Lusotana Campaign [Archive]

The Stranger

02-08-2012, 12:11

might be but they are bloody expensive compared to the roman infantry but not much if any better than the roman units. The diversity of their units is just a bit dissapointing :S

i know that heavy weapons have a higher lethality than light weapons, but light spears have higher attack than light swords even tho the sword unit is generally more expensive. does the sword unit have a higher attackrate? because lethality is usually the same.

take the loricati scutarii, one of the heaviest spanish infantry around if you do not want to go the elite ampakaro. They cost about 2k denarii and almost 500 for upkeep. They are only 1 defensive stat better than the Polybian Hastati, same attack but with lower lethality (so yes perhaps its a good idea to upgrade all these lethalities of falcata and kopis) The moral and discipline stats are identical. The only thing that is siginificantly better is the javelin throwing and charge. And for that you pay almost double the price. Ofcourse this might all be historical, the scutarii are good regular infantry and its probably very accurate that the spanish only had a few elite units. But I do wonder why the Roman infantry is so freaking cheap! Is that historical or just to give the AI Romani an edge and represent their dominance in the field?

Blxz

02-08-2012, 12:42

Luso's are very powerful. And the cost should be compared against the fact that you are sitting in one of the richest area's of the map.

The Stranger

02-08-2012, 13:07

once you get those mines up and running but thats easier said than done. anyway cost should be related to equipment and training. upkeep to being irregular, regular or elite (in the end that is usually similar to length of training and quality of equipment). and this is generally well balanced in EB, but the romans are a weird exception.

athanaric

02-08-2012, 13:23

Luso's are very powerful. And the cost should be compared against the fact that you are sitting in one of the richest area's of the map.With one of the weakest tech trees in the game. Sure you'll roll in cash once you've united Iberia, but there is always the nagging feeling that SPQR or Carthage could make five times the money by doing the same thing. Kinda irrational, I know, but I'm just that focused on economy.

once you get those mines up and running but thats easier said than done. anyway cost should be related to equipment and training. upkeep to being irregular, regular or elite (in the end that is usually similar to length of training and quality of equipment). and this is generally well balanced in EB, but the romans are a weird exception.
Roman units are "balanced differently" to reflect the idiosyncrasies of their faction's military policy. Maybe somebody else can come up with a more detailed response. Apart from that, elite units such as Ambakaro are quite expensive to raise for a people with limited economical and technological capabilities - you need hand-crafted high quality arms and armour for each of those soldiers, which is easier said than done, even taking into account advanced Celtic metalworking techniques. All the more as there needs to be a solid economical base for these undertakings.
And don't forget the AP bonus of falcatas, which gives your units quite an edge versus Roman units. In my experience, Lusitanian and other Iberian units are quite decent against Roman and Carthaginian armies. It's other barbarians they have problems with. Sure you can decimate those Gauls with javelins, but once they are upon you even the (mid-tier) Bataroas will eat through any of your units with little effort, thanks to equal skill combined with superior lethality. And no armour to speak of, rendering your AP advantage useless. Also, their fear units. TBH I've had little trouble defeating the Lusotannan with Swêboz, Casse, or Aedui. Those battles are mainly annoying due to hardcoded issues, i.e. skirmishing related bugs and the AI's retarded but effective habit to throw missiles in close combat.

The Stranger

02-08-2012, 14:14

Brave Brave Sir Robin

02-08-2012, 15:16

i understand that the roman military works different than the lusotannan, but atleast early on it works pretty much as the greek states (not carthage cuz they relied on foreign mercs mostly) and the greek states core infantry is still a lot more expensive than the roman core infantry.

Roman recruitment is completely different from Greek recruitment. If we take the Greek city-states for example, they could never hope to match the manpower Rome could call upon anytime in our timeframe and perhaps 100 years earlier. The larger Hellenistic powers focused more on training for small cores of, undoubtedly well-trained Macedonians and Greeks, but focused much less on the arming and training of native populations. Therefore, the core of their armies were still limited in size, unlike those of the Romans who deployed their Italian allies in much the same way as their own legions. The fact that Rome could suffer consecutive crushing defeats (i.e. Second Punic War) and still field large armies speaks to how successful they were in this respect.

team_kramnik

02-08-2012, 15:54

Romans get a flat 20% to represent their big and rich middleclass. A class that had mostly disappeared in greek society by 280 BC. Apart from javelin throwing and charge Iberian units get better stamina and the ability to hide in long grass. This makes them lots of fun imo but cost-effective they are not. They also play more like greek infantry with specialist roles like skirmish (Iabarannta, Caetranann), defense (Gestikapoinann, Scortamareva) and assault (Caetrati, Ambakaro, Roscaithrera).

As attack infantry in your factional roster Ambakaro are your only option. But 2 of them are usually enough to wipe out whole armies provided the enemy is pinned and they get some javelin support. I have no other EB unit seen kill as fast as Ambakaro. And yes swordunits get faster attack though it differs from unit to unit.

In general for attack pick units with a dense formation. Caetrannan have absolutly terrible killrates thanks to their loose formation. But humble Caetrati are good enough to flank a late roman army thanks to high attack speed, resonable good formation and ap swords. Against lightly armored enemies it might be a better idea to use a longsword unit like Roscaithrera or Milites Ilergetum. Units with lots of light javelins like Iabarannta should do well too.

Edit: Unit Skeletons which give an idea about attack speed

dunaminaca
skeleton fs_javelinman, fs_swordsman

scortamavera
skeleton fs_javelinman, fs_o_f_spearman

roscaithrera
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman_big, fs_fast_swordsman_big

ilergeta
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_swordsman_barb

asturainaxemen
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_swordsman_barb_slash

Dosidataskeli
skeleton fs_javelinman_big, fs_slow_spearman_big

caetratii
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_swordsman_barb

iberian_infantry_milites
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_spearman

scutarii
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_spearman

loricati_scutarii
skeleton fs_javelinman, fs_swordsman_barb

gestikapoinann
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_o_f_spearman

ambakaro
skeleton fs_semi_fast_javelinman, fs_semi_fast_swordsman_barb

iberian_missile_velites
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_spearman

Iabarannta, Gaesamica
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_spearman

caetranann
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_swordsman_barb

iovamann
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_swordsman

northern_skirmisher_siluri
skeleton fs_fast_javelinman, fs_fast_o_f_spearman

athanaric

02-08-2012, 18:17

I'm fairly certain that Roscaithrera have "normal" swords with 0.13 lethality. Milites Ilergetum are excellent, though.

konny

02-08-2012, 18:38

TBH I've had little trouble defeating the Lusotannan with Swêboz, Casse, or Aedui. Those battles are mainly annoying due to hardcoded issues, i.e. skirmishing related bugs and the AI's retarded but effective habit to throw missiles in close combat.I can only confirm that. In my last Roman campaign I quited when I was at constant war with Lusotans, the Aedui, the Dacians and Carthago for some twenty years.

Of those four opponents the Lustonas looked best but fought worst. Their bodyguard it rather pathetical; no match even for Eqvites, and a joke in combat compared to the battletanks of the other three factions. When this faction has no access to the east coast of Spain it is not able to raise any other cavalry of note. And that also is to be raised from regional MICs.

Balearic Slingers are only available as mercs, in return they get access to dunno how many javeleeners, of which the AI loves to raise each and every of them. Then there's a bunch somewhat mid-to-low-level spearmen, of which I have the impression that all have an extremly low moral - when attacking the Spanish units have a tendency to break much faster even than Lugoae.

The only unit that was able to deliver at least some damage were the Scortamareva. The Ambakaro are simply to few in a unit to not go gown under a salvo of pila or the attack of a fresh unit of Pedites Extraordinarii.

moonburn

02-08-2012, 19:26

The Stranger

02-08-2012, 20:02

well the iberian heavy cav is good, but like i have pointed out the heaviest iberian infantry, the loricata scutarii is no match for even polybian hastati (cost-effectiveness that is, they are slightly better individually but at 2x the cost, and they will get owned by 2 hastati easy). im not debating the historical accurateness of this, but i was just a bit dissapointed, even more so when i found out that the dosidataskeli were taken out, a unit so awesome it would tip the balance back in their favor. i have modded them back in but somehow the feeling has gone. and yes the epones ambakaro (and generals bodyguard) were a big dissapoinment.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

02-09-2012, 15:11

Ambakaro Epones (and most sword wielding javelin cavalry) is underwhelming for several reasons.
1. Cavalry secondaries are too weak compared to lances. It is actually better to use the lance in vanilla EB. We added +3 attack across the board for cavalry secondaries for MP.
2. Javelin cavalry missile attacks are poor. 8 javs for each man in the unit isn't going to do much damage at all with their current attack modifier. For MP we added +'s depending on the unit considering the extra momentum a jav would get being thrown from a moving horse.
3. Again falcatas and kopides are weak compared to axes. Raising lethality on these weapons is a good idea.

After implementing these three factors across the board for all cavalry, I found Ambakaro Epones to be one of, if not the best anti-heavy cavalry unit in game. Without this, they are a crap unit that costs an arm and a leg. Most other skirmisher cavalry without spears are the same way. Although there are some changes in MP that might not be for everyone, these changes are relatively needed to make a lot of units in SP worthwhile, especially the sidearm using skirmisher cavalry.

konny

02-09-2012, 18:42

you should use the hillfort soldiers and the illergetes and the iberian medium cavarly and even the basque ultra armoured if you can get them back into the game if you only use lusitanian native troops ofc you´re going to be missing alot of diversity you must use the iberian full rooster and not just the lusitanian native roosterNot me. I am talking about that faction being run by the AI and that way has about the worst line-up in the entire mod.

I myself had only once started a campaign with them, but also quitted very fast because of the extremly limited possibilities in recruiting anything good in the starting provinces. I think that was before the sheppard slingers made it in and you had absolutly no missle from the MICs.

Lysimachos

02-09-2012, 18:51

Not me. I am talking about that faction being run by the AI and that way has about the worst line-up in the entire mod.

That's an interesting point considering that Lusotannan AI does exceptionally well against other AI factions.

The Stranger

02-09-2012, 19:22

in almost all my campaigns i have seen them losing vs the romans and carthage tho :S

(i did give rome a boost tho by increasing their numbers of all infantry to 60/240)

Ca Putt

02-09-2012, 19:42

I assume this is because of their AP bonus which apparently is valued high in autocalc.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

02-10-2012, 04:48

And also because they can build high quality factional units throughout all of Iberia. Armies of Scortamareva and Ambakaro are dangerous.

team_kramnik

02-10-2012, 08:08

I'm fairly certain that Roscaithrera have "normal" swords with 0.13 lethality. Milites Ilergetum are excellent, though.
True, my bad.

Not me. I am talking about that faction being run by the AI and that way has about the worst line-up in the entire mod.

I myself had only once started a campaign with them, but also quitted very fast because of the extremly limited possibilities in recruiting anything good in the starting provinces. I think that was before the sheppard slingers made it in and you had absolutly no missle from the MICs.

A Lusotann army is very capable:

Iovamann: cheap garrison

iabarannta: Javelinners are great! They kill weakly armored enemies, stall most attackers or chase light cav.

caetranann: They look cool. Am I the only one who picks units like that? They have a bad formation but that can be neutralized by letting them fight with other units. They also have 6 javelins.

Gestikapoinann: Solid, fast and cheap spearmen. Great addition to flanking teams and good enough to hold most sections of a line.

Scortamareva: One of the most heavily armored line-units and they can keep up with a Luso army.

Ambakaro: Long range javelins, high morale and ap swords. Deadly assault unit. Don't let them become the target of heavy javelins or a heavy infantry charge. But you also don't use your FMs to frontally charge a phalanx line, do you? Also don't let them throw javelins when using them as assault troops.

