View Full Version : [EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates
You sure have alot of free time at work.
DOC:
http://www.mediafire.com/?daicoei58h75n16
EDU:
http://www.mediafire.com/?vmgs1mj31ohxwpu
Shak you are missing my point once again: by the system, repricing for example Hispanic, would make them in the region of slightly less than 2k, that's just like Cantabrae and Caetrati...
That's ridiculous, either we see Aux and those 60 men medium cav as anomalies (which they are) or we'll have to reprice all cavalry units (effort not necessary imo, as having medium cavalry at less than 2k, is way too cheap)...
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-06-2011, 14:42
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.
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 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.
I'd like to defend myself here. Yes I do like playing as factions that are vulnerable to missiles. Yes I like playing as every faction (besides those that need cataphracts because catas are currently broken and I refuse to abuse them). If this is a point you want to make, I can easily say that you prefer eastern factions and that is the reason for your defense. Its a silly argument. Even now, Celt players take 3 Sotaroas to waste your arrows which they do admirably. Proposed changes would weaken Eastern archers, but weaken Western ones even more. So its both a slight advantage and a slight disadvantage for Western factions.
The comparatively more effective argument is silly too. By reducing ammo, every non-missile unit is comparatively more effective, even Dosidatashkeli.:clown:
As to the last point, we never have two players charging each other. Never. One player is always the camper. So I don't see much of an issue here. Someone will still defend, the other will still attack. All that matters is there won't be a 20 minute period before this is determined. And the archers will still probably end up dueling, it will just be while the rest of the battle is also taking place meaning we can probably get an extra battle or two in per day.:2thumbsup:
antisocialmunky
12-06-2011, 15:34
I'd support decreasing ammo and missile cost but only if you keep most of the current accuracy/attack stats. If you make them better, they'll still kill all light infantry too efficiently.
I'd like to defend myself here. Yes I do like playing as factions that are vulnerable to missiles. Yes I like playing as every faction (besides those that need cataphracts because catas are currently broken and I refuse to abuse them). If this is a point you want to make, I can easily say that you prefer eastern factions and that is the reason for your defense. Its a silly argument. Even now, Celt players take 3 Sotaroas to waste your arrows which they do admirably. Proposed changes would weaken Eastern archers, but weaken Western ones even more. So its both a slight advantage and a slight disadvantage for Western factions.
The comparatively more effective argument is silly too. By reducing ammo, every non-missile unit is comparatively more effective, even Dosidatashkeli.:clown:
All you're doing is shifting the meta to not wasting missiles on your archer and always saving them for cavalry and light infantry. You're jacking up the micromanagement and decision making. Not sure it'd be better.
As to the last point, we never have two players charging each other. Never. One player is always the camper. So I don't see much of an issue here. Someone will still defend, the other will still attack. All that matters is there won't be a 20 minute period before this is determined. And the archers will still probably end up dueling, it will just be while the rest of the battle is also taking place meaning we can probably get an extra battle or two in per day.:2thumbsup:
It depends. Usually if I play a decent hellenic player, I'll advanced to meet him since I have to angle away from his phalanx. Likewise, if I'm playing with mass peltastai, I'll take their flanks. If its a celt, I'll sit because you have to have a good formation vs scary for the flank support bonus. If it is rome, then it turns into a turtling contest.
If I know they are going steppe, I take 6 cavalry and kekekeke.
As for light infantry. I dunno, making artillery better could make them better because you could disorder units that are sitting still.
@Gamegeek
Are you still using the same costing system for this units? I can't see any way to come to your values. And could you please check if tarantinoi cav is priced correctly? (It seems as if they are priced as if they had 60 men.
@Gamegeek
Are you still using the same costing system for this units? I can't see any way to come to your values. And could you please check if tarantinoi cav is priced correctly? (It seems as if they are priced as if they had 60 men.
PS: I can't understand when someone says Bataroas are useless. They are very useful against non-heavy armoured enemies. They kill too good in my regard and there is no reason not to take them instead of spearmen and shortswordmen. I'd make an unpopular proposal: Reduce them to 90 men or increase shortswordmen/spearmen to 110.
Oh come on robin we charge each other quite a few times :clown:
Too bad the rest of the folk here do not realise how fun that is and are too occupied with "winning".
Too bad the rest of the folk here do not realise how fun that is and are too occupied with "winning".
Speak only for yourself.
Why? Is the fact that most players here are willing to sit around for half an hour as opposed to take a minimal amount of risk?
Why? Is the fact that most players here are willing to sit around for half an hour as opposed to take a minimal amount of risk?
I can't agree with most players and I surely can't agree with "the rest" of the players.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-06-2011, 17:07
Hmmm, I actually like the idea of making artillery better so compensate for guard mode camping but unfortunately, only half the factions have access to it so playing as Lusos, I still can't make a Rome camper move. But as a Hellenic or Roman faction it would get the heavy infantry moving instead of sitting still the whole time. Make artillery cost about 1500 and this would work well I think.
Also @ Kival, one of my great sadnesses is that Celtic spears and shortswords suck so badly. I would like to use an army with a good deal of spears like historically they would have but it is just impossible in the current game. They unfortunately have no medium spearmen and no heavies if you don't count Arjos.
gamegeek2
12-06-2011, 17:13
Would you just make the spearmen cheaper, or better in combat? I completely agree with this sentiment that there aren't enough light spearmen being fielded.
