EBO EDU Hotfix

[TheShakAttack]

Hey guys

I've made this thread to publicize and disseminate minor corrections to bugs/mistakes the EDU has. It will not contain any kind of significant change to the EDU. That remains within GG2 and Vartan's jurisdiction. For ease of reference, I will attach a letter after the relevant EDU reference, so for instance, the first one will be EDU 3.0 build 1001a.

For avoidance of doubt, later builds will incorporate changes made to earlier builds. So for instance build "c" will have changes made to "a" and "b" already in it.

Please find link for EDU build 1001d: http://www.mediafire.com/?hf2mrrjuaj98j78

Change log:

Build 1001a:
- First cohorts lethality increased from 0.13 to 0.15 (normal cohorts have 0.15, mistake confirmed with GG2)
- Rhodian slingers accuracy decreased from "perfect accuracy" to "high bullet accuracy" (no other missile units had "perfect" accuracy, mistake confirmed with GG2)

Build 1001b:
- Gallic General's Bodyguard given eagles.

Build 1001c:
- Mardian, Scytian and Sarmatian foot archers were statted as having horse archer accuracy. This has been changed. Scytian and Sarmation have been given "high" accuracy as they are steppe folks. Mardian (this may be controversial) has been given ultra high accuracy since their unit description says they were elite foot archers and were trained from birth.
-Bush elephants removed from all rosters.
-Forest elephants given to Rome.
-Towered forest elephants given to Ptoles.
-Also fixes a typo in the "projectiles" file which made lower tier javelin units very inaccurate. Value changed from 0.8 to .08.
- Pedites no longer have testudo formation.

Build 1001d:
- Speudogardoz no longer have phalanx mode nor long pikes. When removing phalanx, I believe it is also necessary to remove long_pike. In any case, EB would not start when only phalanx was removed. I think this might be broken as they still have something similar to phalanx mode. Please check and let me know.
- All gladius wielding units have been given 0.16 lethality as was GG2's intention; specifically, the following did not have them and now do: mercenary Dunaminaca, Polybian Principes, First Cohorts from both eras, Imperial and Marian cohort.
- The projectile file has not been changed, but is included for ease of use.



If there are any other mistakes or minor issues that need to be addressed, please post below.

Also, I am happy to change things in the EDU as long as there is near unanimous consent:
-with at least 5 regular players:
1) requesting the change;
2) agreeing that it is a "hotfix" issue and needs to be changed immediately;
3) agreeing to and specifying the changes to be made (for instance the specific stat numbers);
-no more than 1 person disagreeing to it ;
-it is within my skillset to do so; and
-I do not consider it a "major" change (lies within my discretion :P).

Keep in mind that even if I do change it, GG2/Vartan or the community as a whole can always request the change be overturned.


GG2/Vartan- if anything has been incorrectly identified as a mistake let me know and I will amend.

Legacy builds:
EDU 3.0 build 1001c: http://www.mediafire.com/?ulstnk12t4snzcf
EDU 3.0 build 1001b: http://www.mediafire.com/?bban2bltkcqwi43

[The Celtic Viking]

Gallic general's bodyguard should have inspire.

[TheShakAttack]

Updated. Thanks TCV.

[Lazy O]

What about cata fear?

[TheShakAttack]

Lazy- that's not a "minor issue" nor an "oversight". AFAIK GG2 is making a fear overhaul. Wait for that.

[gamegeek2]

This is very much appreciated. The fear overhaul has been implemented, as has the Bosporan mod; I need to add the Saka though.

[vartan]

This is very much appreciated. The fear overhaul has been implemented, as has the Bosporan mod; I need to add the Saka though.
Could you elaborate?

[Arjos]

One thing, I didn't fully understand the deal with Bush and Forest elephants, but shouldn't the indian ones still be superior?
If so the Elephantes Liboukoi should have its stats lowered, or the Indikoi increased...

[TheShakAttack]

One thing, I didn't fully understand the deal with Bush and Forest elephants, but shouldn't the indian ones still be superior?
If so the Elephantes Liboukoi should have its stats lowered, or the Indikoi increased...

I agree Arjos, however, I would prefer GG2 to do it since it would involve tweaking the stats and a whole load of balance issues.

[vartan]

I think it's a very pressing issue, though, because you see elephants in every single battle, invariably. We must fix this now.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Uh, elephants are making a comeback Vartan. I think the historical battles showed how awesome they can be if used properly.

Anyway, Bush Elephants would be the most powerful, they would also be the most prone to routing or running amok since afaik we have no sources for them being used by any successor kingdom and they would be the least "trainable." Forest ellies are already weaker than Indians. Indians have better morale I think unless this was changed for the MP edu.

[TheShakAttack]

I would be happy to implement any suggestions you guys have for eles. I would agree with Robin's assessment. Bush eles should be the most "powerful" with the lowest morale (afaik morale is what makes units prone to routing or running amok) and also incredibly expensive; Indian/Asian eles have the highest morale and "power levels" close to bush eles; Forest eles poorer morale than Indian/Asian eles as well as being less powerful.

I would even go so far as to say that from a historical perspective the costs for Indian/Asian eles should be at least equal to, if not lower, than Forest eles. This is primarily because I/A eles were a lot more receptive to training, and the "training facilities" of I/A eles was well established, had (even by EB timeline) a long-ish history and was relatively widespread (they were used as beasts of burden as well), certianly more so than forest eles it seems. Being more populous, they were also easier to come across/capture. The big question would be in terms of gameplay balance.

This could be implemented by making F eles more expensive rather than making I/A eles cheaper.

I/A eles (both of them) have 10 morale compared to 8 for forest and bush and 9 for towered forest eles. I don't really think that +2/+1 differentiates them enough from a historical perspective, but obv its upto the community as whole to to make a decision on its gameplay/balance value.

[-Stormrage-]

what about the Descr_Projectile_new file issue where one jav had accuracy of 0.8 while all others had 0.0(something) Ex. 0.07 0.06 0.08.

and should Cretans and bosphorans have the same accuracy ?

