is obviously an exaggeration anyways. It shows the horses' legs covered in scale, for goodness' sake!
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-02-2011, 03:50
Speudogordoz lacking a secondary weapon are invulnerable to rear cavalry charges, and maybe this makes them incredibly high on morale: is as if they always fight frontally...
Yeah the Speudo's about 3 or 4 deep defeated Pezhetairoi head on who were about 6 or 7 deep:/ I think they're better suited as just a spear formation again and just give them a high attack. Missing a secondary makes them nearly immune to flanking, even cavalry who did little.
Hear ye Hear ye, another drama is about to commence.
I propose we remove eagles from all non general units, yes, that means..........dum di dum di dum *drumroll* First Cohorts, if we are removing fear. Many other units similiar in function lost their eagles due to the effect being "gamey" since we are getting rid of fear anyway lets just get rid of the eagles too so Roman players have to get proper general units now. Anybody who disagrees I invite him to please present a case of WHY they should have eagles in the first place and what makes them so unique that no other unit in the game should be allowed it.
antisocialmunky
11-06-2011, 06:21
The 1st Cohort contains the senior Centurions and assists in the command and control during battles. I think if anything, there should be a few more eagle units representing command and control particularly in the east since armies of mixed peoples had their own local commanders. The various noble cavalry and infantry would be a good start.
From wiki:
During the Imperial era, centurions gradually rose in seniority in their cohort, commanding centuries with higher precedence, until commanding the senior century and therefore the whole cohort. The very best centurions were then promoted to become centurions in the First Cohort, called Primi Ordines, commanding one of the ten centuries and also taking on a staff role. The most senior centurion of the legion was the Primus Pilus who commanded the first century. All centurions, however senior, had their own allocated century.
I'm actually for more command units too, though I can understand if one wants people to actually take generals' units. Perhaps one could make it more expensive for non-general units? By the way I think that command is much less gamey than fear because you cannot really fear an enemy who not engaging but you can surely be inspired by other troops near to you.
By that logic almost every other faction would have eagle troops. And we are back to square 1. If all other "inspirational" units had their eagles removed, why not the first cohorts?
This is inconsistent, if you have First Cohorts as eagle units, give it back to the unitswho had them previously (except uro), or remove it altogether and keep it to the general unit. These untis were known to inspire just as much as the first cohorts.
It also ruins game balance in favor of Rome. Roman units are very high morale as they are already.
Also, remove inspirational units alltogether and keep it to the generals, for sake of consistency, since fear has been lost.
Imo there should be both fear and eagles, for sources attested units having such an effect, or total removal...
We can test both scenarios and see how it goes...
antisocialmunky
11-06-2011, 15:18
I would rather have 'inspiring units' and command & control units get it back or just command and control. You could lower morale and cost of non-veteran units to compensate for eagle proliferation. Maybe someone will use them now lol.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-06-2011, 15:19
Aren't we going to test the loss of fear first to see how it works for all factions, then make a final decision? We shouldn't talk in such definite terms if this is the case.
Will the removal of fear from units like Gaesatae, Uridusios, cataphracts, etc also bring about a reduction in cost? I don't think cataphracts necessarily need a cost reduction as their prices have been nearly universally slashed already from previous edu's when they had no fear but infantry without fear lowers their usefulness, i.e. Uridusios with no fear are just a crappy spear unit that no one will ever use at 1400 mnai when they could get something like alpine phalanx at a similar price.
Also, overproliferation of eagle units would doom factions like the Casse as this is their one strength if fear is removed (my opinion is that they are already screwed without fear but that is of course just an opinion and the truth will be seen through playtesting). It also hurts all other barb factions that rely on quickly killing enemy units in order to break them as the lightly armored but harder hitting units lose to heavier infantry over prolonged periods of time, especially after tiring. This is the sense in which I feel the fear mechanic was most useful: it helped represent the ability of Germanic and Celtic armies to break their opponents with massive charges rather than slugging it out for some time which was historically a weakness of the Celts especially.
I would rather have 'inspiring units' and command & control units get it back or just command and control. You could lower morale and cost of non-veteran units to compensate for eagle proliferation. Maybe someone will use them now lol.
Would be hell to balance out.
antisocialmunky
11-06-2011, 15:43
You're just lazy.
Dont go off topic.
I still havent seen a good reason for First Cohorts having eagles.
I still havent seen a good reason for First Cohorts having eagles.
The real question is why are they the only ones (almost) with it?
If it's all about balancing, they should lose it aswell, if we wanna stick to history let them have it, plus nobles from the rest of the ancient world...
Hahaha and then im noob complainer?! Guys try to find some solution by giving eagle to elites in other factions, i dont know what else, but removing eagle from First Cohort?!? that so ridicilous, anyway i dont want to think about it...xD
Also Spqr dont have eagles at all, what about camilians and polybians?, they dont have any eagle exept general of course, imperials and marians are specific, there is no big reason why we should remove it, so stupid discussion, i think gg2 have bigger balance problems instead of this..
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-06-2011, 17:43
I think First Cohorts should keep the eagle. Rome is relatively easy to play as, but not OP at all. I don't think any other units besides general's bg and "champion" units should receive eagles. Too many eagles strongly favors cavalry heavy factions since it would be nearly impossible to break units otherwise.
Keep it to champion units? You forget every faction has "champion" units. Bring back fear also if we are going to spread eagles around.
Re: Eagles
On the topic of eagles... It would be best if there was a slider-based value of inspiration to nearby troops which could be set for each unit in the game. This way, we could have varying levels of inspiration depending on if the unit in question was a general, a Roman First Cohort, an eastern noble clan leader, and so on. Do we have such a value? No. What we have instead is a toggled mechanic whose effect we cannot modify (i.e., we have no way of modifying the extent of the inspiration, if you will, and even if we did, it would be universal and not on a per-unit basis). Therefore, if we are to look at the eagle mechanic in the most theoretical way (see above), then we will want to find the greatest common factor (GCF; to borrow from mathematics), and that would be the general. He is the GCF of all factions in EB, and if we wish to reduce the proliferation (and subsequent consequences) of the eagle mechanic, we would do best to restrict the eagle mechanic solely to general units.
Is this to say that there are no non-general units in EB which historically inspired their warriors? Not at all. Rather, this is to say that if we are to look at the mechanic theoretically, and our aim is to reduce negative ramifications (and abuses) of the mechanic, then we would have to restrict the eagle to generals only.
I believe it is Brave Sir Robin who brings up a good point in stating that the Casse are a special case in that they are uniquely playable through their use of eagles, and thus the removal of eagles for the Casse would have a devastating effect on their competitive playability. Therefore, I do not think it would be far-fetched or "wrong" in any sense to make an exception for the Casse (or any faction regarding any game mechanic) when it comes to the eagle. I personally do not find the eagle as abuse-prone as the fear mechanic (although it can reach that level very easily; cf. earlier non-tournament EBO SPQR ubiquitous 1st Cohorts).
In a sense, this approach can be taken with the fear mechanic as well. But there we have a less clear-cut line. In fact, I do not believe there to be any GCF when it comes to fear, because there is no top-down approach as with the eagle and generals/nobles/etc. That is why the fear effect is so problematic to this moment.
So many things to note for gg2 in this replay.
http://www.mediafire.com/?i1jj2la9lhmd6xd
antisocialmunky
11-07-2011, 00:06
Well the main difference between fear + eagles is that IIRC, the eagle morale bonus value is much less than a single fear stack atleast through my experience and that eagles don't immediately neutralize units like fear. I mean, if you run 1 chariot behind a line that's been engaged for a while, the whole line breaks and you can lose 10+ units just because of 1 unit immediately. Eagles only make your units fight longer which means all things being equal, in a pushing match, the unit with the eagles will rout later. However, things rarely come down to those types of slug fests because of maneuvering and cavalry.
TLDR or you are Lazy - Fear has the ability to neutralize a ton of your army immediately via chain routing while eagles only make units stay in combat longer.
TheShakAttack
11-07-2011, 02:10
I have to admit, its an interesting point Lazy raises that the First Cohort ("FC") is the only non-gen unit that gets ability to "inspire" troops. After reading what he says, my initial shock at questioning FC ealges died off, lol.
The way I look at it, I don't think that its bad that the FC gets eagles- however, it is troubling that other units that were equally known to inspire do not get that ability. Especially in the "gameplay/balance" context that Marian/Imperial legions are quite high in morale already.
The two ways to proceed are to give eagles to other troops, or, to remove eagles from all non-gen units (including FC). Both have pros and cons. The 2 main drawbacks I see in giving it to other units are that (1) it would make battles longer and more of a "long grind"- this means that high armored troops/factions will get the advantage (since armor is not affected by exhaustion). (2) It would make "shock" tactics, and audacious risk taking less rewarding. I see this as problematic. Of course I do have to qualify that by saying it is not like it will make a massive difference, the way a fear stack used does.
Of course the drawback to removing eagles from FC is that it is kind of ahistorical, but then, units like Uros and Ktistai (afaik- not 100% sure) not getting it is kind of ahistorical already.
I don't really feel strongly either way (FC should lose or others should get), but I do agree they should not remain the only non-gen unit that retains eagle.
I also agree with ASM- giving eagles to more troops does not mean fear has to be brought back since fear+eagle do not cancel each other out, nor work with equal efficacy (effectiveness).
I have to admit, its an interesting point Lazy raises that the First Cohort ("FC") is the only non-gen unit that gets ability to "inspire" troops. After reading what he says, my initial shock at questioning FC ealges died off, lol.
The way I look at it, I don't think that its bad that the FC gets eagles- however, it is troubling that other units that were equally known to inspire do not get that ability. Especially in the "gameplay/balance" context that Marian/Imperial legions are quite high in morale already.
The two ways to proceed are to give eagles to other troops, or, to remove eagles from all non-gen units (including FC). Both have pros and cons. The 2 main drawbacks I see in giving it to other units are that (1) it would make battles longer and more of a "long grind"- this means that high armored troops/factions will get the advantage (since armor is not affected by exhaustion). (2) It would make "shock" tactics, and audacious risk taking less rewarding. I see this as problematic. Of course I do have to qualify that by saying it is not like it will make a massive difference, the way a fear stack used does.
