[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates [Archive] - Page 5

Kival

11-14-2011, 00:12

Galvanized Iron

11-14-2011, 01:53

According to the test of phalanx_man, the effect of lethality is not linear (in a strict sense) but follows an affine function (no power function):

f(x)=2.98 *x + 0.54

(where x is the lethality, and f(x) the killing rate; to be more specific it's the percentage of men of the unit killed in a minute)

This is tested for a solid value of all other effects (attack, defense, etc.), but and that's a very, very big but, there's a ton of methodology problems here:

1) he made only 4-8 data points for every lethality, so the statisical failure is pretty high.

2) he said for himself that lethality showed other killing rates for other battle configurations, so the data seems not be very objective but pretty specific for the situation he tested them in.

3) We only know the effect on killing rate this way. We cannot conclude anything if there is a difference in not dying because of non-working attack or the attack beeing only non lethal. It's still possible, lethality is used as a 1to1 probability after the attack effect has been concluded. I don't see a way to really test this.

4) I don't know how he ruled out more complex non-affine functions. R^2 for his model (and I get the same recalculating it) is pretty high though (R^2=0,9992; so at least his linear model has a high quality).) I did not test for linearity further for now, don't have any real statistic software on this pc.

EDIT: My conclusion is, that phalanx men tests (on lethality) are not very conclusive :(
Exactly, I was thinking "wtf?" When I read about his tests, a formula for kills per minute that is even leaving out the attack rating(!). First of all, all tests vs the computer is only approximate at best as it can't be considered an experiment in a fully controlled environment and secondly unless CA actually would share us their formula it is just speculation.

It's not a power function, it's linear but has a non-1 slope and a y-intercept.
In English please, do you even know yourself what that means?

As you may have noticed some units also has the hidden stats critical hit, which was visable in older mods, I think RTR 4, which seem to indicate that hit is done through an attack + die roll vs defense calculation whereas lethality is a seperate after-calculation.

Galvanized Iron

11-14-2011, 02:04

As a further proof of linearity I would make as an example my cavalry charge tests made for RS II MP. Starting out from 0.2 lethality a frontal charge of cataphracts vs marines resulted in about 10-12 casualites each first charge, increasing to 0.4 lethality casualties rose to 20-24 kills per hit, at 0.5 where it was good enough kills landed at a 25-30 kills per first time charge.

(These numbers are higher in the current state of the mod, but due to an increase in cavalry mass outside the EDU)

Kival

11-14-2011, 03:11

Exactly, I was thinking "wtf?" When I read about his tests, a formula for kills per minute that is even leaving out the attack rating(!).

That's actually fine. When you control other variables you can test for only one without any problem. You just need to take care what it does exactly mean. Phalanx man tests are nice, some results especially regarding other issues than lethality. No need to rage about it. The tests are because of the mentioned things to be taken with caution though.

In English please, do you even know yourself what that means?

He does know what it means and is right as far. He's using pretty general school terms, nothing crazy as afine functions :p.

vartan

11-14-2011, 03:52

Kival, you'd be surprised that phalanx_man's data is near-representative. That's why he got close to actual numbers most likely used by CA. Like I was telling gg2 in conversation recently, it's not as if someone at CA sat down and said, "Today I think I'm going to make a linear proportionality model connecting attack, lethality and defensive values such that the first coefficient is 2.98742." No. You start simple and complicate things from there to refine them. That's why they most likely landed on 3 and 0.5, not 2.98 and Heaven knows what other fancy numbers.

gamegeek2

11-14-2011, 04:40

GI, I learned what that means when I was about 12 years old. Please don't insult my intelligence.

antisocialmunky

11-14-2011, 05:26

GI, I learned what that means when I was about 12 years old. Please don't insult my intelligence.

If you paint things red, they go faster, this is why Saka and Rome are OP.

gamegeek2

11-14-2011, 05:28

But Rome isn't OP :p

vartan

11-14-2011, 06:31

But Rome isn't OP :p
True dat.

And I don't think that was cool either GI. Why you be hatin' brah?

Kival

11-14-2011, 14:00

Kival, you'd be surprised that phalanx_man's data is near-representative.

How do you know that? Only according to his test data we can't know that, actually for lethality he said that he got different restults for other battle configurations. I don't know how different though.

No. You start simple and complicate things from there to refine them. That's why they most likely landed on 3 and 0.5, not 2.98 and Heaven knows what other fancy numbers.

Agreed. If phalanx-man was conclusive, the real numbers would be 3 and 0.5, but we don't know if they used a linear model at all. As far as I can see without real testing, to use a linear model for this data is okay. What we can be sure of is that f(0)>0, so lethality obviously isn't the chance itself.

Still I'm not sure about the validity of the data itself. If I have the time, I'll try to re-model the system with some hypothesis and see if it fits with the inductional "models" there. Do we know (or at least have a good assumption) if the actual animations are directly relevant? Is one solider attacking another soldiers the real mechanic or ar the real mechanics only unit based?

vartan

11-14-2011, 18:04

Still I'm not sure about the validity of the data itself. If I have the time, I'll try to re-model the system with some hypothesis and see if it fits with the inductional "models" there. Do we know (or at least have a good assumption) if the actual animations are directly relevant? Is one solider attacking another soldiers the real mechanic or ar the real mechanics only unit based?
That's what I've been wondering, too. I want to say that the visuals don't make any difference, and that the two models have only to collide at one spot in their collision detection overlays (very simple, probably elongated spheres) in order for combat calculations to start running. So it's not that the combat is pure numbers, or entirely based on animations, but rather depends on both. The animation itself doesn't contribute, it's the position of the model relative to the enemy model. I wish CA made it so that it was more physical, that the animation represented something real. That it would hit the neck, or the torso, or the legs, with varying chances let's say. But that's more work (I should know!)

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-15-2011, 02:35

Please go discuss your maths elsewhere. The numbers have me confused:stars:

vartan

11-15-2011, 03:54

Please go discuss your maths elsewhere. The numbers have me confused:stars:
Well we do have a (history) research department if you'd like to stay away from maths.

antisocialmunky

11-15-2011, 04:35

That's what I've been wondering, too. I want to say that the visuals don't make any difference, and that the two models have only to collide at one spot in their collision detection overlays (very simple, probably elongated spheres) in order for combat calculations to start running. So it's not that the combat is pure numbers, or entirely based on animations, but rather depends on both. The animation itself doesn't contribute, it's the position of the model relative to the enemy model. I wish CA made it so that it was more physical, that the animation represented something real. That it would hit the neck, or the torso, or the legs, with varying chances let's say. But that's more work (I should know!)

WHICH IS WHY I WANT TO REDUCE UNIT RADIUS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW UNITS SPEND TOO MUCH TIME SPREADING OUT AND THEN SLOWLY WALKING AT EACH OTHER WASTING STAMINA.

*Ahem*

But seriously lateral spacing divided by 3.

Lazy O

11-15-2011, 09:41

LISTEN TO ASM AND LET HIM DO IT

ahha this is fun

gamegeek2

11-15-2011, 12:28

Yes, sounds good.

-Stormrage-

11-15-2011, 14:09

I support that. And make a script to remove guard mode.

I Agree, Dont ignore this issue it has been brought up several times.

Ludens

11-15-2011, 14:26

It's possible to coerce unit stances in SP historical battles, but these are a special case. AFAIK it's not possible to do this for custom or campaign battles, let alone MP ones. There would also be no way to check if your MP opponent has the script running.

antisocialmunky

11-15-2011, 17:43

Yes, sounds good.

Its not so much straight guard mode but it is an issue of density since units spread out so much when attacking, you have one guy effectively engaging multiple guys. The stamina issue is also fairly big but its not so bad now that stamina has been largely given to all heavy infantry. You just have to engage better against people with better formation using heavy infantry or knock them out of formation.

If there was one thing I would change to formation infantry it would be to make them more vulnerable from the sides and rear but there's no real way of doing that except to make them missile invulnerable from the front....

Kival

11-15-2011, 17:44

We could just rule it out (I'M still not sure, If I am happy with getting rid of guard mode). If it's really relevant as in tourney vartan e.g. can tell you by seeing if a unit it in guard mode.

-Stormrage-

11-15-2011, 17:47

This is video proof of the power of Panda phalanx. You decide should Pandas "levy" cost 1300 phalanx handle that much ?

Watch This (http://youtu.be/kn3njcNFTTE)

Best Way to Prove your point give a video, oh and i have 2 other replays with the same scenario.

TheShakAttack

11-15-2011, 17:55

Storm I dont think you have chosen the best example. In that specific instance, there were allied eagle troops around which AFAIK helps boost morale for everyone in the team (if they are around). There might have been druids chanting as well iirc (can't see in the video).

However, I have seen other examples where a seriously flanked panda unit does not rout quickly, and takes some time to do so. Even when there is no eagle/druid support present.

As I've told you, I do not think this is a big issue- yes they do not rout quickly, but they do rout. The question everyone has to answer is: is the amount of time it takes for them to rout acceptable? IMO, yes it is.

-Stormrage-

11-15-2011, 18:01

allied eagles or generals do not give an effect . If my ally has an eagle or druid chanting next to my men , my men dont get a boost :D

What do u mean amount of time it takes for them to rout ? they didnt even rout. I dont mind time but that was too much time all i want to see is white flags, That is too much time for a 1300 phalanx totally flanked and charged by neitos and cohorts, Watch it again it was even Jav charge from behind. What more do u want

Kival

11-15-2011, 18:33

allied eagles or generals do not give an effect . If my ally has an eagle or druid chanting next to my men , my men dont get a boost :D

I'm inclined to disagree. At least generals work for allies too.

Kival

11-15-2011, 18:45

If there was one thing I would change to formation infantry it would be to make them more vulnerable from the sides and rear but there's no real way of doing that except to make them missile invulnerable from the front....

That's not entirely impossible but I would not choose the way you'd need to go for that: Increase shield values but decrease armour values drastically.

Galvanized Iron

11-15-2011, 19:19

That's not entirely impossible but I would not choose the way you'd need to go for that: Increase shield values but decrease armour values drastically.
Yes don't do that unless you enjoy vanilla style skirmish armies to dominate the field...

-Stormrage-

11-15-2011, 20:04

how about taking Ap secondaries from Phalanx.

The Celtic Viking

11-15-2011, 20:38

No, if they used axes then they used axes and should use axes.

Do nerf the Evocata though.

Kival

11-15-2011, 20:47

They have only 4 (!) attack. Their melee power really in now way is OP. If anything the difference to other phalangitai is perhaps too big.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-15-2011, 22:01

With panda phalanx its more an issue of the unit being in guard mode (! again an issue) and the men not peeling off from the main formation. This means they don't actively seek their deaths at the hands of flanking infantry by walking towards them. This causes morale to decrease slower. However, rout one panda phalanx and they will all rout. This has proven time and time again.

antisocialmunky

11-16-2011, 01:05

@Adjusting shield value

Shield values are doubled from the front when standing still. This is why experience players only throw javelins at moving targets if they have to throw from the front. And while this is the easiest way, it makes high missile defense basically impenetrable missile defense

Kival

11-16-2011, 01:22

I thought thrown weapons ignore the double value of shield? Where did you get shield is only giving double value when standing still?

Arjos

11-16-2011, 02:33

That video about the pantodapoi is hilarious, the legionaries in the front getting killed are keeping the phalanx on high morale enough to sustain the rear attack, which btw not leaving a gap makes them prone to fight 'til the end...

gamegeek2

11-16-2011, 03:54

antisocialmunky

11-16-2011, 04:29

Test it.

I'm pretty sure shield is only doubled when idle which is why using Bosphorans to initiate a missile dual and then holding fire with them basically makes them imbalanced due to shield. I dunno about thrown but in my experience a moving unit takes more casualties than an idle unit.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-16-2011, 05:39

Laterally moving units will definitely take more casualties but I've never noticed any difference between an idle unit and a charging unit in terms of missile damage received. I also have read, and believe that thrown missiles ignore the double shield bonus though I am far from 100% on this.

antisocialmunky

11-16-2011, 06:57

Battle Mechanics
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=377804

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

I can pretty much swear that there is some sort of frontal missile bonus. I guess it is likely that 'bracing' could account for it as the first volley of missiles from archers tends to get a few kills but subsequent ones do not because units put up their shields. I dunno but my extensive experience with heavy infantry and archers has always confirmed that its a bad idea to shoot missiles at a unit from the front unless they are moving (at which point they'll take more casualties). You can test this using javelins. Charge a unit using pila and then have the pila unit attack the same unit.

Or look at the whole issue with point blank archer shots. Clearly, missile resistance is lower when units are engaged from the front. You can shoot at heavy infantry point blank in the face and it won't do much but if oyu engage them in melee and shoot, suddenly you cna actually cause casualties.

Kival

11-16-2011, 09:02

As far as the other tests goes: shield value is at maximum from the front and right (!) of the unit, less on the left and in the back (-50 %). For missiles the front is the strongest shield side and (here) the left is as good as the right side here. Defense is only 100 % from the front,-33% LEFT, -20% RIGHT and -50% penaty to BACK. Armour has a very slight decrease for missile attacks not originating from the front. For details I'd need to check again but I'm not allowed to write in this thread about it. @Robin :P

Lazy O

11-16-2011, 09:55

So is ASM doing his radius thing he kept ranting about since June or not?

And im not sure what you guys are talking about, panda phalanx rout pretty much instantly when flanked.

The reason they are not routing in the video is because they are killing stuff faster than they are losing stuff. That means...yes people, when engaging a phalanx remember the value of guard mode ;) Also, the legions I saw were not attacking the phalanx directly, they were engaged with another unit and only a handful were facing the Phalanx, so they get better morale because they 'think' they are 'winning'.

Suppose :( is flanker and :) is phalanx and :(( is the unit in front of phalanx.

the video has it like this:

:( :) :(( and another unit engaged with :(( so theoretically :) is only engaged with :(

TheShakAttack

11-16-2011, 14:03

Haha. In fairness, I have seen what storm is saying- it takes a while to rout pandas even if they are heavily flanked by infantry (cav is a diff matter). I think he raises a vaild issue- do pandas take too long to rout? His choice of video was appalling though. A certain despicable panda-hater (who has contributed greatly to their endangered status today) who shall remain nameless (lets call him "TCV" for code) agrees with Storm that they take too long to rout and that its more fun to shoot baby pandas when they are running away from you. I get the feeling that everyone else is more or less satisfied with the current morale/gameplay of pandas though.

Regarding Arjos' post I have two questions:
That video about the pantodapoi is hilarious, the legionaries in the front getting killed are keeping the phalanx on high morale enough to sustain the rear attack, which btw not leaving a gap makes them prone to fight 'til the end...

Is this true? Does killing a lot of enemies raise morale? and Secondly, certainly in real like being totally surrounded makes people sometimes fight harder, but is this true in game as well? (apart from "fighting to the death" mechanism)

-Stormrage-

11-16-2011, 14:19

there is absolutely no such thing as morale increase for the unit "thinking" it is "winning" . Absolutely False, back in the summer I used an army of chevroned elite macedonian phalanx. in the end there was one left and it was sourounded on everyside. It Said the Unit thinks it is winning then the next second the flag turned white. So you can see The unit htinking its winning doesnt make a difference, this elite phalanx thought it was winning and routed the next second.

and ill get another replay for people who dont like this one

EDIT: Is there anyway guard mode can be removed or maybe kept for specific units only ? The sooner we can get this done the sooner we can have some real battles. Not like that battle i had with whats his name where he left his line of galatian spearmen in guard mode while i encircled him with neitos and cohorts and charged him from the rear while my front line troops were fighting him in the front. Middle of battle i checked the situation, his main line troops were Fresh mine were winded. Common

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-16-2011, 15:07

There is most certainly a morale bonus for a unit believing that they are winning a localized battle. In your case Storm, there is also a morale penalty for a unit which recognizes that the wider battle is being lost. Units that kill fast aka Bastarnae and Drapanai are difficult to rout even when you kill a whole bunch at once because once in melee, their kill rate keeps morale up.

-Stormrage-

11-16-2011, 15:10

no i dont think so

Kival

11-16-2011, 16:18

Guard mode is an issue but nobody except stormrage complains that no "real battles" can be done at the moment. This non-guard mode ideas should be implemented carefully not rushed.

-Stormrage-

11-16-2011, 16:27

i find it very cheap and "not real battle" when my opponent leaves his main line in guard mode when i flank him then when my men are tired he gets out of guard mode with fresh men.