Would you just make the spearmen cheaper, or better in combat? I completely agree with this sentiment that there aren't enough light spearmen being fielded.
I think it might be a good idea to give spearmen more men per unit relatively. Perhaps they also could cost less (but I think therefor other weapons need to cost more, not spear less. 0.05 is already not very expensive) - I'm not sure how to solve it if not increasing armour/weapon price for all units.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-06-2011, 18:03
They are already quite cheap, thats not an issue. In fact, I like Gaeroas as auxiliaries playing as Makedonia and Epeiros for example since they are cheap and can run with cavalry. I think giving them added charge bonus and defense skill might help so they can stand in infantry fights for a little longer. They just tend to get ripped apart by almost anything other than cavalry in a matter of seconds it seems.
I really don't know how to fix the majority of youth/levies/spears, maybe duplications rules aren't enough since we can field all-pro armies...
I wouldn't increase their stats at all though, what they did was fend off charges or act as skirmishers/ambushers...
Our MP battles centered on flat featureless grounds have no space for such units XD
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-06-2011, 21:28
Celtic armies were majority spears during this timeframe. I think spearmen would compose the main portion of the battle line, not just for specialized tasks.
Yeah, but only levies forming a defensive line...
That was what I meant by fending off...
Rest agile youths and poors performing those "specialized tasks"...
antisocialmunky
12-07-2011, 15:47
Without fear levies should be useful now and chariots and elephants should become better units :)
It would also be nice if more decent leveled levies came in extra large sizes so you can make them like 6 ranks deep so they atleast are useful to grinding better units down.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-07-2011, 18:44
Could the Thracian and especially the Iberian levies receive the bonus you bestowed upon the Gallic and German ones? Iberian Levies are specifically mentioned to be useful light infantry capable of dealing with other levies easily and even handling medium infantry to a limited extent.
TheShakAttack
12-08-2011, 01:52
Hey, sorry for not responding sooner. I've been pretty busy over the past two days- what started off as a very quite day at work didnt end that way :).
I'd like to defend myself here. Yes I do like playing as factions that are vulnerable to missiles. Yes I like playing as every faction (besides those that need cataphracts because catas are currently broken and I refuse to abuse them). If this is a point you want to make, I can easily say that you prefer eastern factions and that is the reason for your defense. Its a silly argument. Even now, Celt players take 3 Sotaroas to waste your arrows which they do admirably. Proposed changes would weaken Eastern archers, but weaken Western ones even more. So its both a slight advantage and a slight disadvantage for Western factions.
First and foremost, it was not an "argument". It was an observation. I did not say that you two made the proposals out of bias, nor did I mean to imply this. And I do not deny that part of the reason for my defense of preserving the effectiveness of missilies is because I like missiles (and current balance). In fact, I have openly said I like missiles and HA. The most important point here is that: I was not using the "observation" as an argument against the reduction of ammo based on "who proposed it". This all started with me saying "I agree with ASM" and then, it blew severely out of proportion from a "passing comment" :).
I do not accuse either of you of anything untoward. We all have some degree of bias and we all make an effort to be as objective as possible, which I think both of you have, and I hope I have as well.
The comparatively more effective argument is silly too. By reducing ammo, every non-missile unit is comparatively more effective, even Dosidatashkeli.
Now, getting to the "meat" of your post. Yes the proposed changes will weaken "weaker" archers (I don't think the title "Western" is appropriate since Cretans are technically western, I don't know where one would categorise Getai- presumably "western" as well); but it will impact the "stronger" archers more. Units like Sotaroas and Toxotai were never relied on for heavy killing. So in terms of impact on "effectiveness" of a unit, it will affect the "stronger" (used loosely) archers (in terms of archery prowess) more.
The "comparatively more effective" observation (about lighter units) is not silly. Once again, it is not tended as an argument, and most certainly not an argument against the reduction of ammo. However, it is not a silly observation. Yes every non-missile unit will be "comparatively more effective" if you want to be absolutely literal, but there are different "degrees" to which units are now "comparatively more effective". "Heavy" and "Medium heavy" units like Neitos, Arjos, Roman cohorts, who can more or less shrug off missiles are not affected that much by the reduciton of ammo, since even a lot of ammo does not affect them very much; whereas units like falxmen are, in comparison to the earlier units, much stronger when comparing the difference less arrows will make.
As to the last point, we never have two players charging each other. Never. One player is always the camper. So I don't see much of an issue here. Someone will still defend, the other will still attack. All that matters is there won't be a 20 minute period before this is determined. And the archers will still probably end up dueling, it will just be while the rest of the battle is also taking place meaning we can probably get an extra battle or two in per day.
I disagree that 2 lines dont usually end up charging one another. A pure "meeting of two lines whilst both are charging" is uncommon, I will give you that. However, most battles involve the two sides moving forward to meet in the middle to some extent. One side does not "completly camp" and refuse to budge, refuse to engage in a missile duel, and refuse to do anything unless attacked. It is this phenomenon I was referring to.
This is (hopefully) the last post I will make regarding the consequences of ammo reduction. A lot of it has been repetitive. Plus by now I have achieved what I wanted to, which is to put this issue through a detailed examination. Please note, as I have been constantly repeating, I am not against the reduction of ammo.
My only aim (which my observations on reduction of ammo do not really speak towards) is that "missile effectiveness" needs to be preserved. With a reduction in ammo, it will require a proportionate increase in accuracy so that whilst there are less volleys, there are more kills per volley, and the "final count" of how many kills remains roughly the same. This is because I think that the balance of missiles is quite good, however, the length of time is not desirable. I would prefer this to a reduction in cost of archers. This way, missile duels will indeed take less time, and it will force players to use ammo with more thought.