Of course the drawback to removing eagles from FC is that it is kind of ahistorical, but then, units like Uros and Ktistai (afaik- not 100% sure) not getting it is kind of ahistorical already.
I don't really feel strongly either way (FC should lose or others should get), but I do agree they should not remain the only non-gen unit that retains eagle.
I also agree with ASM- giving eagles to more troops does not mean fear has to be brought back since fear+eagle do not cancel each other out, nor work with equal efficacy (effectiveness).
This (except with emphasis on confinement of eagle mechanic to generals).
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-07-2011, 04:07
Can I ask why this all needs changing? What is going so wrong with the mechanics?
Also Vartan, I think the fear mechanic operates at different levels. I've played the Celts enough to notice that chariot fear is more disastrous to an enemy than the fear effect from infantry or chanting. Elephants are the same way.
antisocialmunky
11-07-2011, 04:36
The general has an morale boost innate radius. So if you only eagle generals, then you have no gradation of moral boosters. So Vartan is actually incorrect. There are 3 distinct tiers of radius boost (not including druids). Eagle, General and Eagle + General.
I'm pretty sure that General > Eagle.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-07-2011, 04:43
Well the General morale bonus is also affected by how far away from the general a unit is. Eagle's meanwhile, afaik, have a flat bonus to all units within a certain radius. So a general closer to unit A than to unit B gives a greater bonus to A. How large the radii are and whether there is a zone in which no bonus is received is uncertain.
Can I ask why this all needs changing? What is going so wrong with the mechanics?
Also Vartan, I think the fear mechanic operates at different levels. I've played the Celts enough to notice that chariot fear is more disastrous to an enemy than the fear effect from infantry or chanting. Elephants are the same way.
We are talking about fearing nearby infantry, not ele/chariot or other fear. Make sure you're on the same page.
The general has an morale boost innate radius. So if you only eagle generals, then you have no gradation of moral boosters. So Vartan is actually incorrect. There are 3 distinct tiers of radius boost (not including druids). Eagle, General and Eagle + General.
I'm pretty sure that General > Eagle.
Actually, there are more morale boosts than you can probably think of. You forget just how diverse the morale boosting sources are in this game. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the eagle. I never talked about generals. I'm just saying why the general deserves to be the only one with the eagle if you look at the theory.
Well the General morale bonus is also affected by how far away from the general a unit is. Eagle's meanwhile, afaik, have a flat bonus to all units within a certain radius. So a general closer to unit A than to unit B gives a greater bonus to A. How large the radii are and whether there is a zone in which no bonus is received is uncertain.
In any case, the idea I present isn't affected by these various possibilities in how the effects work. But if you really want to know, try asking CA, because I can't verify or see where anyone here knows any of what you mention BSR. It's nice food for thought, but it's not relevant how it works because the discussion isn't about this (the discussion isn't a technical one, it's a problem with methodology in EDU development as it applies to us).
Robin I think its just because theres an extra factor of chariots being present BEHIND enemy lines, think about it, how many times do we manage to sneak gaesate behind enemy lines?
In this case I think our carthage vs gaul battles should be studied in depth, I used almost every combination I could think of to neutralize fear effect.
Actually I'd rather get rid of druid chanting and chariots than of the fear effect of naked dudes. Druids, at least Carnutes should get an eagle but not that silly chanting which is scaring enemies.. Some amount of units should get the eagle (champions, druid like units, the king guards men (agema etc.), the eagle does by the way not mean commanding (that's for the general) but inspiring. The inspiring trait should have its costs, so that other than the generals unit would actually force you to bring more levy units.
Chariots are outdated for our time frame, at least the continental gauls should not really field them. Do they work without fear? Has anyone tried chariots without fear so far?
Chariots without fear is like Carthage without Iberian Assault Infantry or Pahlav without cataphracts or Sassanids without Savaran.
Toothless
TheShakAttack
11-07-2011, 09:33
Specifically regarding chariots- its no bad thing that they are toothless. They are outdated by EB timeframe, even in continental Europe (I believe Telamon is the last recorded usage?)
Why are we veering back into a fear debate? I thought we were discussing Eagles only?
@Kival- I would agree that Druids should get Eagles if FC have them. I am not so sure about Agema. FC don't inspire because they were the best, it was purely because they carried the symbol of the legion (the Eagle). If that were the case, then Praetorians/Evocati would get it too.
Fear and eagles are related, one balances out the other, without the one, the other grows too strong.
Why am I talking philosophically.
capomafioso
11-07-2011, 11:22
i dont really think that removing inspire would have a positive effect on the game, especially since its only the prima cohors, i could go on about the roman eagle's historical importance to the legion, but we know all that. Besides people would just get a cheaper generals unit and sit that behind the line, or maybe two, then in effect we havent done anything except make a historically accurate and useful unit completely pointless. idk for some reason i feel very strongly on the not removing the first cohort inspire, i dont think giving every faction its own special inspire unit is the answer, but i dont think the first cohort issue is that dire
i agree with robin on his fear take btw, i dont understand whats wrong with the fear mechanic, especially if you just lower the defence of fear units so archers can destroy them and force people to play realistically, maybe remove the galatian gaesetae from the seleucid etc's rosters, and make the fear effect more of a barbarian specific feature. i mean really, lets just delete all the effects of units in the game so all we have are stock standard units that fight and die and only that.
but then i could be completely wrong, i havent played the previous edus, and ive only been playing EBO for about 2 or 3 months.
but then i could be completely wrong, i havent played the previous edus, and ive only been playing EBO for about 2 or 3 months.
That has no relevance. You should post on stuff no matter how new you are.
TheShakAttack
11-07-2011, 11:51
@Lazy didn’t you read the point that ASM made re fear and inspire do not really balance each other out? They neither cancel each other out nor work to the same efficacy.
Did you know eagles give combat bonuses? Yes I read that point.
If fear is removed inspire should be removed as well????:Mr-T::angel::thinking2::stop::smash:
If fear is removed inspire should be removed as well????:Mr-T::angel::thinking2::stop::smash:
removing fear and eagles will kill passion for game, some strategic options will dissapear, it will not be same game, dont do that, remember, all this discussion begun bcz of damn cata fear..
TheShakAttack
11-07-2011, 15:09
I don't think it will kill passion for the game as such, though you are right, strategies will have to change and be adapted. Eagles are not being removed completely. The discussion only centered on whether or not FC should have them. (General units still get them). Fear is not being removed completely either, as elephants still get them.
Specifically regarding chariots- its no bad thing that they are toothless. They are outdated by EB timeframe, even in continental Europe (I believe Telamon is the last recorded usage?)
Why "even in continental europe"? Especially in continental Europe! For the british isles chariots should be fine. I don't have a big problem with them and if they were present at Telamon, they are not as outdated as I thought. Gauls should keep them then.
@Kival- I would agree that Druids should get Eagles if FC have them. I am not so sure about Agema. FC don't inspire because they were the best, it was purely because they carried the symbol of the legion (the Eagle). If that were the case, then Praetorians/Evocati would get it too.
Actually I would be happy to have a infantry general unit for more factions. The king guards sounds pretty good for me for that.
TheShakAttack
11-07-2011, 15:59
An infantry general is a different kettle of fish alltogether. I would love to have an infantry general for more factions.
Re: chariots, I misused the term "continental" Europe. I apologise. I have no problems factions using chariots. My biggest gripe (which has now been addressed) was about fear.Chariots were only used as forms of transport, a platform to get a good view, and a platform for throwing javelins. None of which are "scary". The scythed chariot, which is a bit more scary, was not not in "Europe" (and very popular in Anatolia and further East).
antisocialmunky
11-07-2011, 16:09
Fear on Casse Chariots is a little gamey but we should allow it for now as the roster since so many strategies rely on it and it would piss people off. They are more battle taxis to offload elites though so should have an eagle.
Fear on Scythed Chariots and Elephants is fine. Fear on Gaesatae is annoying because 2 HP units take 30 minutes to die and you can combine with chariot fear and it becomes really OP. Scary 1HP units are fine though. Scary Catas are like unkillable scythed chariots which isn't that bad but it is really hard to counter due to missile invulnerability.
Also again from my experience the only thing that negates fear is 14 morale on every unit you want to keep, the eagle morale is like a measly +1 with a smaller radius than fear. Chevron is +2 and I think general has both a +2 radius and +1 radius smaller than eagle. I think eagles do balance out druid chanting though roughly 1-1. Druid chanting is probably a better fear since it is more localized and its extremely immobile so it won't suddenly be behind you.
About scythed chariots, can we add them to the Ptolemaioi?
According to the basilikai anagraphai of Philadelphos there were 2.000 of them in his kingdom...
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-07-2011, 20:03
I think that eagles do cancel out at least one form of fear. The issue that arises is when fear effects are stacked, such as Gaesatae/Uridusios, Druidic units and chariots for celts, catas and tindanotae for AS etc. Or, towards the end of battles i.e. see the replay lazy posted when infantry is tired and cataphracts just running away from them causes them to rout because of exhaustion. The latter is solely the issue of cataphracts as exhausted infantry can't run away from other exhausted infantry, though I suppose chariots can be used in a similar way though they are much harder to keep alive until the end stages.
I have no problem with fear on all units except cataphracts for the following reason: all the other units are pretty easily counterable.
Druids/Carnutes = just engage them with any unit. Once they are engaged, they stop chanting and the effect is lost. Also, they can't be in melee to chant meaning that you are down an infantry unit or two.
Chariots = any sort of missile. Beside Scythed Chariots (which we hardly see anyway as they carry much greater risk) the factions which get the celtic chariots have pretty poor missile options. Conserve a bit of ammo, say 1/3 to 1/4 and you will handily deal with those chariots in no time.
Elephants = javs. Ellies are so expensive anyway that they hardly fit in this discussion since you generally know if an opponent is going to bring them and it becomes a game of can i use them without getting them killed?