[TheShakAttack]

what about the Descr_Projectile_new file issue where one jav had accuracy of 0.8 while all others had 0.0(something) Ex. 0.07 0.06 0.08.

and should Cretans and bosphorans have the same accuracy ?

Hey Storm

I will check with GG2 whether the correct value should be .08 re javelins. AFAIK GG2 is also making big changes both to Bosphorans and Cretans. So for now, I think we should leave them, and wait until new EDU release from GG2.

[Arjos]

Anyway, Bush Elephants would be the most powerful, they would also be the most prone to routing or running amok since afaik we have no sources for them being used by any successor kingdom and they would be the least "trainable."

I think you are confusing the modern bush elephant with the extinct ancient one, which was similar in size to the forest elephant...


Great King Ptolemy, son of King Ptolemy [II Philadelphus] and Queen Arsinoe, the Brother- and Sister Gods, the children of King Ptolemy [I Soter] and Queen Berenice the Savior Gods, descendant on the paternal side of Heracles the son of Zeus, on the maternal of Dionysus the son of Zeus, having inherited from his father the kingdom of Egypt and Libya and Syria and Phoenicia and Cyprus and Lycia and Caria and the Cyclades islands, led a campaign into Asia with infantry and cavalry and fleet and Troglodytic and Ethiopian elephants, which he and his father were the first to hunt from these lands and, bringing them back into Egypt, to fit out for military service.

These are the elephants used at Raphia, and the Elephantes Liboukoi should be statted accordingly...

[The Celtic Viking]

Since I can't chirp in on any of the real historical stuff, I'll lessen my penis envy (:clown:) by correcting a smaller "historical" mistake:


Uh, elephants are making a comeback Vartan. I think the historical battles showed how awesome they can be if used properly.

No, I think I can take the credit for their resurgence, as they started making appearances after I had my 956-ish Katatank kills game, which was some time before the 1st HB.

[TheShakAttack]

Historically, I would agree with you. Wiki does not have anything recorded for a seperate subspecies of african eles that existed only in ethiopia/somalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loxodonta#Classification), only one for "Carthaginian/ North African elephants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_elephant)" which may have been a subspecies of bush elephants. Given that its range extended down to the present Sudanese and Eritrean coasts, it is almost certain that these should be the ones being refered to. This extinct subspecies/species was indeed smaller than Indian eles.

The wiki link even describes these NA/C eles as the ones that Ptoles and Carth used in battle.

However, here is the EB description of the "bush ele". Note that they are described as larger than indian eles (which the C/NA ele was not). Also note that it says they were even harder to train than forest eles which seems like a reference to modern "bush" elephants whereas apparently the C/NA eles were likely easier to tame than forest elephants (not indian/asian ones). In any event, they are statted and modeled as if they were larger than indian eles.


"Captured on the plains of Ethiopia and surrounding lands, Bush elephants provide the armies of the Ptolemaioi and Qarthadastim with a fearsome advantage. Larger than their Forest cousins and even those of distant India they tower over anyone and anything on the battlefield and to those not accustomed to fighting elephants a sight that fills their hearts with fear. The expenses required to capture, train and maintain bush elephants are high, so their numbers will never be great...

Troglodytiki [rascist!] was what the ancient Hellenes called modern Somalia and it makes distinct mention of two types of elephants. There is also evidence implying that the Carthaginians imported Bush Elephants across the desert for their own armies from Ethiopia or possibly directly from the Ptolemaioi. Compared to their Forest cousins the Bush elephants were much harder to train which is probably why they weren't used in substantial numbers compared to the Indian & Forest elephants. Another reason might be that because of their larger size they were harder to transport back to Egypt which included ferrying elephants along the Erythrean Sea in specially crafted "elephant-carriers".

Either the EB guys got it pretty wrong, or wiki has it pretty wrong. I would go with Arjos' interpretation since that seems more factually accurate, but as always, the floor is open to everyone to pitch in.

[TheShakAttack]

Since I can't chirp in on any of the real historical stuff, I'll lessen my penis envy (:clown:) by correcting a smaller "historical" mistake:



No, I think I can take the credit for their resurgence, as they started making appearances after I had my 956-ish Katatank kills game, which was some time before the 1st HB.

Twas the HB for me :P

And enough with referring to the 956-ish kill game already. :clown:

[Arjos]

Maybe that unit is the product of misplacement of the modern elephant...
A solution could be to replace it with the Elephantes Hulaioi Liboukoi, which so far only the Kartadastim can recruit...

[TheShakAttack]

Maybe that unit is the product of misplacement of the modern elephant...
A solution could be to replace it with the Elephantes Hulaioi Liboukoi, which so far only the Kartadastim can recruit...

Yes, I agree that it could have been mistaken with the modern bush ele.

In any event, I'm happy with your proposal. Sounds historically sound.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I'd agree with this proposal since the Bush elephants in game are represented as larger than the Indians. But can we give the Ptolies ownership of this unit?

[The Celtic Viking]

Yes, I tried it out earlier and it worked fine.

[TheShakAttack]

Yes ofc Ptoles would get access.

[Arjos]

The kings of my own country [Egypt] alone had an army consisting of 200,000 foot, 40,000 horse, 300 war elephants, and 2,000 armed chariots, and arms in reserve for 300,000 soldiers more. This was their force for land service. ... Such was the state of preparedness for war shown by the royal accounts as recorded and left by the king of Egypt second in succession after Alexander, who was the most formidable of these rulers in his preparations, the most lavish in expenditure, and the most magnificent in projects.

Harmata Drepanephora for the Ptolemaioi please :P

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

This would be Ptolemy I's army. Are there any records of scythed chariots being used in battle by the Ptollies in our time frame?

[Arjos]

This would be Ptolemy I's army. Are there any records of scythed chariots being used in battle by the Ptollies in our time frame?

Nope that would be Philadelphos ^^
Also is at the end of his rule, so it's 246 BC...