Now, let's discuss the cav costing. The figures you have pulled up are deeply troubling. Kiv and I have discussed it. It appears that not only does "tier cost" have a significant effect on costing, it has an astounding effect of cav costing. Our hypothesis is that for the purposes of cav costing, the "tier cost" is doubled. So for a tier 2 cav, one pays 1.5x2=3, whereas for tier 3 cav it is 2.5x2=5 (tier 2 cost is 1.5 and tier 2 is 2.5). Now, strictly speaking, the difference is not 2 mnai per man. It is then multiplied by 6.225 which is the "constant factor". So, if the above redoubling of tier cost is correct, man for man, a tier 3 costs (2x6.225= 18.675) more than a tier 2 cav. Multiply this by 50, and the difference amounts to approximately 933 mnai. Ofc, tier 2 units normally have 60 men, so the difference will more closely be 808 mnai. This is why Hispanics were so cheap. All other costing factors remaining equal (horse, weapons, javs, armor- these do not have very much influence anyway), a tier 2 cav unit will cost approx 808 mnai less than a tier 3 cav unit and have 10 more men. That price discount, and 10 more men will more often than not significantly outstrip the advantages of being +1 tier as a cav unit which are: more morale, more attack and defense skill, better accuracy with Javs (if they have javs), and, slightly more jav range.
This is not a criticism of GG2, who has taken the time to develop and apply an excellent costing system, which in itself is a great idea to maintain "balance". If tier cost is indeed doubled for cavalry, then this is a request that the calculations for cav cost be reworked when GG2 has the time to do so.
I also agree with all the proposals about light spears thus far. Do you think that only celtic, thracian and iberian light spears should get the + charge and defense skill? What do you think of all light spears getting the charge and defense skill boost, but the "barbarian bonus" being extended to thracian and iberians only?
gamegeek2
12-08-2011, 02:29
Should I just not apply the horse cost reduction to the Hispanic Auxilia?
The way cav costs work is that you treat the number of soldiers in the unit as 1.5 times the actual number of soldiers in the unit. I've thought about better ways to do the costing but this is the most balanced one I could find when I modified the old EB system.
Should I just not apply the horse cost reduction to the Hispanic Auxilia?
Yeah, also no metal cost reduction if you did apply them.
The way cav costs work is that you treat the number of soldiers in the unit as 1.5 times the actual number of soldiers in the unit.
Only the soldier? Or the horses too? Is it: Soldier price * 1,5 + horse price or (Soldier price + horse price)*1,5?
TheShakAttack
12-08-2011, 12:38
I'd say, another option is to look at it this way: 5% penalty (for Rome) and 5% bonus cancels each other out. If it is the 7.5% that applies, make it 2.5% only. Since these auxilia would likely be equipped by the Roman State, as Kiv said, metal cost reduction should not apply either.
Let's not forget Thracian and Gallic Aux too pls :)
TheShakAttack
12-08-2011, 13:23
Absolutely. Arjos, for the purposes of clarification, what other 60 men cav units do you think should be reduced to 50? Only asking to give GG2 something quick and easy to refer to. I know katpatuka was very high on that list. Thracian lights as well if I am not mistaken? How do you feel about median medium cav, hippeis, asiatikoi hippeis, etc?
If it is easier, can you perhaps specify which 60-cav units should remain the same.
1. Katpatuka, Hippeis, Eqvites Romani (camillan and polybian), Aspet Hetselazor, Liguriae Epos, Asabârân-î Mâdâën and Prodromoi are wearing metal...
2. Parasim Ezra'him Ponnim, Thraikioi Hippeis and Asiatikoi Hippeis are only wearing leather...
3. Iberi Curisi have a pectoral plate and nothing else...
4. Ragon Sauromatae Uaezdaettae and Aursa Uaezdaettae are heavily armoured, but are steppe...
1 definitely needs to be lowered, 2 and 3 I don't think so, 4 maybe should or all their cav should get a steppe size increase (this would apply to Saka and to a certain extend Pahlava, but that would require 2 eras for Pahlava and Saka, so I'd go for 50 men aswell)...
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-08-2011, 15:09
As far as I remember, Carthaginian Citizen Cav are the same as Prodromoi. At least they were pre-3.0, I'm not sure if they have been differentiated since. Also Citizen Cav get an AP sidearm while Prodromoi get a useless short cavalry sword.
I don't see too much problem in leaving the "Eastern" cavalry units such as Medians and Armenian Mediums at 60 men since presumably they would field more cavalry and without javelins they are mostly relegated to anti-cavalry duties. The Cappadocians I think just need to be restored to the original EB unit without the armored horse. I understand the point to give Pontos a heavily armored cavalry unit but they are poor as chargers so there really isn't much point to them as is since they are too heavy to be anti-charger/cataphract cavalry.
Also, in the current state, Hippeis and the two Equites units both do nothing as units except add cavalry bulk to a melee. They are poor chargers and their sidearm, the shorter cavalry sword doesn't even scratch opponents. There isn't much point to either unit unless their secondary is made more useful.
antisocialmunky
12-08-2011, 15:14
Should I just not apply the horse cost reduction to the Hispanic Auxilia?