Scary infantry = Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any scary infantry units with armor above 5-6. Uris, Pictones, Painted Nakeds, Wargozez, Voinu all have 0-3 armor I believe. Gaesatae and Tindanotae have about 4-5 I believe. All have shields but are still rather vulnerable to arrows. The least vulnerable, the 2 HP'ers are still quite vulnerable. Ask LazyO who used to bring Gaesatae as Carthage quite often until I showed him how easily 2-3 damaged units of Sotaroas can take them out from behind my lines. I think one of these replays is on youtube too. Any archer unit can make these guys suffer especially if they leave them sitting behind the line to just scare. Its usually better to engage them in this case. I think the leaving them sitting behind lines was a common complaint. A unit of Akontistai behind your lines works great as a counter by the way. Better yet, take Peltasts and you can even use them to plug holes! The only trouble is eastern greek/pontus with Tindanotae as they will have a missile advantage. But, in getting that advantage, they probably spent money that you can exploit elsewhere.
Cataphracts = here a hard counter is tough to find. Most of the factions that get cataphracts will also have a missile advantage so you can't really bring light AP cavalry or even medium AP cavalry. Slingers are mostly ineffective unless the cataphracts are turned away. Archers we know are useless. Swarming them with spearmen used to work but now the fear effect causes most light/medium spearmen to turn tail and run immediately after a charge. Even tiring them is not as effective because they still outrun also exhausted infantry and the fear effect will cause pursuing exhausted infantry to rout as well. Other heavy cavalry is really the only way but even then, your cav is likely not as good as the cataphracts and will rout sooner unless its Hetairoi or Sacred Band. Basically, countering cataphracts consists of hoping your opponent makes a mistake which you can exploit because otherwise there is no easy way around the issue.
I think it is also worth noting that both the AS and Pontos can easily pull off double scares by means of Tindanotae (or Catas for AS) and Chariots. Yet we rarely see this strategy employed. Why would it not be if it is so broken as many here claim? Maybe its because there is no need to do that as the rest of the roster more than makes up for lacking double fear in any given army. Now switch to celtic factions, especially the Casse. Here we almost always see the double scare, and about half the time, chariots make an appearance for the 3x scare. Why do these factions go for this tactic so much more often? Maybe its because there are other much more noticeable shortcomings on their rosters such as charger cavalry or higher quality missiles? Just some food for thought.
-Stormrage-
11-07-2011, 20:34
has anyone done any tests with chariot morale first before talking about nerfing them.
Once upon a time i had 1 general, next to my chevroned chariots, the chev gave them +2 morale. I charged them at cavalry, they ran without touching anything.
Test their morale.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-07-2011, 20:42
Scythed chariots have terrible morale, the celtic ones usually stay in battle until 1 or 2 are left.
TheShakAttack
11-07-2011, 21:13
Great post Robin. Food for thought indeed.
.
I take your point about difficulty in killing off catas. However, to respond to your argument, its not as easy as you make it sound to "get behind" enemy lines and engage druids, or shoot/pelt at gaesatae from rear- attempting to do so may well be difficult.
Your argument presupposes the necessity of fear though. We are, once again, going back to the same old convo- "I want fear but catas cant have it".
With regards to eagles cancelling out fear - are you refuting what ASM has said about the issue?
I do appreciate what you are saying- getting fear taken away will destroy one specific tactic used by players (fear stack causing mass routs); but I am not entirely convinced that this is a bad thing and in fact, seems more "gamey" (exploitation of game mechanics) and againstthe ethos of EBO is (which is to have relatively accurate historical battles if I understand correctly).
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-07-2011, 21:38
I disagree with ASM with regards to eagles canceling out fear. I think eagles most certainly bestow more than +1 morale to nearby units. We can't be certain of course, but wouldn't you agree that units with an eagle nearby seem to fight significantly longer? More than simply +1 morale in my opinion which is a small number in the scheme of things. For example, how long does it take to kill a Casse army when champions are nearby? I think +2 to +3 seems much more reasonable given the numbers of men in units like Teceitos and Botroas left before a rout begins. This would roughly cancel out the fear effect from a nearby naked unit.
Getting behind enemy lines actually isn't that hard in 1v1's. In 2v2 or 3v3's this is not the case but against a single opponent who is sacrificing an infantry unit so it can simply stand still behind the line, it really isn't difficult at all if you play aggressively and your opponent doesn't form a 3 sided box which you shouldn't do as Celts anyway. Also, the morale bonus for chanting seems to be much greater than the fear bonus which is pretty minimal as far as I've noticed.
You don't need to shoot Gaesatae from the rear, the front works reasonably well. See the video I posted on youtube fighting against LazyO as the Arverni in which he took 2 Gaesatae as proof. And its not as if the Arverni have the greatest options when it comes to missiles.
If we are also fighting for historical accuracy, it is worth mentioning that in almost no cases in ancient history did enemies stand and fight until about 25% remained. Usually mass routs were the way to win battles and the victors usually suffered relatively light casualties. So EB, in this sense, is historically inaccurate, forsaking that for better gameplay. Not to mention, it is well attested to in sources that Romans were somewhat intimidated by their northernly neighbors (both Celtic and Germanic), whatever the reasons might be. Fear makes sense in both of these contexts.
Our games are too lengthy. As a result, fear gets to play a larger role than any eagle. To say that fear and eagles cancel one another is completely asinine. Firstly it makes assumptions about CA's software design that nobody has substantiated, and second experience illustrates how they play out. And to say that removing fear can only be justified by removing eagle is beyond asinine. I cannot repeat the profanity that would still fail to describe this position. Absurdity, absurdity.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-07-2011, 22:11
Our games are too lengthy. As a result, fear gets to play a larger role than any eagle. To say that fear and eagles cancel one another is completely asinine. Firstly it makes assumptions about CA's software design that nobody has substantiated, and second experience illustrates how they play out. And to say that removing fear can only be justified by removing eagle is beyond asinine. I cannot repeat the profanity that would still fail to describe this position. Absurdity, absurdity.
No one claims that the canceling out is complete. It a rough estimate which is all we are capable of. It is even possible that both fear and morale bonuses affect a percentage of a unit's morale rather than adding or subracting even numbers. We simply don't know. But if you are saying that experience illustrates how it plays out, you should be listening to Shak, Lazy, AGA, Arjos, TCV, Kival, Vega, Gaius and myself most out of everyone since we are the ones who have been playing most with the 3.0 edu and are most familiar with its in-game application. Obviously, GG2 knows the most about the edu itself as he is its designer but he plays a bit less than us, no fault to him of course. He's busy trying to get into those Ivies:2thumbsup:
gamegeek2
11-07-2011, 23:06
No one claims that the canceling out is complete. It a rough estimate which is all we are capable of. It is even possible that both fear and morale bonuses affect a percentage of a unit's morale rather than adding or subracting even numbers. We simply don't know. But if you are saying that experience illustrates how it plays out, you should be listening to Shak, Lazy, AGA, Arjos, TCV, Kival, Vega, Gaius and myself most out of everyone since we are the ones who have been playing most with the 3.0 edu and are most familiar with its in-game application. Obviously, GG2 knows the most about the edu itself as he is its designer but he plays a bit less than us, no fault to him of course. He's busy trying to get into those Ivies:2thumbsup:
Honestly, I think it is probably a good idea to have large scale routing be an important factor and to make this happen by lowering morale across the board. However, I'd also have to significantly cut down on kill rates, so battles take about the same time as they do now (I like the current pace of things) but are decided more by mass routing.
-Stormrage-
11-07-2011, 23:55
gg i want to play u some day, ill get catas u get phalanxes i want to try something ^^
antisocialmunky
11-08-2011, 00:40
Honestly, I think it is probably a good idea to have large scale routing be an important factor and to make this happen by lowering morale across the board. However, I'd also have to significantly cut down on kill rates, so battles take about the same time as they do now (I like the current pace of things) but are decided more by mass routing.
I will sit everything in guard mode forever.
Burebista
11-08-2011, 02:00
Gestikapoinan have 6 as shield , that can't be right
I'm strongly against a whole army routing at the same time. I'm more in favor of having local routs and have these effectively trickle through the army if the other flank, let's say, can't defeat their local opponents. You guys figure out how you expect to make this work. This doesn't prevent mass routs. This means we don't want something as messed up as CA's fear implementation in this game because it'll unrealistically rout the whole army just for its centralized presence on the field, where in fact, neither flank would be anywhere near that unit on the field. Remember that these are supposed to be armies fighting, not 2.000-man partitions.
I really can't follow you vartan, you say you don't want mass routs, but then you say you prefer them being armies rather than partitions...
Routing of armies due to very localized defeats is the essence of warfare :P
I really can't follow you vartan, you say you don't want mass routs, but then you say you prefer them being armies rather than partitions...
Routing of armies due to very localized defeats is the essence of warfare :P
Okay you are misrepresenting what I said. I'll expand on it later for you...
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-08-2011, 02:50
I think what Vartan is saying is that he doesn't want a fear inducing unit, smack dab in the middle of your line, to affect the whole of the opponent's army since in reality, one wing wouldn't notice some naked men standing in the center a quarter mile away. He chalks this up to the way the fear mechanic was implemented in game.
This is somewhat of a silly argument in itself though. Unless you were in a neatly organized Roman or Hellenistic army, spearmen, swordsmen, falxmen etc would be all mixed together, not in seperate contingents. So while 1/20 of your army might be composed of naked warriors if you controlled a Celtic army, its relatively likely that they would be spread throughout the entire force. Even in the Roman and Hellenistic armies, men generally supplied their own equipment, at least pre-marian. So having identically equipped soldiers forming individual units is in and of itself unrealistic. But this is a discussion for another time and place.
gamegeek2
11-08-2011, 04:18
Yes but it is mentioned that the "Gasesatae" fought together as a single unit. Similarly, the "Solduri" also fought as a single unit, as would any high-skill professional retainer unit such as the Neitos.
I think what we should do is study the patterns of major ancient battles and draw a conclusion from those.
Some basic descriptions of some "conventional" battles of our era:
Gabiene - Antigonos' strike force of Thracian heavy horse, elephants, and skirmishers routs Eumenes' opposing flank force with a well-timed attack. Eumenes' Argyraspides destroy the Antigonid phalanx and walk off the battlefield with few casualties, successfully defending themselves against the attempted assaults of Antigonos' light cavalry through excellent discipline.