Ambakaro Epones: They are not weaker than similar units like Hetairoi Aspidophoroi or Tarentines. High price is not a problem as Luso armies should be mostly infantry and you get them for free as Bodyguards. Of course you can raise their stats and let your medium cavalry cut down cataphracts. And then conquer entire empires with just 2 units of FMs. That they need a boost in mp is of course reasonable.

Lusotannan units all have their uses. They just lack units who are good at everything so it's no surprise the ai misuses them.

Nightmare

02-10-2012, 11:24

anyway cost should be related to equipment and training. upkeep to being irregular, regular or elite (in the end that is usually similar to length of training and quality of equipment). and this is generally well balanced in EB, but the romans are a weird exception.

Depends on what you mean by "generally well balanced." Across the board, units get less and less cost efficient as you climb the tech tree. By the time you've hit "elite" you are well into "grotesquely cost inefficient."

well the iberian heavy cav is good, but like i have pointed out the heaviest iberian infantry, the loricata scutarii is no match for even polybian hastati (cost-effectiveness that is, they are slightly better individually but at 2x the cost, and they will get owned by 2 hastati easy).

Yup, here you are running into the "cost effectiveness issue" I outlined above. Works that way with every faction.

You are always better building levee units as any faction rather than teching up and building anything else. Since I personally don't like playing the game with nothing but generic levee spears or whatever, I "corrected" the issue by taking the stats that the MP folks use and applying them to single player. This seemed to generally improve cost-effectiveness by a fair bit across the board for all factions as you tech up.

If you are interested in the modifications, just PM me. They would be a serious pain to do by hand but I've already edited the file and can send it to whoever wants it.

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 11:40

i was talking about the cost balanced to their status, not the cost balanced to their skill or usefullness.

well one thing ive always wondered about is defense skill, you have some mountain irregulars with higher defense skill than some heavily trained elites. and some superior or even elite faction units such as the pontikoi thorakitai or the ptolemaic galation guard unit with lower morale or equal morale as a normal levy... but eb just has too many units for me to bother with rebalancing stuff like that :P

i do like what they have done with charges and missile units. strong from the side but alot weaker from the front.

levies are quite good its true, definitly the archer spearmen and the phalanx ones but comparably units such as the thorakitai are most definitly very cost efficient. and 1 hetairo will still kill 2 prodromois or light cav which are half the price in a frontal charge.

but ye early on you can better spam cheap units but in campaign you will reach a point where you have so much money to spend it doesnt matter what u build. and also the point of elite units is more their morale and shock power than cost effectiveness. when the line is wavering you want to throw in your elite units to break the enemy or hold your own line. ofcourse the brunt of your army would be this low level trooper

but perhaps raising their unit from 30 to 40 would balance it out?

i just ran a quick test

1 spartiate = roughly 4 haploi in both cost and upkeep

1 vs 4 the spartan loses

2 vs 8 the spartans win

both times i allowed myself to be surrounded. i lost all my spartans the first time and 71% the second time. but they are definitly worth the money but just require special use and thats quite historical.

Blxz

02-10-2012, 12:31

The thing about the stats is that you want to consider why they were made that way. Defense skill, for example, gives you protection from the front and the right (your weapon hand). This defense ONLY works in close combat and does nothing against missiles. So a unit that is lightly armoured possibly with no shield but is still very capable in melee needs a way to actually work. In the current stat system (which is unmoddable, only the stats can be changed...not the effects) the team has created units that work in a certain way. So it is very important to understand why something was stated in a certain way. (and I won't even go into invisible stats like unit spacing, model attack speed and AP, to name a few).

As for Nightmare's views, my opinion is well documented but I'll say it again in a concise way.
I think he is missing the point. The game is not designed to be arcade style balanced where 1 mnai of currency equals a certain combat efficiency. The costs change based on a number of factors. Some are cost of equipment. A lamellar inlaid leather coat is not twice as good as a regular leather coat even though it costs twice as much.
Other factors are historical unit availability. The pricing helps to keep the AI in check. An AI that is very limited in how moddable it is. (unfortunately)
Finally, a single stack can consist of only 20 individual units. A stack of cheap levies is cost effective but may fail when you eed it most. You cannot increase its power any more than a total of 20. BUT if you do need MORE power then you are free to use other units. They are not as cost effective stat-to-cost as the levies but they have higher stats so, for a premium price, you can actually increase the maximum power of your fullstack of troops.

Entirely optional and you, as the player, need to make the strategic choice (don't forget retraining radius).

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 15:06

another test 1 hypaspistai vs 4 haplois (again same recruitment and upkeep)

my hypaspistai killed the enemy general and the haplois routed when about 50% of both armies were dead (54/123 losses on my side vs 370/649 on their side). and again i allowed myself to get almost totally surrounded, in a chokepoint the massacre would be bigger.

ye i agree, and the quick test i ran showed the following

elite units fight until death, they dont run like your levies will so even tho 2 spartans are about as cost effiecient as 8 haplois (and also cost about as much in terms of recruitment and upkeep, lets not go into details of teching up, training time in turns or number of soldiers vs city population) they can be relied upon to hold the line more effectively because they fight until death and they will be able to resist a charge of from flanks or rear better. and thats where you should use them and thats where they were used historically, on the weakest/most important parts of the battle where their morale and prowess would carry the day.

no doubt 2 spartans and 4 haploi will totally annihilate 12 haplois. and im sure that 1 spartan on a chokepoint will hold off 6 haplois easy.

i just ran another battle, 1 spartan in a village street vs 4 haplois. i lost 37 spartans and killed about 580 haplois with every haploi unit breaking around 15 units left of the 160. heroic victory and all. so in such a situation its obvious why youd want to take 1 spartan over 4 haplois and why they are definitly more cost efficient in certain situations (in every way except the tech thats required to get them).

its really about how and where you use them.

those thrakian romphoiblabla unit is such a beast! only unit that beats them so far in melee is the ordmalica (but that one has been removed from campaign XD) and the thraikian unit does much better vs heavily armoured elite units.

Nightmare

02-10-2012, 16:10

i was talking about the cost balanced to their status, not the cost balanced to their skill or usefullness.

The cost-inefficiency should be upwards of "grotesquely cost inefficient" once you start teching up, no matter which way you want to look at it (status or skill/usefulness).

well one thing ive always wondered about is defense skill, you have some mountain irregulars with higher defense skill than some heavily trained elites.

I noticed similar things myself when I first started playing. My first post here was titled something like "Riff-raff units too strong?" I had numidian skirmishers in robes and sandals murder the most elite cavalry I could field as carthage.

but ye early on you can better spam cheap units but in campaign you will reach a point where you have so much money to spend it doesnt matter what u build.

If you are playing to play the best game you can play, keep building the cheap units even at this point in time. Of course, if you are playing for other reasons (fun, role-playing, etc) just do what you want.

and also the point of elite units is more their morale and shock power than cost effectiveness. when the line is wavering you want to throw in your elite units to break the enemy or hold your own line.

If you are playing to play the best game you can play, just have 4 or 5 more units of the cheap stuff for every elite you could field, and throw THEM into the fray instead. But again though, if you are playing for fun, for role-playing reasons, for historical accuracy, etc. just do whatever you want (i.e. field elites).

As far as your tests go, if I understood you correctly you were able to get cost-effectiveness out of elite units. This surprises me quite a bit. I was never able to get even remotely close to this in unit testing. Can you tell me how you conducted the tests? Were they "fair?"

At any rate, if your tests show elites as being cost-effective, then good for you, and I suppose you have no reason not to use them provided you have the funds.

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 16:35

i did my tests on grassy flatland

and i picked units according to price and upkeep e.g. 1 spartan/hypaspistai costs about 3500 mnai and around 800 upkeep and 4 haploi cost about 3400 mnai 200 upkeep for each haploi is 800 upkeep total. i use no upgrades and its on medium so no cheats on any sides.

then i marched my unit across the map and attacked, the ai enveloped me completely attackin from all sides with 3 haploi and keeping the general on the side for a little bit (wouldnt matter because i was already completely surrounded) and the general joined the battle around halfway

like i said, i lost the spartan vs the 4 haploi on open ground but won it hard in a choke point

the hypaspistai won vs the haploi on openground tho, so i didnt bother to try a chokepoint. i am reluctant to test the elite units which have javelines because the ai screws up with javelins.

however i ran another series of tests and all the elites are more or less equal to each other, but the thrakian rompoblabla is killing them all hard! and they are cheaper in both reqruitment and upkeep. i think they are the most cost efficient heavy infantry killer in the game. the elites would do better vs cav i think tho and cheap unarmored infantry.

hmm perhaps not true, i just did a 1 rompha vs 4 haplois and the romphas won it. and their cost is more 1 rompha = 3,5 haploi...

and im sure i can use them better in expert maneauvers.

i might run some cavalry tests later. i would like to run some more infantry tests but not all factional units are available in custom battle. does anyone know how to fix that?

also the hypaspistai switch to their spears in close combat, which is making totally no sense but whats even weirder is that they are more effective that way than when using their swords...

athanaric

02-10-2012, 17:10

however i ran another series of tests and all the elites are more or less equal to each other, but the thrakian rompoblabla is killing them all hard! and they are cheaper in both reqruitment and upkeep. i think they are the most cost efficient heavy infantry killer in the game. the elites would do better vs cav i think tho and cheap unarmored infantry.
If you aren't bored yet with testing you could compare them to Sreni Pattya Yoddaha and Kluddargos. Those three units are almost identical stat wise, and I'd like to see which one is "best" on the battle map. Strategically, the Rhomphaiaphoroi are best because they're recruitable in the center of the map and every faction can have them.

also the hypaspistai switch to their spears in close combat, Well that's an engine issue.

which is making totally no sense but whats even weirder is that they are more effective that way than when using their swords...
That's unlikely. Probably a subjective impression?

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 17:21

looking at the raw data the brits should win. ill post results in abit.

kluddargos vs rompha = 74 kills for kluddargos and 37 kills for rompha (rompha rout after general is killed)
kluddargos vs rompha = 114 kills for kluddargos vs 116 kills for rompha (kluddargos rout)

kluddargas vs pattya =110 kill for kluddargos vs 102 kills for pattya (pattya rout)
kluddargas vs pattya = 98 kills for kluddargas vs 79 kills for pattya (kluddargas lose general but pattya rout shortly after)
pattya vs kluddargos = 110 kills patty vs 85 for kluddargos (kluddargos rout)

rompha vs pattya = 65 kills for rompha vs 101 kills for pattya (rompha rout after dead general)
rompha vs pattya = 52 kills for rompha vs 99 kills for pattya (rompha rout)
rompha vs pattya = 35 kills for rompha vs 83 kills for pattya (rompha rout after dead general)

this is weird, the rompha have 2 more charge and should be better statistically... i dont understand why the pattya are beating the rompha so hard but are losing vs the kluddargos.

ah i think i know why the pattya are doing so good, they are the least armoured of the 3...
the sreni pattya win it for some strange reason even tho they are statistically the least (least charge which seems very important in this case)

what i have noticed is that the pattya model is the most effective. after the charge both the kluddargos and the rompha do a sort of regrouping and like 20 men go to the back without fighting, the pattya unit doesnt do it and thus uses the men more effectively.

and about the hypaspistai swords, ye that was a mistake. the swords are better but not as much as i had hoped. i tried it a few times and now ive decided to mod out the spears as secundary weapons because its more the constant switching that makes it ineffective than whatever weapon they are using themself.

Nightmare

02-10-2012, 18:00

i might run some cavalry tests later. i would like to run some more infantry tests but not all factional units are available in custom battle. does anyone know how to fix that?

Yeah. You have to open the EB start menu file and click the multiplayer version of EB, not single. Or, if you use that fancy-schmancy launcher, multiplayer might be on that as well.

also the hypaspistai switch to their spears in close combat, which is making totally no sense but whats even weirder is that they are more effective that way than when using their swords...