The way cav costs work is that you treat the number of soldiers in the unit as 1.5 times the actual number of soldiers in the unit. I've thought about better ways to do the costing but this is the most balanced one I could find when I modified the old EB system.
That's pretty good maybe you should make the man cost 1 and the horse cost between .2 and .5?
TheShakAttack
12-08-2011, 15:15
Sounds good with the exception of Carthaginian citizen cav who are statted as having same armor as Gallic and Thracian Aux cav.
I agree that steppe cavalry be allowed to stay at 60 since they rely on cavalry heavily.
I am however a bit torn up over Median and Armenian cav; I would like to say that they should be considered steppe, but that would not be wholly accurate. If Mada's were factional, I would certainly say that they should remain at 60. However, AS and Baktria also get access to them, which makes it complicated (not so much Baktria, more AS). From a historical perspective, do you think Medes produced cavalry in very large numbers to a far enough extent to warrant this? Also, both units are not very heavily armored- they have +1 armor (8) compared to curisi (7). Perhaps the two in conjunction is enough of an argument to warrant retention of 60 cav unit?
Well the armour stat considers helmet too and maybe something else...
I was focused on body armour only, and the skin of Prodromoi has metal scales, while the Karti Parasim doesn't...
The Prodromoi being useless in melee is right and very accurate, checked the stats and yes they are the same, imo Prodromoi should have a slightly better armour and charge, the Karti afterall are well-off merchants, who only in time of crisis go to battle, I doubt they trained a lot, so we might even reduce their charge...
As for eastern cavalry, they had great breeding skills and valuable stocks, but my point is about the arming process...
I think that those armed only with leather should still count as light, the troubling unit to fit in are Curisi, they were excelent bands, yet they have only a plate covering the heart, I'd see them as light too...
While Medians and Armenians are quite armoured, yes, they had remarkable stocks, but could they've armed so many? iirc is foreign powers that had the wealth to do so...
Leaving 60 men to them could end with the same unbalance that Aux currently have, most of you are focussed on the javelins, but what atm is favouring Hispanics (for example) is the size and AP in melee, coupled with their high armour value...
As for Hippeis and Eqvites, having them numerous is just historically ridiculous...
It's just me maybe, but those units are supposed to be awful and giving them better stats or bigger sizes due to gameplay (ignoring history) is wrong...
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-08-2011, 17:52
Well the Armenian Mediums don't come cheap and the fact is, as Hai you either get the really poor Medium Asian cav or them to counter enemy medium cavalry since all you have left is cataphracts and pseudo-catas (kinsmen). I don't think they are imbalanced since they cost nearly 3000 iirc. Again thats a pretty penny to pay for specialized cavalry. Medians are considerably cheaper, but also not as good. I'd rather they both stay at 60 but I'm not going to fight it either way.
I'd make the Hai mediums 50, giving them a price around 2.5k, imo this is even better gameplaywise, 'cos if you spend 3k on medium cav and most of the times you gonna need two, after that if you take catas, your mnai is pretty much gone XD
-Stormrage-
12-08-2011, 20:35
could they've armed so many? iirc is foreign powers that had the wealth to do so
U dudes do too much history, just remember its a battle not a campaign :D
gamegeek2
12-08-2011, 21:37
Slightly OT: What would you guys think of a universal lethality decrease for all AP weapons by 0.02?
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-08-2011, 21:57
Not universally 0.02, that favors high lethality weapons. Maybe -0.03 for weapons over 0.2 and -0.02 for weapons under 0.2?
Btw, I like the idea especially if we reduce missile ammo.
Edit: Guild Warriors are too powerful when compared to Thracian Rhomphs and Kluddargos/Lugii. The ap more than makes up for the different in lethality. Can this be edited somewhat?
Rob's proposal sounds good :)
gamegeek2
12-09-2011, 01:00
Rob's proposal is good. I recommend that foot archer units have 20-25 arrows per man for Tier 2 archers and 16-20 arrows per man for Tier 1 archers. I wouldn't cut it more than that, at least for now.
Lethality is independent of attack, wasn't this discussed already?
Still on high lethality ap wepons a reduction of 0.02 has a smaller impact relatively then on low lethality ap weapons. Actually I'm not sure, I can agree. Axes already are heavily weakened, I'd not use them anymore e.g. with the Celts with 0.02 lethality less.
antisocialmunky
12-09-2011, 07:15
Same amount of arrows for Tier 2 archers, they have fewer arrows over all due to how the sizes work.
Will there be any attempt by you to make a SP version of this EDU, gamegeek?
TheShakAttack
12-10-2011, 10:08
GG2, please take away system of "light arrows". Right now it only applies to Komatai and Cretans IIRC. Unless of course there is historical evidence backing it up.
On that note, I am not entirely sure I agree with the system of light and medium javs from a historical perspective either.
The above 2 points are strictly in the sense of "deciding" which units should get which.
Also, I am pro-retention of Medians and Armenians retaining 60 cav units. Re: Armenians though, I think a decrease might make them more useful since they are quite expensive, similar in line to the Katpatuka. Strictly from a historical perspective, these 2 units give factions an advantage in cav v cav battle. I think that is quite "appropriate/accurate".
On that note, I am not entirely sure I agree with the system of light and medium javs from a historical perspective either.
I'm not sure about the details but clearly different kind of javelins were used. Not only roman ila and soliferum are notable also some celtic javelines were pretty heavy. I tihnk it's quite accurate to give the usual skirmishers light javelines while the infantry carry heavier javs.