Ipsos - A successful attack by Demetrios' cavaly on the allied cavalry is thwarted by an elephant reserve. Well-timed support by light cavalry carries the missile fight for the allies, who rain down missiles on the Antigonid force, causing their morale to waver. Antigonos is killed by a javelin while attempting to rally his men, and the Antigonid force flees.
Raphia - Seleucid elephants defeat the Ptolemaic elephants, disrupting the Ptolemaic left flank and allowing Antiochos to smash the cavalry on the Ptolemaic right. The Ptolemaic cavalrymen on the right flank defeat their Median and Arabian opponents. The Argyraspides resist the attack of the Ptolemaic phalanx, but the phalanx under Nikarchos crumbles and routs from the field.
Trebia - Fatigued Roman Velites are withdrawn after a skirmish with Numidian cavalry. Romans attack with numerical advantage in the center, but the cavalry on the flanks is crushed by superior numbers of Carthaginian horsemen and light infantry. A massacre follows.
Cannae - Romans enveloped on all sides and slaughtered by Carthaginians, who take heavy casualties in a drawn-out slugfest.
Zama - Scipio defeats Hannibal's elephants through a clever use of formations and velites. The Roman and Numidian cavalry drive off the Carthaginian horse, and the two sides engage their infantry. A fierce fight ensues, with each general making good use of a reserve; the battle is mostly a stalemate until the cavalry return and strike Hannibal's infantry in the rear, routing them.
Kynoskephalai - While the Macedonians succeed at driving the Roman left back, the Macedonian left and center are routed by a charge of the Roman elephants and follow-up. The Macedonian right is then attacked from the rear by twenty maniples and is destroyed.
Magnesia - A failed attack by the Seleucid chariots leads to the disruption of the Seleucid cavalry on the left wing; the cataphracts there are routed by the opposing Roman cavalry, and the cataphracts' weight proves to be to their disadvantage. Antiochos leads a successful charge which routs the Roman left, but then attack the Roman camp unsuccessfully. The Seleucid auxiliary troops were routed and the phalanx was surrounded and cut to pieces by the Roman infantry.
Vosges - The Germans made a vigorous attack in several columns, preventing the Romans from casting their pila. The Germanic tribesmen then formed a "phalanx" according to Caesar (most likely a shield wall, as Caesar describes the Romans "tearing away their[the Germans'] shields and wounding them from above). The numerous Germans pressed the Roman right hard, and the attack continued until Publius Crassus brought his Gallic cavalry and reserves to the aid of the Roman right and broke the German assault.
Pharsalus - Through the use of a fourth reserve line, Caesar defeats Pompey's vastly superior cavalry and missile troops by luring them in with his inferior cavalry. Seeing this, Pompey fled. The six reserve cohorts then flanked Pompey's already-engaged line, and eventually reached the rear.
So I see we played Raphia VERY historically....
And yes Rob, eagles are a huge boost to morale, I really think they even improve combat, I tested a billion units in single combat with Cohors, most of these loose out in battle situation due to the presence of eagles.
Want proof that eagles give much more morale than fear can take away?
See this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDauplz3llk
ALL of vegas army has routed, that silly general keeps his entire line afloat even after multiple lanceari charges.
TheShakAttack
11-08-2011, 11:42
Lazy, the discussion veered off to "whether eagles cancel out 1 type of fear" + "are they related" rather than "how effective are eagles" + "whether FC should lose eagles" (for which only you are to blame for bringing up fear again).
I see the point you guys are making regarding troops tending to rout. I would not have a problem with using balanced methods used to try and induce this sort of thing. By balanced I mean something most factions could use/exploit.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-08-2011, 14:03
Balanced...uh, factions that don't proliferate with fear units get either:
A. units that kill things incredibly quickly i.e. Getai with falxmen. Maybe not the best way to start mass routs but kill enemies quickly enough and one rout will start a pretty quick trickledown effect. And while not getting elite charger cavalry, Thracian Prodromoi come close.
B. elite charger cavalry i.e. every faction from Greece eastwards plus Carthage. Cavalry charges have caused more mass routs in EBOnline than any sort of fear effect. Cataphracts and Hetairoi style units are obviously the best at this, but even units like Prodromoi and Citizen Cavalry can rout a nearly full already engaged unit with a charge if they are less than tired.
The only faction which really can't mass rout is the Lusotann but they have a proliferation of AP infantry as well as highly disciplined (when compared to their barb counterparts) infantry as well as excellent cavalry. They actually do well in grind it out battles because of this.
The fact remains that generally speaking, the so-called barbarian factions win battles with infantry while the "civilized" and steppe factions win with cavalry support. Exceptions can of course be made(and are), but this is generally the case.
TheShakAttack
11-08-2011, 14:19
Robin, was not talking about the status quo, rather, was interested in hearing new proposals on how to cause localised/mass routs.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-08-2011, 14:34
Well the way to do it was how gamegeek outlined earlier. The massive problem with this is that it incredibly favors cavalry as decreased lethality across the board makes cavalry charges ever more decisive.
gamegeek2
11-08-2011, 17:09
Assuming cavalry receive decreased lethality as well, the cavalry combats will also take longer. So, really, the problem only arises once the cavalry combat has finished. However, it's obviously still a major concern.
The Celtic Viking
11-08-2011, 20:03
God mode would be even stronger than it already is as well.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-08-2011, 21:17
God mode would be even stronger than it already is as well.
What is god mode? This makes me think of God of War.
The Celtic Viking
11-08-2011, 22:10
What is god mode? This makes me think of God of War.
A more honest name for guard mode. Oh and yeah, that is a fun game (the third at least, 's what I've played), even though I suck big time at it. My #1 cause of death are all the holes you have to jump across. :sweatdrop:
This is somewhat of a silly argument in itself though. Unless you were in a neatly organized Roman or Hellenistic army, spearmen, swordsmen, falxmen etc would be all mixed together, not in seperate contingents. So while 1/20 of your army might be composed of naked warriors if you controlled a Celtic army, its relatively likely that they would be spread throughout the entire force. Even in the Roman and Hellenistic armies, men generally supplied their own equipment, at least pre-marian. So having identically equipped soldiers forming individual units is in and of itself unrealistic. But this is a discussion for another time and place.
I am well aware of the part in bold. For the system I'm devising (out of TW scope; independent project), there is a distinction between warriors and distinct units or groups of soldiers who are trained and/or specialized.
So essentially, you summed it up well. The conditional is exactly that. If it is the case that some or all of these fear-inducing ground troops were more spread out as opposed to cohesive, then it only makes sense that CA's fear implementation remains correct. If on the other hand these troops were cohesive units, I would remove the fear for the reason that you cannot hyperlocalize their fear effect. Better that than to have unrealistic long-range effects. I'm just putting in my 2 cents. I don't take a position on this save for this conditional. Any experts on ancient military history and in particular these fear-inducing ground units feel free to enlighten us.
NB: I specify "fear-inducing ground units" because I expect fear-inducing mounted units to be exactly that, units, and not men who fought along the whole line. Let me know if I'm wrong and we see whole lines of cavalry...
To add for the ground fear units, supposedly the carnyx was used aswell, beside their appearance, to scare further people...
Romani did the same with trumpets against elephants and at a gate in Syracuse with drunk defenders...
TheShakAttack
11-09-2011, 02:43
We're also forgetting anther point regarding fear- that what is scary is very dependant on the culture a soldier came from.
What we know of (non-ele) units that were considered "scary" have been recorded in greek/latin scriptures authored by Roman or Greek historians. What we therefore know is what they would consider "unusual" or even "exotic" in their eyes. For all we know, "barbs" were equally impressed/scared, if not more so, of the highly organised, heavily armoured legions deployed in manipular formation; or the super scary phalanx. Yes, it is pure conjecture, but I'm just making a point.
Also, according to one Roman dude, the scariest thing he saw in his life was a phalanx "charge". So it is not implausible that "barbs" would find phalanxes scary. It is also not implausible that things Romans/Greeks found impressive (like fighting with pubes on display) would be fairly common to cultures that used them so there is less of a fear effect within that culture.
Even elephants, once troops became familiarised with them because much less fearsome than they were perceived to be initially. They would still be scary as hell, but not as scary to one who never saw an ele in their lives and were now suddenly facing one in battle.
Bah I don't know about culture shock, the Greeks had the gymnasion and for the Romans nudity wasn't exceptional (just look at Pompeii)...
antisocialmunky
11-09-2011, 07:10
So I see we played Raphia VERY historically....
And yes Rob, eagles are a huge boost to morale, I really think they even improve combat, I tested a billion units in single combat with Cohors, most of these loose out in battle situation due to the presence of eagles.
Want proof that eagles give much more morale than fear can take away?
See this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDauplz3llk
ALL of vegas army has routed, that silly general keeps his entire line afloat even after multiple lanceari charges.
There's a difference between having enough morale that you basically are immune to breaking (16+) and really high but breakable morale (12-15). The eagle doesn't provide that much morale but it can easily put a unit into a state where they can't break unless they are pulling a Leonidas. All it takes is a point difference in this critical range.
Also Eagle + General morale stack can counter fear yes but the range is tiny compared to fear.
If only we could get CA to disclose the exact radius of both fear and eagles.
TheShakAttack
11-09-2011, 09:58
Bah I don't know about culture shock, the Greeks had the gymnasion and for the Romans nudity wasn't exceptional (just look at Pompeii)...
I didn't say culture shock. I said what is shocking to one culture is normal in another. Further, I did not mean nude guys in general. Lol! "He's nude, oh man, I've lost morale and the will to live"
I meant nude when fighting.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-09-2011, 13:31
There's a difference between having enough morale that you basically are immune to breaking (16+) and really high but breakable morale (12-15). The eagle doesn't provide that much morale but it can easily put a unit into a state where they can't break unless they are pulling a Leonidas. All it takes is a point difference in this critical range.
Also Eagle + General morale stack can counter fear yes but the range is tiny compared to fear.
You are somewhat oversimplifying this problem though. These are the morale numbers that you found made your army immune to fear if you turtled and formed a circle in guard mode. Since no one really does this, things such as compromised flanks or engagment by cavalry can also lower morale a bit more than in the situation you describe. The extra point of morale from 15 to 16 does not make units "unbreakable" it is just enough to counter triple fear if you form a box. That is why realistic in game situations are much more accurate at pointing out just how well the eagle does at supporting men who might otherwise waver and break. Watch a match with Casse involved and tell me those Teceitos and Botroas are only getting +1 morale when they stand in line until only 5-10 are left. It's worth noting that both those units also start with a morale baseline lower than 12.