Kival

11-16-2011, 16:32

-Stormrage-

11-16-2011, 16:47

i think guard mode should be special for only some units. Phalanxes ? sure . but the rest remove (with exception)

antisocialmunky

11-16-2011, 17:01

Actually to some degree, that was the tactic of some spearwall like units (massilians, arjos, etc.); they first builded a phalanx until the enemy got tired to attack then. That's fine but guard mode is too strong in this regard. By the way nobody forbids you to use guard mode on your own.

There's actually a military text book from the late medieval era that states something along the lines of:

"When men at arms march to meet an enemy in hand to hand combat, the ones who walk will invariable be defeated by the ones who stand still."

Go guard mode imba in real life.

If you guys really want to deal with the issue now specify an attacker and defender and bump money up to 380000 for the attacker since the guy with superior forces usually has to march against the one with inferior forces.

gamegeek2

11-16-2011, 20:25

If I can see a working script to eliminate guard mode, I will take a VERY hard look at it.

Kival

11-16-2011, 21:52

If you guys really want to deal with the issue now specify an attacker and defender and bump money up to 380000 for the attacker since the guy with superior forces usually has to march against the one with inferior forces.

I really like that idea. Not sure about the specific number 380.000 is obviously too much. :clown:

vartan

11-16-2011, 22:11

If I can see a working script to eliminate guard mode, I will take a VERY hard look at it.
Precisely. For now, we're working on an honor system but there's nothing I've read asking to ban the use of it. If it weren't for the phalanx bug present in engine 1.5, I wouldn't mind a ban. Fact is that I can spot guard mode from a mile away. CA did a good job of making guard mode more obvious than the obesity epidemic in the United States. That said, I'm under the impression that we're currently looking at alternative(s) to such a ban (e.g., ASM's thoughts on density, spacing, etc.).

TheShakAttack

11-17-2011, 00:52

There is no honor system in place currently re guard mode. You are free to use it if you wish.

Arjos

11-17-2011, 01:58

I can roll with an honour system negating guard mode, but phalanx units, and I mean dory length ones, will become useless, and this code will only facilitate the life for factions like SPQR or Keltoi, which can field heavy infantry "spams", unless tweaks in the stats counterbalance it (which would look a bit bogus since those factions are supposed to be good in close quarters)...
Or people could start using units' mobility and run around "guarding" units and not complaing about frontal assaults on such units proving ineffective...

Fact is holding formation was the epitome of professional units, and much praised by any commander, and in the game we have already units capable of cutting through them btw...

gamegeek2

11-17-2011, 04:33

antisocialmunky

11-17-2011, 05:24

People with huge friggin shield bosses.

Lazy O

11-17-2011, 09:44

No matter how awesome your Gaesate are Bruttian infantry will still hold for 5-10 mins comfortably. Bumping assault infantry stats does not solve the problem,they will be used on the flanks like everything else.

TheShakAttack

11-17-2011, 13:04

Agree with Lazy. Also, I get the feeling that assault infantry will get "worn down" both in terms of stamina and numbers eventually. Numbers due to the fact that "disengaging" often results in at least 2-4 casualties, which kind of negates the charge advantages. Also, it looks like only certain factions with "assault" infantry will be able to successfully negotiate guard mode (?)

-Stormrage-

11-17-2011, 13:42

What I really need to do is make charges more powerful for selected troops. Which ones do you guys think deserve a high charge bonus able to cause 4-5 or so casualties on a guard-mode unit? (This means values of 20-24)

Here's a basic list I've come up with:

-Loose-spaced longsword units
-Loose-spaced AP units (perhaps somewhat less than the previous)
-High-quality, medium to loose space spear units
-Two-handers (falxmen, kluddargos, etc.)
-Clubmen (fierce warriors such as these would often form the tip of a wedge formation designed to smash an enemy line)

i like this idea we need higher charge values for assualt infantry . Lets go through with this idea, i dont think spear weilding units should get charge, just the sword units, Neitos could use a charge buff for example.

EDIT: honour system , what are you guys talking about ?

TheShakAttack

11-17-2011, 13:47

Neitos were not assault infantry.

-Stormrage-

11-17-2011, 13:53

They are really heavy barbarians , good enough.

antisocialmunky

11-17-2011, 15:52

Precisely. For now, we're working on an honor system but there's nothing I've read asking to ban the use of it. If it weren't for the phalanx bug present in engine 1.5, I wouldn't mind a ban. Fact is that I can spot guard mode from a mile away. CA did a good job of making guard mode more obvious than the obesity epidemic in the United States. That said, I'm under the impression that we're currently looking at alternative(s) to such a ban (e.g., ASM's thoughts on density, spacing, etc.).

Well its largely due to reduced kill rates in EB. If you keep reducing kill rates it'll be more of a problem. If someone can strip the density values that gg2 put it, I have a script that auto adjusts the values.

-Stormrage-

11-17-2011, 15:55

make a script that removes guard mode

antisocialmunky

11-17-2011, 16:16

make a script that removes guard mode

That's not going to help you win games :p

lmt96

11-17-2011, 16:40

I don't know why some people hold a grudge against the guard mode. :| Seriously no one bans you from using the guard mode for your own, at least at this time, it's also true in life if someone holds the line tightly they get better defense than the loosened. I think y'all have heard of "a wall of steel", that's right, it's the guard mode. Well that's only my opinion anyway :P

TheShakAttack

11-17-2011, 18:16

-Stormrage-

11-17-2011, 18:22

The fact is guard mode is too OP in this game, I had Imperial archers stand a full on charge of 4 slightly diminshed cav units . They were eager when i took them out of guard mode they routed.

Remeber vega ? I had a battle with him he launched everything he had against this pile of imperials they stood like elites. I saw him use it on one of his phalanxes it was wavering when i clicked on my neitos then charged the phalanx it turned eager.

So i used it on my archers, it was fun. nice to see how very historical it makes the game, phalanxes eager when flanked, archers eager when charged. really spices things up.

Ludens

11-17-2011, 18:23

make a script that removes guard mode

I tried to explain why this isn't possible, but I guess my previous post was unclear. It's possible to script SP historical battles, but as far as I know this cannot be done for SP custom battles; nor MP ones. It also wouldn't be possible to check if your opponent was running the script.

The Celtic Viking

11-17-2011, 18:52

Personally, I don't have a huge issue with guard mode since all units can make use of it. There is nothing to stop players from using it themselves. Also, it can be addressed through different tactics- ie ignoring main line and trying to attack flanks. Granted this doesn't always work too well, and can be particularly annoying in battles larger than 2v2, but it does make sense that certain units gear themselves to be "defensive" (ie. guard mode) and as others have pointed out, very much rely on unit cohesion to work well.

Oh yes, everyone's equal... some are just more equal than others due to armour and missile support. :rolleyes:

The only units I can stand using guard mode as is are historical shieldwall infantry, levies and phalanxes. Seeing it on anything else makes me reach for the bear pelt.

TheShakAttack

11-17-2011, 19:03

Ludens, I think the "script" ASM refers to is a something he's cooked up to make formations tighter in EDU rather than a script that would be run like in EB SP Campaign.

I think others have referred to "script" in the sense you meant it, and thanks for taking the time again to clarify that issue.

-Stormrage-

11-17-2011, 19:30

i started using "script" cuz everyone else was using it .

Yes this post isnt spam at all

antisocialmunky

11-18-2011, 01:33

vartan

11-18-2011, 09:08

Fact is holding formation was the epitome of professional units, and much praised by any commander, and in the game we have already units capable of cutting through them btw...
Guard mode has nothing to do with holding formations. It's just a game feature I wish didn't exist.

Arjos

11-18-2011, 09:23

Guard mode has nothing to do with holding formations. It's just a game feature I wish didn't exist.

You might not like it, but without it in RTW you can't have "shieldwalls"...

Kival

11-18-2011, 17:32

Guard mode has nothing to do with holding formations. It's just a game feature I wish didn't exist.

Actually it has something to do with holding formations and unit choesion, not chasing routers etc. I think it actually alreade works the way it should but it's too strong. A slight decrease in stamina reduction would be fine but guard mode gives too much stamina reduction. By the way guard mode units can be defeated from the front, it just takes some time and a very professional or elite unit.

I really like asms proposal of designating an attacker and to give him more mnai. It does not completely solve the guard mode issue but actually nearly always the defensive player has an advantage with or without guard mode.

gamegeek2

11-18-2011, 17:41

I would prefer something like high charge values for "assault" units or some heavy troops to encourage ordering units to attack, not having them sit there.

I think this would work excellently on barbarian troops and two-handers, who can't use guard mode to any effect (except units like Arjos).

-Stormrage-

11-18-2011, 17:43

vartan

11-18-2011, 19:25

You might not like it, but without it in RTW you can't have "shieldwalls"...
You just don't get it do you. RTW is messed up. You can have a shield wall in a game you create without a "guard mode". Do you get that? :dizzy2:

Kival

11-18-2011, 20:34

You just don't get it do you. RTW is messed up. You can have a shield wall in a game you create without a "guard mode". Do you get that? :dizzy2:

What's so terrible wrong about guard mode except it's overpowered implementation? What's wrong with the mechanism itself not regarding the power level of it?

antisocialmunky

11-18-2011, 20:39

Kival

11-18-2011, 20:41

Guard mode units don't pursuit enemy units. That's its purposed. If GG2 makes assault units, then as I've said before charge values of 20+ cause enough casualties to break the guard mode version of that unit in continuous fighting

We surely have to make a solid system for the charge values, now we have some german units with very high charge values and a few celtic ones but other units of the same "class" have lower ones.

-Stormrage-

11-18-2011, 21:08

Guard mode units don't pursuit enemy units. That's its purposed. If GG2 makes assault units, then as I've said before charge values of 20+ cause enough casualties to break the guard mode version of that unit in continuous fighting. I tested this with hoplite vs hoplite but a charge of around 26 made it so a single charge killed enough units that the attackers won the fight. You would probably want to lower the charge to 20ish so it would take multiple charges or missiles or some sort of depletion in conjunction with charge to win a fight so it doesn't come down to who charges first.

I must disagree, Make the charge values high so people would fight to charge first, BEcuase they know the won who charges gets the advantage. so what do we get ? both main lines charging simultaneosly at each other and both getting the charge kills. Now thats an epic sight.

On the other hand if you make it that charge values are meh, then no one will care about charging first and you end up with guard mode turtles who stay in guard mode until the enemy is tired and their units are fresh. Then they get out of guard mode and own everyone.

Your choice, you can get an edu which supports charging at each other or turtling behind guard mode.

I support increasing charge values for select units to 20+ .

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-18-2011, 21:35

You just don't get it do you. RTW is messed up. You can have a shield wall in a game you create without a "guard mode". Do you get that? :dizzy2:
He is trying to say that IN RTW it is the only way you can have a shieldwall since there is nothing else in game that functions anywhere close to this. You are making it sound like we are the programmers of the game and we should design another means to achieve this. We work within the confines of the product which we have received, much as the designers of EB originally did. Thinking outside the box makes no sense in this context since we are unfortunately limited by the box.

Kival

11-18-2011, 21:47

You would probably want to lower the charge to 20ish so it would take multiple charges or missiles or some sort of depletion in conjunction with charge to win a fight so it doesn't come down to who charges first.

Shouldn't it depend on the units? For most units I agree one charge should not be enough to kill itself in guard mode but there should be some who are so good in it, that one charge is enough in the long run, if the enemy does not suppot this unit somehow.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-18-2011, 22:00

The so-called "assault" units come to mind.

-Stormrage-

11-18-2011, 22:02

So are we agreed 20+ charge to assualt units ?

Kival

11-18-2011, 22:26

We need to evaluate that unit per unit, I fear.

TheShakAttack

11-18-2011, 22:46

I agree with what most people are saying- I do not think that guard mode can sensibly be done away with given the information Ludens has provided. All we can do is somehow compensate for that. I also agree with Arjos that within the set parameters of RTW, thus far, guard mode seems to best represent "shield-wall" though guard mode "overdoes" it. This is of course until we have been provided with and tested something that is satisfactory. I don't think its right to dismiss Arjos' point on that, or to criticize him for pointing it out. You cannot really use units like hoplites very well out of guard mode.

Having said that, I think everyone would welcome alternate ideas to overcome how OP guard mode is, as well as testing out the "high charge" infantry that is being proposed.

antisocialmunky

11-19-2011, 00:45

Guard mode isn't OP. Just infeasible to beat head on. Like a phalanx except you can actually kill the guard mode unit from the front if you have good enough infantry.

vartan

11-19-2011, 03:10

There's a feature in the game you can't disable. It is a failure in the sense that it does more than it's supposed to (i.e., it has other effects besides the non-pursuit of opposing units). It is not modder-friendly. It is not the only way to represent a shield wall (rather, shield walls aren't possible in RTW, not without adverse effects). In fact, it doesn't represent a shield wall. It represents the non-pursuit of the enemy. Its other benefits/effects are nonsensical (knowing you will not pursue the enemy upon their hypothetical rout should not result in any benefits for you). You work around this. You can bar the use of it. You can maintain it but try to counter its effects by way of stat changes (thinking formation here), but likely not without adversely affecting the very same units in their non-guard form. Don't mistake this for an argument for or against either of the latter two paths. This is rather an observation on a game feature. Carry on.

Kival

11-19-2011, 04:49

@gamegeek

I tried to recalculate some of the unit costs (to get the real costs of the changed archers e.g.) but I was not really able to do that with the documentation. With some assumption it fits but It's very uncertain. Could you make a actualized documentation with one example of unit calculation? Or give us/me the possibility to have a look at your spreadsheet, if you're using any?

gamegeek2

11-19-2011, 05:04

No spreadsheet, actually by now I have the things used to calculate unit costs memorized (rarely do I have to consult the documentation unless I want to change a cost parameter).

Kival

11-19-2011, 05:30

No spreadsheet, actually by now I have the things used to calculate unit costs memorized (rarely do I have to consult the documentation unless I want to change a cost parameter).

Okay, for example (I don't want to discuss content discussions, only what I got wrong while calculating), scythian archers:

type steppe missile scythianfootarchers
dictionary steppe_missile_scythianfootarchers ; Skuda Fistaeg Fat Aexsdzhytae
category infantry
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier steppe_foot_archer_hallatamtithanvare_sakae_skuda, 35, 0, 0.6
officer ebofficer_dracones
mount_effect horse -1, elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, very_hardy
formation 1.6, 2, 3.2, 4, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 6, 0, arrow_h, 190, 35, missile, archery, piercing, none, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 6, 0, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.15
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 7, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 0, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 7, low, untrained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 784, 188, 125, 87, 784
ownership armenia, carthage, romans_scipii, greek_cities, slave

Tier 1, base cost: 0.8
shortsword: 0.1
padded clothes: 0.1
scythian comp. bow: 0.6
accuracy bonus: 0.3 (only one time, because the new high accuracy has been done by Shak)

All together is: 0.8+0.1+0.1+0.6+0.3=1.9

1.9*6.225*70 = 827,93
It only fit's if i reduce the cost-factor with 0.1 to 1.8. But where does this 0.1 come from?

Also I could not find anything about the mali, archers seem to get in melee:

Tier one should be: Tier 1: 0.8, 7 Atk/6 DS, 8 morale

Together with shortsword (attack+2), light unit and without shield (defense+1 or +2) the scythian archer should have:

9 Attack, 7 or 8 defense and 8 morale.

Together with

Skirmishers/Missile Troops/Phalanxes:
-1 AF/-1 DS; reduced mass (not phalanxes)

it comes to: 8 Attack, 7 or 8 defense, and 8 morale.

In fact it is: 6 attack (-2), 7 defense (+0 or -1) and 6 morale (-2)

For the Dacian Archers it's:

type dacian missile komatai toxotai
dictionary dacian_missile_komatai_toxotai ; Komatai Toxotai
category infantry
class missile
voice_type Light_1
soldier germanic_missile_bugimannoz_sotaroas_toxotai, 45, 0, 0.4
mount_effect chariot +2, elephant +1, horse -2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, very_hardy, hide_long_grass
formation 1.6, 2, 3.2, 4, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 5, 0, arrow_m, 200, 35, missile, archery, piercing, none, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 11, 0, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.14
stat_sec_attr light_spear
stat_pri_armour 3, 8, 0, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 2, 0
stat_mental 6, low, untrained
stat_charge_dist 35
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1051, 202, 60, 80, 1051
ownership dacia

Tier 1, base cost: 0.8
spear: 0.05
soft leather armour: 0.2
scythian comp. bow: 0.6
light arrow (??): -0.075
accuracy: 0.3

All in all 1.875*80*6.255=1050.47... which is nearly 1051, so this time calculation works but we have other deriviations from for the melee capabilites:

Attack should be
Base: 7
Spear: +5
Missile: -1

All in all 11, which is fine.