[Lazy O]

Since I can't chirp in on any of the real historical stuff, I'll lessen my penis envy (:clown:) by correcting a smaller "historical" mistake:



No, I think I can take the credit for their resurgence, as they started making appearances after I had my 956-ish Katatank kills game, which was some time before the 1st HB.

True. But these guys are bugged. They dont die to javelins.

[TheShakAttack]

True. But these guys are bugged. They dont die to javelins.

Et tu lazy?

They're not bugged- just harder to kill.

[The Celtic Viking]

True. But these guys are bugged. They dont die to javelins.

Yes, they do. They just don't drop as if hit by lightning, like all other ellies do, which makes sense because unlike all other ellies, these are armoured. If you misplay these buggers, or if your enemy simply counters them correctly, they're gone in less than 2 seconds.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Nope that would be Philadelphos ^^
Also is at the end of his rule, so it's 246 BC...

Ah I misread the second in succession part. Thought it meant second ruler of Egypt while counting Alexander as the first.

[TheShakAttack]

New hotfix. Check notes for details. Might be slightly controversial which I have highlighted.

I have not made any changes to ele costs or stats. If this is something you guys want, will need to get GG2's input re balancing etc.

I also wanted to say this is why Mardians have the highest tier of accuracy (if you guys disagree, let me know):


These infantry troops lack the speed and manoeuvrability of horse archers, instead relying on their powerful long composite bow. They are only lightly armoured with a quilted linen cuirass worn over a brightly embroidered long sleeved tunic. Trained from birth in the use of the deadly eastern composite bow, these men know their worth and are often to be found among the Parthian garrisons and in their field armies.

Historically, the Persians may among nations, undoubtedly be placed in the first rank of archers and, the Marda Shivatir are their elite. They are recruited from the more settled elements of the Parthian tribal host in the core of the Parthian homeland and surrounding regions. It seems likely that at least some of these infantry were those of the Parthians too impoverished to afford to fight mounted or those whose mounted skills had declined as a result of settled life to such an extent that it was no longer possible for them to serve in their traditional role. [Note that the "spoiling of skills" affects only mounted warfare]

[Arjos]

I don't know if gg2's upcoming one will have it or not, but add the Mistophoroi Thraikioi Peltastai to the Ptoleis too :)

[TheShakAttack]

I don't know if gg2's upcoming one will have it or not, but add the Mistophoroi Thraikioi Peltastai to the Ptoleis too :)

Ugh, now you tell me. I will incorporate within build "c".

[Lazy O]

type iberian infantry dunaminaca
dictionary iberian_infantry_dunaminaca ; Dunaminaca
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier carthaginian_infantry_elite_african_infantry_dunaminaca, 40, 0, 1.2
officer ebofficer_lusitanian_carthaginian_officer
mount_effect horse +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, can_sap, hide_long_grass, very_hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 7, 8, solifera_h, 38.5, 3, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 13, 8 , no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.16
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 10, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -2
stat_mental 13, impetuous, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1872, 491, 90, 130, 1872
ownership spain, gauls, scythia, slave


;539
type iberian infantry dunaminaca mercenary
dictionary iberian_infantry_dunaminaca ; Mercenary Dunaminaca
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier carthaginian_infantry_elite_african_infantry_dunaminaca, 40, 0, 1.2
officer ebofficer_lusitanian_carthaginian_officer
mount_effect horse +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, can_sap, hide_long_grass, very_hardy, mercenary_unit
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 7, 8, solifera_h, 38.5, 3, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 13, 8 , no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.15
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 10, 4, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -2
stat_mental 13, impetuous, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1872, 491, 90, 130, 1872
ownership seleucid, egypt, slave

Fix it.

...

[Arjos]

Almost forgot, can Kardakâ Arteshtâr be added to the Seleukidai? Read some saying yes, others no, while I have no clue :D

[TheShakAttack]

@lazy- what's the magic word? Also I am presuming the value should be 0.15 (since they used gladius as well)?

@Arjos- due to the fact that there isn't consensus, I will wait until at least 2 other players back it.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I will say please on behalf of lazy since he is bereft of manners typically:clown:

Adding Kardaka not only gives you an ugly grey peasant in your roster, when you try to load a battle with these mystery men the game crashes. Some other files would have to be played with, but this is above my head. I think they need a skin.

[TheShakAttack]

In which case I am tempted to leave it as it is and wait for someone else to tinker with it (not exp with skins). It's not as if the AS roster is crying out for the superb quality of the Kardaka :clown:

[gamegeek2]

You have to edit DMB to enable the kardaka, which I have done...

[TheShakAttack]

You have to edit DMB to enable the kardaka, which I have done...

Ok does that mean that we should leave the addition of Kardaka to you?

Also, I am thinking about taking eles away from Rome again. Due to the fact that they can bring cheap high quality heavy infantry (they get some sort of discount afaik), it does kind of make a Roman army with eles very OP. What do people think?

[-Stormrage-]

What does your history tell you ?


"That frodo is alive"
"Yes, He is alive"
^^

[TheShakAttack]

Hmm, I just had a battle with Kival, and the forest eles died whilst charging through enemy lines (no javs fired)- perhaps giving rome eles is not so OP afterall even though the army looks quite intimidating?

[antisocialmunky]

Can we make elephants less paper? You know javelins didn't actually kill elephants, it just made them incredibly pissed off and panic. So I would make them more robust but reduce their morale so they tend to panic more than die.

[The Celtic Viking]

I do agree, actually, but I don't think that's for Shak to do in his hotfix. It's the kind of thing we're not paying GG2 for.

[vartan]

Almost forgot, can Kardakâ Arteshtâr be added to the Seleukidai? Read some saying yes, others no, while I have no clue :D
Show me the papers.

[Arjos]

That they used them or?

[TheShakAttack]

The terms of changing have been changed. It now includes this:

Also, I am happy to change things in the EDU as long as there is near unanimous consent:
-with at least 5 regular players:
1) requesting the change;
2) agreeing that it is a "hotfix" issue and needs to be changed immediately;
3) agreeing to and specifying the changes to be made (for instance the specific stat numbers);
-no more than 1 person disagreeing to it ;
-it is within my skillset to do so; and
-I do not consider it a "major" change (lies within my discretion :P).