I believe if you click on the unit you want to control, and then hold down ALT amd right click the unit you are fighting, they will then use their secondary weapons in the fight (assuming that's what you want to do).

When you finish all these tests, give us your final assessment on whether these elites are cost-effective or not. As far as I know, nobody has ever denied that they are not cost-effective in head up fights, but rather bring up points like "they can hold a critical point in the line" or "they never break" etc. But hey, if you can somehow achieve a different result, lets hear about it, and more power to you.

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 18:03

ok thanks

and i dont want them to use the secondary weapon actually, they have swords principal, spears secundairy (the gods know why... i guess to defend vs cav) but they switch to the spears in close quarter combat which is ofcourse idiotic. so now ive taken the spears out entirely.

based on my tests id say that elites are cost-equivalent to slightly more cost efficient to normal levy units but they would be more effective in special situations because of their better stamina, discipline and morale.

in chokepoints the elite units win hands down and are easily 2x as cost efficient as the normal levy units.

good example of my last test

the Dubosaverlacica (Ebherni Armoured Shock Infantry) vs 5 hoplitai haploi
that is 121 men vs 811 men
3639 recruitment cost and 910 upkeep vs 4045 recruitment cost and 1008 upkeep

the Dubosaverlacica won the battle with 664 kills vs 67 losses and even lost their general in the middle of the fight. They were actively engaging 4 haploi at all time and 5 after they lost their general yet they didnt rout and ultimately broke the 4 haploi to finish off the generals unit which didnt join the fight until the middle part like i said. i didnt use the javelin ability of the unit.

the hypaspistai had similar results vs 4 haploi but in that case the general unit did more fighting earlier on. i am sure the hypaspistai will have a better result if they only use swords and dont switch to the secundairy spear weapon.

the spartans lost in the open field but won in the chokepoint, very hard.

i have been testing vs haploi atm cuz they have a very round upkeep and cost number and i read somehwere that they were one of the most cost efficient levy infantry in the game. i might run some tests later vs sword units or vs medium to heavy units

also perhaps i should run it vs a human player (without any tactical manouevers) because i cannot try as the haploi because the ai for some reason hit and runs hypaspistai in certain cases...

Arjos

02-10-2012, 18:08

and i dont want them to use the secondary weapon actually, they have swords principal

Soon as they are engaged, right click again on their target and they will switch to swords...

As for your tests, AI most of the times recharges, or do something silly like keep on walking, plus you are sending AP units against non-armoured opponents in some cases: the results are flawned...

In EB there's no such thing as the "ultimate" unit, each has a field in which it excels, but against a certain opponent, even cheaper, it will utterly fail...

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 18:14

Arjos

02-10-2012, 18:20

its just stupid to have a spear as a close quarter combat weapon if the sword is your principal weapon -_-

Unfortunately it was an animation issue or something similar, hoplitai should have a xiphos as secondary weapon for example...

It was decided for certain units to have the sword as primary weapon, even though historically the spear was the primary one, because those units were often used in close-quarters, assaulting with their swords...

Again about the tests: using general units makes the units perform differently than their real stats, due to morale bonus etc...

konny

02-10-2012, 18:30

i tried and it doesnt work really, or i have to constantly click. the secundairy weapon is for close quarter combat and i think the switch is hardcoded. its just stupid to have a spear as a close quarter combat weapon if the sword is your principal weapon -_-IRRC the entire unit uses secondary weapons when charging and when facing an opponent they had not been ordered to attack. This comes in handy when the enemy throws in additional cavalry, but it can become an anoyance when several enemy units are overlapping. In this case you cannot use the trick with the additional right click because they are always fighting another unit additionally what causes them to go back to the secondary weapon.

Additionally single figures switch to their secondary weapon when they had been knocked down, and stay with that weapon for the rest of the battle. That way, after some time of fighting, you'll have the entire front rank fighting with spears instead of swords.

All hardcoded issues, of course.

athanaric

02-10-2012, 18:33

When you finish all these tests, give us your final assessment on whether these elites are cost-effective or not. As far as I know, nobody has ever denied that they are not cost-effective in head up fights, but rather bring up points like "they can hold a critical point in the line" or "they never break" etc. But hey, if you can somehow achieve a different result, lets hear about it, and more power to you.Sreni Pattya Yoddaha are definitely cost-efficective. Of course they can't hold a line because for that, you need more men with bigger shields. But they're by far one of the best units against phalanxes, especially in engagements that would make cheaper alternatives rout (which is common when dealing with phalangitai). Same for the other two, which I haven't used quite as much yet.

-

Also, thanks to The Stranger for conducting my tests for me. Maybe I'm allowed to give out a ballon?:balloon:

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 18:41

Unfortunately it was an animation issue or something similar, hoplitai should have a xiphos as secondary weapon for example...

It was decided for certain units to have the sword as primary weapon, even though historically the spear was the primary one, because those units were often used in close-quarters, assaulting with their swords...

Again about the tests: using general units makes the units perform differently than to their real stats, due to morale bonus etc...

they only get a morale bonus cuz of the generals bodyguard but seeing as that they are elite and their morale is already much higher i think this can be disregarded. besides the generals morale bonus is a area bonus so the enemy gets a similar bonus since the general is in the direct area (and not on the other side of the battlefield)

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 18:43

Sreni Pattya Yoddaha are definitely cost-efficective. Of course they can't hold a line because for that, you need more men with bigger shields. But they're by far one of the best units against phalanxes, especially in engagements that would make cheaper alternatives rout (which is common when dealing with phalangitai). Same for the other two, which I haven't used quite as much yet.

-

Also, thanks to The Stranger for conducting my tests for me. Maybe I'm allowed to give out a ballon?:balloon:

perhaps someone can run some more tests, or look into the model/formation issue i have pointed out. im really surprised that the pattya win.

Arjos

02-10-2012, 18:45

i think this can be disregarded.

It has to do also with the general and officers (they have awesome stats), also their stamina is better...
Sometimes, almost by chance, the general could die, and in your test that unit would receive morale drops, it shouldn't get in an "objective" engagement...

In short they are not the same unit, in MP and all the people, who know a lot more about stats (it's gamey and boring to me :P), speak how generals render the data basically invalid...

As for the Srenis: 1v1 units, beside combat stats, spacing and mass influence immensely, that could be the answer...

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 18:59

allright, im willing to test vs a human and have the generals leave the field and then do the tests head on.

ofcourse i can see what nightmare is talking about, there are cases where upgrades are not really needed. like i am sure that if you manouver effectively you can annihilate 1 argyraspides with 2 pezhetairoi while the argyraspydes is almost 2x as expensive in upkeep (i dont know in recruitment cost). or just 1 on 1, i dont see any reason why you would want to pick the african heavy infantry over the heavy libyan infantry (the late version, not the early). sure the african heavys have 2 more morale, they have swords and a better charge but cost 1.75 times as much. and there are many more examples such as these (like why would you use spartan hoplites instead of epilektoi) and there is so little different between the elite african infantry and the sacred band, but the sacred band have 2 more moral for just 100 more recruitment cost and like 10 more upkeep. (thats why i am looking to mod the african elites into axewielding infantry instead of spearwielding ones, this atleast make their roles different and will give you a reason to use the african elites other than for show or history)

and if i play vs a human i can see my hypaspistai lose vs 4 haploi because he can pin me down with 3 haploi and use 1 to keep doing continuious charges in the rear doing much more damage than the envelopement that the ai does. yet at the same time i am equally sure that i will win with 1 hypaspistay and 4 haploi vs 8 haploi. because i can use my hypaspistai to pine down a large amount of units and use my haploi to do the same maneauvering and flanking charges. and there is no denying at all the in a chokepoint situation you will much rather want to have 1 spartan hoplite unit or 1 hypaspistay than 4 haploi even tho the cost and upkeep is similar.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

02-10-2012, 19:29

I think Srenis have a looser formation but this allows them to wrap around the sides of units much easier, therefore doing what they do best, moving around the flanks and cutting stuff up. I think this is the reason for their success though I am not 100% sure. I have done some testing before for MP sake and it is tedious:laugh4:

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 19:46

Nightmare

02-10-2012, 21:29

Brave Brave Sir Robin

02-10-2012, 21:35

the srenis formation is as lose as the casse one. but both are looser than the romphas but like i said, the casse and the rompha they shift their formation in a weird way and thus about 20 men are unused while the sreni is using all of them.

also for some reason the casse charge is not as devastating as you would expect seeing that their base attack is higher and the charge stat is higher as well.

does anyone know how i can mod the models/sprites? if i want to put the sreni model and attack etc on the rompha what must i do in order to achieve that (i knew all this a few years back but it has faded from memory :S)

To get infantry charges to actually do something in EB you need to change the values to something much higher. Low lethalities on top of low base attacks usually mean a charge will often kill no one. If you start going into the 20's however, you may notice 4-5 men being killed in charges.

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 22:28

ye infantry charges arent that effective, cavalry charges are through the roof tho, but the cavalry has low base stat (higher lethality) with high charge stat. i dont know, ill do some more testing later.

The Stranger

02-10-2012, 22:34

I did extensive testing and it always came back that elites weren't worth it.

Just to throw some of my methodology at you:

In order to make tests as fair and accurate as possible, the bulk of my testing was testing troop types against the same troop types moving vertically up tier within the same faction. This eliminates question marks to the highest degree possible (counters, units against units of different types or different factions, etc) and gives the most accurate assessment, in my opinion.

To give you an example of what I'm talking about, you can assess Selucid pikes by testing Selucid levy pikes against a Selucid medium pike. The MP setup won't actually let you do this literally because it won't let you play the same faction against itself. But you can do the same thing by testing the Selucid levies against a Ptolemoi medium. Since these units are the same for the factions, it gives the same effect.

Just understand that the point with this methodology is to test a particular type of unit - say pikes - and to do it in such a way as to test it up the tier (levies against medium, levies against elite, mediums against elite, etc). This will give you the true measure of whether it is worth it to tech that particular unit up or not, because you have essentially pitted Selucid levy pikes against Selucid medium pikes and Selucid heavy pikes. Thus you pretty much know without a doubt which one is the most cost-effective. There aren't any question marks of cross-tier, or testing the unit against something that counters it, etc.

Anyway, unless there's an objection I recommend you use this methodology and then come back and report results.

well what do you think about what arjos said of the general?

i understand what you are saying tho and i did start my initial test using this method.

the spartan is a top tier of greeks and haploi is the levy. on open field 1 spartan lost vs 4 haploi but 2 spartans won vs 8 haploi. in a city street, and only frontal assault the spartans beat 4 haploi but i am sure they can take on atleast 6 haploi in that case.

hypaspistai is a tricky one because it is sword based, but it can be seen as a top tier version of the haploi (armed same fashion, with attack/defense balance being roughly similar) the hypaspistai won as well.

the dosidataskeli can be seen as a very armoured spartan hoplite and that was even far more superior. i am reluctant to try it vs the lower vershions of the lusotannan because the ai does repeated missile throwing in melee combat... perhaps i can disable the javelin throwing and then try again. tho undoubtly the caetrannan will do a good job because of the AP.

anyway, i will do some more testing in a bit. the spartan result still stands tho

i ran 4 tests, 2 times 1 vs 4 in the open both lost by the spartan. 1 time 2 vs 8 in the open won by the spartans, 1 time 1 vs 4 in a village also won by the spartans.

if you think being a general bodyguard unit doesnt really matter, then i will run some more of these tests.

Arjos

02-10-2012, 22:40

I was talking about objective failproof data ^^

Test away, years ago I spent even too much time doing this XD

But in the end in SP you can conquer the world with 2 FM units or anything lol
And MP, we use a different edu and there are rules etc...