Agreed. Non eagle supported Botaraos and Tecitos run like little girls after getting Very Tired.
Increase armoured eles price btw...
The Celtic Viking
11-09-2011, 17:36
No, leave them ellies alone. They're fine as is.
gamegeek2
11-09-2011, 18:25
My proposed solution to the guard-mode dilemma posed by the plan of decreasing lethality across the board is to have the morale of the tight-formation, guard-mode reliant units set significantly lower. This can represent the fact that formation-reliant units would historically rout if they lost their coherence. That or I could set their discipline (morale shock resistance) levels to very low, but keep morale levels the same as non-formation reliant units (which is what I did with phalanxes, and that seems to have worked so far).
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-09-2011, 19:51
Yes but wouldn't that be pigeonholing units like Germanic Swords and Belgae Swords who should be good on the attack instead of just defense? Now we would have to leave them in guard mode:dizzy2:
For the record, I disagree vehemently with the proposal to reduce lethality across the board and lower morale.
gamegeek2
11-09-2011, 20:28
My goal with this EDU is to maximize historical accuracy as long as it doesn't overtly negatively affect the gameplay balance. So far, it has not. At the stages where it has, it has been corrected if it led to an imbalancing either by removal of the added feature, or by counterbalancing.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-09-2011, 21:01
My goal with this EDU is to maximize historical accuracy as long as it doesn't overtly negatively affect the gameplay balance. So far, it has not. At the stages where it has, it has been corrected if it led to an imbalancing either by removal of the added feature, or by counterbalancing.
I'm interested in what you will eventually propose, but at this point, I cannot see a solution to the fact that cavalry would be utterly dominant in a lowered morale and lethality situation. Not to mention missile lethality is always 1. We would have to make archers very inaccurate again as compromise but they would still dominate firing from close quarters.
TheShakAttack
11-09-2011, 21:42
Why is close quarter archers "dominating" a problem?
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-09-2011, 22:04
Because at moderate-close range, even bad archers like Sardinians turn into machine gunners that can kill 7-10 heavy infantry from the back in one volley. Not to mention, sometimes players leave missile units in guard mode and don't notice archers firing while being engaged in melee. Such an archer unit, especially one in loose formation, can kill off the light and even some medium infantry units engaging it before they rout. If lethality were decreased, this problem would be even more prevalent.
I'm interested in what you will eventually propose, but at this point, I cannot see a solution to the fact that cavalry would be utterly dominant in a lowered morale and lethality situation. Not to mention missile lethality is always 1. We would have to make archers very inaccurate again as compromise but they would still dominate firing from close quarters.
They aren't allowed to fire in close quarters at all. They are allowed to fire near enemies.
Why is close quarter archers "dominating" a problem?
Firing near and "dominating" should go hand in hand and this is fine; fact is you can't make them not dominate; game afaik makes missile units better if they are nearer automatically. Again, close quarters missiles are banned (I forget if the folks who reasoned for this said it was practical, historical, gameplay, or combined or others reasons).
TheShakAttack
11-09-2011, 23:10
Yeah that was my point. I did not mean firing in melee. I meant firing very very near. If you let a unit get close to you, woe unto you!
We could institute a rule which says after first warning firing in melee = auto loss?
gamegeek2
11-10-2011, 00:05
Increasing innacuracy won't change the effectiveness of archers at close range. Robin is right.
I definitely support stricter rules on firing in melee.
antisocialmunky
11-10-2011, 02:14
You are somewhat oversimplifying this problem though. These are the morale numbers that you found made your army immune to fear if you turtled and formed a circle in guard mode. Since no one really does this, things such as compromised flanks or engagment by cavalry can also lower morale a bit more than in the situation you describe. The extra point of morale from 15 to 16 does not make units "unbreakable" it is just enough to counter triple fear if you form a box. That is why realistic in game situations are much more accurate at pointing out just how well the eagle does at supporting men who might otherwise waver and break. Watch a match with Casse involved and tell me those Teceitos and Botroas are only getting +1 morale when they stand in line until only 5-10 are left. It's worth noting that both those units also start with a morale baseline lower than 12.
Well whatever, the point is that I've never found eagles to be that worth it against fear so I think fear > eagle. And its not just boxes. With more than 13/14 morale, you can take a charge to the back from decent impact cavalry and not break. I used to use +1 chevron Polybians for this very purpose. I'm not sure unless you give me a video that the instance you are talking about isn't a unit in the middle of a line supported from both sides, with a unit behind it fighting in a low kill rate battle, having gained a chevron from average vet increases due to mostly dead unit.
As for GG2's idea. I think that would be cool but that would be such a pain to balance and would make larger cavalry balls so much better in nothing but to chase down routers. You should tighten formation and lower lethality to compensate for guard mode like I've been saying forever. Then you should increase shield values for formation units and decrease armor and defense (+1 shield -2 armor).
Increasing innacuracy won't change the effectiveness of archers at close range. Robin is right.
I definitely support stricter rules on firing in melee.
I won't go any stricter as I've gone as strict as I can without going Draconian. The next step, which I won't take, is to remove a violator from that month's tourney, which is absurd. It's one thing to DQ him from that one game and give the point to the enemy, which is the current setup, and another to remove him from the tournament. How strict is strict enough?
gamegeek2
11-10-2011, 05:01
DQs are acceptable, but the current DQ system allows a player to take two games via this exploitative tactic before getting knocked out. This would be one strike, you are out. People who repeatedly violate in a game would receive immediate penalties.
Some degree of leniency would be allowed for newer players, of course.
antisocialmunky
11-10-2011, 06:02
But what if I can attack archers in such a way that they will point blank shoot me regardless of opponent action? what happens then?
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-10-2011, 06:30
But what if I can attack archers in such a way that they will point blank shoot me regardless of opponent action? what happens then?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Usually firing in melee is not purposeful. A lot of times players (including myself but usually only with skirmishers) will put missile units behind their line in guard mode so they won't wander off if a unit they are targeting moves out of range. However, when these same missile units become engaged, they will continue to fire if in guard mode unless manually ordered to engage. They die faster while shooting in melee as I don't think the defense skill is factored in. However, if they are relatively close to full strength and not facing heavy infantry, they can often massacre the unit that chose to engage them, especially if it is a lighter caetra-style unit.
TheShakAttack
11-10-2011, 09:25
Agree with Robin above. Firing in melee is most often just an oversight (which can occurs on very high paced battles) when leaving archers in guard mode on.
I only meant auto lose that particular battle, not being booted from the tournament. I proposed first warning since it is something which is likely to happen quite often; which is likely to happen without a player's realisation that it has occurred as opposed to say charging through or turning phalanx when engaged which is much easier to control. So in fact it is slightly more lenient than rules for other infractions.
DQs are acceptable, but the current DQ system allows a player to take two games via this exploitative tactic before getting knocked out. This would be one strike, you are out. People who repeatedly violate in a game would receive immediate penalties.
Some degree of leniency would be allowed for newer players, of course.
If this is the concern, you shouldn't worry about that. Just because I didn't put fine print stating I/we have some room to make judgement outside the stated, doesn't mean we can't do so. I mean, I think it's not too hard to distinguish a chronic griefer from an ignorant player.
TheShakAttack
11-10-2011, 11:58
Disqualified. Now who doesn't know acronyms? :P
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 15:56
Because at moderate-close range, even bad archers like Sardinians turn into machine gunners that can kill 7-10 heavy infantry from the back in one volley. Not to mention, sometimes players leave missile units in guard mode and don't notice archers firing while being engaged in melee. Such an archer unit, especially one in loose formation, can kill off the light and even some medium infantry units engaging it before they rout. If lethality were decreased, this problem would be even more prevalent.
Didnt i tell you give archers poor morale, but who listens to stormrage gg does whatever he wants.
GG dont be stubborn give archers poor morale so when infantry or cav charge them they run and not start firing like nothing is happening.
you wouldnt have to disqualify people if you just lowered archer morale and solved the problem , thus stopping it from even happening in the first place.
12 morale is NOT poor morale gg.
DQs are acceptable, but the current DQ system allows a player to take two games via this exploitative tactic before getting knocked out. This would be one strike, you are out. People who repeatedly violate in a game would receive immediate penalties.
Some degree of leniency would be allowed for newer players, of course.
There would be no need for such rules if there was proper gameplay mechanics, which is what your incharge of. You know things like archers running when charged with cav maybe ? You know the rock paper scissors everyone hates. Archer kills light, cavalry routs archer, spearmen kill cav. If we Had those basic things there wouldnt be such a problem as archers firing in melee.
12 morale for archers ? and you didnt expect this . I told you about htis months ago. I said 2 cavalry units charged 3 loos formation archer units that were FAR away from the main line, Geuss what they became Shaken. I wanted to rout those archers with my cav then go aggressively to the rear of my opponent. but do such strategies work in EB?
antisocialmunky
11-10-2011, 16:12
Wtf is DQ
Dairy Queen.
12 morale for archers ? and you didnt expect this . I told you about htis months ago. I said 2 cavalry units charged 3 loos formation archer units that were FAR away from the main line, Geuss what they became Shaken. I wanted to rout those archers with my cav then go aggressively to the rear of my opponent. but do such strategies work in EB?
Yes. If you attack one archer unit with two cav, go over to the next one and so on, you rout them as far as If they are not elite or have spears (you don't need heavy chargers by the way). For elite archers it depends and that's fine. Sure there are some things to prevent it: Running away, packing two units together... here comes melee cav in handy because they rout them some seconds later than.
By the way it's a problem of skirmishers and some infantry too, if you have FAW on and guard mode. They should obviously not rout on first impact.
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 16:52
what you said doesnt happen in the game,
and no archers obvoiusly should rout on impact and it doesnt require me running my cav through them to rout them.
My aurgument still stands, but nice try though.
