[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[gamegeek2]

--- EBO EDU v3.0 Testing and Update Thread ---

NOTES FOR CURRENT VERSION

HERE ARE THE UNITS CURRENTLY UPDATED TO 3.0

-ALL FACTIONS EXCEPT THE SAKA RAUKA


Information on the new battle system can be found in the documentation.

The download for the most recent version can be found here: http://www.mediafire.com/?jnkb1l9a7kvyhbv
Latest Update: 11/4/11 @11:12 PM Eastern Time

INSTRUCTIONS:

Download the rar and extract the four files into EB\Data (wherever that is located on your computer). In addition, copy the new export_descr_unit file into the EB\mp game edu backup folder.

I encourage you to post any and all questions that you have, I will be glad to answer them. Please do have a look at the EDU before firing questions off.

[antisocialmunky]

I can test Today (Saturday 8/13).

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

hi all,

Testing the vers.3.0 with B.Sir Robin we noticed that cavalry is very slow to moving.

I also don't agree with cohors lower morale: I explain this point.
I played against B.Sir R. gauls and I've deployed my imperial cohortes in front of him, and in guard mode.
I also deployed some cohors behind my first line.
The gauls attaked my first line from the front.
Incredibly, after one minut, one cohors routed and all my cohors (engaged only from the front) leave the field.

I think the cohors should not be a super-killer unit in attak, but it should be quite good (or at least decent) in defence.
The lower morale feels very much, this thing maybe needs to be fixed.

[-Stormrage-]

Cohorts need higher morale. Archers need Poor morale. A cav charge should insta rout archers.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

hi all,

Testing the vers.3.0 with B.Sir Robin we noticed that cavalry is very slow to moving.

I also don't agree with cohors lower morale: I explain this point.
I played against B.Sir R. gauls and I've deployed my imperial cohortes in front of him, and in guard mode.
I also deployed some cohors behind my first line.
The gauls attaked my first line from the front.
Incredibly, after one minut, one cohors routed and all my cohors (engaged only from the front) leave the field.

I think the cohors should not be a super-killer unit in attak, but it should be quite good (or at least decent) in defence.
The lower morale feels very much, this thing maybe needs to be fixed.

To be fair, the cohort unit I routed was engaged from front by neitos and on the flanks by gaesatae with carnutes chanting away behind them so this is what started the rout. However, cavalry moves FAR too slow, tired cavalry moving about the same speed as winded infantry and this was heavy infantry too. In fact, the horses look like they are moving in slow motion. Also, not liking the extra men in missile units. Clogs up the battlefield with men in loose formation.

[Vega]

This is not making sense ACS is totaly right i just played with WordlyBoar few moments ago and this battle proved that something should be fixed, cohorts routed and altrough they lost only 15-20 men its not so real i save battle as well to see this unrealistic battle I think Ceasar had bigger IQ than Ainstein when he counquered whole gallic tribes lol... http://www.mediafire.com/?s6vlvy18imyjlzo I played with Gauls just to tell that its not about my frustration, its about Roman Faction

[WorldlyBoar]

Yeah I was the Romans and I left that side of the battle field to Flank right, I was in a good position and was sure they would hold for 30 seconds, when I turned the camera I see the whole of my middle line routing. I think the only thing holding in the left side of my line was the general....

[The Celtic Viking]

This is not making sense ACS is totaly right i just played with WordlyBoar few moments ago and this battle proved that something should be fixed, cohorts routed and altrough they lost only 15-20 men its not so real i save battle as well to see this unrealistic battle I think Ceasar had bigger IQ than Ainstein when he counquered whole gallic tribes lol... http://www.mediafire.com/?s6vlvy18imyjlzo I played with Gauls just to tell that its not about my frustration, its about Roman Faction

This thread is for testing 3.0, that battle was played on 2.1.1.

Anyway, the battle doesn't show the weakness of Roman morale, but the strength of the double-scare, i.e. chariots + gaesatae/uirodusios/pictones/any-scare-infantry, especially against someone who for whatever reason hasn't brought any eagle units. It doesn't serve as an argument that legionnaires should have a morale bump at all.

[vartan]

The reason it's a bad argument for legions getting morale bump is because what about nations that don't have any eagles or units as professional on the ground as Rome, such as Hayasdan? Surely you would not use such invalid reasoning. In fact, I might have to end up bringing two generals, one for each flank, because of this problem.

[gamegeek2]

Currently planning to shrink some western missile units, while you can expect Persian archers to have 120 men (large).

Also, tired cavalry are supposed to be damn near useless. I don't like these ahistorical charge-and-charge again - cavalry charges were a big committment, not something easy to call off if you messed up. Meanwhile, a good cavalry charge would be devastating, hence increased horse mass.

[Lazy O]

Thank u. Though I still dont care even if you give them 0 stamina. You cannot change the engine.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

This thread is for testing 3.0, that battle was played on 2.1.1.

Anyway, the battle doesn't show the weakness of Roman morale, but the strength of the double-scare, i.e. chariots + gaesatae/uirodusios/pictones/any-scare-infantry, especially against someone who for whatever reason hasn't brought any eagle units. It doesn't serve as an argument that legionnaires should have a morale bump at all.

Any scare infantry should not rout a cohors engaging from the front... this is the point.
The cohors morale of vers. 3.0 is the same of 2.1.1, I think (13)



Also, tired cavalry are supposed to be damn near useless. I don't like these ahistorical charge-and-charge again - cavalry charges were a big committment, not something easy to call off if you messed up. Meanwhile, a good cavalry charge would be devastating, hence increased horse mass.

Look that increasing mass you could create some bugs with infantry.
I've already tried to do it, and I see which, if you engage a phalanx with your super mass cavalry, the phalangites lost cohesion in strange way.
You could see some phalangites bringing the sarissa 50 meters out of phalanx formation ;-D

[The Celtic Viking]

Any scare infantry should not rout a cohors engaging from the front... this is the point.
The cohors morale of vers. 3.0 is the same of 2.1.1, I think (13)

They have 14 morale in 3.0. Why "any scare infantry" shouldn't be able to rout cohors from the front I've no idea as the majority of scare infantry are elites while cohors are not, but according to Robin they didn't even do that. They engaged your unit from the side, and it resulted in a chain-rout. Nothing special about that.

You still missed my point anyway, which Vartan tried to explain. The battle Vega uploaded doesn't serve as an argument to increase legionaire's morale, because the Aedui army was using the double-scare tactic and the Roman army had no eagles. You can use double-scare against [insert whatever army you like] to show that [insert same army] should get a morale increase that way, because the problem is not the morale of the legionnaire, but the effectiveness of double-scare.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

They have 14 morale in 3.0.


This is actually the 3.0 EDU:

1932

Then what are you talking about?

[Lazy O]

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining. stop blaming your losses on the EDU. Fact is you people get beaten by more mobile and versatile opponents, instead of ranting about your units, get better. Its getting pathetic now. We are not the campaign AI so dont expect us to sit there , soak up pila and then attack 100 man cohorts in guard mode with whatever in the face.

/rant

[The Celtic Viking]

This is actually the 3.0 EDU:

1932

Then what are you talking about?

1) You said Imperial Cohortes. Cohortes Reformata are Marians.

2) Way to completely ignore my argument! :applause:

[antisocialmunky]

This is actually the 3.0 EDU:

1932

Then what are you talking about?

You're going to have to stick a chevron on them to make them scary proof it seems or be extremely careful.

[Vega]

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining. stop blaming your losses on the EDU. Fact is you people get beaten by more mobile and versatile opponents, instead of ranting about your units, get better. Its getting pathetic now. We are not the campaign AI so dont expect us to sit there , soak up pila and then attack 100 man cohorts in guard mode with whatever in the face.

/rant

I could say something but i promised vartan that i will not, this is insulting me and ACS, and you dont have to be genius to win vs spqr like i wasnt when i played with gauls vs boar i atacked cohorts they trows pila and they was in guard mode that was useles cohorts routed after losing 15 men, the fact is that they are bad and slow killers and that symbol of SPQR rout after 10% lost army :stare: :inquisitive:

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining. stop blaming your losses on the EDU. Fact is you people get beaten by more mobile and versatile opponents, instead of ranting about your units, get better. Its getting pathetic now. We are not the campaign AI so dont expect us to sit there , soak up pila and then attack 100 man cohorts in guard mode with whatever in the face.

/rant

LazyO,TCV; Guys, please, respect the opinions of others, without saying "pathetic" and clapping ironically.
Otherwise you two will do a new edu and only you two will play it.

We want to improve the edu to make it realistic and have fun, every suggestions are precious.

The thing that I'm saying is that some romani units were weakened compared to the original edu.
So I think this is not the right way for having a good balance between factions in game.
This is my suggestion, nothing else.

[Lazy O]

What I see, is constant complaining of supposed underpowerement (new word, yay) of Roman Units which does not even exist.

[vartan]

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining [...]
Was this really necessary...? I am disappoint. :no:


I could say something but i promised vartan that i will not, this is insulting me and ACS, and you dont have to be genius to win vs spqr like i wasnt when i played with gauls vs boar i atacked cohorts they trows pila and they was in guard mode that was useles cohorts routed after losing 15 men, the fact is that they are bad and slow killers and that symbol of SPQR rout after 10% lost army :stare: :inquisitive:
I actually explained my analysis of that battle in detail in the Hamachi chat. Firstly, let me correct you in that WorldlyBoar's legions were mostly, if not all, out of guard mode. That's the first thing I looked for when I was reviewing the battle. It was my conclusion that due to a lack of first cohorts and a general, the Roman army was simply asking to have its morale lowered to the point where entire units would rout. It was simply a matter of time until the first routed. After that point, not only do you have a double-scare, but now you lose morale because your brothers-in-arm beside you are running for their lives.


LazyO,TCV; Guys, please, respect the opinions of others, without saying "pathetic" and clapping ironically.
Otherwise you two will do a new edu and only you two will play it.

We want to improve the edu to make it realistic and have fun, every suggestions are precious.

The thing that I'm saying is that some romani units were weakened compared to the original edu.
So I think this is not the right way for having a good balance between factions in game.
This is my suggestion, nothing else.
Romans were strengthened compared to the original EDU. The most important thing is their sword, and that was improved to kill more often (its lethality for instance is improved).

Also, if suggestions are so precious, please reconsider what you think about increasing heavy cavalry mass. Remember, we wish to simulate history better by making the exploitation of heavy cavalry less possible (cannot completely exterminate it). By this we mean to allow a cavalry commander a decisive charge (or two) that really matter, after which point you should not be able to keep hitting and running as if you're running on 500 horsepower. It's a horse carrying kilo after kilo of armour, not a Lamborghini (not that I like Lambos).


What I see, is constant complaining of supposed underpowerement (new word, yay) of Roman Units which does not even exist.
Do you mean to say people may be unintentionally contributing with deception? :laugh4: You need to give the benefit of the doubt and consider that the player is not informed (or has not reviewed) the changes in question. And I think it's underpowerment* :laugh4:

[vartan]

Because I love you guys so much. :2thumbsup:

https://i.imgur.com/yI79p.jpg

[Lazy O]

Yea it was necessary. Like vega complains something is wrong every single match.

[gamegeek2]

The suggested money amount for testing is 40000 mnai. For the new big Tier 2 units, you need it. Also expect an update later today.

First cohorts may seem expensive at first glance; but have a closer look. They not only carry a command eagle, they are veteran versions of regular cohorts; meaning they have superior javelin accuracy and fighting ability. With 16 morale, they are very difficult to rout, and inspire the rest of your army.

Notice also the option of bringing an expensive, but extremely powerful Praetorian unit. With 100 men, they will be the largest elite infantry unit in the game. They cost 3400 mnai but have devstatingly good accuracy with the javelin and excellent skills up close (they have 14 attack/0.15 leth and 29 defense!)

[The Celtic Viking]

LazyO,TCV; Guys, please, respect the opinions of others, without saying "pathetic" and clapping ironically.
Otherwise you two will do a new edu and only you two will play it.

Sarcastically.

Anyway, if you don't want your opinion to be criticized, then keep it to yourself. If you go public with it and suggest that we make changes that will affect others, then you should expect that other people might have their own opinions as well. It just won't do to give your opinion and then cry foul when someone disagrees.


We want to improve the edu to make it realistic and have fun, every suggestions are precious.

The thing that I'm saying is that some romani units were weakened compared to the original edu.
So I think this is not the right way for having a good balance between factions in game.
This is my suggestion, nothing else.

I have given you my criticism of your suggestion, which you have completely ignored twice now. See, that's what annoys me: your attempts to shift the focus anywhere but to my arguments. It seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you can't answer my points, because that would mean that I could actually be right. Which would mean that the arguments you've made would be invalid.

And that's just not possible.

[-Stormrage-]

I move to Give ALL archers Poor morale. This will cause them to insta rout at cav charges which is historical. An archer in the feild of battle would *** in his pants when he sees cav running towards him. The current system makes it so u need 2 cav charges to rout even the persian archers.

[Ludens]

Anyway, if you don't want your opinion to be criticized, then keep it to yourself.

This is absolutely true, but you can still criticise someone without getting disrespectful. If you can't say it politely, don't say it at all. That applies even when the other guy is talking nonsense.

[vartan]

I move to Give ALL archers Poor morale. This will cause them to insta rout at cav charges which is historical. An archer in the feild of battle would *** in his pants when he sees cav running towards him. The current system makes it so u need 2 cav charges to rout even the persian archers.
The problem with this is that missiles on skirmish mode would not receive any charges at all. Units could only pursue them. Hence, you still have to rely on using a relatively high attack, lethal unit (such as overhand spear light cavalry) in order to take out missile units.

This is absolutely true, but you can still criticise someone without getting disrespectful. If you can't say it politely, don't say it at all. That applies even when the other guy is talking nonsense.
Yes. Thankfully, we have not had any disrespect in this thread (you know what I mean, dearest Ludens). As for nonsense, a friend once said that nonsense can only be fought against with nonsense. Perhaps. But no worries, you won't see that in this thread.

[-Stormrage-]

I still insist Archers be given poor morale. Not all players use skirmish mode and if an archer is pursued by a cav it will rout almost immediately after a few seconds of engagment which is how it should be.

Poor morale to Archers.

and could more units have Bonus fighting cav in 3.0 ?

[antisocialmunky]

Would it be possible to make the veteran unit a smaller but veteran version of the 1st cohort? Afterall, they are the super experienced battled hardened guys and they don't seem to play that way in the old EDU.

Praetorians while somewhat historically fanciful are a really devastating assault infantry. As of right now, Rome plays a lot like a faster version of KH.

@TCV. There's a difference between criticizing someone's idea like you and saying your opinion doesn't matter because you write it off as whining. More directed at LazyO than you because you have a point about ACS ignoring you and no one likes that.

[gamegeek2]

I still insist Archers be given poor morale. Not all players use skirmish mode and if an archer is pursued by a cav it will rout almost immediately after a few seconds of engagment which is how it should be.

Poor morale to Archers.

and could more units have Bonus fighting cav in 3.0 ?

Missile Morale is being addressed in the upcoming update, which will make some other missile changes and add the Getai.

[Burebista]

Missile Morale is being addressed in the upcoming update, which will make some other missile changes and add the Getai.

Just don't nerf them please :) . Finally they are a viable faction , and only thanks to the Balcanic merc celts.
Suggestions for Getai :
Galla-thraikes and Taxeis triballoi are prety weak for their cost
We don't have a good AP unit. Maybe bump Pelekyphoroi Komatai ( 8 Att 16 Def no jav) a little? 100 unit size or smthing?
Drapanai ...just BAD
Ischiroi Orditon ...useless

[Vega]

I wrote something wrong so i just edited post to you guys dont see it lol P.S gg2 you dont believe me but i like your edu :DD
Maybe some fixing with nietos price :DD

[Scarf]

The Gaulish factions are a bit strange. During a game between me (Romani) and Vega (Aedui) we both couldn't help but think so.
My army had outnumbered them by 400 men or so, my infantry was bringing up a good fight and his cavalry didn't manage to deal much damage either. However, a few dozen seconds after an utterly ineffective charge from his brihentin that only left them surrounded by auxiliary spearmen, my entire infantry line just shattered and routed. It was strange because his army was taking a massive amount of casualties and it said I was winning in every infantry fight.
He explained that this was because of the morale influencing units he was using, and that they were scaring my men.
Now, this just doesn't make sense.
For starters, my infantry was cutting his up pretty good. That would've been a morale booster, I'm sure. By the time my men began to rout, his line was thin compared to mine. Even if there were naked men that were foaming from their mouths or something, the fact is that all the drug-induced rage wasn't saving them. He pointed out he was using chariots, but this made little sense too.
I mean, chariots? Seriously? What is it about chariots that somehow would make them terrifying?
Their effectiveness? Certainly not, they were seen as outdated for a good reason. The horses were vulnerable and they didn't have any way of attacking that cavalry couldn't do better. They were also quite sluggish compared to cavalry
The noise they make? No way. The sound of chariots would probably drowned in the sound of fighting. I don't know how creaking bouncing wheels would make the noise of galloping horses any scarier.
The way they look? Again, I don't see how they'd be scarier than horsemen, I'd be more likely to wet myself and run if I saw some Kataphractoi.
And to top it all off, my men couldn't even see them! They were way behind the enemy infantry! And if they could see them, they'd see that they were just idly standing there!
In other words, my men were scared off by non-combatants.

Another thing is the whole 2hp thing with the Gaesatae. I'd like to ask how their drug rage or whatever it is somehow makes them that incredibly tough? Sure, it would most certainly make them quite brave, but the fact is that they're naked. If they get hit by something, they're probably down. A javelin for example would incapacitate one. It doesn't matter if he doesn't even feel it, the fact is he just got a sharp piece of metal jammed inside him. Something in his body, be it a limb or an organ probably won't work any more and stop him from fighting. He'd probably just be lying around, bleeding and roaring, but he certainly wouldn't be fighting.
In melee combat, they'd probably not fight with too much focus, so I think we could safely assume that there would be many opportunities for a trained soldier to incapacitate them. To me they seem to be a unit that should only be effective if they caught an enemy by surprise.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I've tested the last vers. of edu 3.0, and I've also alredy added it on eb multi edu.
I want to express my satisfaction.
Increasing the shield value, now the romans units work in the right way: more strong in defence.
Then I agree with this changes.