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 00:31

ok here are the first results

Carthage:

Levy = Misteret Ezra'him (Poeni Citizen Militia) (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=carthaginian%20infantry%20mishteret%20izrahim%20feenikim%20rebel&text=poeni&ownership=any&class=any&category=any)

Elite = Dorkim Leebi-Feenikim Aloophim (Elite Liby-Phoenician Infantry) (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=carthaginian%20infantry%20picked%20libyphoenician&text=&ownership=egypt&class=heavy&category=infantry)

Because the I could not use the Levy of Carthage I used the Hoplitai Haploi (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=greek%20infantry%20taxeis%20hoplitai&text=haploi&ownership=any&class=any&category=any) which are actually even better for the same cost.

Results:

1 Elite Liby-Phoenician Infantry vs 4 Hoplitai Haploi = 536 kills for Elite vs 73 kills for Levy
1 Elite Liby-Phoenician Infantry vs 4 Hoplitai Haploi = 561 kills for Elite vs 71 kills for Levy
1 Elite Liby-Phoenician Infantry vs 5 Hoplitai Haploi = 692 kills for Elite vs 79 kills for Levy
1 Elite Liby-Phoenician Infantry vs 5 Hoplitai Haploi = 730 kills for Elite vs 76 kills for Levy

Specifics:

Map is Grassy Flatlands.

Every time I started with 2 Elite units and immediately marched my general unit off the field, this way the general will not have an impact on my side, the AI still has a general so if what Arjos says is true, these results should favor the Elite even more.

In the 1 vs 4 battles I was enveloped by 3 units and surrounded completely, with the general unit performing charge-ins all the the time. When the rest routed it was my 1 Elite vs the 1 Levy general unit.

In the 1 vs 5 battles I was enveloped by 4 units and surrounded completely, but the general unit remained idle for most of the time. When the rest routed it was my 1 Elite vs the 1 Levy general unit.

Judgment:

Elite wins this hands down, definitely when considering that the Carthaginian levy is worse than the Haploi.

Kull

02-11-2012, 01:49

I did extensive testing and it always came back that elites weren't worth it.

Just understand that the point with this methodology is to test a particular type of unit - say pikes - and to do it in such a way as to test it up the tier (levies against medium, levies against elite, mediums against elite, etc). This will give you the true measure of whether it is worth it to tech that particular unit up or not, because you have essentially pitted Selucid levy pikes against Selucid medium pikes and Selucid heavy pikes. Thus you pretty much know without a doubt which one is the most cost-effective. There aren't any question marks of cross-tier, or testing the unit against something that counters it, etc.

Anyway, unless there's an objection I recommend you use this methodology and then come back and report results.

OK:

1) Ran nine tests of one Human Levy Phalanx against one CPU Medium Phalanx (various combinations from 6 different factions to make sure that wasn't a contributing factor). Battle on level grassy terrain at Medium Difficulty. Result? 1 Levy win vs. 8 Medium wins

2) Ran nine more tests of one Human Medium Phalanx against one CPU Levy Phalanx (various combinations from 6 different factions to make sure that wasn't a contributing factor). Battle on level grassy terrain at Medium Difficulty. Result? 7 Medium wins vs. 2 Levy wins

Whether that proves it's "worth it" to tech up is debateable since good tactical play will almost always offset unit quality differences (as the EB quote says, Army of sheep led by a lion beats an army of lions led by a sheep), but you can't dispute that all else being equal, Mediums will usually defeat Levies.

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 01:59

you are not taking in account actual cost of recruitment and upkeep. there is no doubt that 1 single elite is worth more than 1 single levy, but 1 single elite can be worth as much as 4 single levies. and the question is, can 1 elite take on 4 single levies. my view is that they can and i think i have the stats to prove it.

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 02:06

Koinon Hellenon:

Levy = Hoplitai Haploi (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=greek%20infantry%20taxeis%20hoplitai&text=haploi&ownership=any&class=any&category=any)

Elite = Epilektoi Hoplitai (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=greek%20infantry%20epilektoi%20hoplite&text=epilektoi&ownership=any&class=any&category=any)

Results:

1 Epilektoi Hoplitai vs 4 Hoplitai Haploi = 480 kills for Elite vs 59 kills for Levy (Levy general was killed > big rout)
1 Epilektoi Hoplitai vs 4 Hoplitai Haploi = 558 kills for Elite vs 50 kills for Levy
1 Epilektoi Hoplitai vs 5 Hoplitai Haploi = 510 kills for Elite vs 122 kills for Levy (Epilektoi broke at 10 > fight to death)
1 Epilektoi Hoplitai vs 5 Hoplitai Haploi = 697 kills for Elite vs 88 kills for Levy

Specifics:

Map is Grassy Flatlands.

In the 1 vs 4 battles I started with 2 Elite units and immediately marched my general unit off the field, this way the general will not have an impact on my side, the AI still has a general so if what Arjos says is true, these results should favor the Elite even more. However the Epilektoi Hoplitai for some reason are more prone to the morale penalty of the General leaving the field and broke everytime they got surrounded by 5 Haploi. So I decided to leave the general on the field but well out of range. The AI ignored my general unit and the rest of the fighting continued normally.

In the 1 vs 4 battles I was enveloped by 3 units and surrounded completely, with the general unit performing charge-ins all the the time. When the rest routed it was my 1 Elite vs the 1 Levy general unit.

In the 1 vs 5 battles I was enveloped by 5 units and surrounded completely, the general unit actively engaged combat for 75% of the battle, only leaving for charge-ins at the end when it was already lost.

Judgment:

Some weird results. The Epilektoi do better than the Elite Africans vs 4 Haploi but do quite alot worse vs 5. I perhaps the reason is the total envelopement by 5 units, I am not sure. While both have 16 morale, the Epilektoi broke while the Elite Africans did not. Regardless, the Elite unit still won this, and I am sure that on choke points it is no contest at all.

Arche Seleukeia:

Levy = Pantodapoi (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=hellenistic%20infantry%20pantodapoi&text=panto&ownership=romans_julii&class=any&category=any)

Elite = Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou (Hellenic Elite Spearmen) (http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/index.php?mp=unit&unit=hellenistic%20infantry%20thorakitai%20argyraspidai&text=thorak&ownership=any&class=any&category=any)

Results:

1 Thorakitai vs 5 Pantodapoi = 708 kills for Elite vs 53 kills for Levy (Big rout started, general was not killed)
1 Thorakitai vs 5 Pantodapoi = 824 kills for Elite vs 70 kills for Levy (I had 80 left when 4 units routed, I lost another 30 in the fight after 3 of them rallied because of asymmetry in positions and charges etc.)
1 Thorakitai vs 6 Pantodapoi = 888 kills for Elite vs 50 kills for Levy
1 Thorakitai vs 6 Pantodapoi= 1160 kills for Elite vs 90 kills for Levy

Specifics:

Map is Grassy Flatlands.

In all battles I started with 2 Elite units and immediately marched my general unit off the field, this way the general will not have an impact on my side, the AI still has a general so if what Arjos says is true, these results should favor the Elite even more.

I did not use the javelin ability of the Thorakitai.

In the 1 vs 5 battles I was enveloped by 4 units and surrounded completely, with the general unit performing charge-ins all the the time. When the rest routed it was my 1 Elite vs the 1 Levy general unit.

In the first 1 vs 6 battle I was enveloped by 5 units and but not completely surrounded, there was a small gap in the back, the general unit did not engage untill the other units had routed. They did rally and return but I lost maybe 10 more soldiers.
The second 1 vs 6 battle I was enveloped by 5 units and this time completely surrounded. the general unit did not engage untill the other units had routed. In the end my unit had gained 4 chevrons.

Judgment:

Epic results. 5 Pantodapoi cost slightly more in recruitment and upkeep than 1 Thorakitai, but 6 is alot out of proportion and still the Thorakitai win the battle. In a chokepoint this will be a total massacre. The Pantodapoi do rout faster than the Haploi and they have worse stats but 50% more soldiers.

Anyway, I can continue this but I think these few stats show that the elite units definitly do a great job. I might do some barbarian factions next and then switch to medium vs elite.

seleucid empire

02-11-2012, 04:09

seleucid empire

02-11-2012, 04:14

sorry for doublepost but this is especially true for hellenistic campaigns, in nightmares previous threads he discusses mostly getai, casse or KH. Getai and Casse are barbarion factions and have regional mics and some factional ones all over europe, making access to levies easier. KH has cities spread all over the map so same thing. but if he played an hellenistic faction into the lat game, he will see the usefulness of elites

Basileus_ton_Basileon

02-11-2012, 04:27

i get the feeling nightmare doesnt really finish his campaigns. he seems to be able to retrain his levies everywhere and thats why he likes them. in my end game campaigns i really need those elites because im fighting far from my homeland and my armies get depleted more slowly with elites

I concur, lower quality troops tend to take grislier casualties. I for a rule tend to take a healthy balance of elite, medium and low quality troops (2:5:3) for my campaigning armies abroad. The levies serve as nice cannon fodder to soak up the casualties (which can be easily replaced by mercs and locals). In hellenistic armies that means they do a lot of skirmishing; in celtic armies they tend to stand in the middle of the line (bolstered by the elites in morale) and take up the grind. Medium quality troops (ie Thuerophoroi or Bataroas) tend to make excellent flank guards and/or flankers.

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 04:43

I think hes talking from MP perspective but im not sure.

anyway ran some unoffcial tests (due to problems with javelins and secundairy weapons) with iberian and celtic elites but they are considerably worse, or perhaps the barbarian levies are considerably better (atleast bigger).

The solduros lost vs 4 lugoae both using only swords (primary) and only spears (secundary). but they did beat 5 hoplitai haploi (using only their primary), tho they did a worse job than the epilektoi and the elite africans.

however the dosidataskeli is one of the most effective ive seen so far. easily 2x as cost effective vs hoplitai haploi and pantodapoi. and that is in the open field, on a chokepoint i am sure they can stop 4x. i am aware they are taken out but the Thorakitai Agemata of Arche Seleukeia is only slightly inferior.

here is the result of 1 dosidataskeli (with general and i did use my javelins this time) vs 10 hoplitai haploi (about 2x more expensive in upkeep and recruitment). i was completely surrounded = 1412 kills vs 85 losses

3797

and this is a city defense of 3 dosidataskeli (364 men) vs 60 hoplitai haploi (9723 men). That is about 4x their cost in upkeep and recruitment.

Result: Close Defeat (because I got pushed off the city square, I wouldve lost but couldve killed more) = 6945 kills and 328 losses.

Now unless anyone can defend a village from 3 sides with 12 hoplitai haploi (same cost as 3 dosidataskeli) I am going to declare the Dosidataskeli SUPERCOSTEFFECTIVE to the point of INSANITY.

37983799

Nightmare

02-11-2012, 12:48

@The Stranger, I must say you got very interesting results with your tests. You even got some cost-effectiveness out of spartans. I tested them as well, and if anything I found them to be one of the most overpriced, cost-inefficient units in the game.

If you really want a laugh, take a unit of elite dacian skirmishers and throw them at a single unit of triari. Seeing the price of the elite dacian skirmishers for the very first time caused me to literally spray coffee on my monitor, but at any rate a single unit of triari, not even adjusted for cost (triari are significantly cheaper) beats an elite dacian skirmisher unit. Or, I should say, with my testing this happened. With your testing I wouldn't be surprised if you came back and said it was a slaughterfest the other way around.

I'm not sure why you are getting different results. Your methodology seem appropriate enough. I wonder if unit sizes has anything to do with it (my testing was always on 'normal' sizes)? For the most part, I was never challenged by others on the cost-ineffectiveness of elite units. Everyone seemed to agree on that, more or less. The debate always seemed to be about other things. For instance, folks said it had to be set up that way to keep the player from spamming elites and playing ahistorically.