Defense should be
Base 6
light unit: +1
without shield: +1?

All in all 8, which is fine

Morale should be 8.

So we have Attac 11 (+0), Defense 7 or 8 (-1 or +0) and Morale 8 (-2), which obviously are not the same penalties as for scythians. For all my calculations I'm obviously missing some things (for bosphorons it's much worse e.g.), which are not outspoken in the Documentation. Just to know my mistakes for this archers would help though.

Arjos

11-19-2011, 06:44

Guard mode isn't OP. Just infeasible to beat head on.

I'm with munky on this one, next we are going to say: "blimey, phalanx mode is OP, I can't cut the sarrisa tips nor roll under them?" XD
Guard mode is what we have to represent units holding ground and "interlocking shields", no one is forcing anyone to attack it straight on, nor no one is forcing people to avoid using it...
Actually this feature calls for somewhat superior tactics from the opponent, ie finding ways to get around it...
But no everyone prefers no guard mode and colossal charges head on, I don't know you guys, but that last case is just dull...

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-19-2011, 06:57

Its basically understood amongst most of the regular players here that if you see an opponent with a strong heavy infantry main line standing still, they are in guard mode, do not charge them. Indeed, sometimes you can go around them or even not form a main line of your own so they sit there doing nothing unless your opponent is quick enough to react.

vartan

11-19-2011, 09:14

I was reading all of the posts in this thread again (just doing my job), and came across something I forgot to respond to. Just over a week ago Storm brought up a case in which he charged at loose formation archers with his cavalry in an area of the battlefield removed from the main lines. He mentioned that instead of routing upon being charged by his cavalry contingents, the archers were merely shaken momentarily before melee ensued. As unfortunate as this may be, I just wanted to mention that what might be going on is an issue, again, with the engine. I believe I first learned this from ASM; what is probably going on is an odd issue with how loosely formed units engage. ASM could clarify if he remembers what I'm referring to (ASM remember 2009? We had a fairplay, I believe, that mentioned loose formation units and how engagement was bugged in that form).

Lazy O

11-19-2011, 11:43

So after the next update, how about we just let ASM do his stuff with the formations and the radius and all that shit? GG2 can take over after that.

TheShakAttack

11-19-2011, 13:58

I'm with munky on this one, next we are going to say: "blimey, phalanx mode is OP, I can't cut the sarrisa tips nor roll under them?" XD
Guard mode is what we have to represent units holding ground and "interlocking shields", no one is forcing anyone to attack it straight on, nor no one is forcing people to avoid using it...
Actually this feature calls for somewhat superior tactics from the opponent, ie finding ways to get around it...
But no everyone prefers no guard mode and colossal charges head on, I don't know you guys, but that last case is just dull...

Here is where I would disagree with you Arjos. I perhaps used "OP" improperly, but what is clear is that it "overcompensates" and performs functions beyond what other people say it was intended to do: namely "hold ground" (stick to formation and do not chase).

Arjos

11-19-2011, 16:31

beyond what other people say it was intended to do: namely "hold ground" (stick to formation and do not chase).

If you are referring to the fatigue, it's historically accurate for such tactic to "save breath", as it represents how each companion could easily kill off the neighbour's opponent and also men shifting between lines...

antisocialmunky

11-19-2011, 16:34

Kival

11-19-2011, 16:49

If you are referring to the fatigue, it's historically accurate for such tactic to "save breath", as it represents how each companion could easily kill off the neighbour's opponent and also men shifting between lines...

Yep, I think it's fine to reduce fatigue but guard mode is OP in regard of reducing fatigue *too much*.

Arjos

11-19-2011, 16:59

That might be, but since a frontal attack against guard mode, with the exception for few shock units, should result in heavy losses, I think it's irrelevant (plus I don't think it can be modded)...

And tbh it's fine as it is, if you attack a flank or the rear, the "guarded" unit still losses "breath", that a phalanx does its job from the front is no OP nor "too much"...
For example, the first coming to my mind, at Hastings the shieldwall held for an hour or even more of continuos fighting, and after that had the stamina to charge (not to mention they came from a forced march!!!)...

Lazy O

11-19-2011, 17:09

@Vartan; You might want to check this out, the guy who set up the MP launchers for RS2 said it works.

https://www.evolvehq.com/

-Stormrage-

11-19-2011, 17:12

@Vartan; You might want to check this out, the guy who set up the MP launchers for RS2 said it works.

https://www.evolvehq.com/

Traitor :stare:

Arjos

11-19-2011, 19:37

Why Hai can't recruit Kappadokian and Median cavalry? Skin or model conflicts, can it be fixed?

vartan

11-19-2011, 21:37

@Vartan; You might want to check this out, the guy who set up the MP launchers for RS2 said it works.

https://www.evolvehq.com/
I'll look into it. Thanks.

TheShakAttack

11-29-2011, 00:23

Hey GG2, we know you're quite busy, but if you could help us out with EDU errors by updating the "documentation 3.0" file to include the latest costing it would be very helpful. Also helpful would be to include an example of how you cost 1-2 units so its clearly illustrated.

I know this should really go out as a PM, but I thought others might also find this helpful, and if so, perhaps you would shuffle it higher on your "EB priority" list.

Thanks!

The Celtic Viking

11-29-2011, 01:09

This isn't really related to the EDU at all, but since I don't want to start a completely new thread for one very tiny question, I'll just ask it here and let anyone who objects shoot me. Currently, accensi are only on the list for Camillan Rome, but according to Vega GG2 thinks they should be available for Polybians as well. Should they?

(You're welcome, Vega. :p)

Kival

11-29-2011, 02:16

Accensi don't belong to the polybian army.

gamegeek2

11-29-2011, 02:27

I don't know this stuff but it seems like lower class men with little or no property would likely be in the slinger reserves even in the Polybian era.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-29-2011, 04:04

I don't know this stuff but it seems like lower class men with little or no property would likely be in the slinger reserves even in the Polybian era.

Velites, no? I think once the state expanded to include southern Italy and Sicily, Greeks and Sardinians would be used for menial tasks such as slingers and archers.

Kival

11-29-2011, 04:50

Southern, Pat (2007). The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History. Oxford university press. p. 92 :P

The Celtic Viking

11-29-2011, 09:44

The cost of the Roman version of Aichmetai Leukanoi is wrong: they're priced the same as the 100 man version when they are only 80 men (all other stats being equal).

Vega

11-29-2011, 13:04

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-29-2011, 13:32

The cost of the Roman version of Aichmetai Leukanoi is wrong: they're priced the same as the 100 man version when they are only 80 men (all other stats being equal).

Lol, post that in the hotfix thread. I mentioned that to gg2 about 2 months ago and had completely forgotten about it by now.

On a separate note, I'd like to continue the discussion about armor ratings and costing here for now instead of cluttering the hotfix thread. I feel as if light infantry is becoming uncommon these days with a couple of exceptions (Eastern Axes[which I am grateful for the fix], occasional Caetrati sighting, etc.). Anyway, my proposal is to, shall we say, close the gap between the costs of light infantry and missile units. My reasoning is twofold.
1. Historically, light infantry was very important to commanders and experienced light infantry could turn the tides of battles.
2. Too many missile units. If we make light infantry somewhat cheaper, maybe more players would be interested in filling out armies with units like Caetrati or Gaeroas instead of spamming 3 units of slingers at the end of their army queue.

By that note, it has come to my attention that costing is mainly done by tier, which is equivalent to morale. My proposal, though somewhat tedious, would to create a separate costing system due to armor, equal in value to that of the morale system, and then average the two before applying bonuses/minuses due to faction, special abilities, or any others that have previously been employed. I feel that armor value is the single most important factor in MP, or at least equal to morale, and should be priced accordingly. If I'm off my rocker, let me know. I would just like to see more light infantry, and less filler missile units on battlefields.

Arjos

11-29-2011, 13:56

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-29-2011, 14:29

I would agree to a cost based on the materials used in the equipment, but add whether a unit if local or not to given faction...
I mean wouldn't a professional band cost more for a foreign employer than that given band siding with its own tribe or confederacy? (Don't know if it's possible though :S)

Unfortunately not, except in cases of obviously mercenary units such as Mercenary Hoplites or Phalangites. With other units like Uridusios for Epeiros, you would be affecting their costs for the Gallic factions as well.

TheShakAttack

11-29-2011, 14:42

@ Arjos- I am not entirely sure this is possible. In order to do this, we would need to have a seperate "unit" in the EDU for the mercenary versions of units. *Some* units in EB already have this, such as Leuce Epos and Cretan Archers, but most do not- such as Neitos, Dugundiz, Scutarii etc. This means that for units which do not have a separate merc EDU entry, both the "normal faction" and the "other factions (who use them as mercs)" have to use the "same unit" (paying same price etc). There are not nearly enough "unit slots" to make merc versions of all necessary units.

@ Robin. It's an interesting proposal, but it is not without potential undesirable side effects. I'd like to hear from people who are experienced in this sort of thing. Also, just to point out, it isn't really possible to get highly experienced light infantry in EB MP, as the limit is 1 chev. Alternatively, the light infantry (at least the ones purpose built for melee such as caetrati) we have access to are already statted and costed as quite "experienced". Plus, experienced light infantry (such as the Sardinian elites carthage has) would, historically speaking, be quite expensive. On the other hand, your point about encouraging the use of light infantry and providing a viable alternative to slinger spam (to make up for a heavy infantry/cav arm) has merit.

antisocialmunky

11-29-2011, 15:38

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-29-2011, 16:21

I dunno, mass peltastai have their uses. You can really push the flanks with them since archers really can't hurt them that much. The army I take is like 4 peltastai, 2 thureophoroi. The 2 peltastai and 1 thuerophoroi set on each flank with shield cavalry behind (since you have no archers and can't win missile fights). You can really push the flanks, if your opponent comes at you to chase you off (since you can missile the back of the main line), then you can fake charge to make them pull the unit back. But the problem is that it will get missiled in the back. You are also pretty immune to cavalry.

Of course this kind of army has problems with HAs but in general it works quite well especially in 2 v 2's where one player can specialize in missiles more. Of course you can just take better infantry and add a slinger or 2 again certain armies. The only reason it works is that Peltastai have really high armor/shield values. I think Thracians can be used similarly as well as Lucianians. I dunno about Lusto as they tend to be quite missile vulnerable.

I think you vastly overestimate the missile protection of peltasts in the open field. They tend to get torn to shreds by high quality archers, though granted, not as quickly as most other skirmishers. Close formation makes them too tight to resist missiles while loose makes them unwieldy. Also, Peltasts lose badly to charge cavalry and will need a good amount of time to actually get into a threatening position, throughout which they get whittled down by archers. They are great against factions with poor missile options though.

Alternatively, if your opponent has multiple lines of infantry, it is quite easy to peel one off to form a line facing the peltasts and scare them off this way. 1 Thureophoroi cannot stand against 3-4 medium infantry and Peltasts are support infantry at best. Anyway, I need to play more, I'm getting rusty with all this schoolwork consuming my time. Cant wait for the semester to be over.:laugh4:

Oh, and Lusos, yeah they have to charge. Annoying that even the Casse can shred you with missiles. :p Balearics need a bump.

Kival

11-29-2011, 16:39

By that note, it has come to my attention that costing is mainly done by tier, which is equivalent to morale.

That's not entirely correct. Costing is mainly done by tier but tier does determine the overwhole training and experience of a unit. It determines base attack, base defense and base morale.

Proposal:

Gladius should cost a little more than normal shortswords. They are better in-game terms and so a slight price increase is sensible (e.g. 0.15 instead of 0.1).

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-29-2011, 18:06

By base defense do you mean defense skill, or overall defense?

Kival

11-29-2011, 19:04

Oh, sry, Defense skill, yeah.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-29-2011, 22:08

Hmmm, here's another question. Should lighter and generally less experienced troops have lower, higher, or comparable defense skills to heavy infantry? I only ask this because I wonder how much effect armor has on avoiding blows and such. I've never worn armor and have no idea.

Kival

11-29-2011, 22:18

Having no armour gives a defense bonus up to 3 points in this EDU.

TheShakAttack

11-30-2011, 01:23

This is an excerpt from the Documentation 3.0 file:

Light (no torso armor other than shirts, doesn't apply to phalanx units): +1
Shieldless: up to +2
Agile: up to +3

Thinking of it logically, very light armor (such as thick clothing) would do little to impede you when fighting (as long as you were fairly well trained/skilled/experienced i nmelee). The opposite is true, fighting in a suit of armor would mean that it is harder to move swiftly. Obviously, there is a theoretical "equilibrium" point. In terms of avoiding blows, more armor usually means harder to avoid. Having said that, armor does not necessarily mean that defense skill should be deducted. Much like soldiers were trained to thrust their shield towards an enemy weapon when it is aimed at you, and to catch the hit on the "boss" of the shield (in order to deflect the weapon), it is not unlikely that units were trained to ensure that any blows, if missed by the shield, were caught on the armor to minimize damage.

So whilst little/no armor means more agility, it does not automatically mean more defense skill (since the soldier might not be trained). Conversely, having a lot of armor certainly means less agility, but that does not automatically mean less defense skill (since the soldier is *likely* usally trained to use armor well).

Kival

11-30-2011, 02:27

antisocialmunky

11-30-2011, 02:39

I think you vastly overestimate the missile protection of peltasts in the open field. They tend to get torn to shreds by high quality archers, though granted, not as quickly as most other skirmishers. Close formation makes them too tight to resist missiles while loose makes them unwieldy. Also, Peltasts lose badly to charge cavalry and will need a good amount of time to actually get into a threatening position, throughout which they get whittled down by archers. They are great against factions with poor missile options though.

Alternatively, if your opponent has multiple lines of infantry, it is quite easy to peel one off to form a line facing the peltasts and scare them off this way. 1 Thureophoroi cannot stand against 3-4 medium infantry and Peltasts are support infantry at best. Anyway, I need to play more, I'm getting rusty with all this schoolwork consuming my time. Cant wait for the semester to be over.:laugh4:

Oh, and Lusos, yeah they have to charge. Annoying that even the Casse can shred you with missiles. :p Balearics need a bump.

Its heavily combined arms and like I said, not viable against everyone (mostly against hellens). Peltastai are fairly missile resistant if they just hide behind their shield. The thing is, if you have enough missiles to kill the peltastai, you've probably spent way too much on missiles... which peltastai + cavalry beat handily in hand to hand. AFAIK, you need 1 good archer for each peltastai and each peltastai is dirt cheap at 1300 compared to the 1600+ of a heavy archer.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-30-2011, 05:21

Its really difficult to use skirmishers effectively compared to archers and slingers. That is all that needs to be said.:clown:

TheShakAttack

11-30-2011, 10:49

Actually more important for beeing agile and to some degree able to doge attacks and similar is weight for the arms and legs: If you have only a mail shirt it does not hinder you very much while a leather arm and leg armour would reduce your flexibility already while heavy metal there heavily reduces your ability to move.

This is true, but at the same time, wearing an approximately 20-40 pound chain-vest that hangs from your shoulders (and possibly belt will) affect your ability to swerve and dodge compared to when the same person is not wearing anything.

As you point out, armor for the appendages (legs and arms) and joints (shoulders, neck, elbows etc) will reduce maneuverability of that specific joint/appendage only (usually).

@Robin

I do agree that it is more difficult using javelin throwing skirmishers more effectively than archers/slingers, however, I do not think this is historically inaccurate nor problematic. Archers/slingers priced similarly to these skirms (approx 800-900 mnai) do not normally get a lot of kills (exceptional situations aside, ie shooting at very light troops, shooting at flanks etc). They mostly serve to annoy. Further, they also get approx 30 more men than the archer units. While it is more difficult to use skirmishers from flanks etc, if you do manage to do so, you typically get a lot of kills since jav attack is a lot higher.