TheShakAttack
12-10-2011, 11:01
I'm not sure about the details but clearly different kind of javelins were used. Not only roman ila and soliferum are notable also some celtic javelines were pretty heavy. I tihnk it's quite accurate to give the usual skirmishers light javelines while the infantry carry heavier javs.
I only meant light and medium jav used by infantry n cav. No problems.with darts etc. or difference between skirmisher and infantry jav.
In other words we should look to give units in same category same jav unless we know of reason y they shouldn't, eg sweboz are recorded deviation
It is also extremely ridiculous that Germanic cavalry can beat Numidians.
It is also extremely ridiculous that Germanic cavalry can beat Numidians.
Depends. In melee it should be fine but if you're talking about skirmish, I can agree with you.
TheShakAttack
12-10-2011, 11:43
Agreed with Kiv. However, even in skirmish, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere- Germ cav used larger, heavier javelins that were more or less "spears" so as long as they are quite close, they should have more kills per volley. However, "over the course" of the skirmish, I agree that Numidians should win due to more javs and better range. Possibly better accuracy too? (since they uber specialised in throwing javs and were quite crap in anything else including melee)
In terms of Germ cav, I think the framea base range should be reduced by 5 to keep it in line with the system which appears to indicate that every +1 attack has a reduction of 5 range.
Javelin Missle Weapons (first number = attack, second = range):
Light Jav: 6,55>>>.01pj
Medium Jav: 8,45>>>.02pj
Heavy Javs: 9,40>>>.03pj
Throwing Spear/Framea: 10,40>>>.04pj
The Celtic Viking
12-10-2011, 12:53
It is also extremely ridiculous that Germanic cavalry can beat Numidians.
No, it isn't. Germanic cav cost about 750 mnai more than Numidians, but even ignoring that they should be superior in melee. As GG2 has pointed out many times as well, zeh Germans were famous for their skill with the javs too, and they used heavier javelins than Numidians do. I would say though that the Numidians are better at skirmishing as is, as they have much longer range and 6 more javelins than the Germans do. They're also better chargers thanks to having underhand spears, even though the Germanics are remarkably good at it too (for having OH spears).
Also, I am pro-retention of Medians and Armenians retaining 60 cav units. ... Strictly from a historical perspective, these 2 units give factions an advantage in cav v cav battle. I think that is quite "appropriate/accurate".
Since when capable means numerous?
Treat them as the medium cavalry they were, maybe give them even a bump in the stats...
It is also extremely ridiculous that Germanic cavalry can beat Numidians.
I can't think of an encounter between the two in history atm...
But Numidians were said to be the best in Africa, iirc, and the few episodes we have are about them overcoming roman cavalry, which isn't anything special...
TheShakAttack
12-10-2011, 16:38
TCV, to a certain extent I agree with you and you are correct. But numidians are pretty crappy chargers in the sense that every charge they make results in serious depletion due to very low armor and fighting skill. Their awesomeness is purely in skirmishing.
Well, Roman cavalry whilst not special, were not terrible. They beat much vaunted Thessalians under Pryhhus.
The notoriety Germ cav gained was much more due to their "crazy" charges into situations which were pretty hopeless and fighting it out (ie. very high morale). This made cav opponents rather weary of them. The cavalry was not very well known for skirmishing at all.
Further, in terms of the Framea, I think giving them 4 is too much. As said previously, they were so large they were both used as spears and as javs. However, for gaming reasons, giving them just 1-2 would be pretty crappy compared to how many other units get. Therefore, range should be reduced in line with rest of javs.
The Celtic Viking
12-10-2011, 16:53
Therefore, range should be reduced in line with rest of javs.
What do you mean? They already have shorter range than any other skirmishing cav (except Celto-Germs, who are using the same type of javs and have the same).
Over any range germanic cavalry will still win in skirmish.
Further, in terms of the Framea, I think giving them 4 is too much. As said previously, they were so large they were both used as spears and as javs. However, for gaming reasons, giving them just 1-2 would be pretty crappy compared to how many other units get. Therefore, range should be reduced in line with rest of javs.
I don't think its weight was an issue, in relative terms a framea was of the proper size for the northern Europeans, who were taller and bigger...
Few centuries later Norse people even threw two large spears at the same time...
Well, Roman cavalry whilst not special, were not terrible. They beat much vaunted Thessalians under Pryhhus.
That just never happened...
At Heraclea the Thessalikoi and Makedones got rid of the roman cavalry quickly and then charged and routed the infantry...
At Asculum Pyrrhos won the flanks; while at Maleventum his own elephants panicked on his line and most of all he couldn't manouver due to the trees...
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-10-2011, 17:20
As far as making specialized "skirmisher" cavalry more effective, there are horse models with jav saddlebags. I'm not sure if they have been removed by gg2 in the mounts edit. These horses could represent the ability to carry about 14-16 javs which would make these units much more effective at harassing enemy cavalry.
TheShakAttack
12-10-2011, 17:43
Please refer to earlier post which indicated +1 attack (in jav) = "5" less range.
Re: Thessalian- Plutarch, Pryhhus, 15-17
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0060%3Achapter%3D17%3Asection%3D1
I guess my use of word "beat" might have been unclear. They were winning battle till Mr P decided to use the Eles.
@Robin: I think that's a decent idea- but only numidian and iberian cav should get it I think. I'm not sure how effective "asian" cav were at skirmishing with javs.
