Noob questions.

[TheShakAttack]

Hello all. I thought I would post some questions I have that are pretty noobish. I’ll copy paste the best answer under the question so that any newcomers who have the same question have the benefit of an easy to read FAQ. If you think you have a better, or more accurate response to a question already answered, please post.

First question: how does fatigue affect fighting ability? More specifically, which stats does it affect?

Answer (from ASM): "No one really knows. However it reduces, attack, defense, and morale."
(from Ludens) : "As far as I am aware, the developers have never revealed the combat penalties of fatigue. From my own experience, I am pretty sure works the same way as in M1:TW. Low levels of fatigue have no effect, but after a certain level you get increasing penalties for attack and (later on) defence. At high levels there is also a morale penalty."

Second question : with light javelin cavalry, is it worthwhile to throw jav from flanks of heavy infantry given that they usually suffer a lot of losses when opponent detects their approach (arrows, slings etc)?

Third question : Apart from certain units (elephants, chariots, catas and infantry who like it au naturel etc), being flanked and being hit with cav charges, what else brings down morale/causes units to rout?

[LusitanianWolf]

Not sure, but I think it does affect defense skill at least.

[Lazy O]

First of all you are not a noob. Second, its best if you ask a modder that specific question :D

[TheShakAttack]

First of all you are not a noob. Second, its best if you ask a modder that specific question :D

Been playing EBO for less than a week. Pretty sure that means I'm a noob.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Been playing EBO for less than a week. Pretty sure that means I'm a noob.

And you are already better than half of the players! This guy is a prodigy!

[TheShakAttack]

And you are already better than half of the players! This guy is a prodigy!

Your sarcasm is not appreciated. :P

[LusitanianWolf]

Your sarcasm is not appreciated.
I've been ausent from EBO from a few months so I dont know how you play but I dont think he' being sarcastic, MP is not that easy for most newcomers. I'm expecting to get badly beaten as soon as I get back to it :laugh4:

[antisocialmunky]

No one really knows. However it reduces, attack, defense, and morale.

[TheShakAttack]

No one really knows. However it reduces, attack, defense, and morale.

Thanks ASM.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Yeah there was actually no sarcasm in my post. Well, maybe a hint with the prodigy statement:p But really, you play much better than most of us did one week in.

[Ludens]

As far as I am aware, the developers have never revealed the combat penalties of fatigue. From my own experience, I am pretty sure works the same way as in M1:TW. Low levels of fatigue have no effect, but after a certain level you get increasing penalties for attack and (later on) defence. At high levels there is also a morale penalty.

[-Stormrage-]

so tire your enemy with infantry waves then smash them with a cata charge when they're exuahsted, followedd up by 4 chevroned scythian axemen. non shall stand in my way.

[Lazy O]

Do note your enemy is not an idiot and will simply crush your waves and then your axemen and then your catas before you have finished blinking.

[Burebista]

so tire your enemy with infantry waves then smash them with a cata charge when they're exuahsted, followedd up by 4 chevroned scythian axemen. non shall stand in my way.

Good luck with that. As far as i remember , u tried something similar with Saka and failed

[TheShakAttack]

Please do not start insulting each other on this thread.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

To the third question: Local superiority of troop numbers lowers your enemies morale. So does having exposed flanks. So generally, you want your strongest units on the flanks so they won't be scared, and maybe a unit or two in reserve to cover the main line's flanks as well. Missile units falling back behind the line can also work here.

Obviously killing a unit causes a loss of morale as well. If you can kill 5-6 men in one second with a jav volley (or 10 with volleys from two units) and pull of a simultaneous flanking maneuver, there are many units that will simply cut and run at this point.

[TheShakAttack]

To the third question: Local superiority of troop numbers lowers your enemies morale. So does having exposed flanks. So generally, you want your strongest units on the flanks so they won't be scared, and maybe a unit or two in reserve to cover the main line's flanks as well. Missile units falling back behind the line can also work here.