Skirmishers can actually be quite useful and in certain situations, more useful than archers. For instance, some of them are actually decent light infantry, or spear infantry, so after they have fired off their javelins, they do reasonably well in melee, and are quite useful due to high unit numbers (such as velites, maure which cost less than 1.3 k compared to a heavy persian archer which is approximately 1.5 and useless in melee or an imperial aux archer which costs about the same but 80 men per unit iirc). The cheap spear wielding skirms also make a useful light infantry unit to assist in cav v cav melee. Apart from that, aggressively placed skirms acn also help sponge off a lot of missile fire, and at 120 men per unit, they are not a terrible investment when doing so. And in a rush army, skirmishers can be helpful in quickly taking care of archers in melee by engaging archers, throwing javs etc where high unit numbers can be used effectively.

Lazy O

11-30-2011, 11:11

A mail vest sometimes means you dont give a shit about the other guy. Usama Bin Muniqdh said it stopped a couched lance!

TheShakAttack

11-30-2011, 11:23

A mail vest sometimes means you dont give a shit about the other guy. Usama Bin Muniqdh said it stopped a couched lance!

This isn't necessarily true: the blunt trauma will still hurt and could potentially be high enough to break ribs etc.

antisocialmunky

11-30-2011, 16:43

This is true, but at the same time, wearing an approximately 20-40 pound chain-vest that hangs from your shoulders (and possibly belt will) affect your ability to swerve and dodge compared to when the same person is not wearing anything.

As you point out, armor for the appendages (legs and arms) and joints (shoulders, neck, elbows etc) will reduce maneuverability of that specific joint/appendage only (usually).

@Robin

I do agree that it is more difficult using javelin throwing skirmishers more effectively than archers/slingers, however, I do not think this is historically inaccurate nor problematic. Archers/slingers priced similarly to these skirms (approx 800-900 mnai) do not normally get a lot of kills (exceptional situations aside, ie shooting at very light troops, shooting at flanks etc). They mostly serve to annoy. Further, they also get approx 30 more men than the archer units. While it is more difficult to use skirmishers from flanks etc, if you do manage to do so, you typically get a lot of kills since jav attack is a lot higher.

Skirmishers can actually be quite useful and in certain situations, more useful than archers. For instance, some of them are actually decent light infantry, or spear infantry, so after they have fired off their javelins, they do reasonably well in melee, and are quite useful due to high unit numbers (such as velites, maure which cost less than 1.3 k compared to a heavy persian archer which is approximately 1.5 and useless in melee or an imperial aux archer which costs about the same but 80 men per unit iirc). The cheap spear wielding skirms also make a useful light infantry unit to assist in cav v cav melee. Apart from that, aggressively placed skirms acn also help sponge off a lot of missile fire, and at 120 men per unit, they are not a terrible investment when doing so. And in a rush army, skirmishers can be helpful in quickly taking care of archers in melee by engaging archers, throwing javs etc where high unit numbers can be used effectively.

Good armor typically doesn't hinder movement very much. Good armor won't really effect your mobility much if you've trained with it. I've seen people run in full gothic plate (it looks hilarious btw).

You should have nearly a full range of movement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WmFvQAEelM&feature=related

Its not so much that light infantry are hard to use as for the most part they aren't good so you take some spear armed ones to hide in your horses. The hellenic heavy skirmisher types are about the only economical ones (the expensive ones cost too much). I would like to see light infantry be more cost efficient than heavy infantry only if the heavy infantry is spread out.

TheShakAttack

11-30-2011, 17:02

I am not saying it is not possible to be mobile with good (heavy) armor, merely that an individual who has trained in the use of armor, is likely to be faster when not wearing the armor than wearing it. I was mainly "defending/espousing" the train of thought which led to 0 or low armored units getting up to + 3 defense skill (though I am not sure when exactly it is applied and for which units etc).

It is ofc possible to train in heavy armor to the extent whereby the effect it has on mobility is minimal.

Arjos

11-30-2011, 17:17

Is very unlikely that light troops trained with heavy armour and then took it off to become the Flash :D
Anyway as some pointed out, chainmails and body armours aren't so cumbersome, the weight is usually well distributed on the shoulders...
What's really difficult to carry is an heavy shield...

TheShakAttack

11-30-2011, 17:25

Your arms are attached to your shoulders fyi. :clown:

Lazy O

11-30-2011, 17:39

He bent sideways so much that his head reached his stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head...he then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him.98

This is a person who has trained all his life for this sort of stuff to strike at every known vulnerable area of an enemy.

vartan

11-30-2011, 17:56

Lazy O

11-30-2011, 18:12

Shit happens

TheShakAttack

11-30-2011, 19:16

Arjos

11-30-2011, 21:42

Marian Samnitici are reformata basically...

Btw guys what's your take on era armies for more factions?
Maybe also something like the KH offering the choice between: Sparte-Athenai-Rhodes; Achean League; Aitolian League etc...

Brave Brave Sir Robin

11-30-2011, 22:10

Too complicated. It's not as cut and dry as the Roman ones and it is difficult for newer players to figure out, even for Rome sometimes.

Arjos

11-30-2011, 22:11

I can write down the lists, once we agree on time frames etc...
At least KH should get some work done though, that faction is too hypothetical...

TheShakAttack

11-30-2011, 22:25

I don't feel particularly strongly about KH, though its very surprising they have such a varied roster. However, I think that making eras might make things quite restrictive and complicated. Rome is the only really purpose built multi-era roster than can support different eras.

With regards to Rome, it can get quite confusing, which is why I thought specifying which units cannot be brought in certain eras (apart from obv ones with the era name in unit title) would be helpful.

With regards to Samnitici in reformata (post marian legion), it is not entirely accurate to say that this is where they would have served, since the last social war happened after the relevant reforms. Therefore, for at least the early part of the "post marian reform", samnites could and should be considered a separate and distinct (from the cohorts) unit. There can be an argument that they did not act as mercs for anyone in that period, esp "spqr".

Arjos

11-30-2011, 22:50

Actually Shak in those post-reform years they were busy getting angry due to no rights and frankly since they sided with Hannibal, Rome wasn't even very friendly with them...

TheShakAttack

11-30-2011, 22:55

Actually Shak in those post-reform years they were busy getting angry due to no rights and frankly since they sided with Hannibal, Rome wasn't even very friendly with them...

Yes, which is why.... "There can be an argument that they did not act as mercs for anyone in that period, esp "spqr"."

antisocialmunky

11-30-2011, 23:55

Well hoplites and peltastai types (which was actually the dominant infantry type during the early period) were used for the majority of the period. Greeks fighting as heavy peltastai variants were the most common because the old hoplite kit became harder to come by as their society became more stratified (contracting of the middle class). Additionally warfare became more mobile and combined armed. During the EB time frame, wealthy Hellen stayed hoplites. The more common infantry transitioned from peltastai to heavier and heavier peltastai derivatives like the Thureophoroi or long spear armed Iphs. These two types transitioned into heavier Thorakitai (richer individuals) or Sarissa infantry (poorer individuals). So its kinda weird.

vartan

12-01-2011, 00:29

Vartan, you seem to have added Leves rather than Accensi to Polybian roster. Don't know if this was intentional.

Also, for SPQR, it might be a good idea to specify which "non roman" units are not allowed (even as mercs/aux) in the different eras. For instance, if i understand correctly, samnites are allowed upto and including post marian. I think this will be helpful since Rome, having different eras, has a lot of "unwritten rules" which haven't been codified as yet.
That's right, they aren't codified. In fact, you can pick any merc you want for a tournament game. The only one you couldn't pick the last tournament was merc pezhetairoi, as I myself pointed that out during that tournament. We'll need to definitely add a column in the factional lists for Rome, as it has a special case of non-factional era-restricted mercs (any and all feedback and thoughts are welcome on this topic).

About the leves, I'll check that and remedy it if I messed up.

EDIT: Fixed (leves >> accensi).

TheShakAttack

12-01-2011, 00:45

It seems that it's only the ones on the italian peninsula (IP) that are subject to restrictions, such as the samnites, campanians and bruttians. Liguiran cav I am not so sure about.

We could obviously extend this further, for instance, it is unlikely that camilian era rome had contact with "dugundiz" type units- but this might be too restrictive. If we could limit merc-restrictions to units that would be to the IP, I think that would be best.

Arjos

12-03-2011, 19:22

Just noticed it with the last game, and all the SPQR cavalry auxilia units have 60 men, I think it's pretty ludicrous for Roma to have cav superiority at the same number of unit slots...

Vega

12-03-2011, 19:45

Just noticed it with the last game, and all the SPQR cavalry auxilia units have 60 men, I think it's pretty ludicrous for Roma to have cav superiority at the same number of unit slots...

Not all, only tracian, gallic and hispanic, they all are light cav, almost all light cav in game have 60 men now, maybe i didnt understand what you wanted to say actually ? :D

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-03-2011, 23:43

The auxilia units are hardly light cavalry. All have armor north of 8 or 9 and shields to boot. There isn't much difference in defense between Hispanic Auxiliaries and, say, the Tarentine Elite Cavalry yet the price differences are quite large considering unit size. I too agree that the auxilia cavalry should either be 50 men, or more expensive. At the very least, the Hispanic ones since their melee abilities completely nullify any cavalry advantage most other factions can bring to bear.

antisocialmunky

12-04-2011, 00:27

The elite cavalry isn't that different from the 2000s. You get them to counter that type of cavalry. Really that's the only difference. There's not that much difference between Hispanic Aux and Tarantines but there's not that much difference between Hispanic Aux and the Thracian Light Cavalry that dominates the hellenic world.

I mean, if you can afford it they are nice, or you can be a crazy person and go for like a 4/5 light cav zerg which is probably more effective.

Kival

12-04-2011, 00:32

TheShakAttack

12-04-2011, 00:52

I do feel that Hispanic cav is being unjustly persecuted to a certain extent. There is no denying they are a good unit in cav melee. The question is: is this wrong?

Cost : Kiv has confirmed that the Hispanic cav has been costed correctly- so there is no issue of them being "unfairly cheap" based on their stats.

This brings us to the stats, which as I understand is based on how they were "historically".

Numbers: I don't see why 60 men in a light cav unit is excessive. First, all other light cav have it as well, including thracian light cavalry, luso/iberian cav, etc. Secondly, according to the current system, the amount of men in each unit is based on which "tier" they are in. Thirdly, the fact that they are aux. shoudln't mean that they should be less numerous compared to units from other factions. Compare Sweboz who had rarity of cavalry. They have 60 men per unit for light cav. Aux. on average made at least 50% of unit numbers in postmarian/imperial armies.

Stats/armor: It doesnt seem they have OP stats compared to most other cavalry. They are hardly miracle workers- they are just effective units as melee cav, and do very little else well (apart from using their javs which other units do much better). Even in melee encounters, they are certainly not slow to rout, die and they also need to be quite seriously supported. Also, from what I understand, Rome rarely employed cavalry as serious "chargers" in the same vein as hetairoi/cataphracts. They specialised more in cavalry that allowed the legions to win infantry battle and therefore specialised in negating enemy cavalry- which means proficient in melee. Also, keep in mind that these guys are a "professional force" and served for 20 years.

The real question in my opinion is this: does having access to them and other aux cavalry (at current price/stats) make Rome OP? I do not think so, because they need to be supported in cav vs cav battle, do very little damage to infantry. In order to pose any kind of serious threat to a heavy cavalry opponent, you would need to bring at least 3 of hispanic cav, which means approx 7.5k and 3 units slots. Then, you would need other cavalry/infantry there to support them as well. They only act as a "pin" for cavalry. I feel that this reflects the "Roman" style of warfare pretty accurately. However, if the vast majority of players feel that they make Rome OP, then I am happy for their numbers, costs and stats to be changed.

gamegeek2

12-04-2011, 00:53

I haven't been able to update the EDU due to being very busy, but I did take some measures to nerf the Hispanic auxilia and the Thracian light cav.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-04-2011, 01:19

Unit numbers are again defined by unit tier. Hispanic cav and other auxilary are tier 2 as far as I know while tarantinoi have a higher tier. That's why they have different numbers. Armour has nothing to do with unit numbers.

If this is the case then I disagree vehemently with the tier system with regards to costing. Factions that can bring heavily armored troops to bear have a great advantage over those who cannot since you will need units of higher tier (with greater morale, and attack/defense skill stats) to combat units of lower tier which cost substantially less but have an armor advantage over those units in your army of the same tier. To compound this problem, units in lower tiers get more men, in effect counteracting the level difference. I again feel that armor should be the largest modifier in cost. Note that I find this much more troublesome with regards to cavalry especially, since kill rates are faster in head on combat than in infantry battles and "counter" units are much more clearly defined.

Also, comparing Hispanic Aux to Thracian Lights is bad for two reasons. The first is armor in which the Hispanics have a good advantage, the second is an AP secondary which helps them defeat heavy cav as opposed to Thracians that struggle against armored units greatly. The only advantage the Thracians have is a larger shield. Also, cost comparison shows Thracians are more expensive.

Edit: Didn't see GG2's post but I'd agree on a slight nerf or cost increase for Hispanics and to a lesser extent, Thracian Light cav and Hetairoi Aspidophoi as well.

TheShakAttack

12-04-2011, 02:32

Robin, in response to your post:

I agree that armor should be a bigger factor in determining cost, however, it should be consistently applied to all units, not just the three you have pointed out. Also, certainly in terms of cav vs cav melee, numbers make a very very big difference- so I agree with you there as well.

With regards to your next point, about the comparison of Hispanic and Thracian lights, you've misinterpreted what I was saying earlier. I was not comparing them in terms of efficacy/usefulness. Rather, I was comparing them purely in terms of "unit numbers". Hispanics are basically a better armored version of the iberian cav. If you look at weapon costs, a longsword actually costs more than a falcatta. In a cav vs cav battle, the AP weapon is certainly more useful- at least on most occasions (the only exception being when you face light cav exclusively which rarely happens). Thracians get a better jav attack too (though less javs).

I agree that the costing system should modified, especially for cavalry, since small morale differences do not matter as much and unit numbers matter a lot more when compared to infantry. Especially in cav vs cav fights.

Kival

12-04-2011, 05:47

I don't have a problem with light cavalry beeing good in melee. Actually I quite like it. I don't like to decrease the capability of thracian/iberian/aspido. I cannot see any reason why this should be nesseccary.

EDIT: By the way, Armour in general to have a higher meaning in costing would make missiles relatively stronger than now.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-04-2011, 08:04

Well I also feel that archer/slinger ammo should be decreased by 50% but that's just me.

Oh and Shak, with the Thracian lights I was referring to ASM, not you though I do appreciate your analysis of the situation which I agree with.

I also balk at the notion of considering Aspidophoroi light cavalry. They most certainly are not. Hispanic Aux are in my opinion, medium cavalry though there is no in game classification as such. Thracian "Lights" border somewhere between medium and light.

Lazy O

12-04-2011, 09:43

You are not the only one.

Arjos

12-04-2011, 11:29

The thing here is that roman light cav has 60 men, while other faction's light cav has 50 and only the unarmoured ones have 60...
Most of all it's Rome we are talking about, the tier imo has nothing to do with it, legionaries are way cheaper than they were supposed to be, but that's ok since it's accurate for SPQR to field a vast number of heavy infantry, but when it comes to cavalry they never had huge numbers...
Coming up with these tweaks for infatry 'cos everyone wants to see many cohorts and then pretending blindness and saying "they are light cavalry what's up with that?" is just wrong...

I disagree to nerf any cavalry unit's stats, they all seem to perform quite accurately, but either all "lights" (and we really need to define who's light) get increased to 60, or Roma, just like any other faction, gets the "elite lights" reduced to 50 men...

Kival

12-04-2011, 12:04

Roman auxilary are not elite "light" cav. Their morale, attak and defense skill is relatively low. Rome already *has* an increased price for auxilary cavalry and it does not have a price reduction for postmarian infantry (only some degree of weird morale bonus). If Rome was still very low on cavalry in marian and imperial times, we might reduce the number of the cavalry unit.

And it's pretty clearly defined which cav units get 60 men:

Tier 1 Cavalry: 60 men
Tier 2 Cavalry: 60 men
Tier 3 Cavalry: 50 men
Tier 4 Cavalry: 50 men

The only cavalry which does not eally fit is the germanic cavalry. They have pretty high skill and still 60 men.

Arjos

12-04-2011, 12:07

So now being light or heavy is decided by morale, attack and defense skills?
Not by their armour? I give up on this one, this is too illogical...