Congrats to GG2.

[gamegeek2]

The Gaulish factions are a bit strange. During a game between me (Romani) and Vega (Aedui) we both couldn't help but think so.
My army had outnumbered them by 400 men or so, my infantry was bringing up a good fight and his cavalry didn't manage to deal much damage either. However, a few dozen seconds after an utterly ineffective charge from his brihentin that only left them surrounded by auxiliary spearmen, my entire infantry line just shattered and routed. It was strange because his army was taking a massive amount of casualties and it said I was winning in every infantry fight.
He explained that this was because of the morale influencing units he was using, and that they were scaring my men.
Now, this just doesn't make sense.
For starters, my infantry was cutting his up pretty good. That would've been a morale booster, I'm sure. By the time my men began to rout, his line was thin compared to mine. Even if there were naked men that were foaming from their mouths or something, the fact is that all the drug-induced rage wasn't saving them. He pointed out he was using chariots, but this made little sense too.
I mean, chariots? Seriously? What is it about chariots that somehow would make them terrifying?
Their effectiveness? Certainly not, they were seen as outdated for a good reason. The horses were vulnerable and they didn't have any way of attacking that cavalry couldn't do better. They were also quite sluggish compared to cavalry
The noise they make? No way. The sound of chariots would probably drowned in the sound of fighting. I don't know how creaking bouncing wheels would make the noise of galloping horses any scarier.
The way they look? Again, I don't see how they'd be scarier than horsemen, I'd be more likely to wet myself and run if I saw some Kataphractoi.
And to top it all off, my men couldn't even see them! They were way behind the enemy infantry! And if they could see them, they'd see that they were just idly standing there!
In other words, my men were scared off by non-combatants.

Another thing is the whole 2hp thing with the Gaesatae. I'd like to ask how their drug rage or whatever it is somehow makes them that incredibly tough? Sure, it would most certainly make them quite brave, but the fact is that they're naked. If they get hit by something, they're probably down. A javelin for example would incapacitate one. It doesn't matter if he doesn't even feel it, the fact is he just got a sharp piece of metal jammed inside him. Something in his body, be it a limb or an organ probably won't work any more and stop him from fighting. He'd probably just be lying around, bleeding and roaring, but he certainly wouldn't be fighting.
In melee combat, they'd probably not fight with too much focus, so I think we could safely assume that there would be many opportunities for a trained soldier to incapacitate them. To me they seem to be a unit that should only be effective if they caught an enemy by surprise.

Be extremely wary whenever you are facing the Celtic factions, as they are able to do a tactic called double-scare. There are two unit attributes that lower enemy morale: frighten_foot/frighten_mounted and druid. Chanting druids lower enemy morale and raise friendly morale; frighten_foot gives a penalty to the morale of nearby enemy infantry (command gives an equivalent bonus). I believe chariots and elephants give an additional penalty but I'm not sure.

There's an additional penalty to morale from a unit being flanked and I think it's even bigger if the unit is attacked in the rear.

I question the 2hp thing for the Gaesatae as well, but I'm not sure how we would compensate for its removal in game balance terms; I'll have to experiment on this when I get to the Germanic naked/elite scary units. Accounts do tell of them ripping javelins out of their bodies, throwing them back at the enemy, and continuing the fight, though.

Also, I am considering giving Kataphraktoi a frighten bonus as well, but I'm extremely loathe to give that to heavy cavalry, as those already murder morale with their charges. I'm definitely considering removing frighten_foot from the Celtic chariots; the scythed ones, however, would keep it because of their murderous scythes at the wheels.

[jirisys]

For the Gaisatai and most drugged fanatics, it would be good to have their extra HP removed, and add about 5 or 6 defense, they will be vulnerable to javelins, but not as OPd as they were before, when a full volley only killed like one of them. And they would also retain their high resistance to pain and injuries.

~Jirisys ()

[Lazy O]

Gaesate are fine as is. If you change them, do like 100 tests to make sure they dont get nerfed. And scarf, yea , I understand what you are talking about, Gallic factions actually do not give a crap if you outnumber them, if they have got 2 scaries, you ahve to wear them down, avoid being flanked, and try to limit the gaesate. They are murderous. Thing is, Druid scare+Naked Gaesate+Chariot will rout any elite.

[The Celtic Viking]

I'm definitely considering removing frighten_foot from the Celtic chariots

Then there would be absolutely no reason to use them, because they cost a lot, couldn't hurt a fly and instead drops like them; the only thing that makes them worthwhile is that fear factor, and the fact that it works together with infantry that causes fear. I also fear that doing this would also hurt Casse a lot, and make them not exactly Sweboz, but definitely a push in that direction - and they're already quite weak.

I do see the other side as well, but perhaps a better choice would be to do with them for the Gauls what is already done for the SPQR: make them bound to their reform. I.e., if you bring them as Gauls, you are limited to only pre-first-reform units, as they disappear for them afterwards. Or just make a slightly gamey move and remove them from the Gauls' roster, as they were mostly outdated there already at the start of the game. I don't think the double-scare tactic is as strong with Casse as it is with the Gauls, as you don't have the same quality infantrywise, and you don't have much other choice with them. But since Casse is hardly ever played with in MP that's of course just a guess on my side.

[-Stormrage-]

I question the 2hp thing for the Gaesatae as well, but I'm not sure how we would compensate for its removal in game balance terms;

I think you should Leave their 2hp alone, and remove that 4 armour they're getting from that helmet.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Please don't give cataphracts the scary trait! If anything, it should be removed from the super heavy armored infantry. The whole idea of scaring the enemy was because your opponent was so bold as to go naked that they must not fear battle at all! This might be a terrifying thought to someone more accustomed to tilling the fields than facing down a celtic warrior wearing nothing more than a torc.

As far as chariots, I can understand removing the scary trait from them but fear, like TCV, that this would seriously hurt the Casse. Also removing them from the mainland Gallic factions doesn't make that much sense as Gauls were using chariots as far along as Telamon against the Romans which is over 50 years into our timeframe. If anything should be done, the Druid unit should be removed from the Gallic rosters. These are only recruitable on Britain yet so are the Swordmasters and we don't see them in Gallic armies for mp. That way, only the Aedui would be able to bring a chanting unit (one which is more expensive) while the Arjos could be given a bit of a boost as well so that it would also make sense to play as Arverni. This would be a much better "fix" to the Gauls.

Also, now that I think about it, make the Carnutes 80 men and raise the price accordingly. It only serves to help the Gauls that they can bring a unit for a relatively cheap cost which is not supposed to fight in combat anyway.

[gamegeek2]

I did remove it from the super heavy infantry.

I suppose 80 man carnutes make sense as does the druid restriction.


I think you should Leave their 2hp alone, and remove that 4 armour they're getting from that helmet.

Wait, stat them as if they didn't have something that they did have, and the game shows they have?

Few quick updates coming soon.

[The Celtic Viking]

Also removing them from the mainland Gallic factions doesn't make that much sense as Gauls were using chariots as far along as Telamon against the Romans which is over 50 years into our timeframe.

Yes, I've admitted that it would be a gamey decision for that very reason. If you remove their fear trait, though, no Gallic player would use chariots anymore (why would you?), so in effect it would be the same, only now things are seriously worse for Casse.

Another option might be to remove the fear from the 40-man chariots, but keep it on the 20-man chariot, which is exclusive to the Casse. Though that's obviously gamey too, and inconsistent to boot. (And still a slight weakening of Casse.) Sigh. :shrug:


That way, only the Aedui would be able to bring a chanting unit (one which is more expensive) while the Arjos could be given a bit of a boost as well so that it would also make sense to play as Arverni. This would be a much better "fix" to the Gauls.

While I have thought about this before and, well, lets say "reluctantly came to the conclusion that the other position doesn't hold up". I've been very loath to admit it because there already is no sense in picking the Arverni, and this change would only make it even worse. It would have to be more than "a bit" of a boost, in other words.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

While I have thought about this before and, well, lets say "reluctantly came to the conclusion that the other position doesn't hold up". I've been very loath to admit it because there already is no sense in picking the Arverni, and this change would only make it even worse. It would have to be more than "a bit" of a boost, in other words.

When playing the Aedui last month, I came to the conclusion that I should have picked the Arverni actually. Arjos are simply the most cost effective line infantry there is. Ask Lazy as we had a battle where one unit of Arjos held off two units of Argyraspides for the entire battle! Making Carnutes more expensive along with a slight boost to Arjos would make it much more difficult to put together a heavier Gallic army as Aedui while it would be relatively simple as the Arverni.

[Vega]

Is this normal?! Cohorts now look like some kind of skirmishers this is totaly pathethic move i dont know why even you do this https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/rometw2011082000365881.jpg/ bcz they beat boi cingetos? of course that cohort will beat cingetos really pathetic what you exept now from hastati, nothing roman best atack was their exelent defence now that is totaly changed have some look on other factions and try to resolve iberian assualt spam or nietos spam instead of making cohorts to look even worse and like skirmishers, other factions with 40000 can bring OP army and you caught on ALL ROMAN INFRATRY which looks fine until you made this very bad mistake :oops: :beadyeyes2: I am really stubborn and nothing cant persuade me that i am wrong bcz everything i said is clear and right..

[jirisys]

What the hell are you talking about?

That's how hastati looked like in the times of the second punic war; poor. Same with the other two line-infantry classes, the triarii were only different because of their plate cuirass, and the principes because of their lorica hamata.

Besides, my Pontic cataphracts will rout whatever barbaroi coming to my lands! :laugh4:. Just kidding, but you should be glad, at least your line infantry is not Lugoae.

Also, you should implement short_pike attributes to hoplites in order to have more cohesive formations. And compensating for the spear and light_spear -4 def/attack bonus (respectively) to the stats.

~Jirisys ()

[-Stormrage-]

GG were you drunk when u updated the EDU? Elites have 60 men, persian archers now have 80 men, thesalians lost stamina and cost 4000 . spartans 3000 cost for 60 men.

[Lazy O]

Vega is right, carthage is horribly overpowered with 40k, you can spam an Iberian Assault numidian Archer and Lanceari army which is quite unbeatable. Plus you still have money left over for liby phoenician elites :/

[jirisys]

Vega is right, carthage is horribly overpowered with 40k, you can spam an Iberian Assault numidian Archer and Lanceari army which is quite unbeatable. Plus you still have money left over for liby phoenician elites :/

Aren't all the iberians OPd with AP?

And what about the mercenary/AOR limit?

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

What the hell are you talking about?
That wasn't nice. And what are you doing here? When do you ever play with these players whose arguments are based on experience playing one another, not with sub-mod creation and single player campaigns and AARs?
--------------------------------------------------------
I highly recommend picking one scare factor to remove from the Celts (Gauls? What do you call these people?! I hate to use these terms interchangeably, I feel like I'm making a major violation each time.) :stare: Really, if we look at the world map for EB, you only have these three factions that can utilize this freak tactic (please forgive my language) to call the shots. Can we get to a place where scare factors play more of a minor role, factions in question become less dependent on them, and good old churning out the carnage on the field becomes our pride and joy? Call me old and idealist. I think there is merit in this. Just my modest two pence for my fellows. :yes:

[Lazy O]

Actually no not all the iberians or any iberian unit is OP. 40k just permits spamming the elites which makes them op.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Yeah, the mnai limit didn't need to be increased if some of the medium infantry and missile units didn't receive extra men.

And @ storm, GG2 didn't get around to the Greek and Eastern factions yet so those units are statted as they were for vanilla EB.

[antisocialmunky]

Actually, I wouldn't mind it if you gave "Scares Foot" to cavalry if you take it off most non-naked infantry. Only few infantry should have it. It makes sense on cavalry Kataphractoi though, especially if you reduced their melee fighting/defensive ability due to the ridiculous armor or just gave them completely terrible stamina.



However, the design of the cataphract also presents some potential weaknesses. Besides requiring expensive maintenance, the heavy armor of cataphracts was at times unwieldy. The excessive armor made it difficult to flee from battle or perform quick maneuvering in battle. The inability to flee from battle due to armor has been mentioned in several occasions. Heliodorus wrote that the armor was so weighty that riders required assistance to mount their horses. This description was probably true, since unlike medieval cavalrymen, ancient cavalrymen did not have the benefit of the stirrup to mount their horses.

The lack of stirrups in ancient cavalry warfare also restricted the effectiveness of cataphracts in melee combat. While stirrups were not essential to charging (for which the saddle would be the most crucial), stirrups were important in providing the rider with stability in melee. In Crassus’ battle against the Parthians, Plutarch describes the vulnerability of cataphracts in maintained melee combat: “For they (the Roman cavalry) laid hold of the long spears of the Parthians, and grappling with the men, pushed them from their horses.” Such accounts may be anecdotal or artificial, but there is no doubt that riders who were unhorsed became easy prey, as they were probably too clumsy to quickly get up to fight in the middle of a melee. Heliodorus also mentions that cataphracts who were unhorsed were like logs on the ground.
http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=cataphracts

The only problem you would have is against 240 sized levy spearmen which are suppose to attrition them but would probably break due to scary charge. I really do like the idea of Kataphracts basically being a one time commit unit though. Their whole point was to break the enemy in a frontal charge after their lines were weakened. You didn't do fancy maneuvers or anything, you just shot the enemy up enough that you could break in a single massive charge after a few hours:)

It would atleast make for some interesting changes for cav fighting. It should only be done for the elite, 3.3K+ fully armored guys though or maybe just the super heavy elites like the Baktrian/Parthian Late and .

PS. The spacing on the Romans do look weird from that angle. I think you should change it back to where it was.
PPS. I like TCV's suggestion. I would actually remove the 40 sized chariots. They are basically completely unrealistic because they were mainly used as battle taxis for elites and not scythed chariots. Maybe just put eagles on them? If you remove scary from Gaullic chariots, you would probably want to put fire arrows back in.

[gamegeek2]

We should try both 36k and 40k.

I am almost positive that I should increase the cost of Iberian Assault infantry somehow.

My sense is that a troop of levy spears would break and run if they even saw cataphracts charging at them, or if they were hit by a cata charge.

[vartan]

If you remove scary from Gaullic chariots, you would probably want to put fire arrows back in.
While we're at it, let's put dogs and pigs back in as well.

We should try both 36k and 40k.

I am almost positive that I should increase the cost of Iberian Assault infantry somehow.

My sense is that a troop of levy spears would break and run if they even saw cataphracts charging at them, or if they were hit by a cata charge.
Could you respond to the second part of my post: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?137370-3.0-Thread-Testing-and-Updates&p=2053362064&viewfull=1#post2053362064

[Lazy O]

I will come at you at a stake if we end up on 36k and you still increase the cost of the Assault Infantry.

[The Celtic Viking]

(Gauls? What do you call these people?! I hate to use these terms interchangeably, I feel like I'm making a major violation each time.)

Gaul is a region in western Europe, Gauls are the Celts from that region. The term Celt, while covering the Gauls, also includes people not from Gaul, such as the Celts in Britain, Iberia, Galatia, Egypt etc. etc. In game terms, when you talk about "the Gauls", you speak of the Aedui and the Arverni, while "Celts" would also include the Casse.

As to your point, yes, I do agree, but I think it is only overpowered for the Gauls. For Casse that strategy isn't as strong due to having inferior infantry, especially now that (I take it) the Dubosaverlacica have lost/will lose their fear factor. Since Casse can't get the Gaesatae, their best scare infantry, unless they are given access to the Pictone Neitos, is the Uirodusios, and you know how easily they die.

With cavalry that is only good for chasing routers, you're basically forced to go for the double-scare anyway; if you can't, then why go for Casse? They've got worse infantry than Gauls and I've already said what I think of their cavalry.


Also, you should implement short_pike attributes to hoplites in order to have more cohesive formations. And compensating for the spear and light_spear -4 def/attack bonus (respectively) to the stats.

No, please don't do this. It has already been done with the Germanic pikes, and it looks completely ridiculous. I could never take hoplites seriously again if you did this.

(Oh, and if you give Kataphracts the scares infantry trait, you might as well have the Panzerlied come on when they move too. :p)

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

The weakness of Iberian Assaults and their cousins the Pedites Extraordinarii is their lack of defense against cavalry and ineffectiveness against lighter units. Don't use your heavy infantry against them people and make them the first targets for hammer and anvil attacks. I don't find PE/Iberian spam to be difficult to defeat.

[antisocialmunky]

I told you guys that 40K really favors successors and guys with lots of elite units to choose from.

You could go for 36K or 38K (we tested but also favors extremely powerful cavalry wings).

[Lazy O]

Problem is that with the Iberian assault spam you also get some of the best cavalry in the game :/ . At 36k, I had to compromise on any 1 or i get an ineffective army.

[Vega]

In edu 3.0 best archers should be boshporans, after them syrians romans cretans and dacian elite archers, no reason for owerpowering other kind of archers, i noticed also that komatai toxotai have biger range to atack my sagitary when i played with gg2, now with lowing nietos price i see that samnitici milities cost almost same as nietos even nietos are better unit, and other thing, now with new edu and with 36000 mnai spqr in imperial era its almost impossible to bring solid army with some heavy cav in that i mean also merc heavy.... must to say that polybians look exelent like they have to be...

P.S i know that this is just alpha edu and that we are just testing now but i had to post this

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, one of the big issues is army effectiveness at price points. If your army requires fielding a heavy cavalry arm, then you're going to be extremely good at 40K but you'll have to bring levys at 36K so you can actually bring a heavy cavalry arm. But because you have a proliferation of fearful units, it becomes very difficult to actually bring levys since Eagles don't counter act scariness that well and not everyone has access to eagles.

Now because infantry has been buffed extensively, you really need to invest in a heavy cavalry wing to have an effective heavy cavalry wing (ie, you can't bring 2 with only missiles and be fine, you need light infantry escorts and a ton of other things which are countered by the opponent just getting more heavy infantry).