Obviously killing a unit causes a loss of morale as well. If you can kill 5-6 men in one second with a jav volley (or 10 with volleys from two units) and pull of a simultaneous flanking maneuver, there are many units that will simply cut and run at this point.

Thanks very much for this. I have found this very helpful. I have usually been doing the opposite (keeping strongest units in center) and weaker units on flanks. Maybe if I keep 2 lines of weakfish infantry infantry in center, and elites/strongest on sides, it might be an improved tactic.

Your second paragraph is also very interesting. I did not consider how much more economical (casualties, fatigue) it might be to defeat enemy units in this manner rather than just overwhelming with brute force, killing and flanking.

[Lazy O]

Actually shak, remember our Luso vs Carthage battle, you might not have realised it, but you did the same thing.

[TheShakAttack]

Actually shak, remember our Luso vs Carthage battle, you might not have realised it, but you did the same thing.

I don't really remember that clearly. If I am not mistaken, it is the battle where I messed up my manouvering and decided on a wild charge because i felt i was badly caught out of position.

[Lazy O]

Yep thats the one, your charge was supported by plenty of javs which routed my left .

[antisocialmunky]

As far as I am aware, the developers have never revealed the combat penalties of fatigue. From my own experience, I am pretty sure works the same way as in M1:TW. Low levels of fatigue have no effect, but after a certain level you get increasing penalties for attack and (later on) defence. At high levels there is also a morale penalty.

I think the penalty hits after 'warmed up.' You can tell because 'warmed up' fighting 'tired' troops with the mouse hovering over a unit to get the 'who is winning' text, will change when the 'warmed up' troop goes to 'tired.'

The penalty to morale doesn't seem too much if there is any.

[Ludens]

I think you are referring to "winded" instead of "warmed up", but yes, that would be my guess. Also, in case I wasn't clear, the penalty increases with fatigue. In M1:TW it starts with a small attack penalty, but as the unit grows more tired, the attack penalty grows bigger and penalties for defence and (later) morale kick in.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah but not armor which means that tired cataphracts couldn't be killed by tired sword infantry in vanilla.

[TheShakAttack]

I know there is a morale bonus if you "chev" a unit (give them +1 experience)- is there a clear guide as to how many "morale points" it increases by (i.e. something like +1 morale per +1 chev) ?

Secondly, does cheving archers/slingers really increase their missile attack by 1, or does it have other effects? I seem to recall someone saying that it increases accuracy rather than attack.

[Kival]

Experience point gives +1 Attack. +1 Defense and +2 Morale as far as I know. And that's it.

[The Celtic Viking]

Do you know where you got that information from?

[vartan]

Shak, chevrons do increase missile accuracy, as an increase in missile attack means an increase in missile accuracy (remember, lethality is at a constant value of 100%).

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Shak, chevrons do increase missile accuracy, as an increase in missile attack means an increase in missile accuracy (remember, lethality is at a constant value of 100%).

That's actually false Vartan. Missile accuracy is controlled by the number in the descr_missiles_new file. It's a constant number dependent on what the missile type is. Attack rating is just that, with lethality at a constant 1 value.

[vartan]

That's actually false Vartan. Missile accuracy is controlled by the number in the descr_missiles_new file. It's a constant number dependent on what the missile type is. Attack rating is just that, with lethality at a constant 1 value.
The higher the attack value, the more times the arrows hit their targets. Each hit is a guaranteed kill. More accuracy would entail more arrows reaching their targets. That raising the attack value for missile unit accomplishes this speaks on behalf of the higher accuracy.

[Kival]

No. Each hit is only a guaranteed kill if it comes over the defense of the enemy. Accuracy is a factor *before* the attack-defense calculation is made.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

No. Each hit is only a guaranteed kill if it comes over the defense of the enemy. Accuracy is a factor *before* the attack-defense calculation is made.