The Celtic Viking

12-04-2011, 12:13

I think Kival was aiming at the "elite" designation rather than the "light" with that comment.

Kival

12-04-2011, 12:14

The term "light cavalry" was not used wisely; low tier cavalry just tends to be light cavalry. Tiers are defining skill, morale, base price and basic unit number. That's the general system 3.0 is using. I've no idea what system EB used before but it must have been similar because it had similar values. Changing this system would be EDU 4.0. So in the frame of 3.0 it does not make sence to disuss about this.

Arjos

12-04-2011, 12:36

I think Kival was aiming at the "elite" designation rather than the "light" with that comment.

Yeah, I had to use elite in quotation marks, because I can't call those units medium as they should XD

TheShakAttack

12-04-2011, 12:57

Well I also feel that archer/slinger ammo should be decreased by 50% but that's just me.

Oh and Shak, with the Thracian lights I was referring to ASM, not you though I do appreciate your analysis of the situation which I agree with..

Score 1 for self-obsession. My apologies Robin :)

I thinking nerfing missiles further is going to have a serious effect on current state of gameplay. Whilst it will presumably mean faster battles, the factions that rely on missiles will also suffer and give a serious advantage (compared to status quo) to low armor, high melee factions. If you want to counter act this, armor values etc would need to be reworked.

A compromise would be to agree a missile limit/no missiles before the battle if you want a faster paced battle.

@Arjos:

Which faction's light cavalry has 50 men (as far as I recall, only the germanic light cav mercs do)? I write this without cross checking the roster, but my feeling is that there are very, very few "light" units which have only 50 men. The hispanics are not very heavily armored. They just sit somewhere between light and medium. In fact, there are plenty of cavalry units what are more heavily armored and have 60 men.

Further, as Kiv pointed out, the number unit numbers, morale, etc are decided by "tier" and armor actually has a relatively low impact on cost. The decision on how much armor a unit has is based on "historicity". As I pointed out earlier- in cav vs cav, this is not balanced.

The documentation 3.0 text contains further information on calculation of costs. Basically, there is a "base cost" tied to tier (refer to Kiv's earlier post or the document for numbers and stats). The tiers have a more significant impact compared to armor, and, in the case of cavalry (apart from hippoakontistai and a few other units) numbers and armor tend to be more meaningful than morale.

Also, do you have access to any texts which might indicate what the amount/percentage of cav in the *average* (ie. not in a specific battle) Roman legion (post marian/imperial) would have been? The wikipedia page (which I am loath to rely on exclusively, hence my question) on aux seems to indicate that the cavalry arm of the legion was certainly not short on numbers and even seems to outnumber factions such as the KH in terms of how many cavalry composition in army.

Here is a quote:

Overall, cavalry represented about 20% (including the small contingents of legionary cavalry) of the total army effectives. But there were variations: in Mauretania the cavalry proportion was 28%.

As I said, I don't think the argument is about the historicitiy of these guys, as I have not seem a clear source which indicates that on a whole, Roman cav was crap and very low in numbers. The question is whether it makes Rome OP.

@Kiv: 2 forms of Germanic cav have only 50 men (mercs and aux cav). It's only the factional ones that have 60, and I presume they had to pay for this given 2.7k cost.

The Celtic Viking

12-04-2011, 13:17

Well I also feel that archer/slinger ammo should be decreased by 50% but that's just me.

How could I miss this? Yes, please bring the ammo back down to sensible levels.

Arjos

12-04-2011, 13:38

Kamboja Asvaka Ksatriya? 50, Hetairoi Aspidophoroi? 50, Baktrioi Hippotoxotai? 50, Gldgmtk? 50, Hippeis Tarantinoi? 50, Eqvites Campanici? 50, Dreugulozez Exworeidondijoi? 50, Marxolitho Wolxiskod? 50, Daha Uazdaettae? 50, Asavârân-î Dêhbêd? 50, Cruvamendica? 50, Argyn Marca? 50, Rauxsa-alanna Baexdzhyntae? 50, Yancai Uaezdaettae? 50, Ambakaro Epones? 50...

Some of these units even have less armour than Auxiliares, who gets 60 men? Roma... Btw those very roman units, in their very description are listed as medium cavalry, why? Because that's what they are, just like all those mentioned above...

cavalry arm of the legion was certainly not short on numbers and even seems to outnumber factions such as the KH in terms of how many cavalry composition in army.

Really? The only comparison you had was with the other single nation that couldn't field much cavalry?

gamegeek2

12-04-2011, 15:20

How could I miss this? Yes, please bring the ammo back down to sensible levels.

They already don't kill many when shooting from the front, I think... (unless against unarmoured troops)

The Celtic Viking

12-04-2011, 15:49

In fact, there are plenty of cavalry units what are more heavily armored and have 60 men.

Oh yeah? Then name one. Why am I only asking for one, you may wonder? Am I utilizing a worn-out rhetorical ploy? Nay, my friend, I'm only asking for one because I have done my homework already and I know that there is only one. It's the Katpatuka Asabara, with 2 more armour and a 1.2k higher cost.

Arjos

12-04-2011, 16:00

AH!

That's another medium cavalry unit gone wrong, I'd make them 50 too and reduce their cost, in order to make them more accessible...

antisocialmunky

12-04-2011, 16:02

Meh, all I know if taking sized 60 cavalry is an easy way to win cav fights.

Arjos

12-04-2011, 16:34

About missiles, all I know is that quivers found in graves had something in the region of 50 to 90 arrows...
How many do the missiles in this edu have? Tbh I actually felt that units like HAs had too few arrows, they should be able to harass for whole battles...
Cultures who valued arrows had lots of them, no problem there, if they are outgunning you is time to cover behind a shield and advance or sweep the archers with your cavalry...

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-04-2011, 16:48

They already don't kill many when shooting from the front, I think... (unless against unarmoured troops)

I think lessening ammo encourages players to use missile units in support roles as they were historically, perhaps going with the cavalry to swing the tide of any engagement or ward off lighter jav throwing cavalry or HA because they won't have enough ammo to trade missiles and then also do that. It would also do away with the silly 15 minute long missile duels we currently have which do little more than reduce the missile units of each side anyway. It also stops the "reserve" archer, often an elite one, from becoming a machine gunner behind the lines during combat, firing for the entirety of the melee battle.

Where are these foot archers carrying 35-40 arrows anyway? Quivers probably hold 10-15 max. I think 15-20 arrows is sensible for most archer units while 20-25 stones for a slinger unit. This also makes skirmishers more appealing as 6 ammo doesn't look so bad compared with 20 as it would with 40. To compensate cost, I think a 25% decrease in cost, perhaps as much as 40% would suffice. Upping accuracy a tad would be a decent idea. The idea is to give players an additional decision to make, preferably one which won't waste so much time at the beginning.

And as to damaging eastern factions and empowering lighter Western factions...it does to some extent. But the only real light factions in game are the Casse, Saba, Sweboz, and Lusotann. Gauls usually scrap together enough armor and large shields to not count as much. Out of those 4, the only one that plays, imo, equally to most other factions is Casse and their costing system seems broken tbh. Calawre for example are far too cheap. In addition to this, 20 arrows is still about 3-4 minutes of uninterrupted firing. That is more than enough time to reduce naked units or unshielded units which cost 3 times as much as your archers. Again, the goal is to make players more creative in their use of missiles.

About missiles, all I know is that quivers found in graves had something in the region of 50 to 90 arrows...
How many do the missiles in this edu have? Tbh I actually felt that units like HAs had too few arrows, they should be able to harass for whole battles...
Cultures who valued arrows had lots of them, no problem there, if they are outgunning you is time to cover behind a shield and advance or sweep the archers with your cavalry...

I hope you refer to nomad graves because picturing a man running around with 50-90 arrows is making me laugh. It's also of note that most graves would be of noblemen who would possess ceremonial weapons in addition to their practical ones. A 90 arrow quiver may be slung around a horse, but certainly not a foot soldier. I don't think HA should get less ammo, only foot archers. Footies would still outrange them and have better accuracy making them a good counter.

Oh and just rereading the posts, I find it amusing that German Light Cavalry costs 2.7k and and Hispanic Auxiliaries with same amount of men cost 2.2k and change. Just look at those numbers for a second...

gamegeek2

12-04-2011, 17:10

I hear of 25 arrows being a fairly common number...how does that sound?

Also nomad graves indeed often contain hundreds of arrows.

I suppose this proposal would go a long way towards empowering horse archers.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-04-2011, 17:21

I hear of 25 arrows being a fairly common number...how does that sound?

Also nomad graves indeed often contain hundreds of arrows.

25 sounds much better for the elite/professional foot archers. Maybe 20 for the levy type. Currently Persian Archers are at 30 arrows each while Syrians are at 40 to name 2 units for comparison. A decrease of approximately 33% sounds good. Maybe a 20% price decrease to compensate? Same with slingers though they should have slightly more ammo. Its smaller and more readily available.

Arjos

12-04-2011, 17:41

The one with 90 was actually found in the Balkans, I also remember reading how the persian quivers held three times as many arrows than normal...
But I agree with you Rob, in the hellenic world, archers always fought in tandem with cavalry...

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-04-2011, 18:25

I suppose this proposal would go a long way towards empowering horse archers.

This would be another positive side effect, at least in terms of light HA who have gotten somewhat of the shaft when it comes to the current EDU. Even with more men, the taking away of CC (which was needed) means that unless you REALLY want to micro your HA, they are basically faster moving foot archers currently who can fire while running away. However, foot archers of any sort really massacre the non-cataphract HA. It is therefore rare to see light HA for most factions other than Sauros currently. We never see the Parthian light HA even tho these would be the mainstay of their armies. So I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. And its not as if 20 volleys from a Persian archer unit won't reduce that Scythian HA to only about 15-20 men anyway.

On another note, this change also helps the med/heavy HA along the lines of Roxolani Riders and Sarmatian Nobles. These guys would still get shot up by foot archers (though not as badly), but also couldn't compare in cavalry battles to the melee cavalry of the more settled factions.

Arjos

12-04-2011, 18:43

I'd go for 15 volleys for levy western missiles, 20 for their professionals and the eastern levies, 25 for eastern professionals and 30-40 for HAs building up towards the elites...

Lazy O

12-04-2011, 19:20

Meh, all I know if taking sized 60 cavalry is an easy way to win cav fights.

Throw in armor piercing falactas in the mix and you are set to nullify almost any cavalry force a player can bring without completely disabling its infantry capacity , all in the name of ROMA!!!11!!!

@Archer Issue; Get back pre 3.0 archers. Changing the system was a quite frankly a big waste of time.

For ammo, I would go with Arjos' proposal, though DO NOT PLEASE DO NOT give horse archers more than 25-30 arrows. Only the elite of the elite should get 25 arrows . That way we do not have to stare blankly at shooting competitions for 20 mins.

And why not bring CC back now? Since cavalry advantage is much much harder to get for steppe factions now (oh the irony) due to removal of cavalry limit.

Vega

12-04-2011, 19:37

Throw in armor piercing falactas in the mix and you are set to nullify almost any cavalry force a player can bring without completely disabling its infantry capacity , all in the name of ROMA!!!11!!!

@Archer Issue; Get back pre 3.0 archers. Changing the system was a quite frankly a big waste of time.

For ammo, I would go with Arjos' proposal, though DO NOT PLEASE DO NOT give horse archers more than 25-30 arrows. Only the elite of the elite should get 25 arrows . That way we do not have to stare blankly at shooting competitions for 20 mins.

And why not bring CC back now? Since cavalry advantage is much much harder to get for steppe factions now (oh the irony) due to removal of cavalry limit.

Will that all changes about archers affect their cost? If ha get 40 and foot archer 25 hmmm interesting

Lazy O

12-04-2011, 20:26

Where did I say HA get 40?

Arjos

12-04-2011, 20:41

A Kushan like you saying that, you disappoint me...
From hundreds to 30-40 arrows, I already seen it as quite a gift to the other factions...

gamegeek2

12-04-2011, 21:08

Will that all changes about archers affect their cost? If ha get 40 and foot archer 25 hmmm interesting

It's arrows * men in the unit that matters. This total should be much higher for horse archers than for foot archers.

TheShakAttack

12-04-2011, 21:54

I strongly disagree with reducing HA ammo so much, as well as significantly reducing arrows for reasons I will elaborate on later (I'm in a rush and cannot type right now) but I am happy to test out how proposal works.

Before other ppl say this, yes ofc there is some bias since I like HA and archers, but the opposite is also true- a lot of the people who are calling for reduction of arrows etc usually favor factions which do not have a lot of archery prowess. Plus with everyone taking a swing at poor old archers and HA, i feel like someone needs to stand up for them :)

Arjos

12-04-2011, 21:58

I advocated for HAs having more arrows than everyone else XD
Anyway, once again my proposal follows history, just halved the numbers for a quicker exchange of volleys or a more tactical use of them, but the ratio is still accurate...
Or we could just not halve the quiver's capacity :)

vartan

12-04-2011, 22:24

I haven't been taking part too frequently recently in these discussions, but I think I like it this way, having the players see what works, what doesn't. That said, I noticed a bit earlier some talk about cavalry. It's true. There's a tier system now, and no unit type limits (only cost-based limits). That's why what formerly was the DHCS (Determining Heavy Cavalry Status) no longer works, not because it isn't updated to 3.0 stats, but because there are no heavy and non-heavy cav limits or differentiation. Hope things are coming along well with the stats.

Kival

12-04-2011, 23:50

Meh, all I know if taking sized 60 cavalry is an easy way to win cav fights.

Not really.

Re: Arrows

Slightly less arrows is fine (professional/steppe archers should still have more than the others) but I don't agree going back to the old archer system. I'd like a slightly altered system but that would include the accuracy levels just on a slightly altered scale and the longbowmen should get much higher range.

antisocialmunky

12-05-2011, 03:41

Depends on how much shield. Thracian light cav is preferably to the Aspido because fo the extra 10 men.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-05-2011, 04:54

I don't find Thracian Lights to be better than Aspidophoroi at all. The ap secondary makes Aspidophoroi much better unless fighting Light Cav.

Kival

12-05-2011, 05:05

I don't find Thracian Lights to be better than Aspidophoroi at all. The ap secondary makes Aspidophoroi much better unless fighting Light Cav.

They are also better vs skirm/archer/slinger who usually have a low armour rating.

TheShakAttack

12-05-2011, 06:09

Is accuracy going to be improved in the proposed reduction system? If so, by how much?

-Stormrage-

12-05-2011, 14:40

Lazy O

12-05-2011, 15:59

For once I agree with storm, if ammo is to be reduced, give them their old accuracy back.

antisocialmunky

12-05-2011, 16:01

I wouldn't mind it if HA units were slightly smaller and had basically infinite arrows so HA are more endurance shooters that harass the whole game. The arrow count is pretty good right now. The only people who complain about it is people how don't like to do the missile dual... they'll still complain about it even if you cut it by 50%.

Lazy O

12-05-2011, 16:30

That reeks of ultra imbalance.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-05-2011, 17:32

cav with 3-5 sheild, catas given sheild, Archer accuracy reduced, and now im hearing about this Ammo reduction aswell. Im starting to think you guys dont like archers do you.

Why give them ammo reduction ? Just take them out of the game if thats the case.

The point is this Storm. In a game that strives for historical accuracy in tandem with gameplay, it is completely wrong to have a full quarter of your forces composed of archers and slingers. People take so many now for two reasons:
1. They are relatively effective
2. So they can afford more expensive units

Because of this, we end up with on average, 4-5 missile units per army that start missile duels that last for about 15 minutes. In all honesty, this wouldn't be so much of an issue for me personally in 1v1's where I could just select a rush army and swarm. But since most players are only interested in team battles, you can't do that because some players don't like to attack and if you attack alone, your rush army will get shot not only by your opposite army's missiles, but on the flanks from their teammates. This means every battle starts off with a pointless 15 min missile exchange so that the attackers won't get shot to pieces. It is annoying and unnecessary.

Reducing ammo will either:
1. Shorten these pointless missile exchanges
or
2. Force players to use their missile advantage in a different way rather than today's standard of shooting your opponents archers to death and then moving on to soft targets with remaining archers/slingers held in reserve. i.e. use archers aggressively on flanks supported by cavalry, etc. This will lead to more fluid battle situations that are more enticing than two armies lining up across from one another and wasting all their missiles. Now each volley will be something you will want to think about more than currently if you are the one with the missile advantage. Using arrows/stones on other missile units wouldn't necessarily be in your best interests, while other times it may.