Keep in mind that even if I do change it, GG2/Vartan or the community as a whole can always request the change be overturned.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Hmmm, with those guidelines, I propose to immediately remove fear from catphracts:sweatdrop:

Come on, I need 5 supporters and I know you are out there.

[The Celtic Viking]

Hmmm, with those guidelines, I propose to immediately remove fear from catphracts:sweatdrop:

Come on, I need 5 supporters and I know you are out there.

Seconded.

[-Stormrage-]

Against

[Kival]

Removing fear from catas is not a hotfix. Sorry. I'd like to change it but It does not fit shaks conditions

[TheShakAttack]

Agree with Kiv, I would disagree since GG2 is working on a re-jig :P

However, please do bring up any issues you think are pressing/important.

[The Celtic Viking]

Why not? It's a highly unbalancing factor for them to have, making it a huge problem best solved ASAP. That's exactly what hotixes are there for. Less important stuff like accuracy for gundi-palta is not as urgent, and are therefore less deserving of a hotfix.

[Kival]

It's intended. That's not what is meant here for change and there ovbiously is not a coherent meaning about this.

[The Celtic Viking]

It's intended. That's not what is meant here for change and there ovbiously is not a coherent meaning about this.

That doesn't matter, it's still an unbalancing factor that needs to be removed asap. That's what hotfixes are for.

I suppose by your second sentence you mean that there isn't an agreement about this, correct? If so, that's left to find out. If consensus is reached (here defined as 5 active players agreeing, not more than one disagreeing) then it should be changed, as per the new terms of changing. Personally, I know you, me, Arjos and Robin want it gone (or at least have expressed their will for it before). I think Vega agrees as well. In any case it is definitely worth throwing out there; if there isn't a consensus, it won't be done.

[Vega]

I think Vega agrees as well.

Yep i agree :D

[Arjos]

Oh I disagree, just to ruin your plans! :D

[Kival]

Oh I disagree, just to ruin your plans! :D

You need to learn to be more serious :whip:

[TheShakAttack]

I also disagree and I know at least 2 others who do so.

[Arjos]

You need to learn to be more serious :whip:

Bah I posted a whole sources backed argument in the 3.0 thread, and what we are getting is a no fear policy, so meh :P

[TheShakAttack]

I want to clarify a few things with regard to the above discussion. Under the terms stated above, I think we can just about make any change, hypothetically including "cata fear". That is why there are safeguards built in.

However, the "cata fear" topic does not meet the test for the following reasons:
-Not every agrees it is a "hotfix" issue;
-There is more than 1 player who disagrees with removing "cata fear" (note they do not need to be "regular");
-I consider it a "major" change; and
-AFAIK GG2 and Vartan (the 2 people who have "veto" powers) do not agree with it.

And as I keep repeating, GG2 is addressing the issue in the next EDU build. Let's wait for that please and move on to another issue. I know "cata fear" is what is foremost on most peoples minds, but it is beyond the scope that has been drawn up for reasons stated above.

[Arjos]

What I meant was that fear has been "fixed" already by gg2, and that update is soon to be released, so just sit tight ^^

[TheShakAttack]

What I meant was that fear has been "fixed" already by gg2, and that update is soon to be released, so just sit tight ^^

My point exactly :)

We can always ask that it be changed again if we are unhappy with changes. Lets give his system a shot.

[vartan]

I have an idea. Let's have an EB Online edu and then let's have a cata fear-removed unofficial edu that the separationists use on their excursions.

[-Stormrage-]

catas need fear, they historically were Feared. Im ashamed of you eb

EDIT: LOL let the sepratists use the unofficial one. Lol Speratists.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I have an idea. Let's have an EB Online edu and then let's have a cata fear-removed unofficial edu that the separationists use on their excursions.

Sounds like something an autocrat would say.:clown:

[Kival]

Sounds like something an autocrat would say.:clown:

He's the king! Don't forget that! ;-)

[vartan]

Sounds like something an autocrat would say.:clown:
Sounds like you are invoking the modern-day negative connotation of the originally neutral Greek term. Sweet.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Well we do live in the modern day:laugh4:

[Lazy O]

So what are we, 6-7 players against fear on catas?


I still have not gotten over that 3v3 -_-

[Vega]

Cata fear is not necesary, just remove it no one will be sad, cata charge from back is scare enough to rout unit, with fear even exastued catas can do more damage than anyone... if you dont want that then increase their price?! they are cheap, with all that advantages :D

[Arjos]

Guys, fear is getting removed, enough about it, moving on pls...

[The Celtic Viking]

By that logic none of the issues fixed in this hotfix should have been done because they were all getting fixed as well.

(Also, I know that at least half of us who voted for this disagree with GG2's all-or-nothing "solution".)

[Arjos]

Bah, I meant that this particular issue has been already delt with and only needs to be released...
As you mentioned though, it won't be far from over, I know I'll complain about it XD

[The Celtic Viking]

Yes, but again, you can say the exact same thing about all the other things this hotfix has done.

[TheShakAttack]

Guys, seriously, enough with the cata fear issue. I have said that it does not fall within the scope I have drawn up. I did not specify majority, I specified near unanimous. I've even spelt it out for you (no more than 1 player disagreeing) and specified the other conditions. And then, I've even explain why cata fear does not fall into it.

Please desist from bringing it up again on this thread (feel free to do so in other places). By focusing on cata fear, you are drawing attention away from the original purpose of the thread, as has been specified, and turning it into another discussion on cata fear.

I'd be grateful if you could bring up any issues which are not as divisive or controversial as cata fear.

@ TCV: I have also said that I am not comfortable making major changes. You are correct in saying that all these issues will be fixed eventually anyway by GG2. If that is how most people feel, I am happy to stop doing this.

[The Celtic Viking]

I'd be grateful if you could bring up any issues which are not as divisive or controversial as cata fear.