We were able to get it working at 36K because Prodromoi, Celtic Hoplites, Pandas(I used to use them at size 240 AP axes because they were so good in melee), and Thracians were so cost effective and Rome/KH/Gauls/Asian factions were the most played. This wasn't perfect because Carthage/Germania/Luso/Getai weren't very well balanced at 36K with Carthage not being all that effective and the other factions being very good against certain factions and terrible against others.

[vartan]

Gaul is a region in western Europe, Gauls are the Celts from that region. The term Celt, while covering the Gauls, also includes people not from Gaul, such as the Celts in Britain, Iberia, Galatia, Egypt etc. etc. In game terms, when you talk about "the Gauls", you speak of the Aedui and the Arverni, while "Celts" would also include the Casse.
Thank you for clearing that up for me TCV. I appreciate it. :bow:

As to your point, yes, I do agree, but I think it is only overpowered for the Gauls. For Casse that strategy isn't as strong due to having inferior infantry, especially now that (I take it) the Dubosaverlacica have lost/will lose their fear factor. Since Casse can't get the Gaesatae, their best scare infantry, unless they are given access to the Pictone Neitos, is the Uirodusios, and you know how easily they die.
I agree. Casse should be promoted. People should be encouraged to play as them. Therefore, we should consider how we may make an exception of sorts for them while not providing the power to the Gauls.

And Antisocialmunky's historical overview of multiplayer EB is pretty accurate. :2thumbsup:

[-Stormrage-]

ok germainc auxillary cav are light cav, BUT THEY DONT DIE TO MY ARROW FIRE.

ALL light cav should die to arrow fire to make up for nerfing their armour which im assuming u will do just increase defense skill.

But bottom line ALL light cavalry have to die to arrow fire.

[-Stormrage-]

hi im new here

i just have to say listen to Storm he knows what he's talking about.

[Lazy O]

Its because of accuracy changes. They die jsut as fast as they used to.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

hi im new here

i just have to say listen to Storm he knows what he's talking about.

Very nice kind of spam ;-)

What do you think about changing every light_spear attribute in spear?
I've tried it and seems that spearmen become better against cavalry and worse against infantry.
I see also phalanx increase the attak power from the front, and weakens in back.

[gamegeek2]

Very nice kind of spam ;-)

What do you think about changing every light_spear attribute in spear?
I've tried it and seems that spearmen become better against cavalry and worse against infantry.
I see also phalanx increase the attak power from the front, and weakens in back.

It also causes buggy behavior and other things. The EB team changed to light_spear because of this, and I am keeping it that way.

Also I will not be online often for the next few days.


(ie, you can't bring 2 with only missiles and be fine, you need light infantry escorts and a ton of other things which are countered by the opponent just getting more heavy infantry).

This is where the utility of javelin cavalry comes in: they can assault the rear of the enemy line without having to get through the heavy infantry reserve. If the cavalry battle is no longer exclusively a heavy cavalry battle, then I have done my job right!

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

ok germainc auxillary cav are light cav, BUT THEY DONT DIE TO MY ARROW FIRE.

ALL light cav should die to arrow fire to make up for nerfing their armour which im assuming u will do just increase defense skill.

But bottom line ALL light cavalry have to die to arrow fire.

I am glad to see that my use of Germanic Auxiliaries is spreading to the main Roman players. In any event, they don't have much armor but they have a 3 shield which makes them pretty resilient to missiles. 3 shield light cavalry are not common. They are also quite expensive for light cav so I wouldn't complain too much Storm.

As far as differentiating Casse from the Gauls, taking Druids away from the Gallic factions solves this problem a bit. Also, Casse get great skirmishers along with some of the best flanking infantry in the game in the Kluddargos. Along with prevalent eagle units including a medium infantry eagle unit, Casse are one of the more interesting facitons.

[The Celtic Viking]

As far as differentiating Casse from the Gauls, taking Druids away from the Gallic factions solves this problem a bit. Also, Casse get great skirmishers along with some of the best flanking infantry in the game in the Kluddargos. Along with prevalent eagle units including a medium infantry eagle unit, Casse are one of the more interesting facitons.

They might be an interesting faction, true, and they do stand out from the crowd - but that doesn't say anything at all about their strength relative to the other factions, which you must admit is poor.

The Cwmyr (which I think you're referring to with the "medium infantry bit") are nothing but a waste of money in 2.1.1. For 80 men and a little more than 1.7k their biggest feat is that they can stay for a longer time than other Casse medium infantry. They didn't do any killing of their own with their shortswords, though. They've been changed for 3.0 though, which I just noticed, and it will be interesting to see how they work now: 1.8k, but with longswords, -2 morale, -1 def skill, +1 armour, +1 shield, +2 jav attack, -6 charge. Perhaps they could be worth it now.

Eagles in and of itself is much less of a deal now that every faction has at least one unit with it, and AFAIK it doesn't stack. Not much of a special benefit, and when you consider that most Casse units have quite the poor morale, and really need those eagles, it doesn't look as alluring as it might have done at first glance.

As for the skirmishers, well, they're at best "good". Sweboz, Getai, Lusotannan, AS, Ptollies, Saba, Baktria, Saka Rauka, Carthage etc. etc. have equal or better skirmishers than Casse. In any case, even if they had been the best skirmishers in the game, what would that have mattered? They're only good at soaking up projectiles, and most people simply don't use them because they don't need them. They're simply not a threat.

[-Stormrage-]

Fair enough.

Ilike ACS's idea. GG what bugs r u talking about? maybe they are not often and not really bad ?

[vartan]

Fair enough.

Ilike ACS's idea. GG what bugs r u talking about? maybe they are not often and not really bad ?
The bugs it causes aren't worth it at all when we can get where we need to go by altering stats instead of buggy types.

[Burebista]

I am glad to see that my use of Germanic Auxiliaries is spreading to the main Roman players. In any event, they don't have much armor but they have a 3 shield which makes them pretty resilient to missiles. 3 shield light cavalry are not common. They are also quite expensive for light cav so I wouldn't complain too much Storm.

Glad to see other ppl are starting to discover units that i've been using for a while now.

Germanic light cav is my main cav for the getai , and not without reason.
Also LAZYO's spam of Iberian assault Infantry comes late after my previous spam of them 1 month ago

[antisocialmunky]

Thats good that you see some more 3 shield cav units, previously the only one was the Saka Hellenic cavalry which could take arrows like kataphracts when sitting still.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I thought Lonchophoroi, Apsidophoroi, Campanians and the Liby-Phonecians also had 3 shield values?

[gamegeek2]

That is getting even better, as a bonus has been given to all shields with values 2 or greater, with few exceptions. These all got +1 shield and -1 defense, mainly for the sake of lighter units resiliency, while this has not diminished the utility of javelins at attacking the flanks and rear of heavy infantry.

However, two handed lancers will now have a very slightly more pronounced advantage in the charge.

Germanic Light Cav hasn't been modded yet, only Equites Germanorum. Thus I do not recommend using it for now.

Also I am considering giving warcry to a couple Germanic units, namely those that are supposed to have a powerful charge - clubmen in particular. This will come at additional cost to those select units.

Recalling Caesars De Bello Gallico, Germanic light horse employed by Caesar on his campaigns defeated the Gallic cavalry in melee multiple times, which was important for the Romans as their light cavalry was, on the whole, decidedly inferior to the excellent Gallic light horse. For example one account tells of the Germanic horse assaulting a position held by Vercingetorix' excellent Gallic cavalry on a hill. The Germanics fought their way up the hill, routed the Gauls, and flanked the rest of the Gallic cavalry, causing a rout. On another occasion, they dismounted and fought off the assault of the Gallic horsemen.

You can count on Equites Germanorum, and later you should be able to count on Reidonez, to defeat enemy light cavalry handily, and perhaps hold against heavier horse. Even as late as the 4th century, light, bare chested Germanic cavalry at the battle of Strasbourg routed better armed and more numerous Roman horsemen with ferocious charges.

[Lazy O]

Change the cavalry mass back to normal. They are overpowered. And Bataroas lost in a melee to iberi velites 0.o

And luso and carthie bodyguards no longer have the eagle...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Change the cavalry mass back to normal. They are overpowered. And Bataroas lost in a melee to iberi velites 0.o

And luso and carthie bodyguards no longer have the eagle...

Agreed, factions that don't have charge cav i.e. Casse are now pretty done for. I used Caledonian Nobles to pin his charge cav but they simply ran through my cav, reformed behind my line and routed about 4 infantry units who were winning that battle in one charge. The extra mass means they kill 2-3 ranks deep from charges where before it was 1-2. If this is meant to be the case, cost needs to be hiked for charge cavalry. Also, extra mass means that is impossible to pin cavalry since they can simply push aside pinning units, especially infantry.

Also, missile units should be reduced again. From what I can see, changes to accuracy are completely undone by the extra men and they still disrupt flanking infantry and such without routing quickly. Also, the closer to the lines they get, the accuracy does not matter as much anymore and higher missile attacks and more men mean they kill even quicker than before.

Addition: New Getic unit causes errorless crashes. Needs to be addressed.

[Lazy O]

Heres the replay so you know that we are not just rambling nonsense here

http://www.mediafire.com/?dw4zji0qt7qjei7

And the new unit you made is causing crash. If you want il do it for you . You cant create units, you have to edit existing ones.

[antisocialmunky]

That sounds strangely like having to deal with BS Macedonian 40K armies...

[gamegeek2]

The Getic unit is causing crashes sadly, I will remove it. Sadface.

I do intend to make up for the lack of heavy lancers for some factions with buffs to the limited cavalry units against other cavalry, i.e. Caledonian Nobles (for example) and particularly the Germanic light cavalry unit.

Missile units ARE being re-reduced, but slightly. Also, shouldn't a missile unit be good at disrupting flanking infantry? It's cavalry you want to run them down with, and I will make this a much more likely possibility with further reductions to mass and morale.

Do expect Cretans, Bosporans, and elite Dacians to hold their ground against cavalry though, just not to be incredibly effective at doing it compared with heavy infantry.

In fact, I CAN add units by modifying a ridiculous number of files, but that isn't too much considering what I've done already. In fact expect another file to get a modification, descr_model_battle (the change is actually to have Armenian cataphracts not have the freaky Iberian chain armored horse, as well as a couple of aesthetic fixes, such as making Elite Africans fight in the manner of Roman Legionaries).

[Lazy O]

If you want I will add the unit for you. I can remove the mercenary version of the Thraikian Hippies(not used anywhere) and replace it with your unit.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I don't think units like Caledonian nobles should get arbitrary bonus's against cavalry though. That makes little sense as they already can be effective if used properly. My issue with cavalry is that one charge is all that's needed now to rout infantry below 3/4 strength. We had just made skirmisher cav useful in 2.1.1 and now it seems as if charge cavalry will be the only way to go once more.

[-Stormrage-]

the change is actually to have Armenian cataphracts not have the freaky Iberian chain armored horse

shhh dont tell vartan.

Another thing.Lancer cav Especially Cataphracts should charge the 2-3 rows. I dont know if its possible to give different masses for each unit. But Cataphracts should definitely have crazy mass.'

If you nerf archers even more we will have 30 ammo skirmishers throwing twigs not archers. I think complaints about archers are not due to Overpowered-ness but more due to personal benefit. Naturally Factions with light troops dont want to see their troops shot down by archers.Its like you DONT want or expect archers to kill.

[Lazy O]

Well we fought another battle with me as Saba and Robin as getai, the Saba are grossly underpowered with the Archer accuracy nerf, 8 120 man archers shooting at 1 Rhompharoi managed to kill just 1 in 11 or 12 volleys.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Well we fought another battle with me as Saba and Robin as getai, the Saba are grossly underpowered with the Archer accuracy nerf, 8 120 man archers shooting at 1 Rhompharoi managed to kill just 1 in 11 or 12 volleys.

I think he is exaggerating but his archers didn't manage to kill much. I think playing with accuracy is alright but the difference is too vast between levied or non-professional archers and the heavier ones. The lower tier archers really don't do much at all.

[Lazy O]

I no exaggerating :_(

[gamegeek2]

Due to repeated complaints about large missile sizes I nerfed the low tier archers who come in large 120 man units. I guess I will restore their accuracy then, and put Persians up to 120 men.

When I have regular internet access, I am trying to have 4 factions ready: Pontos, Sauromatae, Hayastan, Pahlava. The Getai are getting access to Scythian units, but I have made scythian units smaller than their full size steppe counterparts (exception: scythian nobles).

So you guys are suggesting a re-lowering of charge cavalry mass? I will put the suckers into action myself to see when I test out the new factions.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Well everyone was enjoying the useful skirmisher cav and they still have uses now. However, charge cav now does so much damage on one charge that it is almost impossible to not take 2-3 of them, price be damned. There does need to be some more testing with this though. I'd like to test how effective tired/very tired/exhausted cavalry is as opposed to winded/warmed up/fresh cavalry when charging.

[Lazy O]

We can do that. Will you be on later today?

[Burebista]

The Getai are getting access to Scythian units, but I have made scythian units smaller than their full size steppe counterparts (exception: scythian nobles).

The HA are the only ones that i rly need. the rest are uninteresting.

Also , can u make Costobocii Axemen usefull plz? geati don't have any AP now with the Falx changes.

[vartan]

What new unit?

GG2, sooner or later, when you have a firm idea of what cavalry is going to look like, you'll need to talk to me so I can get the DHCS (Determining Heavy Cavalry Status) updated.

EDIT: Mass should be enough to make the charge slightly more devastating than in vanilla EB, but not an awful lot more. Remember, since cavalry may have only no stamina or hardy stamina now, the super heavy ones (which should invariably be non-stamina) would thus be limited to no more decisive charges than you can count on one hand. Also, there is a similar but reversed situation going on with archers in our new EB. In our previous EB, we would see strong archers. Now they are much weaker. We would do best to find a middle ground so as to make archers somewhat useful in picking off units. It would be ideal, for example, if you could situate individual foot archer units around either wing and do damage by shooting into the enemy line. Just my take on it.

[Lazy O]

Saba is horribly broken.

They lack any form of ranged attack.

http://www.mediafire.com/?abc8785mrlkm0b1

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

You will notice towards the end that my ethiopian 120 man archers killed a grand total of 5 slingers with all of their ammo...

[Aper]

Sorry I can't join the testing, my mini project too is currently on hold because of RL issues, but I gave a look to the EDU and I have few thoughts, and questions to GG:

1) I saw you ignored my bug reporting in the 2.1 thread, so I'll repost it here: Mada Asabara are bugged, they have 160 delay instead of 0, it's a vanilla-EB typo never fixed.

2) It's ok I cannot convince you about my view on legionarian fighting, but the new spacing value make no sense, IMHO.
We have 2 ancient sources writing on the matter, AFAIK: Polybius and Vegetius.
The first claim legionarii fought as individuals and needed much space to swing their swords: 6 feet (roughly 1.8 mt.), wider than the current formation.
The second, who wrote in the 4 AD IIRC but used ancient sources, says they fought in a much tighter formation: 3 feet (roughly 0.9 mt.), exactly half the polybian value and shorter than the current spacing.
So, why didn't you follow Polybius or Vegetius, but decided for a third, middle value? Is there something I'm missing?

3) Why didn't you use the soldier radius (hidden value after mass) tweak to make hoplites fight more cohesively? Is it just a rumor, proved ineffective in tests?

Thanks and congrats for the release

EDIT: Here's an excellent sum of the individual spacing debate from Adrian Goldsworthy's The Roman army at war (http://books.google.it/books?id=55KE-nNtTRUC&pg=PA179&dq=polybius+roman+individual+spacing&hl=it&ei=RP9TTvDzIsvMswa3jb0V&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[gamegeek2]

To answer questions:

Aper, I did not ignore you. That was eliminated first thing when I started doing the Eastern units.

Levy archers are definitely getting an accuracy boost, but don't expect high kill rates at a distance of 180 meters, please! This will especially be true of horse archers, expect to need to close in order to achieve good kill rates with your limited 45 arrows.

You guys can now expect the Sweboz in addition to toe other factions in the next update. Expect them to be significantly better than in 2.1.1; for example, the Woithiz Watha will now have warcry, and Dugunthiz will come with 90 men and 20 defense, as well as a javelin attack of 10, high accuracy, and 3 ammo, with 5 shield to boot!

Here is how I imagine archers functioning:

-Levy Archers: Very cheap. Innacuracy means their main utility is aiming at large groups of enemies, not engaging in archery duels.
-Medium Accuracy Archers: Good for targeting units or blobs, and better at archery duels.
-High Accuracy Archers: Superb for targeting and weakening units, excellent accuracy. Should always win archery duels.


Also , can u make Costobocii Axemen usefull plz? geati don't have any AP now with the Falx changes.

The Getai are one of the most versatile factions in the game, this being one of their shortcomings - they are jacks of all trades, masters of none except perhaps skirmishing. I will check them (the Costobocii) out later, for sure.

[Aper]

Aper, I did not ignore you. That was eliminated first thing when I started doing the Eastern units.
Ah, sorry, I did not realized the version I downloaded had still the old asian units. Hurry leads to stupid mistakes...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Yeah, Greeks, Asians, and Steppe along with Sweboz have not been completed yet.

On a side note, Saba should get an archer unit which is not levy quality. Perhaps make Ethiopians in the same vein as Numidians? After all, Ethiopia was famous for high quality archer units. Arabs were as well, so maybe the Archer-Spears should be more in the middle tier and leave levy job for Sabean Archers?

[gamegeek2]

Arabs weren't famed archers in Hellenstic-era sources I can recall (except mounted on camels), but the bow certainly was one of the main weapons wielded by the Sabaean nobility (not the javelin as far as I can recall), along with spears and fine, slender swords. Sadly I can't create a noble archer unit.

Now, Nubia was famed for its archers as far back as Ancient Egypt. Again the existing archer unit is an Ethiopian one, but if you want me to stat it as an axe armed, good quality Nubian archer rather than a club armed Ethiopian one, I could do that.

[Lazy O]

Yea that woould be good. Previously, a big advantage Saba had was the ability to spam alot of archers. That is useless now and you are basically forced to use eles which the opponent can expect and bring a simple 810 levy unit to counter them.