I do agree that accuracy should get a small bump if this change were to be implemented. I'm not sure how the numbers work but perhaps 10-20%? That would make each volley more effective but also more precious and wouldn't damage factions with archery advantages much. HA can remain in their current status.

Arjos

12-05-2011, 17:46

In a game that strives for historical accuracy in tandem with gameplay, it is completely wrong to have a full quarter of your forces composed of archers and slingers.

For a roman army perhaps, but hellenistic armies could field as many light troops as phalangitai...
Taking Magnesia, Antiochos had circa 13.000 between archers and slingers (out of 50.000), that's even more than your full quarter...
Missiles are just one of the available tactical choices...

As for the arrows, we have quivers with 25ish to 90ish arrows, if it's historical accuracy we want, those are the numbers :P

Lazy O

12-05-2011, 17:52

Historical accuracy be damned in this one. The length of skirmishes at present is just ridiculous.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-05-2011, 18:03

Magnesia strikes me as somewhat of an anomaly in that Antiochus had recently lost badly at Thermopylae with the army he "intended" to use. His subsequent retreat and regrouping in Anatolia caused him to recall men from across his empire, many of which would have had training only as archers/slingers. If you look at other examples of Hellenistic battles, missiles are a smaller minority i.e. Raphia
Also, defining Cretans solely as archers can be misleading. They are referenced often as "lightly armed" and their usage implies some sort of melee capabilities. No doubt they performed a duel role, but they were pretty much light infantry with bows. And I actually wouldn't mind them being represented this way in EB at all. As in, very competent as archers, but with fewer arrows and better melee capabilities.

This being said, I shouldn't have used the word completely.

Arjos

12-05-2011, 18:17

Actually the one in mainland Greece was the vanguard force (to be even more precise was Antiochos trying to win over the Makedones' hearts), hoping to gain momentum quickly in post Kynoskephalai Makedonia...
Many of the archers and slingers at Magnesia were Persians and Elamites, the rest all raised by the satrap of Mikra Asia (imo there's ground to see plans of an invasion (most likely against the Ptoleis, with newly acquired Makedones), with Antiochos giving orders to the satrap as he was already gathering troops in the east)...
Seeing Thermopylai as a failed main invasion, imo, doesn't add up with all the work needed to arm cataphracts and such heavily armoured troops, what happened was Antiochos not considering a roman intervention...

missiles are a smaller minority i.e. Raphia

But there were a lot of light troops, again different tactical choices...

I agree with you that the "west" didn't field many missiles, but the "east" was a different case...

Historical accuracy be damned in this one. The length of skirmishes at present is just ridiculous.

And score two for accuracy: missiles are unnerving opponents ^^

antisocialmunky

12-05-2011, 19:55

If cheap crap peltastai were decent at wasting enemy missiles, that'd work. Maybe lowering ammo would be useful for that. Make each volley worth more and increase skill cap :p

Lazy O

12-05-2011, 19:56

Exactly.

TheShakAttack

12-05-2011, 22:52

From my perspective, the only legitimate problem/concern is the initial missile duel which can take a while. I think that it is not a bad goal to strive for missile duels taking less time, but, we must look to conserve the "strength/effectiveness" of missiles. So the question is, how can we both reduce the time taken, whilst preserving the effectiveness? The accuracy bump sounds like a good idea, and it will be interesting to test this out.

Battles can be especially annoying when playing against players who insist on using them incredibly defensively. They typically refuse to engage in a missile duel and have a line of heavy troops or phalanxes, who are not damaged by archers in any significant way.

However, the "flipside" of this is that there will be a sacrifice of "tactical options" as well as having implications on the faction vs faction balance. I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing in this case, but I just wanted to make sure that this is something everybody has considered. There has to be a balance between the tactical flexibility a player has and the enjoyment of the game, which can take a serious pounding when you are waiting around for missile duels to end and sit there doing very little.

I also wanted to make the following points. Please keep in mind that I am for missile duels taking less time; but I am also concerned about the collateral effects that reducing ammo might have. I also agree with ASM that it is players who don't like missile duels who seem the most concerned over this issue.

These are the points I could think of with regards to reducing ammo:

1) With less ammo, lighter units, and units more susceptible to arrows, will become a lot more powerful; conversely, factions who relied heavily on missiles will be less powerful. Currently, even after 25-40 volleys, enemy archer units are rarely completely demolished. This means if you win missile duel, you will have some ammo to deal with/threaten light enemy units, plus the missile units held in reserve. With less ammo, not only will missile units have more men after the missile duel, but consequently you will also have less "volleys" to shoot with. Chariots will now for instance be harder to demolish purely with arrows.

2) Factions which have access to cheap, comparatively high(er) quality light and medium-light infantry will become more powerful. I am not entirely sure to what extent the "barbarian bonus" (+1 attack and defense skill and +1 defense skill to levies) will affect things, but it will presumably impart an advantage. I assume one of the reason this bonus was applied was to balance the effect of missiles?

Also, in conjunction with the "higher quality light infantry", lowering ammo will make it easier to use the "local superiority" system in terms of morale.

3) This will favor one style whilst taking away from the other. I do not think using archers to shoot at flanks when the "real" melee has started is a bad thing for gameplay nor do I think that it is a bad thing that players have to be cautious when deploying/using light troops. Once again, the only concern I can agree with is the amount of time the initial missile duel takes.

4) Reducing ammo may have unpleasant side effects such as greater frequency of holding missile units in reserve and playing "defensively", keeping archers behind a heavy line of troops, waiting for the opponent to come forward, and then shooting at vulnerable units. Of course this sort of thing is not impossible to over come, but it will presumably be quite annoying to deal with.

In conclusion to this topic, I think we need to ensure that whilst making the missile duel take less time, we also preserve the effectiveness of missiles and missile superiority of units/factions that rely on them heavily. One way is probably to increase accuracy to offset the lowered ammo (which takes care of lowered ammo), and also, in conjunction to this, apply a larger difference between the "lower" quality and "higher" quality missiles (which takes care of factional imbalances) perhaps in terms of ammo, range and accuracy.

With regards to HA- I can agree they should get considerably more ammo than foot archers. Objectively, infinite ammo is a little extreme, though subjectively that would be awesome :clown:

Regarding Hispanic cav:

@TCV- on a cursory glance it appears you are right that only katpatuka have more armor than Hispanics. My apologies for incorrectly indicating that there were "several other" 60 men units which had more armor.

I do think however that people are mixing up a few issues. The first is a question of historicity- were they in fact a lot less potent or less armored than stats indicated? The second is a question of the 3.0 build- the fact that 60 men with slightly lower morale and defense skill but more armor is somehow cheaper than a 50 man unit which has less armor but more morale and defense skill. The most important question is one of gameplay/balance- are they OP and do they make Rome OP?

No one has really offered up any solid evidence regarding their prowess in terms of "historicity". Nor can we really do much about the current system- it would need a reworking of the entire cav system to be consistent. So the question we need to discuss is whether they are OP and/or whether they make Rome OP.

It seems that at least 3 people (Robin, TCV and Lazy) think that they are. If this is how most people feel, we can certainly ask gg2 to take steps "within" the 3.0 EDU system- such as upgrading their tier (improving morale and defense skill, but also increasing cost and making them a 50 man unit) or decreasing to 50 men with appropriate cost reduction.

I think I am done updating post now.

The Celtic Viking

12-05-2011, 23:55

First off, of course it's mainly those who don't like the missile duels who are complaining about them. Who else would you expect to do so? Those who like to watch pixels fly back and forth for 15 minutes before doing something? (Do these people actually exist?)

1) With less ammo, lighter units, and units more susceptible to arrows, will become a lot more powerful; conversely, factions who relied heavily on missiles will be less powerful. Currently, even after 25-40 volleys, enemy archer units are rarely completely demolished. This means if you win missile duel, you will have some ammo to deal with/threaten light enemy units, plus the missile units held in reserve. With less ammo, not only will missile units have more men after the missile duel, but consequently you will also have less "volleys" to shoot with. Chariots will now for instance be harder to demolish purely with arrows.

The first point is a good one: light infantry is rarely used and this would at least give them much needed help. It's of course not so much making them more powerful as making them less weak.

The second point is only a point if you refuse to do any thinking. If he has chariots, attack. If he pulls up his chariots, shoot them, if he doesn't, they're useless anyway. This is exactly what Robin was talking about when he said it would force more tactical choices upon people. It requires more brains.

2) Factions which have access to cheap, comparatively high(er) quality light and medium-light infantry will become more powerful. I am not entirely sure to what extent the "barbarian bonus" (+1 attack and defense skill and +1 defense skill to levies) will affect things, but it will presumably impart an advantage. I assume one of the reason this bonus was applied was to balance the effect of missiles?

I'm quite sure neither of these were applied "to balance the effect of missiles" (indeed I know the last one was not), seeing as none of the changes affects the effect of missiles.

4) Reducing ammo may have unpleasant side effects such as greater frequency of holding missile units in reserve and playing "defensively", keeping archers behind a heavy line of troops, waiting for the opponent to come forward, and then shooting at vulnerable units. Of course this sort of thing is not impossible to over come, but it will presumably be quite annoying to deal with.

Haven't you noticed? We're already dealing with it as is.

TheShakAttack

12-06-2011, 00:17

First off, of course it's mainly those who don't like the missile duels who are complaining about them. Who else would you expect to do so? Those who like to watch pixels fly back and forth for 15 minutes before doing something? (Do these people actually exist?)

I am not sure there are people who like it. That is not the issue nor was it my point. To answer your question however, I would not be surprised if there are people who accept this passage as a "necessary evil".

The first point is a good one: light infantry is rarely used and this would at least give them much needed help. It's of course not so much making them more powerful as making them less weak.

I agree that it can also be expressed as making them less weak, however, it can also be expressed as making them stronger if you compare then to status quo.

The second point is only a point if you refuse to do any thinking. If he has chariots, attack. If he pulls up his chariots, shoot them, if he doesn't, they're useless anyway. This is exactly what Robin was talking about when he said it would force more tactical choices upon people. It requires more brains.

Yes and no (as Kiv would say). My point is not that they would be impossible or "too hard" to deal with. My point is compared to the status quo, they will be more difficult to deal with. Actually, I am not particularly concerned about chariots- it was purely an example.

I agree with you to a certain extent that it is not a bad thing to "force" people to use their brains more. Complex and difficult situations require more brain power to overcome. To take a very, very extreme example, and purely to illustrate my point on a theoretical basis, a "nigh impossible" situation will usually require a great deal of using your brain power. However, there needs to be a line drawn between how far you want to "force" people to use their brain power by making things more complex and ease of gameplay.

Please note I am not saying that ammo reduction will make chariots "nigh impossible" or "very difficult" or even "difficult" to deal with. I am saying, comparatively speaking, they will be more difficult. Nor am I saying this is a "bad thing". I am saying this is something that I think the community should consider.

I'm quite sure neither of these were applied "to balance the effect of missiles" (indeed I know the last one was not), seeing as none of the changes has any effect on the effect of missiles. Effect.

Okay. I thought it might have been some sort of compensation to make up for their vulnerability to missile heavy factions (which, especially without accuracy nerfs would have been very difficult to deal with) by making them more proficient in melee.

Haven't you noticed? We're already dealing with it as is.

I know we are dealing with this already. I said "greater frequency" for a reason :p.

Again, just to clarify- I can see your and Robin's point about missile duels taking such a large chunk of time. I do not disagree with you. I wanted to make sure that ammo reduction is indeed the best way forward (admittedly I do not see many alternatives) and that all points are considered before we move forward. My most serious concern/point was that the effectiveness of using missile units is not affected (compared to things as they currently stand) ie. missile duels should take less time, but from a "wider perspective" missile units should be just as effective vs lightly armored troops.

Arjos

12-06-2011, 00:21

Those Eqvites Avxiliares should have the same stats as their "counterparts" with more armour, but that would make them medium cavalry, so they'll need 50 men...
Cost reduction? I don't know, looking at them they seem fine for a 50 men unit as they are (while atm they are incredibly cheap for a 60 men unit)...

Kival

12-06-2011, 00:44

Guys, you can't ignore the actuall costing system! We cannot ignore the pricing system for one unit just because we want too. At the moment, they are Tier 2 units, which defines their stats and base cost and numbers. With additional costs for weapons, horse and armour their price is deduced (with some minor price increase due to beeing roman auxilariy). At the moment de facto armour is not the strongest cost factor. We cannot change that for one unit only. If we want to change that, that would be at least 3.1 if not 4.0. That would be a monumental task again! So *in the frame of 3.0*, there are few possibilites regarding roman auxilary:

a) Increasing their tier, which means that they get better skill etc, but cost more (per men) and have less men. A 50 men tier 3 hispanic aux cav would like like that:
50 Men
Attack: 12 instead of 11
Defense skill: 11 instead of 9
jav_accuracy: h instead of m
Morale: 13 instead of 11
Cost: 2291 (not exactly sure here)

b) Decrease their number due to some general rule for the unit number of roman cav but let the rest stay the same. Price would need to be adjusted than: The new price would be 1980 as far as I know. (this would be somewhat artificial though as I don't see that roman used less cav then e.g. Casse or Sweboz)

c) Let them stay the way they are.

The Celtic Viking

12-06-2011, 00:46

I am not sure there are people who like it. That is not the issue nor was it my point. To answer your question however, I would not be surprised if there are people who accept this passage as a "necessary evil".

The line you are quoting is one which I would usually end with a ":p" smiley. I should've put one there, because without it I may seem... well, more "annoyed" perhaps (for lack of a better word) than just eye-rolling at a silly perception.

My point is not that they would be impossible or "too hard" to deal with. My point is compared to the status quo, they will be more difficult to deal with. Actually, I am not particularly concerned about chariots- it was purely an example.

Good, because you really shouldn't be. Especially not after they lose their fear - then they will a) be of no use behind their own lines and b) be of no use at all anywhere. Even if they kept their fear - which I think they should - I still don't see this being a problem. I will consider your point conceded unless you give another example, because i can think of none.

Please note I am not saying that ammo reduction will make chariots "nigh impossible" or "very difficult" or even "difficult" to deal with. I am saying, comparatively speaking, they will be more difficult. Nor am I saying this is a "bad thing". I am saying this is something that I think the community should consider.

Okay. My conclusion is that it is not a bad thing that chariots will be harder to kill, since they will be useless (especially if kept behind lines) and for that reason most likely not used anymore. The only other type I can think of where arrows is a great threat are light infantry which need to be strengthened anyway, as I have said. So, yeah, my conclusion is that that's not a concern.

Now, could you give your answer to that concern?

I know we are dealing with this already. I said "greater frequency" for a reason :p.

I fail to see how there could be a "greater frequency" than 100% of the time. ~;)

Arjos

12-06-2011, 00:50

Guys, you can't ignore the actuall costing system!

Here's the thing: no system will ever account for all units and all factions...
For example this system with these units doesn't make any sense: as you pointed out, refitting them as tier 3 gives them an even sillier cost...
Solution is clear and simple, they are a 50 men unit with the same exact stats and cost...

Duplication rules weren't acceptable for Reidonez, making an exception wasn't difficult then, why would it be now?

Kival

12-06-2011, 00:56

Here's the thing: no system will ever account for all units and all factions...
For example this system with these units doesn't make any sense: as you pointed out, refitting them as tier 3 gives them an even sillier cost...

Why is it silly for a tier 3 cav unit of 50 men to cost 2291? As I mentioned I'm not completely sure about the costing for cav. We have some rules to accomadate for factions, but they are not only applied to one unit only!

Solution is clear and simple, they are a 50 men unit with the same exact stats and cost...

No, that's clearly biased against this particular unit. I'm very strongly against that. If the system does not work and we can't find a way to make the unit accaptable in frame of 3.0 costing, we need to change 3.0 costing in general not only for one unit!

Duplication rules weren't acceptable for Reidonez, making an exception wasn't difficult then, why would it be now?

Duplication rules are gameplay-only and have nothing to do with a system.

PS: Regarding balance: Lowering Archer effectivity would also improve medium infantry not only light infantry. I think to some degree it's fine to increase usabilty of light infantry but archers should still be good against them. So an increase of accuracy should come together with the reduction of arrows. We just need to test which number would be the best.