The only one who has so far come out as not wanting cata fear removed is you, Shak. One person. Kival and Arjos have gone against it for other reasons, reasons that I have already explained why they don't work. So the way I see it, we should be unanimous but for you (which is as bloody near to it as you can get), so with all due respect, no, I will not let it go.

Re: your paragraph directed at me, you must know that I was merely pointing out the logical inconsistency in Arjos' argument. I don't want this hotfix stopped. However, if you're "not comfortable" doing it yourself, then give the shield and the sword to me. I'll gladly cut off this Medusian head.

[TheShakAttack]

No. I am not the only one. GG2, Vartan (as far as i can tell), Storm (for what it's worth), Yavana also agree that in principle catas should get fear if others do. There may be others, I cannot recall of the top of my head. I am simply forced to be the most vocal one who opposes removing fear from catas only.

Arjos was not being inconsistent in his argument: he was pointing out that removing cata fear is not within the parameters of this "hotfix" and that it was an issue being fixed. I have limited the scope of this hotfix for a reason, so that it does lead to something which diverges wildly from the EDU GG2 has created.

The issue here in this thread is does it fall within the parameters of the "hotfix"? That is the first step of the test. This is where it fails. The issue is not whether catas deserve to have only fear removed. That belongs to the other thread.

As Vartan has pointed out, you are always welcome to create and play with your own EDU.

I am trying to be as polite as I can, though you are being obtuse and making it difficult for me- please do not bring it up again on this thread again.

[The Celtic Viking]

Storm opinion here isn't worth anything at all as per the criteria that you wrote up (not a regular player). That was your own verdict as of last night. So he's out. Vartan doesn't play at all and so doesn't qualify either; the only possible way for him to act would be a veto, which he hasn't used. So he doesn't count either. Yavana can come and speak for himself, as can GG2.


Arjos was not being inconsistent in his argument: he was pointing out that removing cata fear is not within the parameters of this "hotfix" and that it was an issue being fixed.

No, he was only saying that we shouldn't do it because GG2 is already removing fear and we should thus wait for it. That argument works against any change this hotfix has done, but he's not against those. Therefore, he is being inconsistent.

As for the cata fear problem not being "within the parameters of this hotfix", where did you pull that one from? Are you just making things up? This hotfix is only there to fix things that doesn't need a hotfix?

[Arjos]

TCV the point is that fear has been discussed already, quite a lot, the only common ground we managed to come to was a complete removal to test how that goes...

[-Stormrage-]

Removing fear is like removing salt or pepper. You need spices otherwise the meal tastes bland and boring.

[Kival]

TCV the point is that fear has been discussed already, quite a lot, the only common ground we managed to come to was a complete removal to test how that goes...

Actually that's not really common ground but I can agree with it not really beeing part of the hotfix discussion. If you guys really want that, I can make an alternative EDU without cata fea though things could become a little complicated that way.

[Arjos]

Good lord, I said I don't like it one bit in more than one occasion, but agreed to simply test how this turns out...
I think it's bogus for catas to have fear, and even more bogus to remove it from naked units, but I'm not so adamant to not even try how gg2's proposal turns out...

[TheShakAttack]

Storm opinion here isn't worth anything at all as per the criteria that you wrote up (not a regular player). That was your own verdict as of last night. So he's out. Vartan doesn't play at all and so doesn't qualify either; the only possible way for him to act would be a veto, which he hasn't used. So he doesn't count either. Yavana can come and speak for himself, as can GG2.



No, he was only saying that we shouldn't do it because GG2 is already removing fear and we should thus wait for it. That argument works against any change this hotfix has done, but he's not against those. Therefore, he is being inconsistent.

As for the cata fear problem not being "within the parameters of this hotfix", where did you pull that one from? Are you just making things up? This hotfix is only there to fix things that doesn't need a hotfix?

The disagreement does not have to come from a regular player. Read the parameters properly. If you bothered to read posts before you actually responded to them, you will see I made a post explaining exactly why cata fear does not fit the parameters I have drawn up, a part of which includes whether or not I feel it is a major change. If you need to explain it in simpler language to facilitate your understanding, I will also do so. But do not make statements such as "are you just making things up".

Last warning: do not bring up cata fear again in this thread, or I will request that this thread be closed. The only exception is if you would like for me to explain again, in simpler language, why cata fear does not fit the parameters.

[-Stormrage-]

Wait wait wait ... so Im NOT a regular player ??!?!!?! SON OF A mother

[Kival]

Guys, stop the insulting. Let's please discuss cata fear in an own thread and/Or the general EDU thread.

@storm At the moment you're not such a regular player. That was not an insult towards you.

[TheShakAttack]

Agreed :)

[vartan]

Feel free to test anything you guys wish. A formal method of dealing with such issues is forthcoming. Have fun until then.

[TheShakAttack]

I seem to recall someone pointed out an issue- and I have completely forgotten it :D

In the future, please do post it here.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Speudogardoz I believe. Please remove phalanx mode.

[TheShakAttack]

Speudogardoz I believe. Please remove phalanx mode.

Yes, that's it. Thanks. Also, digging through the other 3.0 thread, it appears that all gladius hisp. weapons should get 0.16 lethality. It's silly that atm Velites have it, but first cohorts don't. I will fix this.

[TheShakAttack]

EDU updated. Please find it attached in original post.

[Kival]

Mardians should cost at least 992 Mnai now, applicating one level of increased incuracy. This way they have the right price relativley to other steppe archers as scythians.

Speutagardaz should become +1 attack/+1 defense, because they got both reduced becuase of phalanx mode (at least it should be that way). Spacing needs correction too perhaps, but I don't know what whould be the correct values here (1.2 as heavy infantry?).

[The Celtic Viking]

They actually have slightly closer ranks in the non-GG2 edu when in close formation, so for that I'd say it's fine (their description says they fought in a very dense formation). In loose formation they are closer now though, but I don't know if that's only for when they were phalanx or not.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I think we can worry about re-balancing the Speduos when gg2 releases the new edu. I just didn't want them around in their ridiculously OP state for current play. Though maybe the same should apply to Cohortes Evocata? They need to be priced as top tier units or have their effectiveness reduced.