[vartan]

Why does the Saba faction need to be on par with the other factions?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Why does the Saba faction need to be on par with the other factions?

It doesn't need to be, but it should at least be playable. Saba without decent archers is basically asking to be javelined to death.

Also, I feel as if 36k still works for this new edu. We havn't gotten half of the factions yet so I will reserve judgement on that, but at 36k, good quality armies are still a possibility for western factions.

[gamegeek2]

Making Saba playable is almost a lost cause, IMO. If people wanted to play as an Arab faction, we could create one using the Eleutheroi - the Nabatu. Several units could act as effective stand ins for historical Nabatean units - the Sacred Band Cavalry as Agema troops, for example. Their actual army would be a mix of Hellenistic troops and tribal Arabs.

[Lazy O]

Saba has already been played as (see misterfred) very succesfully. What you have done is nerf them into oblivion

[vartan]

From a theoretical standpoint, we shouldn't be making any exceptions when it comes to the inherent properties of elements such as certain kinds of weaponry and armor that appear cross-factionally. That said, we make exceptions all the time in terms of stamina and morale, and other factors such as eagles and fear factors. These are usually either binaries (either enabled or disabled) or sliders that have incremental values (such as with stamina). So, we could work on Saba, sure. We could possibly give them all the stamina in the world, and all the eagles and the scary factors. But would we then be satisfied with ourselves? Tough one my friends.

[gamegeek2]

Saba has already been played as (see misterfred) very succesfully. What you have done is nerf them into oblivion

I am afraid you misrepresent here, my friend. Saba were rendered unplayable by the increase in utility of skirmisher units, a change that has been almost universally lauded if I understand correctly.

Lazy, were you around in the old EB environment? Before these new EDUs, armies were far, far more formulaic. Here was a basic prototype, of sorts:

X Heavy Cavalry
8 Phalanxes
X Thracian Peltasts/Keltohellenikoi
X Heavy Archers

Variation was extremely limited by the fact that all utility roles could be played by one unit, the Thracian Peltast, and all missile roles by the Cretan Archers. This was particularly exascerbated by the limitations placed on missiles, the small size of missile units, etc.

Now certainly the improvement in the missile department hasn't been great to date, but in the cavalry department things have gotten dramatically better. Not only do we have general units as a key unit in any player's arsenal, javelin cavalry are an important part of a well-rounded and effective cavalry force. Also, the cavalry battle and missile battle don't dominate the conclusion of the line fight anymore (the winner of the missiels would shoot the opposing cavalry, win that fight and immediately turn to charge the enemy in the rear and carry the day). A good Alexandrian fight for sure, but lacking in the numerous tools in an Alexandrian army.

I seek to have the Hellenes in the foreground as much as they used to be, but this may be due to the new crop of players favoring the western factions. But this likely has something to do with the strengthening of the hitherto unused cavalry form - the javelin cavalry - and the increased sturdiness of heavy infantry - both weapon systems of good use against cavalry, one due to its ability to inflict significant casualties at close range and engage subsequently (with buffed secondary weapons), one due to its improved ability to hold its ground. Light skirmishers have risen in importance as well.


Now because infantry has been buffed extensively, you really need to invest in a heavy cavalry wing to have an effective heavy cavalry wing (ie, you can't bring 2 with only missiles and be fine, you need light infantry escorts and a ton of other things which are countered by the opponent just getting more heavy infantry).

We were able to get it working at 36K because Prodromoi, Celtic Hoplites, Pandas(I used to use them at size 240 AP axes because they were so good in melee), and Thracians were so cost effective and Rome/KH/Gauls/Asian factions were the most played. This wasn't perfect because Carthage/Germania/Luso/Getai weren't very well balanced at 36K with Carthage not being all that effective and the other factions being very good against certain factions and terrible against others.

A promising statement, to be sure, an indication that we are moving in the right direction and not just using a very few unit types, though his statement about heavy infantry is not 100% accurate.

One thing to note is that barbarians will no longer have a monopoly on scaries after the next update - cataphracts will scare just as much, a welcome counterbalance to their relative underpowering in light of the advent of powerful kopis-armed Aspidophoroi becoming an integral part of Hellenic armies.

Also, I am looking for players to experiment with steppe armies composed exclusively of mounted units. This will probably bring up dilemmas of whether to bring more 70 or 60 man HA units or a better core of heavy cavalry, but I look forward to that discussion. Also, the new phalanxes will be ready tomorrow, but not the full Hellenic roster to go with, unless I can get a lot of work done on the train.

[antisocialmunky]

Well people eventually started using light infantry in 2009/2010 tournaments to run with their cav. However it never really was that good because you could take a heavy infantry which would both beat the light infantry and not get scared to death. Ideally, you need light infantry with AP or high lethality or something. Something like the old Thracians or Agrianians. Its actually really difficult to differentiate between infantry that are REALLY good in loose order and infantry that are REALLY good in formation... which is disappointing.

I mean, I suppose high attacking/formation density ratios are the only way but that doesn't really work all that well in this situation. Maybe a skew towards defense against armor and really good stamina while formation infantry get a slight shield bonus, armor, and less defense?

I mean, if you are in formation, and attacking forward, the shield bonus would give you advantage but you would have less defense skill from other directions. If you are lightly armed, you can actually fight better because you aren't weighed down but so much armor.

Additionally a low formation ratio and density for the light infantry and higher formation ratio and density for line infantry would make it so line infantry push hard.

[-Stormrage-]

This whole page is filled with techno talk.


Also, the cavalry battle and missile battle don't dominate the conclusion of the line fight anymore (the winner of the missiels would shoot the opposing cavalry, win that fight and immediately turn to charge the enemy in the rear and carry the day).

All light cavalry that ive seen be brought against me in the game is invulnerable to arrows. What cav r u talking about ? The Only cav that die to arrows are levy cavalry. such as numidian javelin cav. I think EB will be unbalanced forever.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Storm, go play rocks, paper, scissors. I think that is the game you are looking for. :clown:

I still don't think Cataphracts should get fear. But I guess we will play test it and see how that goes.

And as far as using light units to run with cavalry, I know me and Lazy do this pretty regularly. Not the lightest units usually, but generally a unit with either fast moving, very good stamina, or preferably both. Spears are also a plus. Scutarii, Gestikapoinon and Alpine Phalanx are perfect examples of units that fit this role perfectly though almost any unit that moves relatively quickly will work. They don't need to win against enemy infantry that moves to support, they just need to help win the cav battle so your cavalry can give them a hand afterwards.

[-Stormrage-]

I just hope people will stop running their cav through my men when ive got them fully surrounded.
can infantry run speeds get increased ?

and yes rock paper scissors would be nice.

[antisocialmunky]

For cavalry, would it be possible to just increase charge and not deal with mass as much? That would prevent cavalry running through as easily.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I just hope people will stop running their cav through my men when ive got them fully surrounded.
can infantry run speeds get increased ?

and yes rock paper scissors would be nice.

Its very rare that cavalry gets completely surrounded by enemies. On three sides perhaps, but there is almost always a gap for them to exploit.

[Lazy O]

Yes GG2, I started Multiplayer RTW in the time of 1 Cata 4 prodromoi 5 cretans 8 phalanx and thracian Peltasts.

@Robin, actually the best unit for doing that is the iberian velite. Though that has become outdated and im mostly using the 3 heavy cav as the only cav now. This is not vanilla where my javelin cav can tear apart enemy archers and actually do some damage.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Well at 40k you should be taking only heavy cavalry since it is easily affordable. That is why I don't see much reason to increase the mnai limit from 36k.

[Lazy O]

Exactly my point. 40k and carthage/saka/pahlav + some others get unbeatable with their heavy cav .

[-Stormrage-]

@robin, well once i trapped cav by having my cav pinning them in front and a infantry unit charging from the back. like a sandwich, another time the enemy cav was fighitng the back of my main line i brought 2 infantry from behind and made a trainagle, then they moved through my infantry and attacked the back of my line again.

Lets make a clear rule on cav movements please. Vartan ?

[Lazy O]

No need for rules, if you have a brain you can kill enemy cav before they get out, no need to make rules to cover up peoples sloppiness. Which is exactly what I think of these "fair play" rules.

[gamegeek2]

Well, to tell you a few things about the upcoming update:

1. Elite units got a slight cost increase, mainly to counteract the fact that they get their stamina boost for free.
2. I am making the distinction between light and heavy troops in mass more pronounced
3. I am increasing cav charge values and lowering horse mass values.

4. The distinction between the Pahlava and the Sauromatae horse archers has become far more significant, and I have used historical data in my reasoning, primarily from this (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36222772/Osprey-Men-at-Arms-373-The-Sarmatians-600-BC-AD-450) for the Sauromatae and from various sources regarding the size of Parthian armies, and accounts of their effectiveness, such as at the Battle of Carrhae.

The Parthian Army in Contrast With the Sarmatians, in the Context of EB Unit Stats

Typical encounters between the Roman Republic and Parthians seem to show that the Romans typically outnumbered them by between 3:1 and 3:2; ratios echoed later when the full strength of the Empire was brought against the more powerful Sassanids, who probably also put their full strength into play when the fought the Romans. This provides a guiding line for what the comparative sizes of fully mounted Parthian and infantry heavy Roman armies should be in combat. Smaller Parthian or Sassanid armies were able to achieve decisive victories over larger Roman ones by skilled archery (especially when additional supplies of arrows were available to the horse-archers) and judicious use of the heavy cavalry core, the cataphracts, which formed about 10% of their armies.

In contrast, the various Sarmatian peoples, confederacies, etc. seem to have been able to put very large hosts of horsemen into the field, but later on they seemed to have concentrated into a more professionalized, higher quality force, especially after the adoption of the kontos as an important weapon. For example, Strabo says that one of the two divisions of the Aorsi was able to muster 200,000 horsemen; likely an exageration, but a Chinese source describing the Yancai (Alans), who were located nearby, were able to put 100,000 horsemen into the field. Clearly their numbers were impressive at this early stage.

The records of the early Sarmatians in combat are not impressive. The Siracae, for example, were a small nation, but their king Ariapharnes mustered a large number of horsemen to take part in the battle of the Thates river. In this battle, his horsemen were apparently easily dispersed by the charge of the 'picked Scythian horse' of the opponent. Strabo provides an account of Sarmatians opposing an expeditionary force sent by Mithridates VI, in which a Roxolanic and Scythian force of 50,000 was defeated by a Diophantes (the Pontic commander) and his 6,000 troops; likely these included some heavy Bosporan archers, and definitely contained a phalanx. Strabo describes the equipment of the Roxolani as raw-hide armor, wicker shields, bows, and spears for close combat; in other words, the 'Aorsi Riders' unit.

Later sources from the 1st century AD describe the unstoppable nature of the charge of the Sarmatian horsemen, when executed properly. The lancers apparently wore varying amounts of armor, from fine and heavy scale to light scale or leather (which enabled the heavy legionaries to easily defeat fallen Sarmatian horsemen). Yet they were prudent enough to use feigned retreats and traditional steppe tactics when opposed by sturdy infantry wielding long spears. The importance of bows declined over time, and the number of arrows in graves did as well; but the archery of the Sarmatians seems to not have been as impressive or devastating as that of the Parthians, as suggested by their apparently poor performance before the first century AD.

--- TRANSLATION IN GAME ---
-Parthian horse archers have very large amounts of ammunition (50) and good archer skills. However, their numbers are equal to those of other light cavalry.
-Scythian horse archers come in smaller units than Sarmatians and have less ammo than Parthians, but thus end up as cheaper than either one.
-Sarmatian horse archers and riders have larger unit sizes and are cheaper than their Parthian counterparts, but suffer from lower accuracy and less ammunition.
-Early Sarmatian nobles also come in greater numbers than their later counterparts, but again, are less impressive
-Sarmatian kontos lancers are no cataphracts but have a devastating charge, better than their Parthian counterparts. I may yet make it better, but their high stamina lets them repeat their charges - do we want to change this?

[vartan]

East may win on high money, but they lose on low money. Expect heavy losses on 36k. I would find it hard to balance these. The fact is that well-used steppe is invariably stronger than corresponding civ, and since there will be no such distinction upon the final release of 3.0 for "official" tournament use next year (spoiler?), you'll have some clearly advantageous options at your disposal. And now that there won't be a distinction, there's no way to enforce a discrimination between steppe and civ, telling one not to battle the other. More situations will be possible than before, and we'll have to live with it and see where it leads us.

Storm, fair play allows you to retreat your horse no matter what (with the exception of running into pikes). This is indicated on the website. Lazy, we have fair play for many a good reason. I don't need to point this out, since you should by now know this well enough.


-Sarmatian kontos lancers are no cataphracts but have a devastating charge, better than their Parthian counterparts. I may yet make it better, but their high stamina lets them repeat their charges - do we want to change this?
That's unfortunate, but like you say, they aren't cataphracts. If only there was a way to make their subsequent charges less devastating than the previous one...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I don't think the Parthians were very successful against the Romans. A quick scan of the Roman-Parthian Wars reveals that besides Carrhae, the Parthians really only defeated one other Roman army in the field and this was much later than our timeframe. Considering the logistical difficulties that the Romans would have in bringing a fight to the Parthians while comparing the relatively shorter distances from Ctesiphon to Syria and the Parthians' inability to hold Syrian territory, I feel as if Rome fared significantly better off in their wars than the Parthians did.

The Sassanids are a different story entirely. They were much better equipped to handle the Romans and came about at a time when Rome may be considered on the downswing.


That's unfortunate, but like you say, they aren't cataphracts. If only there was a way to make their subsequent charges less devastating than the previous one...

The only way to do this is by lowering stamina. However, there is no medium speed between full gallop and walking for cavalry and so we are forced to run cavalry all over the place if they are needed as deterrents or chase off skirmishers etc. This is why I feel as if cavalry was fine in previous versions. The increased mass makes the initial charge more effective now but lower stamina and animation speed limits the usefulness of cavalry in other tasks. For example, in this version, I will just keep a spear unit behind my lines to deter enemy cav attacks if I lose the cavalry battle or refuse one. A good stamina, quick spear unit can run parallel to my lines and stop slower and quickly tiring enemy cav from turning and smacking into my back. Previous to this version, that spear unit would have quickly been outrun and I would have needed two or three units behind the lines if I wanted to protect against cav.

[gamegeek2]

Well, I am lowering mass but increasing charge strength now, as per ASM's suggestion. Perhaps that will work better. We shall see.

You are correct, properly prepared Roman armies were highly successful against the Parthians; for example, against Pacorus, the numerous Roman slingers inflicted heavy damage on the Parthian heavy cavalry, letting the Romans kill Pacorus and rout his army.

I am seeing a potentially similar outcome here in MP battles. Prepared armies of large kingdoms seem like they would be able to much better supply ammunition to their troops than steppe folk, but steppe nobles can expect to have a large number of arrows (one gorytos from a kurgan had hundreds of them!)

[-Stormrage-]

Hey steppe folk can get rocks from different regions , due to them migrating alot. I think steppe slingers should fire various colors of stones due to the historical tradition of steppe people having a hobby of picking rocks off the ground.

Oh and the Arabian peninsula had lots of desert pavement so i think suadi slingers should get plus ammo :p

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Hey steppe folk can get rocks from different regions , due to them migrating alot. I think steppe slingers should fire various colors of stones due to the historical tradition of steppe people having a hobby of picking rocks off the ground.

Oh and the Arabian peninsula had lots of desert pavement so i think suadi slingers should get plus ammo :p

No such thing as steppe slingers Storm :p

I'm very interested to see the changes to the Hellenistic factions. Though I love to play the Eurobarbs in MP, Hellenes always hold a special spot in my heart.

[vartan]

The only way to do this is by lowering stamina. However, there is no medium speed between full gallop and walking for cavalry and so we are forced to run cavalry all over the place if they are needed as deterrents or chase off skirmishers etc. This is why I feel as if cavalry was fine in previous versions. The increased mass makes the initial charge more effective now but lower stamina and animation speed limits the usefulness of cavalry in other tasks. For example, in this version, I will just keep a spear unit behind my lines to deter enemy cav attacks if I lose the cavalry battle or refuse one. A good stamina, quick spear unit can run parallel to my lines and stop slower and quickly tiring enemy cav from turning and smacking into my back. Previous to this version, that spear unit would have quickly been outrun and I would have needed two or three units behind the lines if I wanted to protect against cav.
The idea in my mind is to have either a hardy cav unit or a non-hardy one. Therefore you can expect plenty of non-cataphract cav to have hardy stamina if gg2 takes this approach. So you'll still have options in that regard that you mention, if not as limitless as before.

EDIT: The key here is that what you mention about previous cav should not remain unchecked in these developments. Reason is to not allow one tactic to become the be all and end all of EB Online.

[antisocialmunky]

It would be nice to have different types of cav instead of 'good chargers' and crap everything else. 3.0 has already addressed a ton of it but I think you should make the really heavy cataphracts something special, normal stamina and fear inducing. Atleast for the purposes of testing. After all they were used for frontal charges against weakened positions unlike heavy cavalry used for flanking tactics. There should be a difference between the heavily armed hellenistic cavalry covered with mail, shield, and cuirass and the ridiculously half or fully armored Cataphracts of the east. Main idea is to have the really powerful elite Cataphracts be really powerful sledge hammer cavalry to crack a battle line in its weakest spot. I suppose it would be somewhat difficult to balance the half armored Cataphracts though. Those would probably just be really powerful frontal charge but no scary.

[Lazy O]

Wont make no difference.

[gamegeek2]

It would be nice to have different types of cav instead of 'good chargers' and crap everything else. 3.0 has already addressed a ton of it but I think you should make the really heavy cataphracts something special, normal stamina and fear inducing. Atleast for the purposes of testing. After all they were used for frontal charges against weakened positions unlike heavy cavalry used for flanking tactics. There should be a difference between the heavily armed hellenistic cavalry covered with mail, shield, and cuirass and the ridiculously half or fully armored Cataphracts of the east. Main idea is to have the really powerful elite Cataphracts be really powerful sledge hammer cavalry to crack a battle line in its weakest spot. I suppose it would be somewhat difficult to balance the half armored Cataphracts though. Those would probably just be really powerful frontal charge but no scary.