As far as making specialized "skirmisher" cavalry more effective, there are horse models with jav saddlebags. I'm not sure if they have been removed by gg2 in the mounts edit. These horses could represent the ability to carry about 14-16 javs which would make these units much more effective at harassing enemy cavalry.
Win
I guess my use of word "beat" might have been unclear. They were winning battle till Mr P decided to use the Eles.
That's about the other flank and the center...
Thessalikoi at that point were no way near, as they pulled back from the right as reserves...
Plus there was infantry advancing, that in no way speaks of gallant roman cavalry...
TheShakAttack
12-10-2011, 19:20
Hmm, perhaps. Most of the stuff I've read seems to indicate there was a cav clash which the romans were doing very well in though. Upon a google, the wiki entry also comes up. Unfortunately, it appears you are correct and that Plutarch does not really indicate who his cav were "giving way" against- infantry or cavalry.
The passage you posted is about the first "charge", which Pyrrhos attempted to disrupt the roman formation or at least slow down their river crossing, he went ahead with only 2.000-3.000 of his cavalry, and they retreated when the infrantry caught up with the roman cavalry and started to support it...
While as for the elephants: the roman infantry was pushing Pyrrhos' left and the cavalry started to manouver in order to flank, seeing that the elephants were moved from the reserve, and they scared off the cavalry, who didn't even engage...
At that point the elephants wheeled on the infantry, while the Thessalikoi from the reserve charged the disrupted infantry and the mass rout started...
TheShakAttack
12-10-2011, 22:11
Though it does read that way, I cannot agree that either way is conclusive. Most accounts I have read seem to indicate it was a cav v cav that Pryhhus was losing, and then used eles. However, in Plutarch, the battle is recorded very summarily so it is not very clear what he meant. It is possible that other people have "read into it" and added their own stuff/thoughts. If you read wiki entry for instance, the description is a lot more detailed and contains info not found in Plutarch. It also elaborates battle into distinct phases, which implies, that the passage on cav doing badly was not Epriote cav vs roman infantry whilst crossing the river.
Ugh...
Though it does read that way
Where?
But when he saw a multitude of shields gleaming on the bank of the river and the cavalry advancing upon him in good order, he formed his men in close array and led them to the attack.
Roman cavalry already crossed and Pyrrhos moves out to intercept and disrupt the crossing (of the rest of the roman army)...
Both horses fell, but while Pyrrhus was seized and rescued by his friends, the Italian, fighting to the last, was killed. He was a Frentanian by race, captain of a troop of horse, Oplax by name.
During the melee with the cavalry, looking for glory an Italic charges the Aetos of Epeiros, his bodyguards save him and kill the assailer...
This taught Pyrrhus to be more on his guard; and seeing that his cavalry were giving way, he called up his phalanx and put it in array, while he himself, after giving his cloak and armour to one of his companions, Megacles, and hiding himself after a fashion behind his men, charged with them upon the Romans. But they received and engaged him, and for a long time the issue of the battle remained undecided; it is said that there were seven turns of fortune, as each side either fled back or pursued.
After such an episode, Pyrrhos decides to fall back: the phalanx had arrived and it engaged the Romani (infantry had crossed and most likely was fighting alongside the cavalry, who retreated aswell seeing the phalangitai deployed)...
Or they simply teleported and engaged the pikes?
In the mean time the Basileos had repositioned behind the line and even changed armour with a somatophylax...
While the melee took place with turning tides of favour...
there was joy and shouting among the Romans, and among the Greeks consternation and dejection, until Pyrrhus, learning what was the matter, rode along his line with his face bare, stretching out his hand to the combatants and giving them to know him by his voice. At last, when the Romans were more than ever crowded back by the elephants, and their horses, before they got near the animals, were terrified and ran away with their riders, Pyrrhus brought his Thessalian cavalry upon them while they were in confusion and routed them with great slaughter.
Megakles is killed and both sides think Pyrrhos is dead, this makes the Romani push even further/commit all their troops, but they give their rear to the elephants...
While the cavalry "before they got near" flees in terror; Thessalikoi are moved from the reserve and they mass rout everyone...
In recap: the cavalry contingents engaged for some time near the river (by the account only the Thessalikoi and Makedones: that's 2-3.000 vs as many as 6.000 roman and italic cavalry, since the consul wasn't there I'd say that who actually fought were the 3.600 socii plus 1.200 Hellenes), when both infantries arrived they dismissed (in such scenario the Romani were closer to their cavalry and most likely assisted them, only divided by the river, while the Apeirotai were further away since their cavalry set out to stop the enemy's advance)...
Later the foot melee took place, the roman cavalry was pressing against the Tarantinoi and Molossoi, finally Megakles gets killed (the heavy cavalry was kept in reserve)...
Thinking they had won, Romani started to press harder, to get scared off by elephants and crushed by the heavy cavalry...
I can't make the narrative any clearer XD
was a cav v cav that Pryhhus was losing, and then used eles.
Yes, against the light cavalry and the "decoy", I hope you understood that it wasn't against the Thessalikoi...
Btw the cavalry that engaged for most of the battle wasn't even roman, so in the end this doesn't speak of their prowess...
To the contrary shows how professional macedonian, molossian and thessalian cavalrymen were: engaged and stalled a superior force assisted at some point by infantry, regrouped and brought an end to the battle with a charge...