Yes. Accuracy is a whole separate entity here when discussing missile units. An arrow that "hits" its target with attack "x" still needs to overcome defense "y" before the 1 lethality value kicks in. However, the chance of the successful hit is randomized by the accuracy value of the missile itself.

[-Stormrage-]

Apart from certain units (elephants, chariots, catas and infantry who like it au naturel etc), being flanked and being hit with cav charges, what else brings down morale/causes units to rout?

Definetly getting shot at the back by slings or archers.

Once routed a whole mob of roman legions cuz i had 3 slingers at the back pelting them. definetly saw a morale decrease when the stones hit. Shaken to wavering. (did this in RSII, but eb using same engine)

[-Stormrage-]

Yes. Accuracy is a whole separate entity here when discussing missile units. An arrow that "hits" its target with attack "x" still needs to overcome defense "y" before the 1 lethality value kicks in. However, the chance of the successful hit is randomized by the accuracy value of the missile itself.

That reminds me, INCREASE ARCHER ACCURACY.

Thank you :D

[The Celtic Viking]

I had some time today apart from my usually busy schedule and so I decided to make a small test on the effect of experience when put on archers. I used the flat grasslands map, and by setting the AI as defender and bringing 4 Thorakitai (one as my general), which I always kept right behind the archers I was testing with, I kept the AI standing still in close formation. I first tested normal Kovkasi Lernain Netadzik (Caucasian Archers), then I tested them with 3 experience and then with 3 weapons upgrade (the two latter both showing up as giving 10 attack [7 being the normal], for the record). I fired from the default formation (5 ranks deep, close formation), always from the direct front (or as close to that as I could come). I fired from the maximum range possible. I did it 10 times per version. Here are the results:

Caucasian Achers (no upgrades, 7 attack) vs Hoplitai Haploi (no upgrades)
1: 22
2: 17
3: 25
4: 27
5: 25
6: 27
7: 30
8: 27
9: 38
10: 24

Average: 26,2 kills

Caucasian Archers (3 experience upgrades, allegedly 10 attack) vs Hoplitai Haploi (no upgrades)
1: 22
2: 26
3: 20
4: 30
5: 29
6: 25
7: 32
8: 35
9: 45
10: 28

Average: 29,2 kills

Caucasian Archers (3 weapon upgrades, 10 attack) vs Hoplitai Haploi (no upgrades)
1: 63
2: 85
3: 65
4: 65
5: 71
6: 69
7: 67
8: 66
9: 78
10: 69

Average: 69,8 kills

Because the difference was so stark, I went ahead and did the same test again, but this time with 9 experience points.

Caucasian Archers (9 experience upgrades, allegedly 16 attack) vs Hoplitai Haploi (no upgrades)
1: 33
2: 35
3: 34
4: 42
5: 26
6: 36
7: 36
8: 43
9: 30
10: 43

Average: 35,8

My conclusion from this is that experience points doesn't seem to increase missile attack at all; rather, the theory that experience for missiles only improve their accuracy seems much more likely to be true.

[antisocialmunky]

Pretty much that. Experience gives some sort of accuracy bonus. This is why I banned weapon bonus for long range missile units because missile/shield/kill rate bonuses are so finicky.

Well that and wall of legions with archers.

[Kival]

I'm wondering about that... before we changed it, accuracy was 100 % for all unis, so it does not really make sense to increase accutacy.

[The Celtic Viking]

Actually, that's not true, Kival. Though GG2 indeed did add accuracy modifiers that didn't exist before (for arrows, sling bullets and javelins, that is), missile accuracy cannot have been 100% prior to his fiddling as they still missed a lot. (Yes, I have checked it to be sure.)

[Kival]

Actually, that's not true, Kival. Though GG2 indeed did add accuracy modifiers that didn't exist before (for arrows, sling bullets and javelins, that is), missile accuracy cannot have been 100% prior to his fiddling as they still missed a lot. (Yes, I have checked it to be sure.)

Are you sure that's not only attack lower defense in the random calculation of attack?