Whats your problem with giving archers lower morale. IF you dont you will still have firing in melee.
here comes melee cav in handy because they rout them some seconds later than.
im telling you a head on charge by 2 cavalry didnt rout them, you want me to beleive melee cav rout them in seconds ? IF a heavy cav charge made them shaken how do u expect fighting in melee with them to rout them in seconds.
Dont give me theoritcal scenarios where you THINK this will happen, Im speaking with experience something ive seen in game.
There are cases when eagles or generals are present some archers will not rout and steamroll cavalry.
Storm, if you're debating in this tone I don't care anymore what you think.
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 17:28
There are cases when eagles or generals are present some archers will not rout and steamroll cavalry.
I said 2 cavalry units charged 3 loos formation archer units that were FAR away from the main line, Geuss what they became Shaken.
then we have a problem, cuz the archers i charged werent anywhere near an eagle or a general.
I hate to say this but Storm, we have to ignore you and move on. The fact is, the issue you're bringing up calling for lowering the morale of archers (and the like) has already been addressed, albeit a while back. I'm sorry you haven't been following the news, but it's true. Now we'd like to take care of some more pressing (and real) issues. Thanks for your concern nonetheless.
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 17:30
Storm, if you're debating in this tone I don't care anymore what you think.
People dont respond when i debate "Nicely" remember the essays i used to right about things like this ? Trying something that might catch peoples attention.
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 17:36
I hate to say this but Storm, we have to ignore you and move on. The fact is, the issue you're bringing up calling for lowering the morale of archers (and the like) has already been addressed, albeit a while back. I'm sorry you haven't been following the news, but it's true. Now we'd like to take care of some more pressing (and real) issues. Thanks for your concern nonetheless.
Has been Addressed ? Saying We wont do it , is not addressing an issue.
Sorry storm we have adressed this issue on countless times blah blah blah, thats a lame excuse.
Take care of pressing issues ? The last issue you were disccusing was THIS. I dont know where u got that speech from but its a very technical way of saying , We dont have an answer for you so were going to tell you We already answered this,and who knows no one is going to go back and look at 30 pages.
Thats low
Why dont you talk sense instead of bringing up the were sorry your we must ignore you know becuase we dont have an aurgument.
People dont respond when i debate "Nicely" remember the essays i used to right about things like this ? Trying something that might catch peoples attention.
Again Storm, thank you for your concern. I wish I had the exact thread-post link to provide you with, but this issue of archer morale was already addressed with an earlier nerf. Unless gg2 has buffed them back w/o consulting me, I have no reason to believe there has been a reverting to higher morale values.
EDIT: Storm the tone you're using is no way to talk to someone when you have a serious concern. Either act like you are genuinely concerned and have suggestions/questions/whatnot, or just refrain from saying anything altogether. The truth is, this isn't about anything condescending, or avoiding any issues. What I'm telling you is we nerfed archer morale a while back; where in the world have you been???
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 17:50
HAHAHAHA Earlier Nerf ?
you mean gg's -0.1 morale nerf ? You actually fell for that. Yes i know about the "nerf" and it looks like it didnt work becuase archers are still standing in the face of infantry according to you.
your tone is just as harsh as mine.
Dont give me theoritcal scenarios where you THINK this will happen, Im speaking with experience something ive seen in game.
if i said it in your tone it would be this
Im sorry kival but your aurgument is illogical and is based on theories and they have no weight in this aurgument. I am consulting you with experience, and if you dont mind i must ignore you now and talk to more important people.
Isnt that the tone you were using with me ?
I hate to say this but Storm, we have to ignore you and move on. The fact is, the issue you're bringing up calling for lowering the morale of archers (and the like) has already been addressed, albeit a while back. I'm sorry you haven't been following the news, but it's true. Now we'd like to take care of some more pressing (and real) issues. Thanks for your concern nonetheless.
the only difference is your tone is hidden under technical jargon.
Either act like you are genuinely concerned and have suggestions/questions/whatnot
I can act genuinely concerned. I beleive i have fullfiled the requiremnts you have stated above by means of my statement where i specifically provided a suggestion to lower archer morale. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up on our aurgument , but i am an intellectual man i will forgive you.
Thank you for your concern.
So basically, here's what's happening.
1) You are refusing to cooperate. Good. Let's see how far that takes you.
2) You claim archers don't rout upon impact. Okay.
3) I've played post-nerf. They rout upon impact.
Conclusion: I can't help you. I'll be glad if anyone can, but I highly doubt it to be frank.
They dont rout if its the crappiest of melee cav and there is a general nearby if that even matters.
TheShakAttack
11-10-2011, 18:19
Storm, your tone is not doing you any favors and demeaning Kival and Arjos is not acceptable. Further, I have to say archers do rout upon a good cav charge. There are 2-3 things you have to keep in mind though.
1) Which archer are you charging? Bosphorans are notorious for not routing, but, given that you pay 2.1k for them, I'd say that's okay.
2) What cav are you using? If you're going to use light skirmisher cav not specialised for charging, obv u will get worse results.
3) Did you charge properly? Did they lower lances?
4) Are there any moral buffs in the vicinity?
The game is not as simple as you touch the archers and they rout. That would be ludicrous.
If you feel strongly about this, please provide an example like a youtube video or even a replay. People who play much more often than you do are saying that archers rout upon charge, and that they are happy with the way things work.
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 18:21
So basically, here's what's happening.
1) You are refusing to cooperate. Good. Let's see how far that takes you.
2) You claim archers don't rout upon impact. Okay.
3) I've played post-nerf. They rout upon impact.
Conclusion: I can't help you. I'll be glad if anyone can, but I highly doubt it to be frank.
I am afraid to say Vartan, that you have misunderstood (twisted) my words. It is a very clever tactic to bullet point my arguments, but i am afraid you have not fairly shown my veiw in your bullet points.
May i ask when, nay where did i declare my incooperation . It is the opposite the very fact that i am still writing on this forum is a testimony to the fact that i care very much about the game. Why would i waste my time giving suggestions if this is not the case. That is for the first bullet point.
Now as for the second, yes that is my claim and it is a claim backed up by experience.
For the third i conclude by saying, both you and I have played Post-nerf . I must say i believe i have played a little more but that is not the point. again both you and i have played post-nerf, So i think this argument is invalid "3) I've played post-nerf. They rout upon impact." . With your permission i may just as easily make my own set of bullet points and state the exact same thing. I have played post-nerf, Archers dont rout on impact. Some might say ive played more then you even.
Maybe if you could give more founded arguments, i may take you more seriously. Im sorry for my rudeness but such aurguments are ,dare i say it, laughable.
"3) I've played post-nerf. They rout upon impact."
I thank you for your effort in responding i pray we arrive to an understanding in the near future.
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 18:25
Storm, your tone is not doing you any favors and demeaning Kival and Arjos is not acceptable.
I hate to say this but Storm, we have to ignore you and move on. The fact is, the issue you're bringing up calling for lowering the morale of archers (and the like) has already been addressed, albeit a while back. I'm sorry you haven't been following the news, but it's true. Now we'd like to take care of some more pressing (and real) issues. Thanks for your concern nonetheless.
Is he not demeaning me ?
TheShakAttack
11-10-2011, 18:30
He is. But your behaviour necessitated a strong reaction.
Look, the point is, we are grateful that you are taking an interest in EB, however, when your opinion runs against what several other people think, its best to back it up with solid evidence, like a replay, or a youtube video. If what you are saying is right, and the video shows it, there is very little others will be able to argue with.
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 18:33
fight fire with fire huh ? your justifying vartans actions becuase i started it ?
I misdemeanor kival, im wrong.
Vartan misdemeanors me, he's wrong but its ok you started it.
If you would like instant routs, please play Rome. If you are against EBO's current stance on archers, don't take my word for it. Ask the players here their take on the issue. You will be pleasantly rewarded with a satisfactory set of responses.
edit; i'd like to add one thing. if you think 6 morale, low discipline, untrained is not low enough, then you are more of a griefer in the community than a participant. substantiate your claims to morale issues either with the empirical or the theoretical.
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 18:53
If you would like instant routs, please play Rome. If you are against EBO's current stance on archers, don't take my word for it. Ask the players here their take on the issue. You will be pleasantly rewarded with a satisfactory set of responses.
If you dont like it you can get out (speech) ? nice choice.
So be it, i will stay and play the game you make.
-Stormrage-
11-10-2011, 19:06
Just one thing , Thrakioi Peltastai throw javelins and have 6 attack.
some other heavy infantry such as thorakitai also throw javelins yet have 9 attack.
I thought Thrakioi Peltastai were the best of the peltastai.
Just one thing , Thrakioi Peltastai throw javelins and have 6 attack.
some other heavy infantry such as thorakitai also throw javelins yet have 9 attack.
I thought Thrakioi Peltastai were the best of the peltastai.
That's a good question; I hope gg2 answers it soon. If I remember my conversation with him a while back about this, I believe he was aiming for something I can only put in a really broad, vague sense. Basically, it is my understanding that he wants there to be a distinction between the more powerful "heavy" throwers, and the skirmisher types. So you would see some units in the range of 9 and those in the range of 6, with 9 usually being the heavier infantry, and 6 the skirmisher types. Again, I'm not sure; this is the impression I got. gg2 can surely give you his approach to the question.
Plus on an historical view, they weren't the best 'cos of superior missiles, but due to their tactics and skills...
And most likely, as with Cretans, "westerners" praised their melee abilities...
gamegeek2
11-10-2011, 21:02
That's a good question; I hope gg2 answers it soon. If I remember my conversation with him a while back about this, I believe he was aiming for something I can only put in a really broad, vague sense. Basically, it is my understanding that he wants there to be a distinction between the more powerful "heavy" throwers, and the skirmisher types. So you would see some units in the range of 9 and those in the range of 6, with 9 usually being the heavier infantry, and 6 the skirmisher types. Again, I'm not sure; this is the impression I got. gg2 can surely give you his approach to the question.
Indeed, you have the gist of it. I mean for the skirmishers to attack the slower heavy infantry and then retreat before they can react. Also their javelins were, if I understand correctly, lighter and meant to be cast at a greater range than heavy infantry javelins, meant to be thrown by troops fighting in formation. Also note that the Thracians have 6 javelins whereas heavy infantry have at best 3.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-10-2011, 21:18
I would say that possibly lowering archer mass a bit more would be useful so that light cavalry can push them around a bit more. At least the light archers without spears, the others are fine as is.