[Kival]

I think we can worry about re-balancing the Speduos when gg2 releases the new edu.

Attack and defense is not a balancing thing. The side-effect of giving phalanx in the EDU-system Gamegeek is using, is reducing attack and defense by 1. So if we take phalanx off, we need to give them back this two points. The spacing thing is not so important for now. I agree.

Re: Cohors Evocata

I will try to see if they are priced correctly.

[TheShakAttack]

Cool. I agree that Evocata is possibly too OP. I think GG2 gave them some sort of discount, so you might want to double check with him Kival.

[Kival]

I've made some analysis which showed some problems but essentially, cohors evocata are priced in the same way as the other marian units. The problem cannot be solved without changing the system for all marian units.

[Arjos]

Guys evocata aren't OP, they are basically Rome at its military zenit in our time period...
They are veterans of the most professional unit there is around, of the largest and richest nation around...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Aye, I just find them somewhat cheap compared to other similar units. I do think the Auxiliary Hispanic Cavalry could use a price bump however. I mean, we always see Roman players in the time frame bringing these guys and they compare favorably to their Carthaginian and Luso equivalents with not all that much more of a price bump for wearing mail and a metal helmet.

[Arjos]

Economically speaking in historical terms, I think that the Iberian mercenary would even cost more than the enlisted poor provincial Hispanic...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. Mercenaries would supply their own arms and be experienced fighters generally while statwise the "poor provincials" are considerably better. A poor provincial Hispanic would also not see the light of day in a cavalry contingent. I don't think the Romans supplied horses to Spaniards, Gauls and Germans. These men would be coming from the upper classes of society and still be rather expensive to outfit as medium cavalry.

Nontheless, you can't generalize all Iberian units for Carthage and the Lusos as mercenaries since some were recruited as allies. And even so, costs are generally done on a gameplay basis as far as I am aware with a few exceptions.

[Arjos]

As you said one would require a pay to cover all his expenditures, while the other just his promised wager...
And as for the upper class, they would be legates, and most of all usually they were "political hostages", that's even cheaper to employ :D

Sure some joined the Kartadastim as allies, but that was on the promise of more loot for them, none of those Iberians would even care for carthaginian citizenship, they were hired warriors, that's their life...

My point was that historically, the auxilia would even cost less, in our gameplay balancing process, giving them a slighty superior cost is more than reasonable, as it covers the high quality equipment and the more resources available to the SPQR...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I think that the Auxiliary Cavalry contingents are supplying their own equipment. The Spanish helms, framaea of the Germans, or longer cavalry swords of the Thracians were hardly Roman equipment at this point in time. I believe the Imperial Alae cavalry units represent the standardizing of cavalry equipment to match that of the legions. As such, these auxiliaries would have to be rather well off to afford such things.

Also, the very "cream" of the nobility were taken as hostages, but men of high birth would still be expected to serve the Roman bureaucratic/governmental machine in the region and fight alongside the legions. Rome did not raise levies of Iberian or Gallic men but instead they were trained to operate alongside the legionary arm. Also by the time Marius reformed the army, parts of Iberia and Cisalpine Gaul had been under Roman control for about 100 years. I'm not so sure these regions required hostages in such large numbers anymore as to deprive the region of their traditional elites.

[Arjos]

I was more about the armours, which was really the only difference in equipment between a local and an auxiliaris pretty much...


Also by the time Marius reformed the army, parts of Iberia and Cisalpine Gaul had been under Roman control for about 100 years. I'm not so sure these regions required hostages in such large numbers anymore as to deprive the region of their traditional elites.

Indeed, they were quite romanized by then and demanded rights, or jumped on any rebellion train available...

[TheShakAttack]

...The point of all of the discussion above being?

[Arjos]

Enjoying a discussion :D

Raising the question: are auxilia too cheap?

In order to open a further discussion...
This is 100% legislative action going on :P

[Lazy O]

Yes :P

Though, for the Hispanics, I would say the closest unit (in function) is the Cantabrian Cavalry which costs a mere 1.9k or something while the Hispanics are considerably more expensive but also far far better.

[Arjos]

Don't they have only superior armour?
For the rest I thought they had the same stats except the Cantabrae and Iberians have better missile attack...

[Vega]

Yes :P

Though, for the Hispanics, I would say the closest unit (in function) is the Cantabrian Cavalry which costs a mere 1.9k or something while the Hispanics are considerably more expensive but also far far better.

Hispanic cav 2376, cantabrian cav 1956 lazy hispanic cav cost 420 mnai more, also they are not so better than cantabrian cav as you said, and yes i counted this with calculator....

[TheShakAttack]

Haha, thats good to know Vega :p

Btw guys, this is not really the place to talk about making things more expensive for game balancing purposes; however, if you feel there was an error on pricing, then by all means bring that up though.....and on that note, the hispanic cav is over 20% more expensive than the cant. cavalry. I think what makes them useful is that they have a "unique" set of stats (ie. a heavier armored version of cant. cav) rather than being "too cheap". In other words, they have no equivalent in terms of similar stats.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Most similar unit would be Iberi Equites Caetrati who are similar to Cantabrians but have slightly more armor.
type iberian skirmisher cavalry equites caetratii
dictionary iberian_skirmisher_cavalry_equites_caetratii ; Iberi Equites Caetrati
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type Medium_1
soldier iberian_cavalry_equitescaetratii_hippakontistai, 30, 0, 1
mount saddle horse light
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2, horse +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, hide_long_grass, cantabrian_circle, very_hardy
formation 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, square
stat_health 1, 2
stat_pri 10, 15, javelin_m, 57.8, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 11, 15, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.14
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 2, 10, 3, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 1
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -2
stat_mental 11, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2042, 462, 30, 50, 2042
ownership egypt, spain, slave

type roman cavalry auxilia equiteshispanorum
dictionary roman_cavalry_auxilia_equiteshispanorum ; Eqvites Hispanorvm (Hispanic Auxiliary Cavalry)
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type General_1
soldier iberian_cavalry_equitescaetratii_hippakontistai, 30, 0, 1
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
mount medium horse
mount_effect elephant +1, chariot +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, cantabrian_circle, hide_long_grass, very_hardy
formation 2, 4, 4, 6, 5, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 10, 21, javelin_m, 57.8, 8, thrown, simple, piercing, spear, 10 ,1
stat_pri_attr thrown
stat_sec 11, 21, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.14
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 9, 9, 3, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -2
stat_mental 11, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2376, 588, 56, 241, 2376
ownership seleucid