TheShakAttack
12-11-2011, 01:10
Ah ok, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
This threw me off: "There is a misconception that Roman Republican cavalry was inferior to other cavalry and that they were just to support their far superior infantry. However, Philip Sidnell, argues that this view is misguided and that the cavalry was a powerful and crucial asset to the Republican army.[23]
Sidnell argues that the record shows that Roman cavalry in Republican times were a strong force in which they bested higher reputed cavalry of the time. Examples include the Heraclea (280 BC), in where the Roman cavalry dismayed the enemy leader Pyrrhus by gaining the advantage in a bitterly contested melee against his Thessalian cavalry, then regarded as the finest in the world, and were only driven back when Pyrrhus deployed his elephants, which panicked the Roman horses."
I read his book about warhorses and I agree that it's not true that the cavalry was just there to support infantry...
But as often happens with the SPQR, all gets labeled "roman", his example stands a lot on the cavalryman dismaying Pyrrhos, from the account you can see that he was from the people of the Adriatic...
Plus in that battle overall, as for cav vs cav, was: 4.000 vs 6.000 (1.200 roman)...
Italic folks had decent cavalry contingents, and during the hellenistic period, the republic had cavalrymen achieving great tasks, but surely weren't Romani, or at least only in minority...
TheShakAttack
12-11-2011, 02:14
Coolio. Thanks for sharing :)
His point wasnt only about Roman cav being defensive vs other cav, he was saying they were quite effective, though you are correct, that only very few would be "roman citizen" proper.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-11-2011, 03:30
These would be the Equites Extraordinarii who are excellent cavalry, if just a little expensive for the Romans.
gamegeek2
12-13-2011, 15:05
In fact the Extraordinarii are statistically identical to the Thessalikoi except for cost (at least that's what I intended).
antisocialmunky
12-13-2011, 15:24
:daisy:
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-13-2011, 21:11
:daisy:
How nice of you to add cheer to our message board ASM.
I don't think EE are statistically equal to Thessalians but in my opinion, that is fine since Polybian and Camillan Roman infantry is so dirt cheap.
TheShakAttack
12-13-2011, 22:39
Lol Ludens :)
antisocialmunky
12-14-2011, 03:53
:daisy:
Legalist.
I propose this thread be considered not part of this website and be treated separately with our own rules :P
TheShakAttack
12-15-2011, 02:02
And I propose we all get $1 trillion cash and a HA cataphract unicorn courtesy of totalwar.org
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-15-2011, 03:16
And I propose we all get $1 trillion cash and a HA cataphract unicorn courtesy of totalwar.org
Cataphracts are OP'd little :daisy:
I just would like to ask: Are you still trying to finish things? Otherwise we might just finish saka ourselves for now, if you do not have the time gamegeek?
(.@The Celtik Viking: Your Private Messages Folder is full, you need to delete some old messages)
gamegeek2
12-20-2011, 22:54
Sorry if this wasn't made clear, I can't work on the EDU until after January 1st at the earliest.
Oh, I might have not seen, that you said that before. Maybe we can make a proto-version until you can do yours. We'll see.
'''
Oh, I might have not seen, that you said that before. Maybe we can make a proto-version until you can do yours. We'll see.
'''
Are the hotfixes not community-made versions of the EDU, even partially? Certainly looks to be that way. Do it soon, do it well, get it done!
Are the hotfixes not community-made versions of the EDU, even partially? Certainly looks to be that way. Do it soon, do it well, get it done!
Sure. But until now the goal was only to fix minor errors, not inlcuding the whole saka roster into the 3.0 system.
Sure. But until now the goal was only to fix minor errors, not inlcuding the whole saka roster into the 3.0 system.
Yes but I can't imagine anything wrong with this picture if there are many players who wish to play using/against the Saka, if it just means the players or a player implementing the Saka, to their capability. I can see how that could be used, even if temporarily (i.e., until Saka is integrated into the EBO MP EDU development line).
I should make clones of myself then?
I should make clones of myself then?
Yes.
http://memepics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/king-leonidas-exploitable-template.png
*dustballs roll through the empty network*
antisocialmunky
12-23-2011, 23:53
Its not campaigning season.
TheShakAttack
12-24-2011, 02:11
Indeed. 'tis the season to be jolly.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-24-2011, 05:11
Its not campaigning season.
Lol. Thank you ASM, for the EB related humor. Yeah, after Christmas I'll be happily back on the network.
It's winter. You guys are supposed to be hunting, not warring. Hunt to keep those skills sharp for when spring and summer come!
antisocialmunky
12-25-2011, 05:38
When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives.
When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives.
I don't like that, not one bit. Why is it trending? I don't see why!
Christmas is over, when are you people hauling yer arse back to the network?
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-26-2011, 16:06
Now is the day we have to return the gifts we didn't want/don't fit.
I won't bet on much action until next year.