You have hit the nail on the head, that's why my current stats aim to do. I am fearing, however, that 50 charge plus scary may not be enough in light of lowered horse masses.

[Lazy O]

Why lower them? Just make them the default ones we were using pre 3.0.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

If mass is the same as 3.0, these new catas better cost 5-6000 each. Scary cavalry with 50 charge?:dizzy2:

[Vega]

If mass is the same as 3.0, these new catas better cost 5-6000 each. Scary cavalry with 50 charge?:dizzy2:

Yes robin i told that to gg2 on hamachi but he said that catas are slow and dont have stamina i still think that if they have fear boost that they should have a slightly cost increase

[antisocialmunky]

I think the max applicable attack/defense diff is 32. So charge values that high may not make much of a difference :p

[gamegeek2]

Yes robin i told that to gg2 on hamachi but he said that catas are slow and dont have stamina i still think that if they have fear boost that they should have a slightly cost increase

Current costing of Grivpanvar is about 4200. Do you recall how horribly underpowered catasphracts used to be? They were wrecking balls! And they will still be vulnerable. We will see, they may yet cost more later.

[Lazy O]

Come hamachi. I want to ask you something.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Current costing of Grivpanvar is about 4200. Do you recall how horribly underpowered catasphracts used to be? They were wrecking balls! And they will still be vulnerable. We will see, they may yet cost more later.

Have we been playing the same game? Everyone who plays Baktria or AS almost always takes 2-3 cataphracts and those are Greek factions have various other options for light/medium cavalry as well as high quality infantry if you'd prefer to spend money there. And you can ask Lazy O about how effective Grivpanvar can be in v2.1.1. We fought a few battles when I was debating taking Pahlava for August.

[gamegeek2]

You do recall that cataphracts now must contend with more 100 man heavy infantry units, enlarged light cavalry units of 60 men and 90 man slingers, right? And that the archers won't protect them as well anymore? I will run a quick test but the five factions are ready to go should you ask for them.

[vartan]

I'm going to have to agree with ASM on this one. We'll need to increase mass from vanilla EB slightly, since we cannot entirely rely on one factor, such as increasing charge by a ridiculous amount.

[gamegeek2]

I think the max applicable attack/defense diff is 32. So charge values that high may not make much of a difference :p

OK, so the full charge strength is maxed against units with 24 defense, or spear units with 16 defense; but remember apparently maximum values of attack and defense can go over 63 so I do not trust this maximum as well.

[vartan]

OK, so the full charge strength is maxed against units with 24 defense, or spear units with 16 defense; but remember apparently maximum values of attack and defense can go over 63 so I do not trust this maximum as well.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure we can balance the situation without going over what the proposed maximums are.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I've noticed that lower accuracy slingers have much better accuracy than lower accuracy archers. This may have something to do with the projectile angle being lower.

[antisocialmunky]

Its just something I heard in the mod forum. There is a limit of 32 between attack and defense differences. We can try really high stuff, it probably won't matter THAT much since you'd be flattening low defense infantry anyway.

[Vega]

Guys want to show you a replay how bringing roman cavarly vs steppe is useles this dacian ha are amazing 61 men with good charge and bloddy mis atack are so strong, we even didnt start battle i lost half of my army well gg2 watch this replay and you choose what should be changed :DDD http://www.mediafire.com/?o23c8dhuj4jj336

[vartan]

Guys want to show you a replay how bringing roman cavarly vs steppe is useles this dacian ha are amazing 61 men with good charge and bloddy mis atack are so strong, we even didnt start battle i lost half of my army well gg2 watch this replay and you choose what should be changed :DDD http://www.mediafire.com/?o23c8dhuj4jj336
Roman cavalry's supposed to be superior to steppe cavalry? I hadn't heard that one before. :2thumbsup:

[Lazy O]

I must say Vega that is quite unusual, the Roman cavalry appear to be missing their 9000 power levels.

[Vega]

Guys i dont understand why you are angry then when i use infratry spam and not choosing cav, next time if i spam spearmen and cohorts dont be angry please, i just say that cav is useles vs 7 ha with 61 men which have so much ammo and bloddy misile atack :(

[Lazy O]

Vega, what do you expect will happen if someone takes 7 Horse Archers regardless of the opposing teams faction? You are not talking Rome specific.

[gamegeek2]

The solution to horse archers is foot archers. They are more accurate and have more men, they only have less ammo, but each shot flies more true. A foot archer also costs a little bit more than half as much per man. This advantage is especially pronounced by the lack of Cantabrian circle for HA, if I forgot to remove it from any HA unit please tell me.

I didn't save the battles we had last night, but Vega's Romans outdid my Sweboz (despite many units having a shield stat of 6, roman pila and arrows are still devastating) and my superior Hai cavalry forced overran his Pontic force, despite a decided inferiority in foot archers. I feel the story of the battle exhibits some interesting points, so here goes:

My army:

1 Hai BG
2 Armenian Cataphracts
1 Armenian Medium Cav
1 Nizakahar Ayrudzi (JavCav)
2 Steppe Riders
2 Syrian Archers
1 Eastern Slingers
5 Panda Phalanxes
4 Georgian Infantry
1 Armenian Noble Infantry

Vega's Army (IIRC)

1 Early Pontos BG
2 Scythian Heavy Cavalry
2 Steppe Riders
3 Bosporan Archers
5-6 Panda Phalanxes
6-7 Mix of Kuarothoroi and Pontic Thorakitai

My troops were deployed in a manner to maximize flexibility in infantry, while to overwhelm with cavalry. I placed the phalanx in the center with the general behind, with the Georgians directly next to the general, and the Georgians next to the general, with the elite infantry and slingers behind those; the archers were in loose formation in front. To the direct left of my formation, I placed my skirmisher cavalry, with the cataphracts behind these, and the medium cavalry behind those. Vega deployed his 6 heavy infantry units on the sides of his center phalanxes (3 on each side) and had 2 of his archers in front of the phalanx, with one behind as a reserve; one of his Scythian units were placed on each side of the infantry line. Both of us deployed our horse archers on either wing, far from the main line. His position was better suited to go into action quickly, and his reserve archer unit, I feared, would do much to counteract my preponderance in cavalry.

The battle opened with the traditional archer duel. Our steppe horse archers engaged on the flanks, each inflicting approximately 30% casualties on each other before retiring and commencing other work, which shall be detailed later. His 2 Bosporans that he sent to the front easily outdid my Syrians (spending 2100 on an archer unit pays off) in quality, so I had my archers switch to shoot at his phalanx; they inflicted about 40-50 casualties on his phalangites, but my engaged archers suffered approximately 70% casualties, while his suffered only 12%, meaning he had those Bosporans left over to serve as medium infantrymen.

Following this, he began an advance with his line of infantry, but I refused to retreat my archers, keeping them far in front of my line to get good shots at his phalanxes. Seeing this, Vega deployed a Scythian unit to wipe up my archers, and I brought my slingers and one of my horse archers to fire on his Scythians as I retreated my archers. He pulled back his scythian cavalry, which took volleys in the rear, neglecting their large shield stat. He then brought his horse archers and reserve archer unit to shoot my slingers, which they did, but I concentrated fire on his Scythians with my limited resources (I turned my horse archers to shoot his) and dealt them about 10 casualties, or 20% of their strength.

The phalanx lines then clashed, and my Georgians fired volleys of javelins into his phalanxes, inflicting an unknown number of casualties. They then took flanking positions so that my line looked like this /-----\. To hold the crucial left flank, where my cavalry were to make their decisive charge, I placed my elite noble infantry. His weakened Scythians went on a ride around my army to assault the rear, while my cataphracts charged and quickly overran his one unit of Scythians on the left, while the javelin cavalry peppered the flank of his assaulting heavy infantry. The two cataphracts and one Medium cavalry immediately turned against his flank, without bothering to do a full lance charge; the inferior quality Pontic troops routed, while the two units of sturdy Galatians held.

I retreated my cataphracts and mediums, and had my Javelin cavalry empty their saddlebags with spears in the backs of the Galatians, before I sent my medium cavalry after them again; they and the left flank infantry ground up the Galatians. The cataphracts mopped up some of the Bosporan archers that he used to reinforce the line (after this they were tired and I commited them to no further action), and the phalanxes murdered each other, with all of my phalanxes suffering more than 50% casualties, and his routing. That little bit of archer and javelin fire had paid off with a victory in the center. His Scythians reached the back of my line and charged the rear of the phalanx, but this was irrelevant as almost 50% of the phalangites were dead already. His preponderance of infantry on my right (his left) meant that he was winning there, but my general got in one charge on his flank there, and the command bonus helped my troops hang on long enough for me to win the center and left. Seeing the hopelessness of his position, Vega admitted defeat.

What does this battle prove? First of all, it disproves the statement by Antisocialmunky that a superior quantity of heavy infantry counters a well-supported cavalry force. My cavalry, all concentrated on my left flank (except the horse archers), overran his flank within two minutes in hammer-and-anvil style, while my right flank held off long enough to make my victory complete.

Second of all, phalanxes kill each other too fast, especially as Panda Phalanxes have only 15 defense. To mitigate this, I am removing light_spear from the attributes of all phalanx units (except the Germanic Pikemen unit), which should not affect combat against other infantry as other infantry must move to close quarters to engage enemies anyway. However, the resulting loss of the -4 defense penalty should prolong phalanx combat by an estimated 50%. It will also mean that the pikemen do not resist cavalry charges from the front as well, but I don't expect anyone to charge cavalry right at a phalanx from the front even then, and if that becomes a viable tactic, it can easily be added to the list of fairplay violations.

Third of all, Hai infantry seems to hold the line effectively enough to allow the cavalry to win important battles, especially when an elite infantry unit or a general is present to reinforce and/or inspire. The new Pontic Thorakitai are an important asset to Pontic players, with 90 men and short swords to defeat opposing spearmen, and the defense stats of Thureophoroi.

Fourth, the battle demonstrated what I feel is a key principle, that Vega recognized after the battle; inferior archers ought not to be put to use by shooting the enemy archers, but by absorbing arrows and firing at other targets, so your other troops may be victorious. For example, they weakened the Scythian cavalry slightly, and they dealt some damage to the phalangites, enough to win me a victory in the push of pike; the Bosporan archers did little but shoot my missile troops and engage in close combat, in which they are useful support troops but far from the infantry of choice; they barely increased the strength of his force in the decisive melee clash (he reinforced his line rather than using them as flankers), while my archers, for less cost, dealt more important damage in the center.

[vartan]

Third of all, Hai infantry seems to hold the line effectively enough to allow the cavalry to win important battles, especially when an elite infantry unit or a general is present to reinforce and/or inspire. The new Pontic Thorakitai are an important asset to Pontic players, with 90 men and short swords to defeat opposing spearmen, and the defense stats of Thureophoroi.
Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

Fourth, the battle demonstrated what I feel is a key principle, that Vega recognized after the battle; inferior archers ought not to be put to use by shooting the enemy archers, but by absorbing arrows and firing at other targets, so your other troops may be victorious. For example, they weakened the Scythian cavalry slightly, and they dealt some damage to the phalangites, enough to win me a victory in the push of pike; the Bosporan archers did little but shoot my missile troops and engage in close combat, in which they are useful support troops but far from the infantry of choice; they barely increased the strength of his force in the decisive melee clash (he reinforced his line rather than using them as flankers), while my archers, for less cost, dealt more important damage in the center.
Reading this gives me the impression that I would like to be on the side with inferior archers, not superior archers. What do you think?

[The Celtic Viking]

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

Lets not go crazy with those eagles now; it's enough that everyone's got at least one now. Giving it to more would remove the incentive to bring general units, and (I feel like I'm being a broken record on this) will serve to weaken the Casse further. Their particular fighting style would no longer be showcased in low morale units following their heroes into battle either; it would just be something everyone had, but with worse everything. It's definitely enough just to have them fight very well.

[vartan]

Lets not go crazy with those eagles now; it's enough that everyone's got at least one now. Giving it to more would remove the incentive to bring general units, and (I feel like I'm being a broken record on this) will serve to weaken the Casse further. Their particular fighting style would no longer be showcased in low morale units following their heroes into battle either; it would just be something everyone had, but with worse everything. It's definitely enough just to have them fight very well.
That's pretty much the case with Saba...you think Saba deserves compromise, too? I don't. But that's just my thought. There's nothing wrong with making all factions of the game work for the sake of having them work. :yes:

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Saba get elephants. There is no unit in the Casse roster that can win a battle like elephants can.

That said, elephants should get a minor boost to hp if they havn't already. Maybe +1. Makes little sense that ellies get only one more hp than gaesatae.

[vartan]

Does that then make all the other ele factions which are already top contenders overpowered?

[gamegeek2]

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

Reading this gives me the impression that I would like to be on the side with inferior archers, not superior archers. What do you think?

It's more of how you use the archers you have. If you have one archer instead of one line unit, and use that archer to badly damage the enemy cav, then you win the cav fight and can rout the line. But if you have five archers and the enemy has four identical ones, well then they cancel each other out much more, and the enemy has more line units to help break through.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Does that then make all the other ele factions which are already top contenders overpowered?

Probably. That is why we should keep money at 36k. If anything, 34k would be even better as it would make the lighter units more important.

[antisocialmunky]

It's more of how you use the archers you have. If you have one archer instead of one line unit, and use that archer to badly damage the enemy cav, then you win the cav fight and can rout the line. But if you have five archers and the enemy has four identical ones, well then they cancel each other out much more, and the enemy has more line units to help break through.

It depends on the faction since defensive infantry are quite hard to definitively kill. Having an additional identical archer is actually quite useful if the enemy is packing expensive cav because it by itself makes it hard to use cavalry since it will have extra ammo to spend and will be able to swing cav engagements your way... which will make it much easier to win a cav fight and mass rout the battle line. Also good in no cav at all cases because then it can break away and prevent flanking because it can shoot flankers or doods chasing your cav in the back.

[Lazy O]

Elephants cannot win you a battle and a re a liablity. Simply too many faction have charger cavalry, heck even prodromoi can kill elephants, so can a lowly akontisai unit.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Problem is elephants still cost too much. A unit of elephants shouldn't cost too much more than a unit of cataphracts considering there are more ways to counter them than catas. Maybe 6500 for a unit of elephants?

Btw, this is based solely on balance, not on historical accuracy.

[vartan]

Problem is elephants still cost too much. A unit of elephants shouldn't cost too much more than a unit of cataphracts considering there are more ways to counter them than catas. Maybe 6500 for a unit of elephants?

Btw, this is based solely on balance, not on historical accuracy.
I completely agree with you. I've agreed with you since even before you were playing EBO. We've yet to see the cheap elephant. But it does say a lot that expensive elephants have still won battles. Looking forward to 1.5x cata-cost elephants though.

[The Celtic Viking]

That's pretty much the case with Saba...you think Saba deserves compromise, too? I don't. But that's just my thought. There's nothing wrong with making all factions of the game work for the sake of having them work. :yes:

Huh? In vanilla EB, Casse gets low morale but so many eagles to showcase their different fighting style of having heroes lead the tribes into war. When you gave general units eagles, you decreased this point, and if you start giving them left, right and centre, you remove this distinguishment altogether. However, it's even worse, because you're only removing the good part of this distinguishment (the eagles), but keeping the bad part of it (low morale for non-heroic units).

In other words, my argument is not simply "doing this would make Casse irrelevant", which is pretty much true, but also that it would remove a historical point from the Casse faction. In other words, if we agreed that not giving elites an eagle would be a compromise, then all we'd have to agree with would be that either way would be a compromise. If that's the case, then I'd go with the compromise that I see as more important, both from a historical as well as a gameplay perspective. I would compromise in the way that kept Casse floating... but I genuinely don't think that it's really a compromise.


Elephants cannot win you a battle and a re a liablity. Simply too many faction have charger cavalry, heck even prodromoi can kill elephants, so can a lowly akontisai unit.

Nonsense. Elephants is what won Mr Fred's tournament as Saba.


Problem is elephants still cost too much. A unit of elephants shouldn't cost too much more than a unit of cataphracts considering there are more ways to counter them than catas. Maybe 6500 for a unit of elephants?

Btw, this is based solely on balance, not on historical accuracy.

I too agree with this.

[Lazy O]

Did anyone try charging Prodromoi or any charger cav into elephants last year ? I think not, people werent that brave last year, and saying elephants won him the tournament is over simplifying it.

[gamegeek2]

Ideally we would have armies with four elephants on large, eight on huge.

[Lazy O]

It annoys me when you are posting on the forum yet cant come on hamachi :(

[vartan]

Huh? In vanilla EB, Casse gets low morale but so many eagles to showcase their different fighting style of having heroes lead the tribes into war. When you gave general units eagles, you decreased this point, and if you start giving them left, right and centre, you remove this distinguishment altogether. However, it's even worse, because you're only removing the good part of this distinguishment (the eagles), but keeping the bad part of it (low morale for non-heroic units).

In other words, my argument is not simply "doing this would make Casse irrelevant", which is pretty much true, but also that it would remove a historical point from the Casse faction. In other words, if we agreed that not giving elites an eagle would be a compromise, then all we'd have to agree with would be that either way would be a compromise. If that's the case, then I'd go with the compromise that I see as more important, both from a historical as well as a gameplay perspective. I would compromise in the way that kept Casse floating... but I genuinely don't think that it's really a compromise.
That's why I'm against giving elites eagles. Just cause one brings a suggestion up doesn't mean one is in favour of it.


Did anyone try charging Prodromoi or any charger cav into elephants last year ? I think not, people werent that brave last year, and saying elephants won him the tournament is over simplifying it.
It's not. You clearly haven't talked to him. It's the words that came out of his mouth. :yes:


Ideally we would have armies with four elephants on large, eight on huge.
Why? Who said you need to make the numbers proportionally realistic?

[Lazy O]

Triple post ftw, he might not admit it, but there was much more to his game than elephants.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Why? Who said you need to make the numbers proportionally realistic?

Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.

A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.

[vartan]

Triple post ftw, he might not admit it, but there was much more to his game than elephants.
Who are you to speak on his behalf? Do you always do this?

Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.
Basically. Cavalry are not supposed to come near. The engine fails, once again.

A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.
You'll need to ask the EB team about that.

[gamegeek2]

Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.

A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.

Except I am going to make the better quality Indians cost less than the towered Africans. Did you read the documentation at all? Oh wait, that's long and boring.

[Lazy O]

Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?

[vartan]

Except I am going to make the better quality Indians cost less than the towered Africans. Did you read the documentation at all? Oh wait, that's long and boring.
Why the unfortunate and unnecessary inconsistency in having better quality troops cost less?


Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?
You can't speak on his behalf. I'm just saying what he told me about his play. So zip it.

[The Celtic Viking]

Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?

What are you talking about? No one here has said a word, or even implied anything, about Mr Fred's skill. All we're saying is that the elephants are what won him that tournament. It shouldn't be such a controversial thing to say when by his own words he based his whole bloody tactic on those ellies! His army composition was made up of one elephant and 19 units to support it. Of course the elephants were instrumental to his success, and there's no reasonable way to deny that.


That's why I'm against giving elites eagles. Just cause one brings a suggestion up doesn't mean one is in favour of it.

True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it? ~;)

[vartan]

What are you talking about? No one here has said a word, or even implied anything, about Mr Fred's skill. All we're saying is that the elephants are what won him that tournament. It shouldn't be such a controversial thing to say when by his own words he based his whole bloody tactic on those ellies! His army composition was made up of one elephant and 19 units to support it. Of course the elephants were instrumental to his success, and there's no reasonable way to deny that.
Precisely. He even wrote on why he made the decisions he did with those beasts of war. Lazy is probably unaware of this, or does not wish to inform himself on the matter, as usual.

True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it? ~;)
True. I'm against it for the same reasons basically.

[antisocialmunky]

That's why I'm against giving elites eagles. Just cause one brings a suggestion up doesn't mean one is in favour of it.

Yeah, the royal guards and elites of the other factions aren't there to inspire people to do crazy stuff. Rather they have a very specialized purpose such as assault, holding strong points, or delivering the KO. It would be worse than taking AP off Getai units.

[vartan]

Yeah, the royal guards and elites of the other factions aren't there to inspire people to do crazy stuff. Rather they have a very specialized purpose such as assault, holding strong points, or delivering the KO. It would be worse than taking AP off Getai units.
Yeah. Of course there are Getai units that need AP removed. But basic infantry like falxmen, didn't they get AP back yet?

[gamegeek2]

Yeah. Of course there are Getai units that need AP removed. But basic infantry like falxmen, didn't they get AP back yet?

Again, from a historical standpoint, it would make no sense. Either way falxmen had to be de-powered. If anybody recalls, we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good; Drapanai were let slide because they were the selling-point of the Getai, as the Getai never won archer wars at the time and thus the Drapanai got slaughtered. Now, the Getai have one of the cheapest and most effective low tier archer units in the game.

[vartan]

Again, from a historical standpoint, it would make no sense. Either way falxmen had to be de-powered. If anybody recalls, we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good; Drapanai were let slide because they were the selling-point of the Getai, as the Getai never won archer wars at the time and thus the Drapanai got slaughtered. Now, the Getai have one of the cheapest and most effective low tier archer units in the game.
Can't really get away with cheap units. You need to reconsider for reasons of gameplay uniqueness as a faction. And you can remove the possibility of restrictions by using pricing in combination of stats, or to spell it out, not over-the-top powerful and/or more expensive.

[-Stormrage-]

we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good

Bastarnae falxmen arent OP, they have 0 armour and die to arrow fire. This is what balance is. Rock paper scissors. Falxmen beat armour but die to arrows clear advantage and disadvantage, but the problem we have is those advantages and disadvantages arent so clear in other units. and the counter to a unit doesnt do much damage to it . I think your problem is you make changes over historical accuracy rather then gameplay.

[vartan]

Bastarnae falxmen arent OP, they have 0 armour and die to arrow fire. This is what balance is. Rock paper scissors. Falxmen beat armour but die to arrows clear advantage and disadvantage, but the problem we have is those advantages and disadvantages arent so clear in other units. and the counter to a unit doesnt do much damage to it . I think your problem is you make changes over historical accuracy rather then gameplay.
I thought you stopped playing EB and switched to Rock-Paper-Scissors, as you were suggested to do. I thought wrong!

[-Stormrage-]

I dont know what you meant by that, im still trying to decipher the meaning.

[vartan]

I dont know what you meant by that, im still trying to decipher the meaning.
Let me give you some links to help you out with that.

http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Learn-English-Picture-Dictionary/dp/0071408223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314580648&sr=8-1
http://www.tolearnenglish.com/ (http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Learn-English-Picture-Dictionary/dp/0071408223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314580648&sr=8-1)

[gamegeek2]

I dont know what you meant by that, im still trying to decipher the meaning.

Storm, he means your idea of balance is so simple-minded that you might as well go play Rock Paper Scissors - the most perfectly balanced game there is. Everything in the game has a clear strength and weakness. You can apply the same principle to a lesser extent in Shogun 2 - Spears beat Cav, Cav beat Swords, and Swords beat Spears.

But the closest thing to a simplified matrix of unit advantages and disadvantages in ancient Western warfare is this:

Heavy Infantry: Can successfully defeat all other unit types in melee, cannot outrun any units.
Heavy Cavalry: Can successfully defeat all unit types except heavy infantry in melee, can outrun all infantry.
Light Infantry: Can successfully defeat all units at range, and outrun heavy infantry, can outrun heavy infantry.
Light Cavalry: Can successfully defeat all unit types except light infantry at range, can outrun any unit.

And even to this simplified system there is a proliferation of exceptions, variations, etc.


I think your problem is you make changes over historical accuracy rather then gameplay.

Right then, please go play Starcraft.


Can't really get away with cheap units. You need to reconsider for reasons of gameplay uniqueness as a faction. And you can remove the possibility of restrictions by using pricing in combination of stats, or to spell it out, not over-the-top powerful and/or more expensive.

Do remind me, then, how a man with no shirt and a weapon that costs less than a sword would become expensive at all? Pricing is based on manpower availability and equipment only, nothing else. The Getai had plenty of falx-armed infantry so I can't increase the price. Were I to make the falx pierce armor, it's only logical to extend that to all units equipped with similar two-handed weapons, but the Rhomphaiaphoroi are at an excellent power level that I don't want to modify.

The only thing I could consider would be to artificially boost the armor stat of the Drapanai, but I have done this already, by increasing it to 2 with the excuse that their leather caps afford them some protection, which seemed to be the EB team's reasoning as well. But that's it.

[-Stormrage-]

Starcraft is nice, its actually a very well balanced game.

[gamegeek2]

Starcraft is nice, its actually a very well balanced game.

As I said.

[vartan]

Do remind me, then, how a man with no shirt and a weapon that costs less than a sword would become expensive at all? Pricing is based on manpower availability and equipment only, nothing else. The Getai had plenty of falx-armed infantry so I can't increase the price. Were I to make the falx pierce armor, it's only logical to extend that to all units equipped with similar two-handed weapons, but the Rhomphaiaphoroi are at an excellent power level that I don't want to modify.

The only thing I could consider would be to artificially boost the armor stat of the Drapanai, but I have done this already, by increasing it to 2 with the excuse that their leather caps afford them some protection, which seemed to be the EB team's reasoning as well. But that's it.
I understand. But I feel that there still remains a sense of a lack of closure on the issue of the falx since the AP removal amongst players (upon reading the forum posts, Hamachi chat, and intuition).

Starcraft is nice, its actually a very well balanced game.
BroodWar is balanced enough, but there are still issues with some maps and with particular factions' unit matchups. "Balance" in the second one makes me go :dizzy2:

[-Stormrage-]

I was referring to the second one.

[vartan]

I was referring to the second one.
Take it up in the talk-about-anything section of the forum.

[Vega]

Bastarnae falxmen arent OP, they have 0 armour and die to arrow fire. This is what balance is. Rock paper scissors. Falxmen beat armour but die to arrows clear advantage and disadvantage, but the problem we have is those advantages and disadvantages arent so clear in other units. and the counter to a unit doesnt do much damage to it . I think your problem is you make changes over historical accuracy rather then gameplay. hahaah storm we got you, you said that archers cant kill no one in this game and that they are useles

[Vega]

If this game is historical then there should not be totaly balance between factions right? Icreasing, decreasing lowing unit number lethalty mass and other stuff dont make game balanced, if gg2 just dont look at other faction, while editing one faction, for example there are no help for sweboz if you editing sweboz and you look at how will now they be vs rome you are wrong, just folow history, i know that you are good history students or whatever, nevermind gg2 space between pedites extraordinari is big very big i think that it should be fixed bcz they cost is not smal, sorry for double post :DDD

[Lazy O]

Learn to type ffs

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Hehe, way to fix space between PE until GG2 fixes this? Put them in testudo (lol it looks funny) during deployment and then take them out again. Volia! Closer spacing!

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Except I am going to make the better quality Indians cost less than the towered Africans. Did you read the documentation at all? Oh wait, that's long and boring.

I did read the documentation but that was about a month ago so I forgot this part.

[Ludens]

This discussion is getting too heated. Everybody mind the tone, please.

[Lazy O]

What are you talking about? We dont do heated discussions, atleast not here :P

[gamegeek2]

UPDATE: Pontos, Hayasdan, Sauromatae, Pahlava, and Sweboz added. Goidilic and Galatian units also added.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Hooray. Now for Hellenistic factions...

[TheShakAttack]

In defence of restoring AP to Falxmen

I have read the reasoning behind why falxmen have had their AP removed. I completely disagree with these reasons. 2 points have been raised. 1) a falx is not, in fact, armor piercing and 2) it makes falxmen overpowered.

So the points are historic/fact and game-balance based.

I disagree with point 1 because the falx was a very powerful offensive weapon, and the only weapon (in history) that forced the roman army to change armor during campaign. They had to do this to adapt to the devastating cutting force produced by the falx. Though hardly the most reliable of sources, if u look at the wikipedia entry for falx, u will note how devastating it was vs armor, even relatively high quality armor such as Lorica Segmentata. Secondly, i do not understand how a kopis/falcatta (used by various infantry such as Iberian assault, pedites extr.) can be AP, but a falx cannot. it is inconsistent. If u want to give AP only for blunt force weapons, then kopis/falcatta based fighters should also have AP removed.

Regarding the second point, regarding falxmen beingoverpowered.... I cannot comment on how they were being used and how effective they were previously as I have only been playing for a few days. however, you will note that falxmen are very easy to kill- no armor, no sheilds, easily taken down with arrows. They are a specialised unit that can be taken down very easily and cheaply in a specific manner.

Now, regarding how to proceed in a manner which addresses both history and balance...a properly made falx (note, NOT a sica) is likely to have been an expensive weapon, maybe u can increase cost to counter this. or delete falxmen altogether and instead, make Rhomphaiaphoroi AP

The alternative suggestion i have, is to decrease their defense skill significantly. this is because (and i shudder to quote wikipedia)....... "The blade was sharpened only on the inside, and was reputed to be devastatingly effective. However, it left its user vulnerable because, being a two-handed weapon, the warrior could not also make use of a shield. It may be imagined that the length of the two-handed falx allowed it to be wielded with great force, the point piercing helmets and the blade splitting shields - it was said to be capable of splitting a shield in two at a single blow" Decreasing defense skill would address this factual point....they are crazy offense units, but will get killed very quickly, even in melee.

So in conclusion, u are factually incorrect re: the falx as a weapon, and the balance question CAN be addressed in different ways which is consistent with history. The falxmen is a highly charismatic unit, due to its previous (at least in original EDU) status as a papercannon. Now its all paper no cannon. This is most unfortunate.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, there's no LS in EB so if that's your metric, then it doesn't need AP because it'll never encounter the super awesome shiny LS.

It seems like the current system is only accounting blunt force trama but GG2 can probably explain better.

[TheShakAttack]

Fair point. I forgot to take that into consideration. Regardless, a falx was still equal to, if not more, a kopis in terms of cutting through armor.

[vartan]

In defence of restoring AP to Falxmen

I have read the reasoning behind why falxmen have had their AP removed. I completely disagree with these reasons. 2 points have been raised. 1) a falx is not, in fact, armor piercing and 2) it makes falxmen overpowered.

So the points are historic/fact and game-balance based.

I disagree with point 1 because the falx was a very powerful offensive weapon, and the only weapon (in history) that forced the roman army to change armor during campaign. They had to do this to adapt to the devastating cutting force produced by the falx. Though hardly the most reliable of sources, if u look at the wikipedia entry for falx, u will note how devastating it was vs armor, even relatively high quality armor such as Lorica Segmentata. Secondly, i do not understand how a kopis/falcatta (used by various infantry such as Iberian assault, pedites extr.) can be AP, but a falx cannot. it is inconsistent. If u want to give AP only for blunt force weapons, then kopis/falcatta based fighters should also have AP removed.

Regarding the second point, regarding falxmen beingoverpowered.... I cannot comment on how they were being used and how effective they were previously as I have only been playing for a few days. however, you will note that falxmen are very easy to kill- no armor, no sheilds, easily taken down with arrows. They are a specialised unit that can be taken down very easily and cheaply in a specific manner.

Now, regarding how to proceed in a manner which addresses both history and balance...a properly made falx (note, NOT a sica) is likely to have been an expensive weapon, maybe u can increase cost to counter this. or delete falxmen altogether and instead, make Rhomphaiaphoroi AP

The alternative suggestion i have, is to decrease their defense skill significantly. this is because (and i shudder to quote wikipedia)....... "The blade was sharpened only on the inside, and was reputed to be devastatingly effective. However, it left its user vulnerable because, being a two-handed weapon, the warrior could not also make use of a shield. It may be imagined that the length of the two-handed falx allowed it to be wielded with great force, the point piercing helmets and the blade splitting shields - it was said to be capable of splitting a shield in two at a single blow" Decreasing defense skill would address this factual point....they are crazy offense units, but will get killed very quickly, even in melee.

So in conclusion, u are factually incorrect re: the falx as a weapon, and the balance question CAN be addressed in different ways which is consistent with history. The falxmen is a highly charismatic unit, due to its previous (at least in original EDU) status as a papercannon. Now its all paper no cannon. This is most unfortunate.
This is pretty good IMHO. Very well reasoned. The most important part (for me, at least) was the fact that one could kill falxmen so easily in such a specific manner. If that is to remain the case (as it probably should) then from a game design standpoint we would do very well to give it an awfully strong polar opposite, namely the AP you argue for in this post. Thanks Shak.

[gamegeek2]

Do recall that the romans placed more armor on themselves to defend against the falx.

[The Celtic Viking]

As opposed to what? Growing thicker skin? No matter how good a weapon is at it, more armour will always be more difficult to cut through than less. The fact that they felt that what they already had was not enough to protect them speaks more for AP than it does against it.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

As opposed to what? Growing thicker skin? No matter how good a weapon is at it, more armour will always be more difficult to cut through than less. The fact that they felt that what they already had was not enough to protect them speaks more for AP than it does against it.

Aww, I wanted to post something quite similar.

I agree with TCV. In effect, you are saying that more armor would not be helpful against the little clubs that the Illyrian Pirates use, since clearly, more armor cannot help you against the game's AP weapons.

As to why the Romans added more armor to defend against falxes, I feel it may actually have to do with protecting against blows which had already been blocked by the scutum. Because the blade of a falx curves inwards, it is entirely possible that blows which were caught on the end of a Roman shield would end up causing damage anyway by means of the sharp point of the blade reaching around behind the shield and cutting into the shield arm, neck, shoulder or any other area that the legionary thought he could protect by bringing his shield up to defend. A clean shot with a falx onto someones forearm would likely not be stopped by a bracer anyway. Even if the metal was thick enough to resist the blow, which is doubtful, chances are the blade would simply run down towards the hand and lop that off, or up to the elbow. Glancing blows can't count in this discussion since a glancing blow with an axe or kopis is easily brushed aside as well by a small amount of armor as well. So I feel that this is the reason why more armor was added. Plenty of other weapons the Romans faced were capable of lopping off limbs and yet they did not add more armor. However, the scutum did not defend completely against the curving blade of the falx and this may very well be why the additional armor was needed.

[Burebista]

Do recall that the romans placed more armor on themselves to defend against the falx.

As far as i read , RomeTW engine considers an AP attack as an attack that negates 50 % of the Armour of an unit , not all( dunno about shields too).

Example : a unit with 10 armour 4 shield and 10 defence skill will have 24 total defence. Against an AP attack he will have only 19 defence.

Thus AP is affected by the ammount of extra armour , but it far from ignores it.

IMHO using the no AP/high attack/high lethality/hardy system for falxes leads to a weapon very efficient against lightly armoured units but very inneficient against heavily armoured ones.
Thus what am i bringing them in battle for? to kill skirmishers and archers which they are vulnerable to?

But if you use the AP/medium attack/high lethality the unit gets better cost effectiveness against highly armoured/low skill units seeing how armour tends to be expensive in EB.
Also it makes them brutally effective against other units who rely on AP , especially kopis/falcatae.

[antisocialmunky]

The Romans IIRC reinforced their helmets, ditched the LS, and added padding. They also added segmented sleeves so they wouldn't lose as many arms as well as greaves because having legs is a useful thing.

But as Burebista said, they were actually quite vulnerable before to cheap celtic swordsmen and other things.

[TheShakAttack]

The Romans IIRC reinforced their helmets, ditched the LS, and added padding. They also added segmented sleeves so they wouldn't lose as many arms as well as greaves because having legs is a useful thing.

But as Burebista said, they were actually quite vulnerable before to cheap celtic swordsmen and other things.

I agree completely. The falx neccesitated the response of adding addition armor during Dacian Conflict. Other weapons the roman army had encountered previously were not as noted for their AP capacity. To the extent that greaves and forearm guards were not part of stardard equipment.

I also agree with Robin that part of the reason for greaves and forearmguards (technical name escapes me) is likey to have been due to the curved nature of the falx which might have been able to (in a sense) “reach around” a scutum due to a falx's curved nature. However, this is not the point I will focus on right now.