Arjos

12-06-2011, 00:59

Why is it silly for a tier 3 cav unit of 50 men to cost 2291?

I was referring to the 1980 new price, even you agree that 2291 is completely acceptable ^^

And biased? Me? wow...
You sir are having mathematician's nightmares :P

If an exception is such an issue, a new costing system might be related to the equipment, its material, how easy or hard was for a faction to get that material; plus whether or not the unit was a professional band who demanded an higher pay...

Kival

12-06-2011, 01:04

I was referring to the 1980 new price, even you agree that 2291 is completely acceptable ^^

Wowow, 2291 is for the restated tier 3 unit, 1980 would be for the the unit with tier 2 stats! It was you who asked them to be reduced in numbers but without a tier increase. Only that would result in 1980. Increasing the tier would make them a 2291 unit.

Arjos

12-06-2011, 01:06

Ugh you confused me: right now they cost 2376 (I remembered them being around 2.something k) and that's just fine, what is wrong is consider them light and allowing 60 men...
I never asked for changing stats...

Kival

12-06-2011, 01:11

Arjos

12-06-2011, 01:16

Ok, I'll rephrase: it's bogus they are considered tier 2 with all that armour, giving them 60 men, switch that to 50...
I can go on all night XD

Some people said how their present status favours them, and most of all on an historical note it gives SPQR cavalry numerical superiority with the same number of slots...
There's no bias, those units due to the tier system (which can't be perfect), are in an unbalanced status, both in gameplay and historical accuracy...

TheShakAttack

12-06-2011, 01:17

@ TCV - I will respond to your post later. Just wanted the quicker task of responding to Arjos since I need to go to bed soon. However, please note that nothing is conceded at all. Your "silence is consent" line won't work in this court mister! :)

I agree with Kiv that we cannot discriminate against only one unit in terms of costing. We need to stay within the framework drawn up by GG2 for the time being, even though there are things that need to ironed out. Your point regarding systems cannot cover everything unfortunately doesn't apply, since the system is designed precisely to take account of "everything". FYI- Aux Cav already have a cost penalty applied to them of approx 7.5% iirc.

I think penalising them to the point where they lose 10 men but cost the same is too extreme. Especially in light of the fact that Rome (according to wiki) post marian and beyond was by no means deficient in cav and had a relatively strong (in terms of numbers) cav contingent. I am not sure how "fair" it would be to penalise Rome only in that lower tier cav have 50 instead of 60 men , but I'd like to test out 50 men aux cav units *with appropriate* cost+capacity increase or cost decrease and then provide a considered response.

Can I clarify- is your concern with Hispanic only, or thracian aux as well? Also, apart from Robin, TCV, Lazy and you (Arjos), who else is dissatisfied with Hispanics? As I understand, Kival, Vega, Gaius and I have no problem with them as they are currently.

If we decide to make this perm, I think to remain consistent most 60 men cav units should be reduced to 50, exceptions being superlights (in terms of armor) who are more jav than melee cav (like numidians and hippoakontistai), and factions which have "cav bonus/ are heavily cav based". Units which get reduced to 50 would obv become cheaper (I am not saying they should cost the same). Thracian lights, prodomoi, Liguiran cav, Hippeis etc especially.

Arjos

12-06-2011, 01:19

All roman auxiliares with 60 men, I made that clear, people keep on bouncing to Hispanics and I answer :D
Not to mention Katpatuka, other units will pop up too most likely...

since the system is designed precisely to take account of "everything".

And what a job it has done with those cav units :P

Also, apart from Robin, TCV, Lazy and you (Arjos), who else is dissatisfied with Hispanics? As I understand, Kival, Vega, Gaius and I have no problem with them as they are currently.

You can't speak about people accusing arrows being biased and then going for the same BS on this one, just because you are on the other side of the fence...
Mate, you indeed are a lawyer!

Thracian lights, prodomoi, Liguiran cav, Hippeis etc especially.

Completely missing the point, light cavalry with 60 men is fine and appropriate, medium cav (and for example roman aux) with 60 isn't...

Tbh I'm bringing valid points and you are answering with mathematical discomfort and lawyery rethoric, just what is this? XD

TheShakAttack

12-06-2011, 01:49

Haha, its what you get when you combine a mathmetician and a lawyer! :)

Costing
I completly agree that the cav costing needs to be changed and right now is quite broken. What we are trying to say is that the same rules for costing should apply to ALL units equally. We need to stick to it since this is what is being done, and for now, this is the system we are "stuck" in. In other words, for the sake of consistency in calculating costs. Making exceptions for costing is not acceptable.

As explained earlier, you calculate the costs (this includes "tier", armor, weapon, mount etc) and THEN apply a factional bonus/penalty. Roman cav already has a factional penalty applied to them. "Costing" is applied universally (with factional bonus/penalty), but, deciding how many men a unit should have and what stats they should have is decided on a case-by-case basis. I hope this does not sound condescending, and please understand it is not meant like that at all, but if you look at the costing rules, or ask Kiv to explain them to you, you will understand.

I also agree Katpatuka are quite unusuable due to prohibitive cost.

I wholeheartedly agree that some of your points are valid- mainly that the system does not seem to work so well with cav- where armor is very very important and perhaps the most important factor and therefore should be the most determining factor in "costing".

Men per unit

How many men there are per unit is determined by the "tier" but presumably this is open to adaptation on a unit-by-unit basis. This is one of the places we *can* change things and still remain consistent with costing (the other one is to bump aux cav by 1 tier which also improves some stats- see Kiv's post for more info).

I don't think I can agree that Roman Aux should have lower numbers compared to other factions (though I can agree for purely gameplay reasons if enough people are severely dissatisfied with it, which apart from four people, I don't think are. I myself am not.). In fact, as I keep on saying, it seems Romas used a lot of aux cavalry. I realise I forgot to mention why I gave the example of KH earlier in saying "they have 60 men per unit, why shouldn't Rome"- they were simply one of the easiest factions to illustrate my point with. Hippeis get 60 men even though they KH had severe lack of cavalry.

I think if you could re-state your reasons why Roman Aux should get 50 men per unit, whilst other factions remain the same, and why they should be so severely penalised, it would make things a lot easier for people (esp me :) ) to respond to and understand. If you can come up with sources which state that Roman Aux didnt have that many cav numbers, I would be very happy to change my stance on this issue.

Arjos

12-06-2011, 01:54

In fact, as I keep on saying, it seems Romas used a lot of aux cavalry.

Not outfitted by the republic, basically in all battles the local rulers joined with their own corps...

TheShakAttack

12-06-2011, 02:01

Kival

12-06-2011, 02:11

Completely missing the point, light cavalry with 60 men is fine and appropriate, medium cav (and for example roman aux) with 60 isn't...

Tbh I'm bringing valid points and you are answering with mathematical discomfort and lawyery rethoric, just what is this? XD

It's not mathematical discomfort, we can't just throw away a system for one unit. If we see a mistake, we need to change the system, not one unit! (if it's not solveable in the system!) By the way I don't think they are very problematic at all but that's not my point. If they are a problem, just making cost exceptions for one unit is not accaptable. If it's about roman cav, you can make a proposal do increase cost penalty but I can't see a reason for that. If there is a cost calculation mistake, gg might tell us that. I don't know if they get the SE Iberian metal cost reduction but if they do, that would still not be much of a change.

Hippeis have 7 armour and 4 shield, Thracians have 6 armour and 4 shield. They are actually nearly as good protected as iberians with 9 armour and 3 shield. Especially against arrows they are well protected. However: Where do you want to make the point of medium/light cavalry? 9 Armour? 8? And still: Also if you go for less numbers, you can't just ignore the cost system just for one unit!

The Celtic Viking

12-06-2011, 02:15

Lol. Unfortunately I am not sure what you are saying Arjos. Can you please explain a little more clearly? How does that fact influence the men per unit in an auxiliary cavalry unit? Forgive my ignorance/denseness btw.

Also, remember that imperial era has access to these guys as well. So we are not talking strictly post marian.

In EB terms, cavalry like Brihentin, Reidonez or the Iberi Caetrati. He's saying that the number of cav Romans brought to battle is not really relevant for these units; what's relevant are the numbers that were outfitted by the Republic/Empire.

Anyway, to this:

I think if you could re-state your reasons why Roman Aux should get 50 men per unit, whilst other factions remain the same, and why they should be so severely penalised, it would make things a lot easier for people (esp me :) ) to respond to and understand.

I'd say you haven't really read his posts properly. He has not made this argument at all; he has said outright that he thinks that only light cav should be 60 men strong, but not medium cav regardless of who owns them, and that he considers the Roman aux cav to be medium cav. He has specified Katpatuka Asabara (only available to Pontos) as another example that should be cut down, and that if he knew other examples, he would say the same about them.

Arjos

12-06-2011, 02:15

You can have socii, auxiliares and even rulers with an amicitia with the republic, and the principate still had the same institutions (just no more italian socii as they gained citizenship)...
Of all those above, only the auxiliares were outfitted by the republic/principate...
The point here is that the total cavalry force wasn't paid by Roma only, actually most of them weren't even fighting under the republic (in EB terms they were another faction XD); and even if we say the aux units represent a broader concept of both auxiliares and late hellenistic period cavalry, it doesn't make sense for such an armoured unit to be considered low tier/light (call it what you will), thus giving it 60 men, when in reality they were either few young men from various parts of the world joining for service, personal guards of legati or local corps provided by friendly rulers...

you can't just ignore the cost system just for one unit!

And I'm not doing that, nor my issue is centered on costs XD

I'd say you haven't really read his posts properly.

You get me and that's because we both are Volga Boatmen ^^

Kival

12-06-2011, 02:20

If you make medium cav 50 men, they'll end up costing less than 60 men light cav. That's fine for me but that we'd have 1980 mnai costing iberian aux.

Arjos

12-06-2011, 02:22

If you make medium cav 50 men, they'll end up costing less than 60 men light cav. That's fine for me but that we'd have 1980 mnai costing iberian aux.

No, that's you sticking by a flawned system, their cost as it is, accounts for their 50 men status...

That price is in the region of the Caetrati, for the aux costing circa 400 mnai more makes total sense...

Hippeis have 7 armour...Where do you want to make the point of medium/light cavalry? 9 Armour? 8?

As I said before there's bound to be many more cases...
IIRC Hippeis are even listed as medium cavalry by the EB's naming system...

Imo the cut out should be as it was: if you are wearing cloth you aren't armoured, plain and simple XD

Kival

12-06-2011, 02:37

No, that's you sticking by a flawned system, their cost as it is, accounts for their 50 men status...

No! It doesn't! Iberian Aux cav cost 39,6 mnai per man, while iberian light cav cost 34 mnai per man. If you want to make armour more expensive, YOU NEED TO DO THAT FOR EVERY UNIT. There is just no reason, why the equipment for roman cav should cost more than for greek cav or celtic infantry.

That price is in the region of the Caetrati, for the aux costing circa 400 mnai more makes total sense...

Light Iberian cav would have 10 men more! A 50 men Iberian Auxilary unit with the same price would cost 47,5 mnai per man! That's a price increase by 20 % without any compensation.

TheShakAttack

12-06-2011, 02:38

Ok, I can agree to Arjos' proposal that all "medium" cav should have 50, not 60 men. My apologies for not understanding your earlier posts correctly.

However Arjos- their current cost does NOT account for 50 men. It accounts for 60 men. As Kiv pointed out, their cost at 50 men would drop under 2k. Also, for units like the Caetrati (if lowered to 50 men from 60 men) the cost would also drop lower. Cost is influence by men per unit rather than "hmm what should this unit cost" and is divorced from how many men there are per unit.

In Kiv's defense, he is not "sticking by a flawed system". He is saying that we should not make exceptions for only 1 unit and has even made a proposal within the system ("...just making cost exceptions for one unit is not accaptable. If it's about roman cav, you can make a proposal do increase cost penalty..."). I wholeheartedly agree with him here- you cannot make exceptions when the same principles are being applied to ALL other units. You *can* work within the system by increasing factional penalty.

And as I have said, I agree, I agree, I agree that the system for costing cav is broken, but unless the same thing is applied universally (like your proposal that medium cav be 50 men per unit), it is not acceptable.

Kival

12-06-2011, 02:40

Just to let you know again: I think, armour should have a higher impact on cost *but for all units*. If we'd really do that, we'd need to correct EVERY unit and that's something for 4.0 not 3.0/1 in my regard.

TheShakAttack

12-06-2011, 02:49

My last post before bed :)

The line you are quoting is one which I would usually end with a ":p" smiley. I should've put one there, because without it I may seem... well, more "annoyed" perhaps (for lack of a better word) than just eye-rolling at a silly perception.

For the record, I don't think it was a silly observation ASM pointed out. :)

Good, because you really shouldn't be. Especially not after they lose their fear - then they will a) be of no use behind their own lines and b) be of no use at all anywhere. Even if they kept their fear - which I think they should - I still don't see this being a problem. I will consider your point conceded unless you give another example, because i can think of none.

With regards to chariots: I think with fear, ammo reduction would certainly be a problem- they would be a highly mobile fear generating machine, and one of the easier ways to counteract them would be hampered. But that is another discussion, and a redundant one at that, altogether. Let's take the example of falxmen then. Vulnerability to missiles is one of the things that is keeping falx spam at bay. Also, one of the more persuasive factors in bringing AP back was their vulnerability to missiles. Lowering ammo would obv mean they are less vulnerable over the duration of the battle. To a certain extent, it is also like that with units like bataros. Admittedly shooting from front is not as effective, but with less ammo to shoot at flanks with, they become a much more useful unit to bring.

Okay. My conclusion is that it is not a bad thing that chariots will be harder to kill, since they will be useless (especially if kept behind lines) and for that reason most likely not used anymore. The only other type I can think of where arrows is a great threat are light infantry which need to be strengthened anyway, as I have said. So, yeah, my conclusion is that that's not a concern.

Now, could you give your answer to that concern?

I cannot agree that light infantry need to be strengthened. Obviously it is a matter of opinion. Currently light infantry can certainly be brought and used effectively with due caution and care. "Use your brains" (:laugh4:) under the current system when bringing light infantry and you will be fine :clown:!

Also, what do you by mean "concern"?

I fail to see how there could be a "greater frequency" than 100% of the time.

It is certainly not 100% of the time that players refuse to engage in a missile duel, hold back their missiles, camp, wait for the other player to come forward and then shoot at vulnerable units. Certain players are repeat offenders, sure, but I would say at the moment this total refusal to engage in a missile duel and to just "hang back" and wait to shoot happens only 10-20% of the time. Maximum.

Holding missiles in reserve is another matter entirely. I think as long as you are doing something, like engaging in a missile duel, moving forward, etc there is nothing wrong with holding missile units in reserve. Why is it necessary that players be forced use all their missiles at the beginning? It is the "not engaging in a missile duel whilst having a heavily armored front line, camping, and just waiting for enemy to approach you" which is annoying and un-sportsmanlike.

The Celtic Viking

12-06-2011, 02:50

You get me and that's because we both are Volga Boatmen ^^

Ey, ukhnem, comrade; ey, ukhnem! Haha!

For the record, I don't think it was a silly observation ASM pointed out. :)

You don't think it's silly to point out that the only ones who are complaining about something are the ones who don't like it?

Let's take the example of falxmen then. Vulnerability to missiles is one of the things that is keeping falx spam at bay. Also, one of the more persuasive factors in bringing AP back was their vulnerability to missiles. Lowering ammo would obv mean they are less vulnerable over the duration of the battle.

Well, they should have ap no matter what arrows do to them IMO. They're not so hard to counter, really; all you need is shock, so cav charge them and watch them run like babies.

To a certain extent, it is also like that with units like bataros. Admittedly shooting from front is not as effective, but with less ammo to shoot at flanks with, they become a much more useful unit to bring.

Hardly. Bataroas will not defeat much and will rout at practically anything; all they're currently good for are numbers. It shouldn't be that way. I'm not sure at all that less ammo but more accuracy will help them much at all; they'll still rout just as easily in melee.

I cannot agree that light infantry need to be strengthened. Obviously it is a matter of opinion. Currently light infantry can certainly be brought and used effectively with due caution and care. "Use your brains" () under the current system when bringing light infantry and you will be fine !

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. Your first quote seems serious enough, but what you say, and the use of smileys, seems to indicate that it's a joke. You could mean just refer to "use your brains" part too, which is why I'm honestly confused. The only light infantry worth anything are the ones carrying ap equipment. All else are crap, only brought from time to time by people like me who take pity on them and use them in spite of knowing what a waste of mnai they are.