At any rate, if you can get different results and better cost-effectiveness out of elites than I can, then good for you, and more power to you. Maybe you just have a magic touch.

@Kull, of course 1 levy will always lose to 1 elite. You have to test "cost for cost," i.e. throw the same amount of cost at the elites, which means you might have to throw 2, 3, 4, or more units of levies at one elite unit.

Whether that proves it's "worth it" to tech up is debateable since good tactical play will almost always offset unit quality differences (as the EB quote says, Army of sheep led by a lion beats an army of lions led by a sheep

Of course good tactical play with a crappier unit can offset the advantage of a superior unit. The question is whether you can improve your good tactical play even more by using cost-effective vs. cost-ineffective units (i.e. good tactical play with cost-effective units should trump good tactical play with cost-ineffective units).

Of course while testing this stuff you don't want to use good tactical play to offset anything as that will skew the result. You pretty much just want to throw the units at each other and see what happens. The way The Stranger has been testing it seems fine, as he just does a generic surround and then "hands off" for one test, and then does an additional chokepoint test.

Anyway, thanks for testing, Stranger. And remember, whatever doesn't kill you makes you... stranger, heh.

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 14:09

well like i said, the price for roman units seems really weird, thats why we got on this entire track in the first place, they are out of balance with all the other units in eb, that are just so much cheaper. perhaps its because the romans do not have any true elite units such as the greek/easterns have their royal guards, the steppe civs have their elite cavalry and the barbarians get some really nasty heavy infantry. the romans get antesigni which is nice but doesnt compare. Then there is the praetorians but they lack the elite morale and attack power. Their core infantry is very good but they do not have much else to rely upon. Even triarii are mediocre at best. And its funny that Roman units kinda get worse from camillan to polybian and arguably also from polybian to Marian XD

Spartans lose vs the Haploi, I dont know why, they are only 1 armour lower than Epilektoi and Epilektoi do pretty good. But ye on a chokepoint elite are just always going to be cost efficient.

As for Komatai Skirmishers vs Triarii you shouldnt forget that the komatai are intended as a screening medium infantry while triarii is a heavy infantry. but nonetheless looking at stats (both unit stats and prices), komatai should win although it will be a close match. Did you use the javelins?

Im not going to say that every "elite" is cost effective, and historically definitly not all were. But I think there are a good few which are, and most of them are the Greek/Diadocchi/Carthaginian elite units (allthough it is hard to test the eastern ones because its cavalry and relies on archery alot and its also hard to test the barbarians because they rely on javelins alot...) Also Lugoae for some reason are really resilliant to beat, they are supercheap and pretty good... testing against them might get different results. Sofar only the Dosidataskeli has beat 4 lugoae...

And perhaps huge settings does get different results, Ill try it one time later.

hehe...

Komatai vs Polybian Triarii = 151 kills Komatai vs 98 Kills Triarii

But the Triarii are definitly more cost efficient because it should actually be 1 Komatai vs 2 Triarii in terms of cost and upkeep.

But lets do some math, on huge settings

1 komatai is worth 2968/120 = 24,5
1 Triarii is worth 1524/160 = 9,5

160 Triarii killed 2401 mnai worth of Komatai
120 Komatai killed 1434 mnai worth of Triarii

My judgment: Komatai either need a decrease in price or an increase in unit number and they also need the fast moving trait. (hmm they are supposed to have it, their skeleton says fast_skirmisher etc but for some reason they dont get it in game, neither do those archers :S...)

Anyway this only shows that Roman Units are ridicilous and very cost effient... The camillan triarii is only 2 attack and defense worse than the Epilektoi but half the cost 0_0

Ye its as I feared, vs the medium infantry the Elites get into trouble, the medium infantry (hoplitai, scutarii, triarii, principes etc) are more cost efficient than the elites, but at the same time, I doubt the medium infantry is capable of holding the line and a chokepoint vs a big mass of cheap units the same way the elites do.

2 Polybian triarii = Same recruitment cost as 4 haploi and 1 Epilektoi/Elite African

2 Triarii vs 4 Haploi = 538 Medium kills vs 245 Levy kills (1 of Triarii got surrounded, destroyed and routed, the other one won the battle alone when about 70% of the haploi were dead)
2 Triarii vs 4 Haploi = 459 Medium kills vs 103 Levy Kills (Now both got attacked from two sides but no complete surrounds. Significant better result)

2 Triarii vs 5 Haploi = Triarii broke.

1 thing I have noticed is that usually the kill percentage is roughly similar. 27% of army dead vs 24 % of army dead and it keeps rising at the same rate. It was the same with the Dosidataskeli, utill like 70% and then the Dosidataskeli couldn't keep up anymore.

And yes, normal settings will get different results than Huge. I think this is because the breaking point for units is still around 10 units for elites. And you just reach that point so much faster on normal unit scale...

d'Arthez

02-11-2012, 15:15

What will also matter is that on huge, a unit covers more space.

Consequently, if you have more people available, they will not always find a way to actively engage with foes. Playing on smaller scale probably favours the cheaper units and ranged units to a ridiculous extent.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

02-11-2012, 15:52

Lugoae, their Germanic brethren, and the Iberian and Thracian Levies aren't all that bad. The Thracian and Iberian ones even get a few javelins so testing against these units won't net quite the same results. The crappiest units in game are Pantodapoi, there is really no question about that so they might be who you want to run your tests against. Levy Hoplites actually get a decent amount of armor, so units that rely more on longswords than ap will fare worse against them then against Pantadapoi.

And yeah, elites might massacre levy troops that are poorly armed, but medium infantry like Bataroas, Hastati, Thureophoroi, etc will clearly be more cost efficient. If you go with light infantry with ap axes such as Eastern Axemen, they will destroy elites in terms of cost efficiency. However each unit has its own specific role in EB, something which makes the game nearly infinitely replayable and still sucks me in even to this day.

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 16:02

ye

tho there are a few elites who can stand up to the challenge, the 2handed elites, the dosidataskeli and thorakitai agemata and the gaesatae.

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 17:18

Nightmare

02-11-2012, 18:39

Maybe this is the cause of the discrepancy then. I didn't dream unit sizes would make a balance difference. If so, that's not the fault of EB, but it is definitely the fault of the engine.

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 18:59

yup on normal the elite units break consistenly at 10 soldiers, that is 1/3rd of the unit. on huge they keep on fighting atleast till 20 soldiers, 1/6th of the unit and also break usually around 10 soldiers.

i am not sure how it works with covering ground, because the surround seemed similar and also the killrate was similar, just the breaking point comes alot earlier. and ofcourse what i said about officers does make a difference, they have way more impact vs 30 soldiers then vs 120.

Kull

02-11-2012, 19:19

You even got some cost-effectiveness out of spartans. I tested them as well, and if anything I found them to be one of the most overpriced, cost-inefficient units in the game.

If you really want a laugh, take a unit of elite dacian skirmishers and throw them at a single unit of triari. Seeing the price of the elite dacian skirmishers for the very first time caused me to literally spray coffee on my monitor, but at any rate a single unit of triari, not even adjusted for cost (triari are significantly cheaper) beats an elite dacian skirmisher unit.

You are completely missing the point. At no time did the EB team ever try to establish a linear mathematical relationship between unit cost and unit quality. And we certainly never promised such a thing. If you feel "crappy" units are the way to go, have at it. Most players realize that some mix of the two is the best approach, and that mix is often dependent upon the individual's playing style, the army mix of your opponents, and what you can afford.

I like to include elephant units in my army mix, even though they are hideously expensive and a horrible unit choice when considered purely from a clinical cost-benefit standpoint. But they are unique and enjoyable to watch, and in the final analysis, that's what counts. Elites ARE "worth it", even if only because they usually look cool and add fun and variety to your game. But they are also useful tactically as line anchors or as a reserve to throw in at a critical point in the battle.

Arjos

02-11-2012, 19:30

Someone is really frowning on the Komatai Epilektoi? XD
Huge shield, longswords and even too many javelins: they are a superb unit!

One can like to do these tests, but all they show is the result of a frontal charge & melee and some units don't serve that purpose...
If your only tactic is to go forward, then you are missing the whole world that EB is...

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 19:42

we were just debating cost-effectiveness here and it came from my first question about why roman units are so freakin cheap.

ofcourse there are different ways to use a unit other than frontal assault. and if you have the money ud be stupid to use haploi instead of epilektoi.

but at a point where you are strapped for cash its a valid question to ask if you can better have 2 normal hoplites for the price of 1 epilektoi or the other way around. and then ofcourse its depending on how you play. if you want to use hammer and anvil with 2 infantry, go for the hoplitai. if you want to pin the enemy in a city street, take the epilektoi.

Arjos

02-11-2012, 19:47

But as Kull pointed out, it's an unfair comparison, prices reflect history: availability of resources to build the equipment, manpower, social organization etc...

As for holding lines or streets, guard mode is so broken in this game that I've seen Pantodapoi killing stacks after stacks of heavy armoured foes...

Buy what units you want, be that for RP or looks, mnai is an issue at the beginning of the campaign, given few turns, you possess all the gold in the world XD

The Stranger

02-11-2012, 20:56

i know that, thats why i was asking what the reason was the romans are so much cheaper. they are outfitted pretty good and well trained so you would expect them to be slightly more expensive even tho they have alot available.

well there are still some weird things, such as pahlav cataphracts vs noble pahlav cataphracts.

the nobles are more expensive, and described as atleast better, but its weird because they have less morale but are more expensive -_- there is absolutely no reason to make them :S

dont get me wrong tho, i love the unit variety in eb. together with MTW, EB is my fav TW game.

athanaric

02-12-2012, 03:15

well there are still some weird things, such as pahlav cataphracts vs noble pahlav cataphracts.

the nobles are more expensive, and described as atleast better, but its weird because they have less morale but are more expensive -_- there is absolutely no reason to make them :SThe former have a lance and a mace, making them better overall vs armoured enemies, while the latter carry a lance and a "longsword", making them better against unarmoured enemies.

seleucid empire

02-12-2012, 08:41

Also, Romans tecnically dont have elite units, only professional ones. their only elites are the praetorians, the elite allied infantry (which are well worth their price) and and the veterans reinlisted cohort (which ive never had much use for). also it depends on the faction your using and your game goals. for example, if im seleucids, i can retrain my pandopti phalanx everywhere so and i end up finishing the campaign conditions before i train a single silver shield or hypapastai. However, i find that with elite units, my campaigns go much more smoothly and quickly than if im using only levies. Also i tend to play way past my victory conditions with seleucids so i need those silver shields when im going far west.

If you use macedon on the other hand, your training zone for your levies are restricted to an area around the aegean so you would need an army of at least a few elites to face the seleucid or ptolemy hordes. even if your good at logistics and can send a steady stream of reinforcements, it is much easier to build some elite units which are resilient.

although it is true that there are some elites im less than happy with (Armenian royal guards, and pelt-maks), most of them will be well worth it.

its very simple, if you have money, get the elites. Even if the 2x price doesnt mean it's 2x better, an elite unit will always be better than a non elite one. you cant simply test one unit against another in custom battle, that is a bad way to do things. Its like theory vs practicality. in theory (custom maps) one unit of elites my lose to 4 units of levies, but when your fighting on the campaign map with real armies, the true value of the elites will show and you will see that IN A REAL battle, the elites are worth more than their 2x price

Nightmare

02-12-2012, 11:17

You are completely missing the point. At no time did the EB team ever try to establish a linear mathematical relationship between unit cost and unit quality. And we certainly never promised such a thing.

Hi! Are you an EB team member? If so, if you don't mind, could you state what sort of mathematical relationship you did try to establish, if any?

Also, if you didn't try to establish any sort of mathematical relationship at all, was their any particular reason why?

Also, you said I missed the point. Could you state the point as seen by you and your colleagues?

Thanks.

Most players realize that some mix of the two is the best approach....