I must say though, the whole aspect of missile combat has changed radically since I first started to play in June. Back then, players would just line their archers up and string them in front of their army to fire at opposing missile units. Now, there are reserve archers to fire after enemy missiles have been spent along with reserve slingers meant to target cavalry once the infantry battle commences. I do think reinstituting a missile limit might help to get rid of some of this nonsense. It just takes forever to fight someone who has taken 6 or 7 missile units especially given that most of the current players are quite good. The current level of play is at a much higher level than it was even in July or August.
If such a missile (or do you mean specifically archers?) limit were to be justified, would you see it more as a faction-specific limit? region-specific? culture-specific? (Some of these categorizations are more reasonable than the others; I'd like you to specify if you could.)
gamegeek2
11-10-2011, 23:42
So, the plan is to restrict units merely because we don't like how they take a long time to fight things out? How about taking less missiles and innovating somewhat on that front? Honestly, I think people probably bring too many archers, etc. but that's just me. After all, I'm not as much of a regular player as I wish I could be.
So, the plan is to restrict units merely because we don't like how they take a long time to fight things out? How about taking less missiles and innovating somewhat on that front? Honestly, I think people probably bring too many archers, etc. but that's just me. After all, I'm not as much of a regular player as I wish I could be.
This is my take on it, more or less. Why do I have to mold my vision of the ruleset around the fashion of the times when it comes to the meta? Meaning, why do we have to re-formulate ruleset because current fashion in mp battlefield is such and such a trend? It seems very counter-intuitive to me. This isn't to say that the action on the field must be defined by the ruleset. This is why we went spartan with it and minimalized. If the meta seems to be at a halt and people aren't renewing strategies and so on, why does that mean a burden has to fall upon me or gg2 to reform around current trends?
Galvanized Iron
11-11-2011, 00:12
Increasing innacuracy won't change the effectiveness of archers at close range. Robin is right.
I definitely support stricter rules on firing in melee.
Or you could be smart about it and simply edit out the possibility of melee firing:
Open up "descr_projectile" in the mod's data folder, it will look like this:
projectile arrow
damage 0
radius 0.1
min_angle -60
max_angle 70
velocity 50
display particle_trail
triangle
texture data/textures/arrow_test.tga
tail 0.3
length 2.5
tail_tex0 0 0.0
tail_tex1 0 0.25
head_tex 1 0.125
end
Change minimum angle to "0", voila no more melee firing possible. The unit will still do the animation, but no arrows will go off. Goes without saying that you need to do same for other missiles you want to disable for melee firing as well :)
-Stormrage-
11-11-2011, 00:18
If they get 6-7 archers then they are doing it at the expense of their infantry. They wont have as much infantry as someone who lets say gets 3 archers.
I think archers need an accuracy boost. They arent doing as well as i would like them too in my games anyway.
GG, consider lowering panda phalanx morale to 10 (currently 11) they stood till the last man when i swarmed them with cohorts in the front and neitos in the back. it was a 3v3 so 5 other people will say the same.
yes my connection can handle 3v3's
ill upload the replays if you want them we did a 3v3 and 2v2 .
capomafioso
11-11-2011, 00:23
is there a way for melee firing to cause more friendly fire, at the moment people keep slingers back to fire into the cav melee at me, im not sure if its even doing any damage to the troops that should be getting shot in the back, im not saying i want the use of slingers and archers nerfed, i just think firing into the backs of youre own units should cause more damage, seeing as......well....theyre getting shot in the back.
My slingers kill my own men if they are in the way. Why do you think they don't?
antisocialmunky
11-11-2011, 02:51
Or you could be smart about it and simply edit out the possibility of melee firing:
Open up "descr_projectile" in the mod's data folder, it will look like this:
Change minimum angle to "0", voila no more melee firing possible. The unit will still do the animation, but no arrows will go off. Goes without saying that you need to do same for other missiles you want to disable for melee firing as well :)
Lets go with this. I know this was in MIITW but not RTW.
As for more tactical use of missiles... well MTW and VI had shielded crossman fights so meh. I think not being retarded with your arrows is a good quality in a game. Besides, its not like you can actually hurt heavy infantry or shield cavalry with missiles. This isn't new, people used to do this with cretans when we still had fire arrows. Fire like all but 25% of your arrows and then save the rest to help rout the enemy.
Besides, its not like you can actually hurt heavy infantry or shield cavalry with missiles.
That's not true. When you're near enough and can shoot in the back you kill enough to make a big difference. It feels like too many archers in the battles for me, too, but for some factions that's historically fine and for the others it would be kind of unfair to prevent them from taking archers of their own to defend against the others archers.
antisocialmunky
11-11-2011, 05:07
Getting shot in the back seems like user error.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-11-2011, 05:44
Or you could be smart about it and simply edit out the possibility of melee firing:
Open up "descr_projectile" in the mod's data folder, it will look like this:
Change minimum angle to "0", voila no more melee firing possible. The unit will still do the animation, but no arrows will go off. Goes without saying that you need to do same for other missiles you want to disable for melee firing as well :)
Would archers still be able to fire at units that are close to them with this change?
TheShakAttack
11-11-2011, 10:24
Hmm, with regards to missile limit, it's a difficult one. On one hand, it would be nice to speed things up on EBO. On the other, instituting a missile limit has its drawbacks.
1) It is no guarantee that players will not keep some missiles in reserve. The average number of missiles brought these days is about 4, which iirc, is the upper limit under the old rules.
2) It seems to go against the current EBO aim which is to allow players to pick any army they wish as long as it is compliant with duplication rules and merc limits.
Reserving slingers for anti cata purposes is one of the effective strategies against cata and other very heavy cavalry, or archers when facing a steppe based army. It discourages adventurous charging or flanking with HA. Limiting missile numbers will in some ways give adv to steppe based armies.
I still cannot bring myself to agree with Robin re: firing very very close (but not in melee). Presumably it will be okay to continue to do this with javelins (firing super close + flanks), so why not allow players the strategic option of doing it with missiles (arrows + stones/bullets).
As I said, I am not sure where I stand on missile number issue. Just that that there were some factors that were not considered.
Galvanized Iron
11-11-2011, 14:04
Would archers still be able to fire at units that are close to them with this change?
Depends on how close, but units 1 meter or closer to the formation would be safe from arrows for sure ie making melee firing impossible, if you want to totally disable close range fire then you need to put the minimum angle to an even higher value.
Or you could be smart about it and simply edit out the possibility of melee firing:
(...)
Change minimum angle to "0", voila no more melee firing possible. The unit will still do the animation, but no arrows will go off. Goes without saying that you need to do same for other missiles you want to disable for melee firing as well :)
Doesn't this also make it impossible to fire from an elevated position, such as a city wall? That's probably not a big deal in MP battles, but I am just curious.
gamegeek2
11-11-2011, 16:51
Hmm, with regards to missile limit, it's a difficult one. On one hand, it would be nice to speed things up on EBO. On the other, instituting a missile limit has its drawbacks.
1) It is no guarantee that players will not keep some missiles in reserve. The average number of missiles brought these days is about 4, which iirc, is the upper limit under the old rules.
2) It seems to go against the current EBO aim which is to allow players to pick any army they wish as long as it is compliant with duplication rules and merc limits.
Reserving slingers for anti cata purposes is one of the effective strategies against cata and other very heavy cavalry, or archers when facing a steppe based army. It discourages adventurous charging or flanking with HA. Limiting missile numbers will in some ways give adv to steppe based armies.
I still cannot bring myself to agree with Robin re: firing very very close (but not in melee). Presumably it will be okay to continue to do this with javelins (firing super close + flanks), so why not allow players the strategic option of doing it with missiles (arrows + stones/bullets).
As I said, I am not sure where I stand on missile number issue. Just that that there were some factors that were not considered.
Speaking from experience, this was the second most important factor in the dominance of steppe factions in June. The most important was Cantabrian circle.
Oh come on GG2, the single biggest factor was player error.
-Stormrage-
11-11-2011, 17:01
GG, ive been looking through the descr_projectile_new file and found some things.
First i think there is a typo in the javelin department
projectile javelin_l
damage 0
radius 0
accuracy_vs_units 0.8
min_angle -60
max_angle 70
every other javelin is similar to this
projectile javelin_m
damage 0
radius 0
accuracy_vs_units 0.07
min_angle -60
max_angle 70
velocity 32
another thing im not sure if its a mistake , i noticed cretans and bosphorans have the same accuracy is it supposed to be like that.
thanks
Galvanized Iron
11-11-2011, 17:18
Yes, but technically that would be impossible anyway except for the first line
TheShakAttack
11-11-2011, 18:32
Very good catch storm. Much appreciated.
Re: Cretans- they are being edited right now.
Doesn't this also make it impossible to fire from an elevated position, such as a city wall? That's probably not a big deal in MP battles, but I am just curious.
I was thinking the same thing :yes: and who knows, what if we do historical battles or siege battles, and it affects us negatively? I'd like to know as well.
Speaking from experience, this was the second most important factor in the dominance of steppe factions in June. The most important was Cantabrian circle.
True, true.
TheShakAttack
11-11-2011, 19:21
I would agree with Ludens that this is not a big deal in MP. If it was an issue, we could always modify the relevant file for a historical battle. We tend to play h. battles with specialised EDUs anyways, so we could certainly do a modified projectile file.
Perhaps I just overread the reasoning but why did gamegeek increase lethality for the the iberian ap-swords but not for the hellenic ones. Were the iberian ones deadlier?
antisocialmunky
11-12-2011, 01:54
I would agree with Ludens that this is not a big deal in MP. If it was an issue, we could always modify the relevant file for a historical battle. We tend to play h. battles with specialised EDUs anyways, so we could certainly do a modified projectile file.
I don't think it'd be an issue.
TheShakAttack
11-12-2011, 02:32
@Kival
Afaik, the "kopis" used by the hellenic troops was classified as more of a cavalry weapon than an infantry one. The "iberian machiara/falcatta" was an infantry one. Also, presumably the Iberians were more adept at wielding the falcatta since it was a very "standard weapon" for them, whereas the kopis was less commonly used by the hellens?