Also, what do you by mean "concern"?

It was a poor choice of word. I was simply refering to the point you, apparently, "wanted to bring to the community's attention" so that we could "think about it".

It is certainly not 100% of the time that players refuse to engage in a missile duel, hold back their missiles, camp, wait for the other player to come forward and then shoot at vulnerable units. Certain players are repeat offenders, sure, but I would say at the moment this total refusal to engage in a missile duel and to just "hang back" and wait to shoot happens only 10-20% of the time. Maximum.

Holding missiles in reserve is another matter entirely. I think as long as you are doing something, like engaging in a missile duel, moving forward, etc there is nothing wrong with holding missile units in reserve. Why is it necessary that players be forced use all their missiles at the beginning? It is the "not engaging in a missile duel whilst having a heavily armored front line, camping, and just waiting for enemy to approach you" which is annoying and un-sportsmanlike.

Ah, then I misunderstood you. However, I don't see why it would become more frequent, if (as you have implied yourself) it becomes less powerful a tactic.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-06-2011, 03:57

So I did a fun (well some of you may not think its so fun) comparison that strikes me as damning to say the least.:book2:

type hellenistic cavalry tarentinoi
dictionary hellenistic_cavalry_tarentinoi ; Hippeis Tarantinoi
category cavalry
class light
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier hellenistic_cavalry_tarentinoi, 25, 0, 1
mount medium horse
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, cantabrian_circle, very_hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 24, javelin_h, 60.5, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 10, 9, 3, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, -3, -2
stat_mental 13, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2640, 754, 56, 272, 2640

type roman cavalry auxilia equiteshispanorum
dictionary roman_cavalry_auxilia_equiteshispanorum ; Eqvites Hispanorvm (Hispanic Auxiliary Cavalry)
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier iberian_cavalry_equitescaetratii_hippakontistai, 25, 0, 1
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
mount medium horse
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, cantabrian_circle, hide_long_grass, very_hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 21, javelin_h, 57.8, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 12, 21, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.14
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 9, 11, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -2
stat_mental 13, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2291, 588, 56, 241, 2291

Alright so what I did was apply the bonuses of adding a tier to the Hispanic Aux thereby subtracting them to 50 men. This is at least according to Kival's statistics since he seems to have a solid grasp on the numbers behind this. I'm not sure if adding a tier would add to training or discipline so I didn't bother to take that into consideration. The comparison is between them and Tarentine Elite Cav. In summary, the Hispanic Aux would have -1 attack with their sidearm, +0.01 lethality, -1 armor, +2 defense skill and would cost close to 400 cheaper. Something is off here wouldn't you agree? I can't say from those stats that the Hispanics wouldn't win that battle.

Kival

12-06-2011, 05:07

That's odd. Is there any other similar tier 3 cavalry? It might just be Tarantinoi cav overpriced. At first glance it seems as if Tarantinoi are priced as if they had 60 men. If this is right, they should cost 2200 mnai instead, which seems relatively reasonable in comparison.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

12-06-2011, 05:59

;371
type hellenistic cavalry baktrioi hippotoxotai
dictionary hellenistic_cavalry_baktrioi_hippotoxotai ; Baktrioi Hippotoxotai
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier hellenistic_cavalry_baktrioi_hippotoxotai, 25, 0, 1
mount saddle horse heavy
mount_effect chariot +3
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy
formation 2, 4, 6, 6, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 6, 24, arrow_ha_m, 180, 45, missile, archery, piercing, none, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 10, 13, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, leather
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -4, -1
stat_mental 13, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2825, 851, 72, 498, 2825
ownership romans_brutii

type hellenistic cavalry hetairoi aspidophoroi
dictionary hellenistic_cavalry_hetairoi_aspidophoroi ; Hetairoi Aspidophoroi
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Light_1
soldier hellenistic_cavalry_hetairoiaspidophoroi_campanian, 25, 0, 1
mount saddle horse heavy
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 12, 24, javelin_h, 49.5, 6, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 10, 9, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -4, -2
stat_mental 14, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2689, 602, 56, 272, 2689
ownership macedon, greek_cities, thrace, numidia, romans_julii

type roman cavalry ala imperatoria
dictionary roman_cavalry_ala_imperatoria ; Ala Imperatoria
category cavalry
class light
voice_type General_1
soldier roman_cavalry_ala_imperatoria, 25, 0, 1
officer ebofficer_roman_standard
mount saddle horse light
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, cantabrian_circle
formation 1.5, 4, 3, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 30, javelin_h, 60.5, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 12, 30, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.18
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 11, 9, 5, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -3, -1
stat_mental 13, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2882, 779, 40, 60, 2882
ownership seleucid

type celtic cavalry celtogermanic
dictionary celtic_cavalry_celtogermanic ; Celto-Germanic Cavalry
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier celtic_cavalry_caledonian_nobles_celto_germanic, 25, 0, 1
mount medium horse
mount_effect elephant -2, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, very_hardy, mercenary_unit
formation 1.5, 4, 3, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 14, 24, javelin_h, 44, 4, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.245
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 8, 12, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, 0
stat_mental 13, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2619, 717, 95, 444, 2619
ownership germans, gauls, scythia, slave

type celtic cavalry caledonian nobles
dictionary celtic_cavalry_caledonian_nobles ; Caledonian Nobles
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier celtic_cavalry_caledonian_nobles_celto_germanic, 25, 0, 1
mount light horse
mount_effect elephant -2, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, very_hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 24, javelin_h, 60.5, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.245
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 8, 12, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, 0
stat_mental 15, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2488, 701, 95, 444, 2488
ownership britons, slave

Comparison of all similar style cavalry in that tier (as far as I'm aware) including the Baktrian HA for kicks. Compare of course to the Hispanic Cav in price and stats if they were increased a tier. Out of all of these, all would be at least 200ish more and the Caledonian Nobles which are the lowest seem underpriced as well comparatively.

It seems to me that the Roman Aux cavalry are the clear offenders here. Note its not all Roman cav. Imperial Ala clearly don't fare well in comparison.

Lazy O

12-06-2011, 06:58

Well my only problem with Roman Aux cav is that all of them buggers are 60 men with +22 (iirc) armor . While you cannot ifnd such cavalry for other factions. While costing in the 2200-2400 range.

gamegeek2

12-06-2011, 07:51

My current EDU edit has this for roman aux cav:

;362
type roman cavalry auxilia equiteshispanorum
dictionary roman_cavalry_auxilia_equiteshispanorum ; Eqvites Hispanorvm (Hispanic Auxiliary Cavalry)
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier iberian_cavalry_equitescaetratii_hippakontistai, 30, 0, 1
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
mount medium horse
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, cantabrian_circle, hide_long_grass, very_hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 21, javelin_m, 57.8, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 11, 21, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.14
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 8, 10, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -2
stat_mental 11, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2376, 588, 56, 241, 2376
ownership seleucid

type roman cavalry auxilia equitesgallorum
dictionary roman_cavalry_auxilia_equitesgallorum ; Eqvites Gallorvm (Gallic Auxiliary Cavalry)
category cavalry
class light
voice_type General_1
soldier celtic_cavalry_leuceepos_equitesgallovrum, 30, 0, 1
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
mount saddle horse light
mount_effect elephant -2, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, very_hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 33, javelin_m, 57.8, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 3, 33, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.33
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 9, 8, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -3, -1
stat_mental 11, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2424, 558, 44, 257, 2424
ownership seleucid

(these seem to be the most popular aux cav)

Arjos

12-06-2011, 10:58

Also, for units like the Caetrati (if lowered to 50 men from 60 men) the cost would also drop lower.

But all they have is a shirt! XD
Is like saying I dunno Bataroas have 100 men they should cost more than Neitos with 80 XD

It seems to me that the Roman Aux cavalry are the clear offenders here. Note its not all Roman cav.

Thank you :D

My (these seem to be the most popular aux cav)

Don't forget Thraikioi Aux please :)
Even though I couldn't see problems with stats per se, only the unit size...

It might just be Tarantinoi cav overpriced. At first glance it seems as if Tarantinoi are priced as if they had 60 men.

What Rob showed works for any medium cav from any faction with 50 men...
It's either as you said they are priced for 60 men, or Aux are incredibly cheap...

Lazy O

12-06-2011, 11:06

Well the only thing the hispanics have going for them is their armor and ap and their costs... oh wait.. thats alot :D . Anyways, I cannot find cavalry with 23 armor in the 2000-2500 range.

TheShakAttack

12-06-2011, 11:29

It's not 23 armor, rather, its 23 total "defense" (with 8 "armor" for hispanics, 9 for gallic aux cav).

With regards to Arjos' points- I didn't say caetrati should be 50 men units as well, rather, if they were 50 men units, they would also have a cost reduction.

Your other comment regarding 100 men bataros costing more than 80 Neitos is quite important and is (unless I am mistaken) why the "3.0 system" has been designed the way it has. It places particular costing emphasis on morale, attack and defense skill to make sure that the 100 man "lower quality unit" does not cost anywhere near as much as the 60-80 man "higher quality one". As discussed already, this 3.0 system works much better with infantry than cavalry.

The contribution of "armor costs" to the "total cost of the unit" is heavily dependant on the number of men per unit; obviously infantry have a lot more men per unit than cavalry. This means for infantry, differences in armor between 2 extreme units*is* to some extent reflected in differences in costs (especially when compared to cavalry). With cavalry, where the difference is usually only 10 men, differences in armor does not have a significant cost effect which is highly undesirable . Everyone agrees to this. No one has said they disagree that cav costing needs to be reworked.

I don't have access to Robin's posts since he has used the "spoiler" tool and my browser at work does not allow me to view "spoilers". I'll go home and check it out. If it is as Robin says, clearly this means that other cavalry has been overpriced (and does not follow the system). This, if it is true, is the most valid point made so far against hispanics (as it proves that 3.0 has not been correctly and consistently applied). If all other cavalry is costed using different modified then obviously hispanics should be modififed to follow this as well, or, if it not universal, the offending cavalry units should be made cheaper to follow "the 3.0 system".

Edit: included response to TCVs post

Re: ASM's point. yes he is correct. You and Robin, the two "agitators" for this change like playing factions who are usually vulnerable to, or suffer an inferiority of, missiles. That is not to say they are the only factions you play. Is this important you ask? Of course. Why? That is quite obvious.

Re: falxmen. To use a phrase employed in law, you are "not seeing the wood for the trees". You do not understand the purpose of the post regarding reduction of ammo. I did not say they (falxmen) will be hard to deal with did I? Nor am I saying they will be so OP that it will completely ruin game balance. Please try to understand what I am saying- I am saying they, and other units like them, will be comparatively more effective over the duration of the battle. Comparatively being the key word. I am just discussing the "collateral effects" of the reduction of ammo. I am just pointing out the collateral effects to see (a) "the degree to which" missiles will need to be compensated to fix the changes in game balance and (b) what they, in fact, are.

Your point regarding Bataros if I understand it is this: their biggest weakness is morale, not vulnerability to missiles. Therefore a reduction in ammo will not effect them very much, since their biggest weakness remains. I hope this is correct? Once again, this is besides the point. Same comments as above apply. "Comparatively more effective" is the key concept.

I disagree with your point about non AP light infantry being "crap". While AP light infantry are certainly useful, so are a number of other units including "skirmisher" type units. Levy or low cost spearmen are particularly effective in helping in cav v cav melee, or guarding flank to ward off cav charges. They also do a decent job of holding a flank for a limited period. Certainly light units are risky, and need to be "babied", but the need for micromanagement is not really against the ethos of EBO. If you manage to use light units to good effect, you get an excellent bargain- they typically cost very, very little. What you cannot use them for (normally) is line holding purposes. They are meant to work on flanks, chase down enemy light units (like archers, skirmishers etc). Shortswordsmen perhaps suffer a little bit in this regard since their weapon's lethality means that they need to be in melee for quite some time to be effective.

My reference to "use your brains" was intended to be a pun (clearly turned out very badly :clown:) on your comment that reducing the amount of missiles will make players use their brains more since it becomes a scarcer resource and harder to use effectively.

Regading "the concern" bit - I have made my perspective very clear on this. I'm not against ammo reduction for the purposes reducing missile duel time (in fact I think looking to reduce time is a decent goal); but I want to emphasise the need to preserve the "effectiveness" of missile units and ensure that factions that rely on missile units do not suffer from the reduction of ammo.

I think the camping with a heavily armored line and refusing to engage in a missile duel might become more frequent since ammo will be in lower supply, so players will want to hold on to it and not waste it in missile duels. It's more of a "might happen" since the usual psychological reaction to something becoming scarce is to hoard it; especially in the context of EB ultra-defensive players.

Lazy O

12-06-2011, 11:47

Robin post 1 :

type hellenistic cavalry tarentinoi
dictionary hellenistic_cavalry_tarentinoi ; Hippeis Tarantinoi
category cavalry
class light
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier hellenistic_cavalry_tarentinoi, 25, 0, 1
mount medium horse
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, cantabrian_circle, very_hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 24, javelin_h, 60.5, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 10, 9, 3, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, -3, -2
stat_mental 13, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2640, 754, 56, 272, 2640

type roman cavalry auxilia equiteshispanorum
dictionary roman_cavalry_auxilia_equiteshispanorum ; Eqvites Hispanorvm (Hispanic Auxiliary Cavalry)
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier iberian_cavalry_equitescaetratii_hippakontistai, 25, 0, 1
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
mount medium horse
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, cantabrian_circle, hide_long_grass, very_hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 21, javelin_h, 57.8, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 12, 21, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.14
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 9, 11, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -2
stat_mental 13, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2291, 588, 56, 241, 2291

Robin post 2:

type hellenistic cavalry baktrioi hippotoxotai
dictionary hellenistic_cavalry_baktrioi_hippotoxotai ; Baktrioi Hippotoxotai
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier hellenistic_cavalry_baktrioi_hippotoxotai, 25, 0, 1
mount saddle horse heavy
mount_effect chariot +3
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy
formation 2, 4, 6, 6, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 6, 24, arrow_ha_m, 180, 45, missile, archery, piercing, none, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 10, 13, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, leather
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -4, -1
stat_mental 13, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2825, 851, 72, 498, 2825
ownership romans_brutii

type hellenistic cavalry hetairoi aspidophoroi
dictionary hellenistic_cavalry_hetairoi_aspidophoroi ; Hetairoi Aspidophoroi
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Light_1
soldier hellenistic_cavalry_hetairoiaspidophoroi_campanian, 25, 0, 1
mount saddle horse heavy
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 12, 24, javelin_h, 49.5, 6, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 10, 9, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -4, -2
stat_mental 14, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2689, 602, 56, 272, 2689
ownership macedon, greek_cities, thrace, numidia, romans_julii

type roman cavalry ala imperatoria
dictionary roman_cavalry_ala_imperatoria ; Ala Imperatoria
category cavalry
class light
voice_type General_1
soldier roman_cavalry_ala_imperatoria, 25, 0, 1
officer ebofficer_roman_standard
mount saddle horse light
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, cantabrian_circle
formation 1.5, 4, 3, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 30, javelin_h, 60.5, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 12, 30, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.18
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 11, 9, 5, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -3, -1
stat_mental 13, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2882, 779, 40, 60, 2882
ownership seleucid

type celtic cavalry celtogermanic
dictionary celtic_cavalry_celtogermanic ; Celto-Germanic Cavalry
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier celtic_cavalry_caledonian_nobles_celto_germanic, 25, 0, 1
mount medium horse
mount_effect elephant -2, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, very_hardy, mercenary_unit
formation 1.5, 4, 3, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 14, 24, javelin_h, 44, 4, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.245
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 8, 12, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, 0
stat_mental 13, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2619, 717, 95, 444, 2619
ownership germans, gauls, scythia, slave

type celtic cavalry caledonian nobles
dictionary celtic_cavalry_caledonian_nobles ; Caledonian Nobles
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier celtic_cavalry_caledonian_nobles_celto_germanic, 25, 0, 1
mount light horse
mount_effect elephant -2, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, very_hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 24, javelin_h, 60.5, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 13, 24, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.245
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 8, 12, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, 0
stat_mental 15, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2488, 701, 95, 444, 2488
ownership britons, slave

Now. still think there is nothing wrong with the Hispanic auxillaries?