Well, I guess that's the point of this exercise - to realize what mix is the best approach. But I don't think you can get to the realization without working it out mathematically and doing testing. When I did all of that a while back and concluded the mix for the best approach was all low tier stuff and never any higher tier stuff, I thought something must be wrong somewhere. Why would the designers have designed it that way? As you said above, perhaps I missed the point?

What we are doing is pretty standard fare in most circles. Every serious gamer I know does this sort of thing with every game they play, and in every serious game unit values are determinable and make rational sense. For instance, in chess the value of each piece has been worked out for centuries - queen 9, rook 5, knights and bishops 3 (with certain caveats applying), and pawns 1. And if you ever sit down and play a chess game without knowledge or care of those piece values, it's a game you've lost unless you played against someone equally uncaring/unknowledgeable/unserious about it.

If you go to certain computer gaming forums, it's all people talk about there. Hell, even if you go to the Starcraft 2 site, balance and unit stating are 90% of what you'll see on the first page you pull up.

@Stranger, are you saying that with repeat testing on smaller unit sizes you got results more in line with my own results?

The Stranger

02-12-2012, 12:06

The Stranger

02-12-2012, 12:08

Hi! Are you an EB team member? If so, if you don't mind, could you state what sort of mathematical relationship you did try to establish, if any?

Also, if you didn't try to establish any sort of mathematical relationship at all, was their any particular reason why?

Also, you said I missed the point. Could you state the point?

Thanks.

Well, I guess that's the point of this exercise - to realize what mix is the best approach. But I don't think you can get to the realization without working it out mathematically and doing testing. When I did all of that a while back and concluded the mix for the best approach was all low tier stuff and never any higher tier stuff, I thought something must be wrong somewhere. Why would the designers have designed it that way? As you said above, perhaps I missed the point?

What we are doing is pretty standard fare in most circles. Every serious gamer I know does this sort of thing with every game they play, and in every serious game unit values are determinable and make rational sense. For instance, in chess the value of each piece has been worked out for centuries - queen 9, rook 5, knights and bishops 3 (with certain caveats applying), and pawns 1. And if you ever sit down and play a chess game without knowledge or care of those piece values, it's a game you've lost unless you played against someone equally uncaring/unknowledgeable/unserious about it.

If you go to certain computer gaming forums, it's all people talk about there. Hell, even if you go to the Starcraft 2 site, balance and unit stating are 90% of what you'll see on the first page you pull up.

@Stranger, are you saying that with repeat testing on smaller unit sizes you got results more in line with my own results?

i didnt do much testing, but i redid the elite african vs the haploi and they lost vs 4 on normal, while they won fairly easy vs 5 on huge. i didnt bother to do more but my prediction is if i did, it would be more in line with your results yes.

Blxz

02-12-2012, 12:39

Also, you said I missed the point. Could you state the point?

Thanks.

You have been told many times. You would have even seen this if you hadn't blocked half the forum. You don't want to hear what the reason was as long as it does not agree with your quite hastily made judgement.

You sir, have well and truly missed the point of this entire game.

Ca Putt

02-12-2012, 16:00

Oh by the way is there a "real" statistics thread? Because this has somewhat evolved into one plus the old efficiency of elites question.

so anyway^^

I ran some AI Tests(both armies controlled by everyones favorite Artificial idiocy) with 12 Haploi against 7 hoplitai, an epic clash to say the least.

the results are somewhat clear:
out of ten battles the Hoplitai won 8 times. When winning they got around 1450 kills vs 600 losses when loosing they had about equal kills at about 800.
In 4 battles the Hapless (:D) general fell the Hoplite general never died.
in all but 2 battles the Hops got flanked one was so chaotic that you could not speak of a front the other one was due to extremely poor command on the haploi side.

some not nealy as thorough tests with epilektoi vs Haploi show that these eventho outnumbered more than 5:1 (or rather 12 haploi vs 3 Epilektoi) these guys have great potential against their levy equivalent. The softspot here was got getting flanked but loosing the general which is quite easy when surrounded, yet having the greater pushing power. However with the results of the previous test this supports my theory that, Expesive troops do not just preform better because they beat up their cheaper counterparts but because they are more likely to defeat a general in melee.*

*however this only goes for spear units as their main attack stat does drastically change (12-17) making them more deadly to the general as opposed to generally better warriors in which other branches(iberian AP inf eg.) get different "upgrades".

All tests were conducted on huge size and with a unit of Lusotanian BG as observer

PS: I also wanted to test Komantai epilektoi against Peltastai. Tho I don't have the resultes yet, however for all you testers: NEVER NEVER give the AI 20 units of skirmishers NEVER!

The Stranger

02-12-2012, 18:40

how about epilektoi vs hoplitai :P

Anyway, 3 TAB or Dosidataskeli take out 9 Hoplites without trouble.

the elites also do better in bigger numbers, 1 epilektoi will lose vs 2 hoplitai but 3 epilektoi will win vs 8 hoplitai if a full surround can be avoided.

Nightmare

02-12-2012, 20:05

@ca putts, what unit sizes did you test on, and can you do the tests on normal unit sizes?

Also, I have no idea what all the greek names are (besides hoplites), but I'm just curious whether you are throwing the same unit classes at each other but different tier (i.e. scrub hoplite vs. medium or elite hoplite) or are you doing something like throwing sword units at hoplites?

Thanks.

The Stranger

02-12-2012, 20:10

he tested on huge, he said it somewhere in his post.

and he is testing the right tiers. he has been testing levy hoplites vs normal hoplites and levy hoplites vs elite hoplites.

ive just run 2 tests of elite hoplites vs normal hoplites and the normal hoplites won when they got a full surround and lost when they didnt.

i also did the seleukid elite thorakitai vs 9 hoplites and the elites won it.

these guys are ruthless, they took out 6 regular thorakitai easy, no full surround tho, but still.
1 taking out 2 also relatively easy.

Ca Putt

02-12-2012, 21:54

Yeah the AI seems to concentrate on reinforceing it's line and catching free units. I've often seen a unit standing by waiting for their chance to do either rather than flanking the enemy or Free up other troops(by attacking the weakest part in the enemy line).

Well I did 5 tests with normal unit size and the result is that the Hoplitai win against the Haploi with 350-400 vs 150-200 kills. 3 times the Haploi general fall, 0 times did the Hoplitai general. Not much of a spectacle tho.

The Stranger

02-12-2012, 22:37

hoplitai are not elite tho. i think its the medium units that will prove most cost effective. all tho elites like the TAB and Dosidataskeli do a tremendous job and are virtually unbeatable. I guess you need armour piercing units vs these guys!

Ca Putt

02-12-2012, 23:24

True which is why I was mainly testing the Rank and file hoplitai which are "supposed" to be efficient and(for KH) the Line/spam unit of choice. TAB are real evil, ye really need a hell of a can opener to get to their soft underbelly.

The Question I wanted to attend with my statistic actually was IF Levy Units are the way to go in terms of Cost efficiency in a pitched battle.

Nightmare

02-13-2012, 01:39

The Question I wanted to attend with my statistic actually was IF Levy Units are the way to go in terms of Cost efficiency in a pitched battle.

And your answer was no?

seleucid empire

02-13-2012, 08:43

u cant just consider a pitched battle, you have to ask yourself, how many battles can i win with this levy army and far far do i intend to take this army

d'Arthez

02-13-2012, 10:31

Not entirely true seleucid empire. If it is a defensive position you'd try to defend against whatever may come your way, the cheapest army may be financially speaking the way to go, especially if you abuse merge functionality after the battle, so you can retrain more than 1000 soldiers in a single turn.

Even if 4 units of levies beat the Elite Thorakitai, what you are left with may well be but a single unit of levies. So you need to retrain those (at a cost, and at a cost in time), you leave your defensive line somewhat more susceptible to additional attacks (second and third full-stack). The same applies to the Elite Thorakitai, but less so, since you may have a few additional units to cover for them (say, 3 levies), which would also positively affect the outcome of the initial battle.

If you want to defend a defensive position, that costs you a lot of Mnai. The cheaper option would naturally be to take out the problem faction / city / region; not only does it add to your treasury, it also means you don't have to defend said position from incursions, since there is no one left to bother you in the first place.

If you want to go on the offensive, it is not just a matter of winning battles, but also how comprehensively you win. Sure you may win with the levies, but replenishing troops tends to become a bigger concern then (especially on the steppes, or the eastern portion of the map, where settlements are further apart), as well as the bigger limitations of a levy army to deal with armies of a different composition than tested for. And we won't even mention sieging settlements ...

You get what you pay for. If you want to be a money - grubbing player, then you'll have to sacrifice some dynamic capabilities of your army as a rule.

The Stranger

02-13-2012, 14:09

meh i never merge :P unless i know i will have atleast some soldiers left in both the merging units.

Ca Putt

02-13-2012, 15:58

And your answer was no? My tests support the answer "no" however they may all have been funny coincidences especially as all but one of the huge battles had some battle turning event, be it the Haploi general falling or either side behaving extremely stupid(more than normal). In this one battle however the hoplitai were not as badly flanked as in the others but just melted away at some point giving the Haploi their second(and last) victory. As I said it's just statistics and with a sample group of only 10 battles who am I to say "It's like that!"

u cant just consider a pitched battle, you have to ask yourself, how many battles can i win with this levy army and far far do i intend to take this army I very well can, afterall there is a multiplayer mode where the pitched battle is all that counts :P

However you're right in that point that this does in not accurately represent their Campaign value, which is the Grail we're looking for. However I do not know an ample method for me to gather enough usable data to compile a significant statistic on campaign value of levy vs regular vs elite troops. If you however like to play the same campaign over and over again with as few differences as possible while relying on one unit level each time, be my guest. I'd like to see at least 10 goes at each tier, then maybe a different faction...

seleucid empire

02-13-2012, 18:23

both of you (d arthez and ca putt) have valid points, however, i tend to play really offensively no matter what the situation. For example, if im facing the huge roman or lustanian empires i do form a defensive line with levy or local armies but i always send at least one offensive army which that is of a much higher quality because i need them to do a lot of work As i said before it really depends on your goals. in a seleucid campaign, you can win with just your levies cause you can recruit them in every province of your victory conditions but i find this too boring as a seleucid campaign is quite easy so i tend to go west, and then, those levy armies quickly disintegrate outside their recruitment zones. this wont be a problem with most barbarian factions or KH though

Also, i like to roleplay with my armies

i am currently in a seleucid camapign and i have roleplayed that each faction leader has a different style of warfare.

my first great king, theordoros syriakos (10 star general on death) conquered all of egypt, ethiopia, asia minor, greece, macedon, epirus and armenia before dying on his way to parthia. he used the starting seleucid army of levy pikes, slingers and a few prodomoi and hellenic spearmen to conquer all of that, but as stated before, these units are easily re-trainable in all of the seleucid VC lands

my second king nikeratoes syriakos (9 star general on death) used an elite army of syrian archers, Pezhetairoi, 1-2 silver shields, 2 Hypaspistai, thoraktai, 1-2 cataphracts and medium cavalry to conquer all of the east including the furthest province of chingu in only 10 years. this eastern campaign renew my faith in elites and meant that i finisehd my victory conditions by 211 BC. nikeratos then switched to an all horse archer army and swept through the north destroying the sarmatians and conquering all northern provinces. he then traveled to epirus overland and sailed to sicily conquering the island and making his way up to Rome. His last great victory was the sacking of Rome and he died peacefully the next turn, which i thought was very fitting

my third king Cleon Kolesyriakos (10 star general at death) used an all mercenary army. even before he was king, he used mercs to destroy the dacians, before landing at taras to support Nikeratos. Cleon completed the conquest of Italy and the alps, thus cutting the Roman empire into two factions (one in spain and one in central europe and germania). By this time, the Romans controlled all of spain except for one province which was owned by the lusotanians (who were about to be wiped out). Cleon marched to massalia and sacked the city before moving onto the coastal cites of iberia. However, i only wanted to kick the romans out of spain so i just sacked every city and gifted them to lusos. Cleon managed to defeat over 20 Roman fullstacks in Iberia and sack every city before givng them to lusos (now they are a superpower fml =.=). He then started sacking Aedui cites and died peacefully after sacking the gallic capital.

my current damdas syriakos (5 star general) is using an army of local germans and i must say, compared to nikerato's elite army, he isnt having much luck

But yeh considering the huge distacnes in the east and the fact that Nirkeratos took only around 10-15 years to conquer bactria, india, parthia and the saka provinces, i would say that in campaign elites are definitely worth it

The Stranger

02-13-2012, 19:25

how did u get catas so fast :O and silver shields n such :P what difficulty do you play on?

anyway, imo elites are worth it in any standard occasion vs levies, they are more than worth it in special occasions such as like you say far venturing missions that need endurance, they are more than worth it when holding a city or the line on a special point. some are better than others ofcourse. but anyway, once you get so much money you can make 10 armies of medium or levy troops or 5 of elites... all doesnt really matter anymore :P

d'Arthez

02-13-2012, 21:57

There is an additional benefit for levy armies in cities though. They will more easily get the 80% public order bonus. Either you have less issues with rebellion then, or you can crank up the tax rate.