About 300 price difference for +7 armor and -1 defense skill. This seems too small to me especially considering the Roman unit gets an officer. Also compare to the differently purposed, but similarly equipped (in terms of armor rating and region of origin) Iberi Curisi:

type iberian cavalry light curisii
dictionary iberian_cavalry_light_curisii ; Iberi Curisi
category cavalry
class light
voice_type Medium_1
soldier iberian_cavalry_curisii, 30, 0, 1
officer ebofficer_lusitanian_carthaginian_officer
mount saddle horse light
mount_effect chariot +1
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, hide_long_grass, very_hardy
formation 1.5, 4, 3, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 4, 33, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 250 ,0.38
stat_pri_attr ap
stat_sec 12, 15, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.14
stat_sec_attr ap
stat_pri_armour 7, 11, 3, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 1
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -2
stat_mental 13, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 2845, 710, 40, 60, 2845
ownership egypt, spain, slave

These have a spear, and so are differently purposed and might be considered higher tier with +1 melee attack and two higher morale. But their armor rating is again lower and yet cost about 600 more. There seems to be an issue here. Shouldn't the Romans be somewhere in between in terms of both effectiveness and price?

[Kival]

Okay I'll check their costs but I'm quite sure the costs for them are calculated correctly. Note: Iberi cursis are one tier higher unit, that's why they cost more.

[Ludens]

Do you want me to move the cavalry pricing discussion to a new thread?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Do you want me to move the cavalry pricing discussion to a new thread?
Maybe split it off into the 3.0 edu discussion thread if that is possible. That would be helpful. But then again, this isn't my thread:oops:

[TheShakAttack]

Lol, this part is fine, since Robin brings up a legitimate point +7 armor costs only 300 mnai- possible costing error? Esp since post marian and imperial romans get a cav cost penalty (increase) iirc. We should however note that the documentation for costing is not up-to-date nor does it include an example of how costing is worked out. I will post a request for this in other thread.

It's the "these guys are too OP" and should be changed (mostly if not purely) for gameplay reasons that doesn't really fit scope of this thread.

[Kival]

Okay I'll check their costs but I'm quite sure the costs for them are calculated correctly. Note: Iberi cursis are one tier higher unit, that's why they cost more.

Relatively to the iberian light cav the iberian auxilariy seem's to be priced correctly. Chainmail + metal helmet cost 0,75 points in the system. Multiplied by 6,225 and 60 it's 280. Bringing in the 5 % additional cost for marian cav we land somewhere near 300. Though I'm not able at all to recalculate the absolute price of cav units. Theis seems to be a hidden factor not mentioned in the documentaiton.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Let's compare the Germanic Auxiliary cav which cost 2666 to the mercenary German cav which costs 2292. Difference is +2 armor and +2 morale for auxiliary version and yet the difference in price is larger than +7 armor of the Hispanic Auxilia. I'm not so sure the 2 extra morale points are worth more than +5 armor...
In my opinion, armor is the single most important stat in game, especially once fear units are removed. I'm a little unclear on how the costs are determined so maybe someone can help me out here.

[Kival]

In this special case I've no idea how the price of the germanic auxilariy is determined. The price increase is obviously not heavily based on the armour. 5 Armour does not cost much however it is determined. The morale increase is not specified in the Documentation.

In general morale if you did not get it by some unknown modifcation is based on the tier of the unit. The tier of the unit is normally the strongest price defining factor.

[Lazy O]

In short, they are overpriced :D

[Arjos]

Doesn't the cost of those units reflect as I said the more resources available to the SPQR? And by opposite the extreme luxury that cavalry was for the Swebozez?

[TheShakAttack]

Well, in a historical sense I would agree with you Arjos. However, in this particular EDU, the system that has been adopted by GG2 for costing makes it clear that it is a two step process:

1) All units are costed "equally/indiscriminately" for certain characteristics : their tier (which influences morale, unit numbers etc), equipment, stamina etc. Therefore, at this stage of the process, a unit with identical characteristics, lets say a cataphract, costs the same for any faction, be it rome or sweboz (if they had one) or Parthia/Hai.

2) The next step is to apply factional bonuses/discounts/penalties. This is where the cavalry costs less for Parthia/Hai/Sauro.

Therefore the only thing that really distinguishes units costs from faction to faction is the faction bonus/malus. There "should" be no other kind of arbitrary decision making involved. Unfortunately, our knowledge of all the factional bonus/malus is not complete as the "Documentation 3.0" file is a bit outdated. If I am not mistaken, there is some kind of a cost reduction applied for auxiliary units (which was applied after the latest documentation update).

If you have a look at the documentation file, as pointed out by Kiv, the biggest factor in terms of cost is the "tier" of the unit: this determines morale, unit numbers etc. Armor actually does not play a very significant role in terms of costing it seems. Whether this is appropriate is another matter entirely, and a discussion best conducted elsewhere.

For further information on costing, I defer to Kiv as he is the costing "expert" (aside from GG2 ofc) and has some experience in "costing" units and what little I know is under his guidance.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Doesn't the cost of those units reflect as I said the more resources available to the SPQR? And by opposite the extreme luxury that cavalry was for the Swebozez?