A key fact is that the helmet needed to be reinforced. Therefore, one might safely assume that the previous helmet in use was not sufficiently strong. Further, Roman Armor was noted to be of very high quality.

In EBO, we play against “standard” armor, not the “reinforced” armor Trajan’s army was forced to adpot. The falx was clearly very effective against the “standard” armor of Trajan’s troops and therefore it should be reflected in game.

One might try to argue that adding more armor and/or reinforcing it stopped the AP quality of the falx (the fact that it could pierce “standard” armor does not matter) and therefore the falx should not be AP. In which event it is hard to see why an axe or a kopis is AP. Im sure you can reinforce armor to decrease effectiveness of those weapons as well. Further, as far as I know, Rome encountered many armies who used the kopis/falcatta and axe, but nowhere near the same fear is expressed with regard to these weapons as is with the falx (though it may be that this is because Trajan wished for this to happen for publicity reasons).

[antisocialmunky]

Actually, I would imagine that the helmet reinforcements were more due to the fact that the falx defeats energy redirection due to its tendency to 'hook' so you could probably jack up a helmet quite a bit through blunt force. Also note that they were strengthening the helmet with a simple brace rather than making it thicker and they added armor only to unarmored bits so it would counter the falx. So my feeling is that it was very good at getting a 'bite' and piercing tearing.

Kopis/Falcatta are swords that have heavy tips made to transfer impact and cut. Likewise, axes are smashing weapons with a blade unless you're referring to one of those Eastern dagger axes which are basically made for piercing..

[vartan]

Do recall that the romans placed more armor on themselves to defend against the falx.
You can't have a Roman have more armour against the falx and less against other units. And the Romans putting on more armour doesn't prove the non-AP-ness of the falx.

[antisocialmunky]

So... you put on armor on places that are not armored to defend from stuff that can easily defeat armor?

[TheShakAttack]

So... you put on armor on places that are not armored to defend from stuff that can easily defeat armor?

Obviously yes...if that's the best you can do.

[TheShakAttack]

Actually, I would imagine that the helmet reinforcements were more due to the fact that the falx defeats energy redirection due to its tendency to 'hook' so you could probably jack up a helmet quite a bit through blunt force.

If that is indeed why they did it (I am not an expert), then logic follows that if maces are AP, falx, though its ability to generate blunt force to the head, is also AP? (not that this is the thrust of my entire argument).

[gamegeek2]

If that is indeed why they did it (I am not an expert), then logic follows that if maces are AP, falx, though its ability to generate blunt force to the head, is also AP? (not that this is the thrust of my entire argument).

ASM and I are, if I understand correctly, pointing out the flaw in your position.

Adding armor to the arm does nothing against a mace because a heavy mace will break your arm regardless of what you are wearing. Same with a war-hammer or pole-axe. By its design the falx is excellent for attacking where armor can't be found, namely at the neck and arms. So rather you attack where the armor is not, rather than blow through it. This is the only way in which I see the falx getting AP, in its ability to hit where the armor isn't, but other weapons were doing that too; most slashing weapons were used to cut off limbs (typically unarmored), as slashing at the chest is simply less efficient than stabbing there. They were simply less good at it because you had far less control than you did with a falx. Thus we have falxes with higher attack, but which get worse as armor gets better, just like every other weapon.

[TheShakAttack]

I remain unconvinced by your argument. I have to emphasise, I am not a weapons expert, and you may well be right. However, the fact is, everything i have read about the falx (including the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) indicates it was a weapon which could cut into shields and armor (see quote above). If anyone could direct me to a source which backsup your argument, I will be much obliged. I might be laboring under a popular misconception.

Out of curiosity, why does Bastarnae retain AP while drapanai dont if you are advancing the historical/fact based argument that the falx was not AP?

PS. here are some futher links from very superficial research (google). Unfortunately only game sites feel the need to discuss the falx, lol.

http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=9989

"In combat the Dacians fielded a ferocious weapon of such brutality that the Romans were forced to issue extra armor to their troops to counter it. This was of course the legendary Dacian falx. Bearing an obvious resemblance to the earlier Thracian weapon, the falx was of similar construction: a two-handed sword with a down-sloping curved iron blade. Again, roughly 3-feet long, the falx featured a heavier blade than the rhomphaia, along with a sturdier haft. In combat the Dacians would swing the weapon with such power that it was able to cut through Roman shields and wound the man behind. Decapitations and amputations occurred with such astounding regularity that the Romans made subtle modifications to the standard legionnaire’s equipment. Helmets and shields were reinforced, while soldiers were issued greaves and manica to give them greater protection when facing the falxmen. Thanks in part to the devastating power of the falx the Roman Imperial Italic line of helmets came into production. "

http://rtw.heavengames.com/history/general/Truth_Fantasy/Truth_Fantasy/

"It was one of the few weapons encountered by the Romans which caused them to modify their current equipment. Upon facing falxmen for the first time, the Romans were terrified to see the weapon slice through helmets, or chop off arms with a single blow. The next time the Romans went on the warpath, they had bronze crosses reinforcing their helmets, and metal plates covering their shoulders and lower legs."

[vartan]

The falx had its AP removed so as to underpower the units that use it. Any falx-wielding units that still have AP simply mean there are inconsistencies in the EDU and that gg2 has yet to remove AP from those units. It's simply a move that was taken to underpower them. I could argue that AP be removed from maces and axes, especially axes. But when we look at non-blade weaponry, we see why AP is necessary. The falx is a blade, and this is one of the biggest obstacles in understanding it as AP-worthy, but if you consider how devastating the falx was, it doesn't matter if it didn't cut through armor, it still deserves AP as a way of representing its devastating nature as a weapon of war.

TL;DR Falx translated into RTW terms should be AP. The EB team, though not flawless, had this point right the first time around.

[gamegeek2]

The falx had its AP removed so as to underpower the units that use it. Any falx-wielding units that still have AP simply mean there are inconsistencies in the EDU and that gg2 has yet to remove AP from those units. It's simply a move that was taken to underpower them. I could argue that AP be removed from maces and axes, especially axes. But when we look at non-blade weaponry, we see why AP is necessary. The falx is a blade, and this is one of the biggest obstacles in understanding it as AP-worthy, but if you consider how devastating the falx was, it doesn't matter if it didn't cut through armor, it still deserves AP as a way of representing its devastating nature as a weapon of war.

TL;DR Falx translated into RTW terms should be AP. The EB team, though not flawless, had this point right the first time around.

Vartan that's awfully low of you to misrepresent like that. But as I said it is under the microscope.

[vartan]

For all the confused out there, this was all a farce. Excuse this charade. We are truly working on the falx and have in the works a proposition that is going to be tested that, theoretically at least, looks quite promising as an alternative that will bring back AP for the falx while maintaining a desired level of balance. Thanks.

[antisocialmunky]

Trolls live in bridges and not under caves...

I think high lethality will serve it fine. It was a little OP against Romans back in Vanilla anyway.

[-Stormrage-]

Since were on the subject, i move we give back AP to Thracian peltestai and Indian Longbowmen. you could gice thracians peltatsts a cost boost like maybe 1800 and return AP to them , afterall werent you the ones always ranting on about historical accuracy, whenever something is suggested, " oh no htats not historicaly asccurate" . Moreover, Indian Longbowmen die like flies to anything that can shoot, get one persian archer it'll rip'em apart, so whhy take AP from them they arent overpowered, if u allow them to engage then thats your mistake.

Note: Why do bosphoran archers and other proffesional archers, only have 5 attack. I think you will agree most EB units alot have armour, AND EVEN the light units have armour. Why only 5, what do u want them to do shoot birds. i suggest +2 archer attack to all archers. heres the thing We have greatly Decreased accuracy of archers, I see no reason why we ccant increase their damage to balance the high decrease in accuracy.

[gamegeek2]

OK. I think it's a stretch giving the AP to the two-handed falx, so I'm inclined to say that it's a definite no to restoring AP to one of the most insanely overpowered units of vanilla EB, the Thracian Peltast. Not only did it was the peltast actually superior as an armor-piercing infantryman than Celtic Axemen - without a barbarian bonus to melee combat, he was also better armored and a better skirmisher. It was absurd and, from what I can tell, there was almost universal approval to its removal.

A cane longbow simply doesn't stack up to a composite bow in terms of range and power, and we don't have a levy indian archer unit anyways. Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.

Stormrage, you've exhausted your credibility capital on the issue of archers. The system of how better quality archers achieve better shooting results has, I believe, been explained perfectly adequately. In fact, the new higher quality archers have a much more pronounced advantage over lower quality archers in doing damage, per man, but they have less men to do it with now. Their advantage is significantly more pronounced at longer range, and their armor reinforces this edge significantly.

Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Since were on the subject, i move we give back AP to Thracian peltestai and Indian Longbowmen. you could gice thracians peltatsts a cost boost like maybe 1800 and return AP to them , afterall werent you the ones always ranting on about historical accuracy, whenever something is suggested, " oh no htats not historicaly asccurate" . Moreover, Indian Longbowmen die like flies to anything that can shoot, get one persian archer it'll rip'em apart, so whhy take AP from them they arent overpowered, if u allow them to engage then thats your mistake.

Note: Why do bosphoran archers and other proffesional archers, only have 5 attack. I think you will agree most EB units alot have armour, AND EVEN the light units have armour. Why only 5, what do u want them to do shoot birds. i suggest +2 archer attack to all archers. heres the thing We have greatly Decreased accuracy of archers, I see no reason why we ccant increase their damage to balance the high decrease in accuracy.

As far as archer attack, I think gamegeek is using the draw strength of various bow types in attack ratings, possibly factoring in arrow types as well. It is the accuracy that really matters though. If you hand a bow to a professional archer and someone off the streets who is relatively strong, there is little difference in the amount of damage the arrow would do if both hit their target. However, the professional will hit his target far more often so in this sense the accuracy changes make a lot of sense.

Thracian Peltasts should not get ap back. They use their blade single handed which wouldn't generate so much force and the blade is rather thin. However, weapons like the Indian sword wielded by the archers and the weapons of the Kluddargos and Lugii should get AP back instead. These are large, heavy weapons. Even though they do not have sweet spots like a mace or axe, the relative weight of the entire weapon along with it's two handed nature mean that a lot of force will be generated swinging one of these. I tend to think that two handed swords of this time frame were more crushing weapons than cutting weapons anyway. And obviously I feel that falxes should get AP back.

I would also appreciate your opinion gamegeek, on my idea of why more armor may have been added to counter the falx, since it seems to have been lost in the discussion.

[antisocialmunky]

You could just make them more plentiful or something. You could just make them some sort of interesting 240 sized levy archer/machette unit. I mean, you have cheap plentiful parts and a lot of people able to use bows so it would make sense.

I always thought they had one of these: http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=1036

You could just stat it as a swinging sword with defense decrease since its not really made for parry/not dying.

[Lazy O]

Please talk in large scale. And an Indian sword has a MUCH larger blade than that.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Good photo of Indian longbow sword, even compares it to celtic longsword. Its probably designed as a two handed weapon as it looks rather top heavy for a one handed blade.
2238

[TheShakAttack]

A cane longbow simply doesn't stack up to a composite bow in terms of range and power, and we don't have a levy indian archer unit anyways. Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.

...

Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.

I disagree. Indian archery had a very long and historic tradition, much like the cultures that surrounded it. They can be roughly divided into two types of units, the common/levy type of soldiers that used bamboo longbows which used traditional arrows and when against cavalry/elephants, used iron arrows to increase piercing ability. The nobility used steel bows and steel head arrows ( to give arrows AP ability to be used more effectively against armoured elephants and cavalry).

The bamboo longbow was a very large weapon, longer than the person wielding it, and it was anchored on the ground using the toes of the foot. An average composite bow only offers a significant advantage against longbows/longbows in that they are compact and therefore well suited for mounted archery. For most practical (i.e. flight archery excluded) non-mounted archery purposes, composite construction offers no advantage. The English Longbow, though of superior construction to bamboo longbow, was not terribly dissimilar in concept, and demonstrates this principle. A composite bow was in fact, very expensive whereas the bamboo longbow was very cheap. So this should be addressed. Only the most expensive/well-made composite bows offered any considerable advantage when compared to longbows (for non-mounted purposes). These very well made composite bows would usually only be found in the hands of elites of steppe, west and central asia and further east (India, china, etc). The composite bows used by Cretans are unlikely to have been a match (esp in the EB time period). Bosphorans, I do not honestly know..it's likely given their location (though I'm not sure they would have had the high quality composite bows that offer adv over longbow/longbows).

On a side note, I think the prowess of Cretan archers has been overemphasised/powered in the game (and inconsistent with history), but that discussion is for another time.

I know the Indian Longbow unit is not finished so I cant comment on how they are right now. However, if you consider the Indian longbow unit respresnts the “common soldier/levy”, it should be very cheap and just as powerful as a elite composite bow user apart from perhaps persian heavy and bosphoran (who would have access to supeiror composite bow). If you consider it represents the nobility, then it should be one of the most expensive and best archer units in the game to reflect metal construction, certainly better than Cretans (though I do not think this is your intention so I will not discuss it further).

Heres a quote to end my discussion

“The Indian longbow was reputedly a powerful weapon capable of great range and penetration and provided an effective counter to invading horse archers. Iron shafts were used against armored elephants and fire arrows were also part of the bowmen's arsenal. India historically has had a prominent reputation for its steel weapons. One of these was the steel bow. Due to its high tensility, the steel bow was capable of long range and penetration of exceptionally thick armor. These were less common weapons than the bamboo design and found in the hands of noblemen rather than in the ranks.”




Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.

Agree with Robin’s post. The region had access to one of the best ironworks during that time period so it is entirely possible that they would have cheaply constructed something similar to what Robin has suggested. Plus, they look awfully big in the game, I don't know where you got "that small sword" from.

Also, it’d be interesting to hear what your rationale is for giving AP to axe, mace, kopis/falcatta.


Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.

Didn’t know that. So I am guessing that the only adv the Bosphoran would have over the levy unit using the same bow when firing at a Roman Legionary is that more of their arrows would hit the target when shooting from a distance?

[-Stormrage-]

As far as archer attack, I think gamegeek is using the draw strength of various bow types in attack ratings, possibly factoring in arrow types as well. It is the accuracy that really matters though. If you hand a bow to a professional archer and someone off the streets who is relatively strong, there is little difference in the amount of damage the arrow would do if both hit their target. However, the professional will hit his target far more often so in this sense the accuracy changes make a lot of sense.

Yes your right a proffesional archer wil hit his target more often then a levy archer, but my point is most eb units have armour around 10 even "light units" have armour, so even if the archer hits his target the armour of the "light" unit will stop it. not to mention all light units have sheilds 3 to 5. an increase in arrow attack will insure that when a light unit is hit he will die and his armour wont stop the bullet.

Another note: I think sword attack is too low. Lets take a common sowrd, for example we have a sword thats 11 attack. consider the enemy unit most unit have 8- 10 armour, + sheild + the defense skill. So add all those defense aspects then look at the attack value of a sword. It shows that the units are dying way way way too slowly.

Message to GG: If u want to have a light unit, here is what u can do u can give the light unit something like 4-5 armour, then give him 20-25 defense skill. that way you get a light unit archers can kill, but at the same time a light unit which doesnt die too fast in melee, thats my advice.

GG i found a problem, its either a stat error or a category error. Unit (Taxilan Agema )
category cavalry
class light
stat_pri_armour 12, 13, 2, leather (armour/defense skill/sheild)

[LusitanianWolf]

Yes your right a proffesional archer wil hit his target more often then a levy archer, but my point is most eb units have armour around 10 even "light units" have armour, so even if the archer hits his target the armour of the "light" unit will stop it. not to mention all light units have sheilds 3 to 5. an increase in arrow attack will insure that when a light unit is hit he will die and his armour wont stop the bullet.

Another note: I think sword attack is too low. Lets take a common sowrd, for example we have a sword thats 11 attack. consider the enemy unit most unit have 8- 10 armour, + sheild + the defense skill. So add all those defense aspects then look at the attack value of a sword. It shows that the units are dying way way way too slowly.

Message to GG: If u want to have a light unit, here is what u can do u can give the light unit something like 4-5 armour, then give him 20-25 defense skill. that way you get a light unit archers can kill, but at the same time a light unit which doesnt die too fast in melee, thats my advice.

GG i found a problem, its either a stat error or a category error. Unit (Taxilan Agema )
category cavalry
class light
stat_pri_armour 12, 13, 2, leather (armour/defense skill/sheild)
EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit.


Bah, I'm eager to finish this work and get back to EB MP, the new EDU looks promissing!!!!

[-Stormrage-]

Another problem we have is, the light units which are accually stated as having light armour are given a huge sheild to block arrows.

example : Ridanz
stat_pri_armour 2, 12, 5, flesh . Cool theyve got light armour i finally found a unit i can kill with archers, thank you. oh wait, 5 sheild WTF!!!

I think GG is a big archer hater. Even the light units which should die to archer fire are given a big sheild to hide behind. GG its like your mocking us .

[-Stormrage-]

[QUOTE=LusitanianWolf;2053367961]EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit./QUOTE]

Historical battles lasted for hours, We cant spend hours on a single battle. This is wwhat historical accuracy has driven you too , oh people. You are now willing to make kill rates so slow to match the kill rates of real life. well you have to remmeber something, its a game not real life.

[LusitanianWolf]

[QUOTE=LusitanianWolf;2053367961]EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit. /QUOTE]

Historical battles lasted for hours, We cant spend hours on a single battle. This is wwhat historical accuracy has driven you too , oh people. You are now willing to make kill rates so slow to match the kill rates of real life. well you have to remmeber something, its a game not real life.
I'm not talking about the speed of killing but the number of people that would be killed... Alexander the Great in Guadamela was fighting a huge number of archers and peltasts and his infantry casualities are said to be 100-500 (acourding to wiki at least).

[-Stormrage-]

@Shak, I love yah man.

Till now ALL of your 11 posts have been posts of good reasoning, historical facts , and supported by resourses and jquotes. Best of all your supporting some ideas i agree with, and are putting them forth in a good case.