Part of the value of higher end troops would be that they are more dynamic than levies. It is difficult to attach a numerical value to dynamism, since it depends on so many factors (total army composition, geographic location, foes one might have to wage battle against, the value of holding said position). The usefulness of a unit once the threat subsides is in principle dynamic as well. Levies make great garrisons while elites are a bit overpriced for such a job. However, if you want to go on the offensive, the levies may not be as useful as the higher end troops, though having a few levies in your army can lead to rapid conquest, especially if you share MICs with the faction you are campaign against.

Kull

02-14-2012, 00:07

Hi! Are you an EB team member? If so, if you don't mind, could you state what sort of mathematical relationship you did try to establish, if any?

Also, if you didn't try to establish any sort of mathematical relationship at all, was their any particular reason why?

Also, you said I missed the point. Could you state the point as seen by you and your colleagues?

Thanks.

Cost was established by assigning values to various weapons and pieces of equipment, and the unit statting spreadsheet used that to establish the price in much the same way it established offense and defense stats. For example, leather armor is better than cloth, but worse than bronze, and the price obviously rises as you go up the quality chain from cloth to metal. Same with helmets, greaves, types of swords, etc. The key is that, in general, greater cost also means better performance, but there's no direct correlation. Elites are "better" than levies, but you cannot use unit cost as a means to determine HOW MUCH better. That's just not how things work.

And that's the point you are missing. There is no linear correlation between cost and quality. We consulted the archaeological and (where possible) the historical record to determine the equipment that any given unit in any given faction would have used in this period, and then statted them accordingly. EB is neither chess (all factions identical in strength and composition at the start) nor some kind of "rock-scissor-paper" game in which strengths and weaknesses are deliberately calculated for gameplay purposes. EB was designed to be as historically accurate as possible, with the underlying assumption that this would also lead to interesting game play. It was the right approach, and I think time has proven it correct.]

Blxz

02-14-2012, 05:03

It was the right approach, and I think time has proven it correct.]

Here here!

seleucid empire

02-14-2012, 05:27

seleucid empire

02-14-2012, 05:28

oh and btw the cat reform doesnt work in my campaigns no matter how many armes i lose so i use the grive trait cheat

Blxz

02-14-2012, 11:18

Why do you always post immediately after you made a previous post? There is an 'EDIT POST' button to let you add extra information like that.

seleucid empire

02-14-2012, 15:21

my mistake i was lazy, but why is that a problem?

The Stranger

02-14-2012, 15:40

Cost was established by assigning values to various weapons and pieces of equipment, and the unit statting spreadsheet used that to establish the price in much the same way it established offense and defense stats. For example, leather armor is better than cloth, but worse than bronze, and the price obviously rises as you go up the quality chain from cloth to metal. Same with helmets, greaves, types of swords, etc. The key is that, in general, greater cost also means better performance, but there's no direct correlation. Elites are "better" than levies, but you cannot use unit cost as a means to determine HOW MUCH better. That's just not how things work.

And that's the point you are missing. There is no linear correlation between cost and quality. We consulted the archaeological and (where possible) the historical record to determine the equipment that any given unit in any given faction would have used in this period, and then statted them accordingly. EB is neither chess (all factions identical in strength and composition at the start) nor some kind of "rock-scissor-paper" game in which strengths and weaknesses are deliberately calculated for gameplay purposes. EB was designed to be as historically accurate as possible, with the underlying assumption that this would also lead to interesting game play. It was the right approach, and I think time has proven it correct.]

ye i agree thats a good way to look at cost and upkeep. but this still doesnt mean that you cant meaningfully ask whether or not certain elites are most cost-efficient than their direct levy counterpart. its true that you cannot make such a statement in general but you can make it for certain individual units and factions. and whether its useful to do so related to any campaign is a different question, and its most likely not the case

XSamatan

02-14-2012, 16:00

my mistake i was lazy, but why is that a problem?

It is against netetiquette and considered rude in many areas of the Internet.
If possible, use the edit function in the future.

Regards,
XSamatan

Ca Putt

02-14-2012, 17:49

And it's annoying + irritating, especially when you're discussing with a guy with the same avatar^^

Furthermore it's a cheap way to increace your post count (just like this post ;) )

The Stranger

02-14-2012, 17:58

who cares about post counts anymore lol. the great days of spam are over, ah the good old days, you guys mustve been no more but little scrubs at your mothers teet... i can go and on about these times, when Craterus and the Emperor battled for Universal Domination. Some say they still fight and the stars flash in anger when they give battle. Other say Craterus has gone to a New World and has repented his way of Spam. About the Emperor no word has been heard since the Blood Day, some say he has become a Stranger in the night.

Nightmare

02-14-2012, 20:49

Cost was established by assigning values to various weapons and pieces of equipment, and the unit statting spreadsheet used that to establish the price in much the same way it established offense and defense stats. For example, leather armor is better than cloth, but worse than bronze, and the price obviously rises as you go up the quality chain from cloth to metal. Same with helmets, greaves, types of swords, etc.

Thanks. It's good to get such definitive information "from the horse's mouth" so to speak, instead of by all the rumor, heresay, and theorycrafting one is generally subjected to.

And that's the point you are missing. There is no linear correlation between cost and quality.

Well, I'm not sure I ever specified the correlation should be "linear," vs. quadratic or exponential or logathmic or anything else :-) I think I just intimated that there should probably be a relationship, the relationship should probably "make sense," and that the relationship probably shouldn't prohibit the player from building upper tier units if he is to play the game... pick your modifier - logically, rationally, competitively, whatever.

The bottom line is, if I build a spartan hoplite, and I also know that the spartan hoplite is cost-effective, I feel good about having built the spartan hoplite. But if I build a spartan hoplite and know that it actually made no rational sense to build it, then I feel bad about having built it.

People have referenced Starcraft on a few threads here and there. I guess I'll bite. If the only winning move as protoss is to build zealots, one wonders what the carriers are for.

Anyway, thanks for the info, and it's interesting to know that some here on this thread have concluded that upper tier units are more than worth it. Perhaps I'll have to redo my own testing. I guess I'll go now and wait for the customary hate mail from the moderators to appear in my in box (or perhaps a ban), which happened the last time I posted in this particular thread :-(

The Stranger

02-14-2012, 21:22

well in sc2 nobody really makes carriers and one of the most effective plays with highest win percentages are the base rax unit rushes (marines/zerlings and in lesser ratio also zealots) :P but ye i guess carriers are worth it in a certain scenario. but like said SC2 is a rock paper scissor game, it has hard counters vs hard counters. EB or RTW is not such a type of game. it has some soft counters but even horsemen can beat a phalanx. and they dont have to really outnumber them in manpower to do so.

anyway if you retest, try huge settings :P

rickinator9

02-15-2012, 00:46

Nightmare, why would you use skirmishers against melee infantry? If you do, use them to flank the melee infantry while another unit keeps them pinned.

The Stranger

02-15-2012, 01:03

those dacian epilektoi komatai are actually heavy infantry, comparable to neitos -_- bit lighter on armour tho. i think they fail because the fast moving trait doesnt work. they still good tho but need good handling.

Ca Putt

02-15-2012, 01:40

They still are obviously the "upgrade" of regular Komatai however you are right they do act as heavy infantry but that still does not justify testing them against hoplites, judgeing from the stats matches against celtic swordsmen would wield the most usefull results.

The Stranger

02-15-2012, 01:44

true, tho he said it was just for fun :P

and anyway testing vs javelin charging infantry is kinda useless because they ai runs charges in, then throws missiles. charges out throws again, charges bk in again, stands still throws again... its totally broken...

Ca Putt

02-15-2012, 02:02

If you let the AI test against the AI this inability should be balanced out by mutual stupidity^^, the main reason I always let the Ai fight against itself. Besides if both have the same type of troops both run into the same problems, which removes a lot of "AI stupidity" from the equasion

StatsA * LuckA * randomStupidityA * Generalinabilitytouseunittype vs StatsB * LuckB * randomStupidityB * Generalinabilitytouseunittype

Simple as that^^

Bagaudas shoud be a neat sparring partner for our Dacian Elite, apart from the Lethality their Attack is identical :O most other Swordsmen have but 2 javelins (opposed to 3) something that does not come to show in such a battle but can be VERY handy when in the hands of the player thus giving the Epilektoi more Skirmishing potencial than Botroas or Neitos.

Basileus_ton_Basileon

02-15-2012, 04:07

I would like to do a quick quib about logic and sense. Humans, throughout history, aren't exactly sensible creatures; nor were they rational or logical. However, they are fairly resourceful and adaptable creatures. A couple of keltoi 'invasions' (which were actually something akin to a migration+pub crawl+swords&choppas) have certainly taught the Getai, the greeks, and the Romans three things: linking rings together make nice armour; big long swords make fun choppas and stabbas; and shields the size of doors (guess what the word 'thueros' actually mean) are very useful.

Kull

02-15-2012, 06:24

Well, I'm not sure I ever specified the correlation should be "linear," vs. quadratic or exponential or logathmic or anything else :-)

Actually, that's exactly what you said:

@Kull, of course 1 levy will always lose to 1 elite. You have to test "cost for cost," i.e. throw the same amount of cost at the elites, which means you might have to throw 2, 3, 4, or more units of levies at one elite unit.

The bottom line is, if I build a spartan hoplite, and I also know that the spartan hoplite is cost-effective, I feel good about having built the spartan hoplite. But if I build a spartan hoplite and know that it actually made no rational sense to build it, then I feel bad about having built it.

I think it's unfortunate that you can't build the Spartan unit and just appreciate both it's deadly beauty and the fact it has real utility on the battlefield, while also recognizing it's not very cost effective. I guess the analogy is that an econo-box vehicle will move you from point A to B, yet many folks still splurge on something more luxurious. It may not be "logical" or "rational" to one person, but to others it is.

Anyway, thanks for the info, and it's interesting to know that some here on this thread have concluded that upper tier units are more than worth it. Perhaps I'll have to redo my own testing. I guess I'll go now and wait for the customary hate mail from the moderators to appear in my in box (or perhaps a ban), which happened the last time I posted in this particular thread :-(

A word to the wise. When discussing game play options and styles and tactics, all opinions are valued here, but only so long as the purveyor doesn't come across as wielding some form of "truth" which is superior to everyone else's. Have an opinion. Please. But always be respectful. (And you are doing much better in that regard, for which I thank you.)

seleucid empire

02-15-2012, 11:07

And it's annoying + irritating, especially when you're discussing with a guy with the same avatar^^

Furthermore it's a cheap way to increace your post count (just like this post ;) )

.....ive never even checked my post count....