Well I brought up the comparison to strike the difference between the Iberi Equites Caetrati and Auxiliary Hispanics on one side, and the Mercenary German Cavalry and Auxiliary Germans on the other. In one instance, there is a significant armor difference between the two Spaniard cavalry units (with a minor +1 defense skill for the native equivalent) and yet a price difference of around 300 mnai. On the other hand, we have two units differing by 3 armor and 2 morale and yet the price difference is approximately 400. As with what Shak said, since morale (and by that tier) is the most determining cost factor (something I don't necessarily agree with), this makes some sense but I think maybe we should discuss this back in the 3.0 thread.

[TheShakAttack]

Thanks Robin :)

Also, I just want to clarify, I am not terribly familiar with costing, but from a quick glance, it seems the "tier system" is what influences cost the most. This includes morale, but also things such as attack and defense skill.

[Kival]

In short, they are overpriced :D

No, I can't say that.

Fix proposals:



- Mardian Archers need a price fix (including accuracy bonus of one level): 992 mnai.
- Speutagardaz need to get +1 Att/+1 Def. They lost them, when they became phalangitai.
- Fist marian cohot needs a price fix (including their stamina bonus, which is not applicated at the moment): 2677

[vartan]

Historicity is a near-top priority for unit stats. The ultimate source for pricing, on the other hand, is "gameplay" (i.e., the stats themselves; historicity becomes an indirect source).

[TheShakAttack]

Historicity is a near-top priority for unit stats. The ultimate source for pricing, on the other hand, is "gameplay" (i.e., the stats themselves; historicity becomes an indirect source).

Makes sense and sounds good.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Indo-hellenic peltasts need skirmish mode back. They aren't toss and charge style infantry.

[Arjos]

Leukanoi should be the same or not?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Leukanoi should be the same or not?

Possbily. They weren't classified as skirmishers in the original EB but I would be fine with that as they are very similar to Indo-Hellenics statwise.

[Kival]

I think there was one or two other units missing skirm ability, too. Also the roman lucani need 100 men, too. Actually I don't see any need for two different lucanian units at all.

[TheShakAttack]

Ok, thus far I have the following:

Skirmish mode for the indo-hellenic peltasts
Lucani = 100 men

Possibles:
Cost corrections
Skirmish mode for Lucani

[Kival]

Don't forget the att/def +1 for the germanic pikemen.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I think the Romans have a unique skin for Lucanians too. I know it doesn't matter that much but maybe they should get that unit instead of the merc one and leave that for Carthage. Its an aesthetic thing.:beatnik:

[TheShakAttack]

Waaaaay beyond my skillset :)

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Don't mind this.

[The Celtic Viking]

No, the other is listed for Epeiros, Carthage and KH. I tried it anyway - gave a peasant symbol and a crash.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Yeah I just tried it as you posted this too. I was wrong, confused the KH version and Roman version. I remembered the red shields and thought they were Roman.

[The Celtic Viking]

Another thing you might want to do is to give Golberi Curoas very_hardy and lower their cost to 1472 so that they're equal to and cost the same as Bataroas, instead of being inferior but more expensive as they are right now. Not a big thing either, but someone (me!) might like a more diverse look of the army.

[Kival]

The idea might be to make the mercenary version more expensive. I could agree with that, they should have highter stats then though. Also they should be made recruitable for all the factions, who used celtic mercaneries. At least carthage and epirotes should get them, especially Epirotes should have the possibility to use a celtic longsword unit. It's rather strange to make the spearmen merceneries than the more professional sword wielders.

[TheShakAttack]

Sounds like a good idea, but more of a "suggestion for improvement of gameplay" rather than fixing an error.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I'm not sure that I would give Epeiros the Northern Gallic merc. Rather the Southern Gallic merc. The northern ones represent Transalpine Gauls while the Southern ones represent Cisalpine Gauls as well as those Celts living in Central Europe. These would be more accessible to Epeiros as mercenaries. Maybe Carthage and Rome can get the Northern variant.

[Kival]

Sure, I did not remember the other southern merc version. It's not a fix though, so let's bring it on in the other thread instead.

[The Celtic Viking]

It's rather strange to make the spearmen merceneries than the more professional sword wielders.

*Cough* Boii Cingetos *cough* Galatikoi Kluddolon *cough* ~;)

[Kival]

*Cough* Boii Cingetos *cough* Galatikoi Kluddolon *cough* ~;)

Can epirotes use boii? However, shortswordmen are still less professional than longswordmen.

By the way boii swords should have more lethality then normal shortswords. At least at gladius level, perhaps at the level of the weapon of the karians.

[Arjos]

I agree for Kluddolon and Curoas, but Kingetoi nah, too high in Boii's social classes...

[Kival]

Kingetoi are not shortswordmen, especially not in this sense. Actually I don't know why EB gave them other swords than longswords but they are surely not described as usual shortswords:


In a melee, their swords are of excellent use, being highly versatile with a good slashing edge and a tapered point, good for thrusting or finding a weak spot in an enemy's armor.

Further, compared to most other Celts, the Boii are more prone to stricter discipline, tempered by centuries of incessant combat with neighbors.

That also obviously means, they should have higher morale, especially discipline but less charge.

[The Celtic Viking]

Can epirotes use boii? However, shortswordmen are still less professional than longswordmen.

Yes, and how do you figure that longsword would automatically mean more professional than shortswords? I would think the Boii Cingetos to be at least as professional than the Enoci Curoas.

[Kival]

Yes, and how do you figure that longsword would automatically mean more professional than shortswords? I would think the Boii Cingetos to be at least as professional than the Enoci Curoas.

See above, Boii are not really shortsword wielders. But in the celtic society in general, shortswords were used by the youth and unexperienced warriors. Boii might be an exception insofar as they did not use longswords at all, what I can not really believe (but I would not change this design decisions).

[Arjos]

It says that their swords could thrust, longswords have blunt tips, anyway even ingame is not that short...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

It would make sense to give them gladius lethality and possibly the gladius animations as well since it seems more designed as a thrusting weapon rather than cutting. Either way I'm not particularly enamored with the Boii though I suppose the additional lethality would be helpful.

[Kival]

Actually the descriptions tells us it's good for both. But gladius lethality should be fine for now.