[-Stormrage-]

Good photo of Indian longbow sword, even compares it to celtic longsword. Its probably designed as a two handed weapon as it looks rather top heavy for a one handed blade.
2238

that thing should cut the naked in half.

[TheShakAttack]

[QUOTE=-Stormrage-;2053367967]
I'm not talking about the speed of killing but the number of people that would be killed... Alexander the Great in Guadamela was fighting a huge number of archers and peltasts and his infantry casualities are said to be 100-500 (acourding to wiki at least).

That is correct. Historically, archers were not terribly effective against armies that were well prepared for to receive fire from arrows. It's very easy to hide under shield or some sort of cover. Most archers were skirmishers and meant more to annoy, harass, distract, lower morale etc than deliver serious casualties. The psychological threat of being hit/maimed by a constant volley of arrows, seeing a few guys being hit around you, and the annoyance at not being able to retaliate was the desired effect. The only exception would be when the archers were well positioned and the units couldn't really turn around to face fire and duck under shields. Even in the battle of Carrhae, the HAs most useful purpose was to sap morale and continously harass the legions. They did not inflict tremendous casualties (in comparison to how long they were shooting/harassing for and the great shooting position they would have i.e. raised, and from flanks).

The logical exception of course would be units that were not prepared (didn't bring a sheild, or have decent armor)- this would have been more mobs than real armies. In EBO we play pitched battles, and in situations like this, it is hard to imagine that a unit would not even bring a shield or some sort of cover.

The exception of course are elite archers who functioned more as snipers than mass volley archers (think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer). Unfortunately EB does not seem to have represented them very well. These elites had the ability to shoot incredibly accurately from long ranges. Of course, they would have to be very, very expensive and small in numbers...

[TheShakAttack]

that thing should cut the naked in half.

Unless it hits the "naked's" two spherical objects contained in a sac close to the pelvic region. In which case the sword should disintegrate and explode. Instantly killing the indian longbowmen and half his army while naked stands back and laughs.

[-Stormrage-]

(think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer)

HAHA lol


Unless it hits the "naked's" two spherical objects contained in a sac close to the pelvic region. In which case it should disintegrate and explode. Instantly killing the indian longbowmen and half the army.

xD

[-Stormrage-]

HE REMOVED AP FROM ORCA
stat_pri 13, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.225
stat_pri_attr no

What the hell you thinking!!!!
Orca??? orca!?!?!!?!? those are ELITES.

NOTE: Cav charge distances are now 30. Archer charge distances are 30. infantry charge distance is 30.
Ok,cavalry should have a longer charge distance then infantry, especailly long lance weilding cavalry becuase: the cav charge especially the heavy cataphract charge should not stop for anything when u increase charge distance the cataphract will lower lance a longer way back thus any unit in between the cataphract and the target does not distrupt the charge. this is what will happen. the cataphracts will lower lanes charge to their target any levy unit any loose formation unit will get impaled and the cata will continue forward to the target. another situation, consider there is a blob of infantry . if targeta unit and it happens to be fighting on the opposite side of the blob, the cata will not lower lances it will run into the blob lances raised, if charge distance is increased they were lower lances way before and impale any poor unlucky guy between the cata and its target.

Cav charge should be between 40 and 50.

[LusitanianWolf]

[QUOTE=LusitanianWolf;2053367970]

That is correct. Historically, archers were not terribly effective against armies that were well prepared for to receive fire from arrows. It's very easy to hide under shield or some sort of cover. Most archers were skirmishers and meant more to annoy, harass, distract, lower morale etc than deliver serious casualties. The psychological threat of being hit/maimed by a constant volley of arrows, seeing a few guys being hit around you, and the annoyance at not being able to retaliate was the desired effect. The only exception would be when the archers were well positioned and the units couldn't really turn around to face fire and duck under shields. Even in the battle of Carrhae, the HAs most useful purpose was to sap morale and continously harass the legions. They did not inflict tremendous casualties (in comparison to how long they were shooting/harassing for and the great shooting position they would have i.e. raised, and from flanks).

The logical exception of course would be units that were not prepared (didn't bring a sheild, or have decent armor)- this would have been more mobs than real armies. In EBO we play pitched battles, and in situations like this, it is hard to imagine that a unit would not even bring a shield or some sort of cover.

The exception of course are elite archers who functioned more as snipers than mass volley archers (think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer). Unfortunately EB does not seem to have represented them very well. These elites had the ability to shoot incredibly accurately from long ranges. Of course, they would have to be very, very expensive and small in numbers...
Exactly. But these elites would probably not be gathered in a single unit but acting as officers/champions spread around the army to inspire other archers or as general's personal retinue and they impact on battle would be too low to represent in RTW (unless some managed to kill the enemy general or hunt some Mumakills :laugh4:)

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Storm, why don't you play as Getai and take 5 Elite Archers. Those guys tear stuff to shreds. I can't see any basis in your complaints otherwise. If you want strong archers you should not be playing a mod from this time period when infantry was the predominant force on the battlefield.

Oh and orca never had AP Storm. He's made them stronger by giving them a 0.225 longsword. These are now, imo, one of the best infantry units in game. Do not complain about them.

[Lazy O]

Storm, go play either ETW , NTW, or RoP. Heck, even vanilla is getting infantry based these days.

[Lazy O]

I disagree. Indian archery had a very long and historic tradition, much like the cultures that surrounded it. They can be roughly divided into two types of units, the common/levy type of soldiers that used bamboo longbows which used traditional arrows and when against cavalry/elephants, used iron arrows to increase piercing ability. The nobility used steel bows and steel head arrows ( to give arrows AP ability to be used more effectively against armoured elephants and cavalry).

The bamboo longbow was a very large weapon, longer than the person wielding it, and it was anchored on the ground using the toes of the foot. An average composite bow only offers a significant advantage against longbows/longbows in that they are compact and therefore well suited for mounted archery. For most practical (i.e. flight archery excluded) non-mounted archery purposes, composite construction offers no advantage. The English Longbow, though of superior construction to bamboo longbow, was not terribly dissimilar in concept, and demonstrates this principle. A composite bow was in fact, very expensive whereas the bamboo longbow was very cheap. So this should be addressed. Only the most expensive/well-made composite bows offered any considerable advantage when compared to longbows (for non-mounted purposes). These very well made composite bows would usually only be found in the hands of elites of steppe, west and central asia and further east (India, china, etc). The composite bows used by Cretans are unlikely to have been a match (esp in the EB time period). Bosphorans, I do not honestly know..it's likely given their location (though I'm not sure they would have had the high quality composite bows that offer adv over longbow/longbows).

On a side note, I think the prowess of Cretan archers has been overemphasised/powered in the game (and inconsistent with history), but that discussion is for another time.

I know the Indian Longbow unit is not finished so I cant comment on how they are right now. However, if you consider the Indian longbow unit respresnts the “common soldier/levy”, it should be very cheap and just as powerful as a elite composite bow user apart from perhaps persian heavy and bosphoran (who would have access to supeiror composite bow). If you consider it represents the nobility, then it should be one of the most expensive and best archer units in the game to reflect metal construction, certainly better than Cretans (though I do not think this is your intention so I will not discuss it further).

Heres a quote to end my discussion

“The Indian longbow was reputedly a powerful weapon capable of great range and penetration and provided an effective counter to invading horse archers. Iron shafts were used against armored elephants and fire arrows were also part of the bowmen's arsenal. India historically has had a prominent reputation for its steel weapons. One of these was the steel bow. Due to its high tensility, the steel bow was capable of long range and penetration of exceptionally thick armor. These were less common weapons than the bamboo design and found in the hands of noblemen rather than in the ranks.”





Agree with Robin’s post. The region had access to one of the best ironworks during that time period so it is entirely possible that they would have cheaply constructed something similar to what Robin has suggested. Plus, they look awfully big in the game, I don't know where you got "that small sword" from.

Also, it’d be interesting to hear what your rationale is for giving AP to axe, mace, kopis/falcatta.



Didn’t know that. So I am guessing that the only adv the Bosphoran would have over the levy unit using the same bow when firing at a Roman Legionary is that more of their arrows would hit the target when shooting from a distance?

I am quoting Shaks post again becuase of haters who have completely ignored it. But I really dont get what all the fuss is about, just learn to get 5 archers to the flanks. Auto win. LEARN TO PLAY

[LusitanianWolf]

Regarding Falxes and cia... Historically they were very effective agaisnt armour, sure, even more than falcatas, kopis and some axes... But here were not talking if they were or not, the question is how is the best way to represent them ingame and if they should have the AP attribute that halves enemy armour. Since it was a weapon so deadly they should have high attack and high lettality... So, what happens if you also had them AP? They'll probably become unrealisticly OP... So there is 3 points you need to manage: attack, letality and AP. Falcatas, axes and kopis, in the other way were also effective agaisnt armour (I've heard romans doubled their shields width because of iberian mercenairs falcatas during 1st punic war) but not so letal, so they should have lower attack and lettality and will need AP to still be effective. But with or without AP falxes can still be as very deadly (high attack and letallity). Not saing that that they should'nt have the attribute or that they are ballanced ingame, just that you can still represent their effectivness without the game attribute AP.


And about indians, In EBII preview archers are said to be part of the warrior class and have a very proud tradition, so they should be very good archers. The problem is that on EB1 you only have one archer unit to represent both levy and elites so you have to make either a choice or a ballance.. I expect in EBII to these nice steel bows to be represented by chariot crews or perhaps a new, shinny unit :2thumbsup: And that swords are nasty but they were clearly OP in vannilla so its the same as falxes..

[-Stormrage-]

OP ? if something is good at what it is supposed to do it is not OP. And i thought u ugys were all about Historical accuracy well the falx was historically good at doing what it does "OP" as u call it. everytime i suggest somehting someone tells me "oh no sotrmrage but that is not historically accurate we dont care if its good for gameplay its not historical" . you guys are all . History is NUMBER 1 historocal accuracy is NUMBER 1. Why are you now hiding behind the banner of "for gameplay puposes" . EB isnt about fair gameplay its about historical accuracy, according to you.

[LusitanianWolf]

OP ? if something is good at what it is supposed to do it is not OP. And i thought u ugys were all about Historical accuracy well the falx was historically good at doing what it does "OP" as u call it. everytime i suggest somehting someone tells me "oh no sotrmrage but that is not historically accurate we dont care if its good for gameplay its not historical" . you guys are all . History is NUMBER 1 historocal accuracy is NUMBER 1. Why are you now hiding behind the banner of "for gameplay puposes" . EB isnt about fair gameplay its about historical accuracy, according to you.
Eb is about both, its about making a game as historically accurate, ballanced and fun to play as is possible with the RTW engine. So you have to find a compromise. If you want to play a game that drop the historicaly accurate part, why dont you go play another mod, there's lot of good ones? I was saying that falxes being historically good agaisnt armour doesnt mean that you can't ballance them without the game attribute AP. That, for the sake of gameplay, game AP isnt the same as historicaly AP. Unless you want to decrase falx letallity? Indian archers in vanilla were OP in vanilla because they could kick the ass out even of catas!

[TheShakAttack]

Regarding Falxes and cia... Historically they were very effective agaisnt armour, sure, even more than falcatas, kopis and some axes... But here were not talking if they were or not, the question is how is the best way to represent them ingame and if they should have the AP attribute that halves enemy armour. Since it was a weapon so deadly they should have high attack and high lettality... So, what happens if you also had them AP? They'll probably become unrealisticly OP... So there is 3 points you need to manage: attack, letality and AP. Falcatas, axes and kopis, in the other way were also effective agaisnt armour (I've heard romans doubled their shields width because of iberian mercenairs falcatas during 1st punic war) but not so letal, so they should have lower attack and lettality and will need AP to still be effective. But with or without AP falxes can still be as very deadly (high attack and letallity). Not saing that that they should'nt have the attribute or that they are ballanced ingame, just that you can still represent their effectivness without the game attribute AP.


And about indians, In EBII preview archers are said to be part of the warrior class and have a very proud tradition, so they should be very good archers. The problem is that on EB1 you only have one archer unit to represent both levy and elites so you have to make either a choice or a ballance.. I expect in EBII to these nice steel bows to be represented by chariot crews or perhaps a new, shinny unit :2thumbsup: And that swords are nasty but they were clearly OP in vannilla so its the same as falxes..


Good post. This stat based explanation is a good explanation, though this is not the reasoning that was provided when explaining why falx is not AP. Gamegeek2 focused more on the actual ability of the falx to cut through armor. He did not forward the stat based explanation. I have 3 points in response to your post if indeed this is the reason why AP was taken away.

1) Keep falx as “low attack + AP” to make them anti-armor personnel. There are other ways to take down lightly armoured infantry. Making falx less effective against them, whilst very unrealistic, would be an acceptable sacrifice in my opinion. I get the feeling most ppl used them v heavy armor anyways. They won’t miss the effectiveness v light armor.
2) Taking away AP from falx, as I understand it, makes them less effective against highly armoured units. Even if u substitute high attack/lethality, it is unlikely to cover it unless you make them grossly overpowered.
3) Lastly, if falcattas remain AP, why not falx was my question. Surely falcattas would also be just as good v unarmored opponents. Deal with falx same way (if not more AP) as falcattas have been dealt with.

Re: Indians, you are very right they had a very proud tradition. In fact, in Hinduism, historically, the highest caste (or “group”) of people were Kryhstias (warrior caste); even more interestingly, a significant portion of Hindu mythology focuses on archery, and the main weapon of many of the primary gods is the bow (which might give some idea of how important they considered archery). If the Indian Longbow unit is to be representative of the region as a whole, it should be one of the more powerful (in terms of attack and accuracy; not necessarily armor), and yet cheap, units in the game for reasons I discussed in my earlier post (low cost weapon, highly populous region, rich tradition etc.)

[TheShakAttack]

OP ? if something is good at what it is supposed to do it is not OP. And i thought u ugys were all about Historical accuracy well the falx was historically good at doing what it does "OP" as u call it. everytime i suggest somehting someone tells me "oh no sotrmrage but that is not historically accurate we dont care if its good for gameplay its not historical" . you guys are all . History is NUMBER 1 historocal accuracy is NUMBER 1. Why are you now hiding behind the banner of "for gameplay puposes" . EB isnt about fair gameplay its about historical accuracy, according to you.

Calm down buddy. I think what everyone is saying/thinks is that there needs to be some sort of a balance between the two. My only problem is that where this “line in the sand” is has not been made very clear. Historically, the legions were incredibly powerful and good at what they do. So were the elite successor phalanxes, catas, and horse archers. But if you represent they in a purely historical mindset, then the game becomes boring and loses its diversity. You have to have some balance between gameplay and history.

[antisocialmunky]

@Wolf

I guess I misremembered them. In Vanilla they were extremely good melee shock infantry that happened to have arrows. However as they are modelled, they should probably just be medium quality archers, cost ~1200, have no armor, and be good in melee.

@Stormrage

Well, he's talking about adding AP on to the current stats would be imbalanced and unrealistic so while you could model it with AP or without and still have an accurate representation.

[TheShakAttack]

@Wolf

I guess I misremembered them. In Vanilla they were extremely good melee shock infantry that happened to have arrows. However as they are modelled, they should probably just be medium quality archers, cost ~1200, have no armor, and be good in melee.


Lol, i wrote a rather large post as to why they should not be medium quality (in terms of missile attack/range/accuracy). Keep their armor low, that's no prob though.

[LusitanianWolf]

Lol, i wrote a rather large post as to why they should not be medium quality (in terms of missile attack/range/accuracy). Keep their armor low, that's no prob though.
The problem is that same as persian's: not every single indian archer would be a bow master or be equiped with a steel longbow and you only have one unit to represent both levys and elites.... But I agree that they should be at least of good quality, and excelent for their price.




1) Keep falx as “low attack + AP” to make them anti-armor personnel. There are other ways to take down lightly armoured infantry. Making falx less effective against them, whilst very unrealistic, would be an acceptable sacrifice in my opinion. I get the feeling most ppl used them v heavy armor anyways. They won’t miss the effectiveness v light armor.
2) Taking away AP from falx, as I understand it, makes them less effective against highly armoured units. Even if u substitute high attack/lethality, it is unlikely to cover it unless you make them grossly overpowered.
3) Lastly, if falcattas remain AP, why not falx was my question. Surely falcattas would also be just as good v unarmored opponents. Deal with falx same way (if not more AP) as falcattas have been dealt with.
Yes, that would be another way to represent them, thats a choice that needs to be made.

[TheShakAttack]

The problem is that same as persian's: not every single indian archer would be a bow master or be equiped with a steel longbow and you only have one unit to represent both levys and elites.... But I agree that they should be at least of good quality, and excelent for their price.

Only thing I was saying is that they should have bow stats at same level as good quality composite bows. Not that the unit should be bow masters, or the best in the game, or anything like that. Re: the rest, i agree. good quality, excellent for price.

[antisocialmunky]

The real problem is there is no way to change weapon damage since they are all 1 lethality 1 HP of damage. So the only metric you can change is accuracy.

[TheShakAttack]

The real problem is there is no way to change weapon damage since they are all 1 lethality 1 HP of damage. So the only metric you can change is accuracy.

Learn something new every day :) Thanks for that. Well, in that event, I remember GG2 classified bows into different categories, my argument was bamboo longbowmen should be in same category as a good composite bowmen.

[antisocialmunky]

I guess you need to basically have accuracy stuff for all combinations of skill + weapon.

[-Stormrage-]

Indian archers in vanilla were OP in vanilla because they could kick the ass out even of catas!

1)They die like flies before they reach the enemy lines.

2)Catas are not meant to fight in melee, they are hit and break hammer.

[LusitanianWolf]

1)They die like flies before they reach the enemy lines.

2)Catas are not meant to fight in melee, they are hit and break hammer.
1 They are not mean to reach the enemy lines but to be in the back as archers and help in melee as needed.

2 Your right but I said catas as I would say anything else. It was fun for the first times to get heavy cavalry butchered by archers but I dont think that's their purpose. If it was me I would give them high attack, nice lettality but low discipline, morale and defense so they can be effective in some short fights but defeated when encountering disciplined enemies. Its completely exasperating, when playing as sweboz to defeat enemy phalanx only to get butchered by archers in melee, belive me ;)