Also, I guess it might have something to do with game-balancing?
@Kival
Afaik, the "kopis" used by the hellenic troops was classified as more of a cavalry weapon than an infantry one. The "iberian machiara/falcatta" was an infantry one. Also, presumably the Iberians were more adept at wielding the falcatta since it was a very "standard weapon" for them, whereas the kopis was less commonly used by the hellens?
That's really good historical information, but it doesn't say anything about how or why a kopis is less "deadly" (by what standards?) than a falcata.
EDIT: To elaborate. That a piece of weaponry was used by the cavalry goes to show its scarcity, its not being ubiquitous. How only those who could afford to be cavalry would afford such weaponry. That it was a piece of weaponry wielded only by cavalry would by definition (at least in antiquity) mean its rarity ("less commonly used").
TheShakAttack
11-12-2011, 04:03
That is certainly a valid interpretation of the facts and may well be true (unfortunately my knowledge is rather limited so i cannot confirm nor deny).
My thoughts were that the kopis was longer than the falcatta, and therefore was useful for cavalry (to help with reach) and because a larger weapon allowed more momentum to be generated. The same could be slightly troublesome/unwiedly in melee, which is why sabres for instance were very popular with cavalry, but no so much with infantry.
I am unable to categorically state why one is statted as "deadlier" than the other, only thing I could put it down to is how ubiquitous it was and possibly to make cartho/iberian units more balanced.
On that note, longswords are longer and heavier than shortswords. Let's make them less deadlier because apparently falcata are deadlier than kopis? Course not. gg2's it's a party in this EDU...
gamegeek2
11-12-2011, 06:28
You're going to want a falcata a LOT more than a kopis (which works similarly but is bigger and heavier) in tight melee.
You're going to want a falcata a LOT more than a kopis (which works similarly but is bigger and heavier) in tight melee.
In other words, what is the EDU going to want?
type iberian infantry dunaminaca
dictionary iberian_infantry_dunaminaca ; Dunaminaca
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier carthaginian_infantry_elite_african_infantry_dunaminaca, 40, 0, 1.2
officer ebofficer_lusitanian_carthaginian_officer
mount_effect horse +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, can_sap, hide_long_grass, very_hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 7, 8, solifera_h, 38.5, 3, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 13, 8 , no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.16
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 10, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -2
stat_mental 13, impetuous, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1872, 491, 90, 130, 1872
ownership spain, gauls, scythia, slave
;539
type iberian infantry dunaminaca mercenary
dictionary iberian_infantry_dunaminaca ; Mercenary Dunaminaca
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier carthaginian_infantry_elite_african_infantry_dunaminaca, 40, 0, 1.2
officer ebofficer_lusitanian_carthaginian_officer
mount_effect horse +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, can_sap, hide_long_grass, very_hardy, mercenary_unit
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 7, 8, solifera_h, 38.5, 3, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 13, 8 , no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.15
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 10, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -2
stat_mental 13, impetuous, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1872, 491, 90, 130, 1872
ownership seleucid, egypt, slave
Fix it.
TheShakAttack
11-12-2011, 12:44
@GG2
Hmm....in that case should the same not apply to a longsword? Perhaps its because of the animation? (Talking out of total ignorance here). If longsword units have slow animations to reflect how "unweildy" it was, then it would make sense having a higher lethality than shorter swords.
In comparison, if Falcatta and Kopis have equal "delay" animations, it is necessary to differentiate their lethality.
Whats gonna happen to the eagles. I missed the whole discussion
-Stormrage-
11-12-2011, 13:49
Guys is there anyway we can Remove Guard mode, and can we execute Order 66 on guard mode.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-12-2011, 16:05
You're going to want a falcata a LOT more than a kopis (which works similarly but is bigger and heavier) in tight melee.
Shouldn't this translate to higher lethality but lower attack, somewhat similarly to the longsword? Harder to successfully connect with a kopis because it is more unwieldly, but if you do, the extra weight would make for more damage to be done to the target.
gamegeek2
11-12-2011, 16:17
Attack and Lethality are interchangeable.
antisocialmunky
11-12-2011, 16:29
Are you sure about that? Its like (1+lethality) ^(attack - defense) or something right?
Shouldn't this translate to higher lethality but lower attack, somewhat similarly to the longsword? Harder to successfully connect with a kopis because it is more unwieldly, but if you do, the extra weight would make for more damage to be done to the target.
Agreed.
@gamegeek/asm
When are people only thrown to the ground but not killed? Does that have nothing to do with lethality?
-Stormrage-
11-12-2011, 17:25
Agreed.
@gamegeek/asm
When are people only thrown to the ground but not killed? Does that have nothing to do with lethality?
Lethality is the percent chance a strike will hit or the person will fall and stand up again.
For example lethality 0.15 , thats 15% chance that person will die when he falls down and 85% chance he will get back up.
antisocialmunky
11-12-2011, 17:35
My understanding is attack is the chance to hit which clauses flinching and knock down, lethality is the chance to kill as opposed to knock down. So high attack + low lethality = knocked down while low attack + high lethality = less knockdown, more dying.
Lethality is the percent chance a strike will hit or the person will fall and stand up again.
For example lethality 0.15 , thats 15% chance that person will die when he falls down and 85% chance he will get back up.
No, that's actually wrong, it's not a 1 to 1 representation
@asm
Yes, I thought so, too. And my observation agrees with it. But this formula you have does not really agree with it, unless it's the formula for actually killing with no informations about hitting alone.
-Stormrage-
11-12-2011, 17:49
attack is the value that gets your sword through the armor, lethality is if that sword will kill when it penetrates the armour or just wound (knock down).
So inconclusion, you need high attack value to get your sword to penetrate your enemies armour, you need lethality to make sure that penetration actually kills.
By interchangeable gg2 doesn't mean equivalent. They're tied together hand-in-hand, but they aren't reduplicated stat values.
gamegeek2
11-12-2011, 19:00
I don't think lethality has anything to do with knockdown, but I definitely could be wrong.
-Stormrage-
11-12-2011, 19:40
GG i have to say i love your Panda Phalanxes :DD
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-12-2011, 19:42
Yeah, I've heard that a successful hit but poor luck from the lethality "roll" would lead to a knockdown but this can't be the case. That would mean that approximately 80% of successful attack/defense strikes would lead to knockdowns, meaning that masses of men would be lying on their butts during the battle which is clearly not the case. I think knockdown is just one of the animations that happens when a strike is not totally successful, aka various flinching/dodging animations or even the shield raising ones.
Yeah, I've heard that a successful hit but poor luck from the lethality "roll" would lead to a knockdown but this can't be the case. That would mean that approximately 80% of successful attack/defense strikes would lead to knockdowns, meaning that masses of men would be lying on their butts during the battle which is clearly not the case. I think knockdown is just one of the animations that happens when a strike is not totally successful, aka various flinching/dodging animations or even the shield raising ones.
Though I've heard about stamina (and morale?) effects of knocking down but not killing... and at least in my obsverations there is a difference in the percentage of knockdowns compared to kills for high lethality vs low lethality.
antisocialmunky
11-12-2011, 19:56
No, that's actually wrong, it's not a 1 to 1 representation
@asm
Yes, I thought so, too. And my observation agrees with it. But this formula you have does not really agree with it, unless it's the formula for actually killing with no informations about hitting alone.
Its to kill chance, I found it in the TWCenter modding wiki or the Ludus Magna.
That does not make sense, a chance should be a value between 0-1, this formula does not have this range of values. Now I'm confused, I've to look that up more serious.
-Stormrage-
11-12-2011, 21:37
I call upon GI to give us the Interpretation of this hadeeth.
TheShakAttack
11-12-2011, 21:45
Please refrain from making religious references.
Please refrain from making religious references.
What Shak said.
-Stormrage-
11-13-2011, 00:09
very well
gamegeek2
11-13-2011, 01:03
Though I've heard about stamina (and morale?) effects of knocking down but not killing... and at least in my obsverations there is a difference in the percentage of knockdowns compared to kills for high lethality vs low lethality.
That's probably because higher lethality generally means greater kill rate (that may have something to do with knockdown chances).
antisocialmunky
11-13-2011, 04:41
You should just set lethality at a standard value and change attack values around like what Medieval 2 does.
Its not like we use knock down for anything and it'll be easier to (re)balance. But that's a 4.0 EDU issue probably.
TheShakAttack
11-13-2011, 05:00
You should just set lethality at a standard value and change attack values around like what Medieval 2 does.
Its not like we use knock down for anything and it'll be easier to (re)balance. But that's a 4.0 EDU issue probably.
That would certainly make life a lot easier for us lay people to interpret unit effectiveness!
That would certainly make life a lot easier for us lay people to interpret unit effectiveness!
I don't like that but that's perhaps just me.
antisocialmunky
11-13-2011, 05:44
Unless you're going to make certain weapons have more 'impact' as in fewer bigger swinging weapons like hammers, long swords, and axes using high lethality, low attack.
I guess you could also do stuff like lower heavy infantry lethality, increase attack and increase light infantry lethality, decrease attack so Heavy Infantry vs Heavy Infantry take forever and prone to 'pushing' due to knock down and light infantry have better shock and do more damage initially due to charge value allowing for more successful hits instead of flinches on charge.
I really don't know.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
11-13-2011, 06:39
Or just take away good stamina on every heavy infantry unit.
I support that. And make a script to remove guard mode.
Galvanized Iron
11-13-2011, 16:39
I call upon GI to give us the Interpretation of this hadeeth.
No need for that, hopefully everyone is familiar with Aradan's excellent EDU guide:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111344
Book of Aradan 2:11
[lethality] : Percentile chance of a soldier to kill an enemy (assuming his strike has found its target). The higher the lethality, the more the kills and the less the knock-downs/knock-backs during a battle. Greatly affects the speed at which melee battles are resolved, since higher lethality means less missed hits and greater casualties in short time. It is not used in ranged combat.
I can through long experience of play around with this attribute assure that it is exactly as Aradan states it, reason everyone is not lying on their backs is becuase a failed lethality can also result in a not so visible knock-back.
The difference between a 0.2 lethality and 0.3 lethality unit is 50% more kills, which is huge and clearly visible in combat.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.