[The Celtic Viking]

Are you sure that's not only attack lower defense in the random calculation of attack?

Yes - when I said they "missed" I meant that their arrows landed off target, i.e. in the ground.

[Lazy O]

But weapon upgrades are bugged, that is not a fair comparison at all.

[vartan]

But weapon upgrades are bugged, that is not a fair comparison at all.
They're only "bugged" in your opinion and that of many other misinformed. It just works differently than you'd like it to.

Yes. Accuracy is a whole separate entity here when discussing missile units. An arrow that "hits" its target with attack "x" still needs to overcome defense "y" before the 1 lethality value kicks in. However, the chance of the successful hit is randomized by the accuracy value of the missile itself.
This is quite disturbing. It means that the attack point you get from a chevron is different from the attack point you get from a weapon upgrade. That and gg2 misinformed me and/or I misunderstood him. Because if you remember, it isn't simply attack vs defense. If this was the case, you couldn't hurt an enemy unit if it had a certain defense or higher. Remember that even at the lowest attack values there is an apparent minimum chance to hurt the enemy.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

They're only "bugged" in your opinion and that of many other misinformed. It just works differently than you'd like it to.

This is quite disturbing. It means that the attack point you get from a chevron is different from the attack point you get from a weapon upgrade. That and gg2 misinformed me and/or I misunderstood him. Because if you remember, it isn't simply attack vs defense. If this was the case, you couldn't hurt an enemy unit if it had a certain defense or higher. Remember that even at the lowest attack values there is an apparent minimum chance to hurt the enemy.

Well I remember us testing the defense bonuses vartan and it didn't seem to matter whether 1 bronze shield was added or the unit had an extra point of armor. However, the attack bonuses may operate differently. TCV got nearly 3 times as many extra kills by adding the weapons upgrades. If you just gave Caucasian Archers 10 attack in the edu and tested it, I feel the results would be much more similar to those he received testing with the 3 chevrons added rather than with the gold weapons upgrade though all three would be at 10 attack.

This may mean that attack bonuses are broken while the defense ones are not.

[gamegeek2]

All "attack" values are the same. "Lethality" is separate from attack, as is "accuracy" but weapon upgrades provide the same sort of attack boost as do chevrons, though chevrons provide other bonuses as well (morale, for example).

As far as I know, attack and lethality are interchangeable values. If somebody can come up with a concise study to disprove this statement (which is supported by phalanx man's study) please, I welcome it.

[Kival]

but weapon upgrades provide the same sort of attack boost as do chevrons

According to TCV tests that cannot be true.

[vartan]

According to TCV tests that cannot be true.
Our resident genius, that's right. I too am baffled. Where does the truth lie in all this rubble?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Our resident genius, that's right. I too am baffled. Where does the truth lie in all this rubble?

Well if we take the experience of vanilla MP players into account, everyone goes for gold weapons upgrades on archer units. There probably is a reason why.

[Lazy O]

The rule is that weapon and armor upgrades are better no matter what, the only cases where experience is used often is on head hunting maidens to give an extra bit of punch.

[vartan]

Well if we take the experience of vanilla MP players into account, everyone goes for gold weapons upgrades on archer units. There probably is a reason why.
Was the same when I used to participate in competitive play in 2007. Attack is much cheaper, too.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

The rule is that weapon and armor upgrades are better no matter what, the only cases where experience is used often is on head hunting maidens to give an extra bit of punch.

Lazy, me and Vartan actually tested this and found it to be false. We modified the edu to give mercenary hoplites -1 armor and then gave them a bronze armor upgrade and matched them against regular hoplites. I think we tested 20 units and the split was 11-9 or something like that for the units without the upgrades. There was clearly no advantage for the armor upgrade. I'd be interested to do the same test for weapons upgrades however.

[Lazy O]

I meant better compared to experience.

[gamegeek2]

According to TCV tests that cannot be true.

I was speaking of melee units, sorry.