Brave Brave Sir Robin
12-28-2011, 03:58
Luckily next year is only 4 days away:yes:
Brave Brave Sir Robin
01-01-2012, 17:36
Yeah work stinks this time of year. 3-11 6 days a week leaves little time for gaming. I'll be on tomorrow.
capomafioso
01-02-2012, 02:12
whats going on with the edu, i keep having different game versions to people because of hotfixes and holidays, if vartan could update the ebonline getting started section to whatever version everyones using it would be easier
whats going on with the edu, i keep having different game versions to people because of hotfixes and holidays, if vartan could update the ebonline getting started section to whatever version everyones using it would be easier
You'll want to use the version found in the original post of the 'hotfix' thread by Shak. That's what people should be using (it is a hotfix based on the version found at EBO). I'll be updating EBO as soon as gg2 gets back to work at which point this (if you will) 'unofficial' hotfix series will be re-integrated as it were with the main EBO MP EDU line (i.e., the ones we use for standardizing organized tournaments).
capomafioso
01-03-2012, 05:56
alright thanks for the update
gamegeek2
01-23-2012, 05:21
Update:
I am currently devising a new ammunition system. The way it will work is as follows:
Every unit with the same type of bow will have the same number of arrows distributed collectively among the soldiers in the unit. This way, each archer unit will fire the same total number of arrows, which should do good work towards powering up smaller, less numerous, and less armored archer units that often get overwhelmed by Persian archers in firefights. This will also help balance out horse archers against foot archers, especially because the horse archers' bows will have very high base ammo stats. Here's an example:
Stats in this order: Attack, Range, Base Cost (includes training), Ammo per Unit (Divide by # of soldiers on Large size to get ammo per soldier)
Persian Composite Bow: 5, 180, .45, 2100
To give an example, Persian Archers have 120 men, whereas Persian Heavy Archers have 90 men. This means that each soldier in the former unit will have 18 arrows (rounds up from 17.5), whereas each soldier in the latter unit will have 23 arrows (rounded down from 23.333; I am considering making it 24, though; what do you guys think?).
A side effect of the new system will be an overall reduction in the number of arrows each unit has, which is something that I believe a number of players had been calling for last time EBOnline games were firing.
I am also looking for volunteers to help me troubleshoot the new EDU as I intend to implement the Bosporan mod in the next update (EDU v3.1). I request that everyone first save copies of their descr_model_battle file, as I want at least one clean copy of that file (I don't have one at the moment) before I move ahead with it.
Why fix what is not broken?
The Celtic Viking
01-23-2012, 19:07
That would've been an excellent question had it been relevant to this situation. It clearly is not, because as is steppe foot archers are useless because of their low numbers coupled with a rather high cost/man. I would call that "broken". If this fixes that, then I think that's great, and if a side effect of it is that it also fixes another problem... well, what's not to like?
All I have to say to you gg2 is...good job.
capomafioso
01-24-2012, 08:29
tried to have a game with a new guy frtigern tonight but when he installed the "d" hotfix or 3.0 edu his mp game kept crashing, apparently the mp game was working before he installed hte hotfix so any ideas on what this could be? if this is the wrong place to ask this sort of question forgive my trespasses lol
gamegeek2
01-24-2012, 17:11
If anyone else has a better idea, I'm very open to hearing them out.
How about pre 3.0 which everyone beside storm was fine with?
How about pre 3.0 which everyone beside storm was fine with?
Your assumption is wrong.
If anyone else has a better idea, I'm very open to hearing them out.
HAs with lots, lots and mmmm lots of arrows ^^
But reduce their range, or is it already? (smaller bows due to being mounted)...
Rest as you were planning is perfect, wealthier = bigger quiver and more arrows...
gamegeek2
01-24-2012, 20:41
The beauty of the composite bow design was precisely that you didn't really sacrifice much power by shrinking size. Composite bows got a power boost when the new asymmetrical "Hun Bow" was introduced but the number of arrows found in graves after Hun Bows start showing up goes down significantly, suggesting that bigger bows meant fewer arrows.
The beauty of the composite bow design was precisely that you didn't really sacrifice much power by shrinking size.
I mostly had in mind the accuracy (even though, with packed infantry you don't really need it) and most of all the players going "What have you done!?! HAs are OP" :D
Indian Longbowmen and steppe or near-steppe foot archers should have longer range than at least non-saka Horse-archers though.
antisocialmunky
01-25-2012, 07:15
Make it:
ammo = k*sqrt(big unit size/standard unit size)
So units get slightly more ammo per man since the big archer untis are crappier shots.
gamegeek2
01-26-2012, 19:17
Hmm...let's do some math on that. I would only apply that to foot archers though, as the wealth factor in horse archer ammo (upper tier horse archers are almost exclusively nobles, but they aren't too much better shots) seems very important. We also need to keep the strength of archers at a level that having access to mass archer levies is a significant advantage for Eastern factions. Hence, I'm actually thinking your proposal is the most reasonable.
To calculate the aggregate number of arrows for a given unit, we could instead try the formula:
A = srt(N)(K), where A is the total number of arrows. Ammunition per man = A/N, so hence M = K/sqrt(N), and K is a constant set differently for each bow.
For horse archers, we would use a different formula: A = NK, and K-values would be counted as 10x higher for horse archers than for foot archers. This would be to ensure a significant disparity between the number of arrows nobles carry and the number that common horse archer carry. We've established a rule limiting 50-man horse archers and bow-wielding generals to carrying the same number of arrows as 60-man horse archers with the same bow, in order to prevent the overpowering of cataphract archers, Roxolani nobles, and the like (as these units are almost good enough on their own without bows).
Let's try some test numbers:
If K for the Scythian/Sarmatian/Parthian bow is set at 250,
90-man Mardian archers would have 26 arrows per man.
80-man Bosporan archers would have 28 arrows per man.
70-man Sarmatian HAs would have 36 arrows per man.
60-man Noble Sarmatian HAs would have 42 arrows per man.
50-man Roxolani Noble HAs would have 42 arrows per man.
If we set K for the Persian/Mediterranean bow at 200,
120-man Persian archers would have 18 arrows per man.
90-man Numidian archers would have 21 arrows per man.
80-man Syrian archers would have 22 arrows per man.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.