Nightmare

02-15-2012, 12:58

Nightmare, why would you use skirmishers against melee infantry?

They are elite, they have long swords, and they are as expensive a unit as I've seen. They are supposed to be the heavy swordsmen of Getai, near as I can tell.

Having said that, as CA Putts said, there may be better units to test them against than hoplites. But even so, in all fairness, what is Getai supposed to field against hoplites? Falxmen? Certainly plausible, especially if you can get a surround. But they have no armor, and die fast in a frontal assault (thank goodness they are cheap). Why not swordsmen? Especially swordsmen who carry longswords? Even better - swordsmen with the word "elite" in their title, who appear on the surface at least to be monstrously expensive? If you want to test their cost-efficiency (I did), I would submit that throwing them against a unit of cheaper hoplites doesn't seem like a bad choice, at least if we are talking "off the top of the head" analysis. And as Stranger said, it was also done for the lolz.

Well, I'm not sure I ever specified the correlation should be "linear," vs. quadratic or exponential or logathmic or anything else :-)

Actually, that's exactly what you said:

@Kull, of course 1 levy will always lose to 1 elite. You have to test "cost for cost," i.e. throw the same amount of cost at the elites, which means you might have to throw 2, 3, 4, or more units of levies at one elite unit.

That specifies the method to test a unit's cost-effectiveness. It doesn't specify the correlation between unit cost and unit effectiveness.

I think it's unfortunate that you can't build the Spartan unit and just appreciate both it's deadly beauty and the fact it has real utility on the battlefield, while also recognizing it's not very cost effective. I guess the analogy is that an econo-box vehicle will move you from point A to B, yet many folks still splurge on something more luxurious. It may not be "logical" or "rational" to one person, but to others it is.

Of course I agree. It simply depends on who the person is, and what kind of game the person wants to play. As an example, my brother isn't serious about chess. Oh, he loves the game all right, but he approaches it emotionally, plays for fun, etc. In particular, he has an emotional attachment to the queen. He wants to essentially move the queen every single move he can, and win the game almost entirely with the queen if at all possible. He will never trade his queen under any circumstances, even if by all standards and measures that's what he should do in a particular instance. He will also never be any sort of chess champ. And that's fine.

Now, contrast that with a Garry Kasparov or a Bobby Fischer or a fill-in-the-blank. No world chess champ would ever approach the game emotionally. They play for one reason and one reason only - to win. They always make absolutely the most logical, mathematical, rational move they can calculate to make. Think "chess computer" or IBM's "big blue." Such devices don't appreciate aesthetic beauty, and they don't have emotional attachments. They simply make the best move they can calculate, for the purpose of winning.

I understand there are people who play EB who fit into the former category (my brother with chess, or your ferarri vs. econobox example). Hell, they are probably the dominant player type, from what I've seen. And I respect that. But I also submit that there is another type of player out there - "category B." And I would hope that there is room for both player types in the game, as with chess or most other games. But if that hope is misplaced, my apologies.

A word to the wise. When discussing game play options and styles and tactics, all opinions are valued here, but only so long as the purveyor doesn't come across as wielding some form of "truth" which is superior to everyone else's.

And who is the divine arbiter who decides how something "comes across as?" Sounds rather subjective, my friend. Either way, I think the best code of conduct is simply to never personally attack anyone, regardless of whether one thinks the target believes he wields some sort of "truth" or not. It isn't a crime to think one wields some sort of "truth" (in most circles I think it's just called "having an opinion"). In short, "attack the argument, not the person." It's a rule I always follow, at least until I've been personally attacked myself.

If you would like to discuss this further, you are welcome to bring your urgent matter to me in an offline PM.

Have an opinion. Please. But always be respectful.

I couldn't agree more with this statement, so it seems we agree on things after all. It's always nice to end things on a positive note.

Have a nice day.

Andres

02-15-2012, 13:29

Anyway, thanks for the info, and it's interesting to know that some here on this thread have concluded that upper tier units are more than worth it. Perhaps I'll have to redo my own testing. I guess I'll go now and wait for the customary hate mail from the moderators to appear in my in box (or perhaps a ban), which happened the last time I posted in this particular thread :-(

FYI: if you have an issue with a particular moderator and you can't sort it out with the moderator in question, then I advice you to contact one of the Forum Administrators, currently Ser Clegane, Secura and frogbeastegg.

If you can't sort it out with one of the Forum Admins and/or the issue is more about general .Org policy, then you can open a thread in the Watchtower, which is located right HERE (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?26-Watchtower).

I also have to inform you that the EB fora are not the appropriate place to discuss issues related to .Org policy. As stated above, such issues are either to be addressed in private with .Org staff or in the Watchtower.

Brave Brave Sir Robin

02-15-2012, 14:42

Actually Drapanai are the perfect counter to units like Hoplites since they carry no javelins. Any unit that doesn't use javelins is likely to be killed by Draps and Bastarnae.

athanaric

02-15-2012, 14:43

They are elite, they have long swords, and they are as expensive a unit as I've seen. They are supposed to be the heavy swordsmen of Getai, near as I can tell.They are commandos, not line units. The only Getai line unit with such a small unit size are the Ischyroi Orditon, who are more heavily armoured. And likely also fare better against hoplites one on one.

Having said that, as CA Putts said, there may be better units to test them against than hoplites. But even so, in all fairness, what is Getai supposed to field against hoplites?Thorakitai Stratiotai for a head on confrontation. Other units - like the ones mentioned above - to flank the enemy.

Of course I agree. It simply depends on who the person is, and what kind of game the person wants to play. As an example, my brother isn't serious about chess. Oh, he loves the game all right, but he approaches it emotionally, plays for fun, etc. In particular, he has an emotional attachment to the queen. He wants to essentially move the queen every single move he can, and win the game almost entirely with the queen if at all possible. He will never trade his queen under any circumstances, even if by all standards and measures that's what he should do in a particular instance. He will also never be any sort of chess champ. And that's fine.

Now, contrast that with a Garry Kasparov or a Bobby Fischer or a fill-in-the-blank. No world chess champ would ever approach the game emotionally. They play for one reason and one reason only - to win. They always make absolutely the most logical, mathematical, rational move they can calculate to make. Think "chess computer" or IBM's "big blue." Such devices don't appreciate aesthetic beauty, and they don't have emotional attachments. They simply make the best move they can calculate, for the purpose of winning.

I understand there are people who play EB who fit into the former category (my brother with chess, or your ferarri vs. econobox example). Hell, they are probably the dominant player type, from what I've seen. And I respect that. But I also submit that there is another type of player out there - "category B." And I would hope that there is room for both player types in the game, as with chess or most other games. But if that hope is misplaced, my apologies.
Well, if you only play to win, there are better games for that, that are more rewarding for a player who just wants to win. Many of the more recent games will even grant you little more or less silly "achievements" upon completing objectives. EB was made mainly for aesthetic reasons in the first place (replacing the uglier and historically inaccurate elements of RTW). Especially if we consider dedication to historical accuracy an aesthetic choice - which is legitimate IMO.

The Stranger

02-15-2012, 14:59

i think you misunderstand his meaning.

there is no right way to play EB, just your own way, such is the nature of the game, and it can be argued that such is the nature of all games. to say to try to play rational is missing the point of EB is going too far, just as it is to say that the lack of any rational line in EB unit statitistics is a fundamental flaw in the game. there should be room for all styles and they should be freely discussed if people want to.

Nightmare

02-15-2012, 15:49

I also have to inform you that the EB fora are not the appropriate place to discuss issues related to .Org policy. As stated above, such issues are either to be addressed in private with .Org staff or in the Watchtower.

That couple of word quip counted as "discussing .Org policy" and was so urgent that it required a mod to come here and to direct us to the appropriate place to "discuss" such? Wow.

EDIT: I suspect there's at least a 50% chance that you were brought here by someone mashing the report button, which means you'll be back again shortly, as they are sure to just mash it again upon seeing this.

Well, if you only play to win, there are better games for that, that are more rewarding for a player who just wants to win. Many of the more recent games will even grant you little more or less silly "achievements" upon completing objectives. EB was made mainly for aesthetic reasons in the first place (replacing the uglier and historically inaccurate elements of RTW). Especially if we consider dedication to historical accuracy an aesthetic choice - which is legitimate IMO.

While I once thought as Stranger just intimated (there's room for all playstyles, yadda yadda), if you are in a position to speak authoritatively on this (if your banner is any indication, I presume "yes" unless you tell me otherwise), then I accept what you say and stand corrected. Got it - EB is basically an aesthetic history lesson, and sort of a glorified role-playing aid. The "game" part of it is incidental. The other stuff is what it's all about.

Fair enough, and again - thank you.

athanaric

02-15-2012, 16:39

EDIT: I suspect there's at least a 50% chance that you were brought here by someone mashing the report button, which means you'll be back again shortly, as they are sure to just mash it again upon seeing this.
Or maybe he's just reading through new threads. People here are slow to report and slow to dish out personal insults. There are other TW fora which are worse in that respect.

While I once thought as Stranger just intimated (there's room for all playstyles, yadda yadda), if you are in a position to speak authoritatively on this (if your banner is any indication, I presume "yes" unless you tell me otherwise), then I accept what you say and stand corrected. Got it - EB is basically an aesthetic history lesson, and sort of a glorified role-playing aid. The "game" part of it is incidental. The other stuff is what it's all about.

Fair enough, and again - thank you.These are just fan signatures. I'm not a part of the EB I team. And of course you're free to play the game in any way you want. I was just trying to point out what the main objective of the mod is.

Ca Putt

02-15-2012, 16:55

One does not engage hoplites head on, unless:
You have hoplites aswell
You have Phalangites
You have Lineswordsmen who have a high density(so lower spacing than 1) and mass, such as Milnat, germanic swordsmen and Legionaries.

Getai have a line of Hoplite phalanx Spearmen that can hold their own while the Falxmen crush into their flanks. Loose density swordsmen like botroas, bataroas and K.epilektoi are subpar at line duty against Hoplites or other high density units, they are usefull for flanking however unlike Hoplitai who suck at flanking. Apart from that the high armor of the Triarii is extremely good against the longswords of the Komantai, Spears or AP-Weapons. Ontop of that it's quite apparent that roman infantry has an unfair cost advantage. To Conclude there are few units that the K. Epilektoi are worse cost wise in a head on attack.

Don't get me wrong, I understand you did the test for lols but I want to point out that this data is by no means siginificant, as the result could have been guessed and do not prove the underratedness of KE.

Frtigern

02-16-2012, 08:22

This thread has been hijacked. Wasn't Lusotana the point of this thread? There probably are other threads that argue elite vs medium or medium vs levy advantages elsewhere. I started a Luso campaign after this thread was posted and it's the 250s and I've unified Iberia. I've got my factional MICs where I can recruit Lusotannan Elite Shock Infantry and Lusotannan Elite Medium Cavalry. But I am wondering what MIC or when will I be able to recruit Iberian Heavy Cavalry? Does Lusotana have reforms? As mentioned earlier Luso's missile units (slingers and archers) are non-existent or when you do get them, suck. I use the factional slingers as garrison troops and hire Balearic slinger mercenaries which are far better than celtic and luso slingers. Also I am kind of bummed with my factional rosters. In all homeland regions I've gone with Lvl 1 governments and focused on building factional MICs. In expansion regions I want to recruit the units I've listed below, as I NEED a diverse roster to recruit from. Both for personal preference and adaptability to new enemies as I move north and east. I want to leave Gaul and Italy to themselves but I want to conqueror Ireland and Sicily before I move on to take on Carthage.

Balearic Slingers
Numidian Archers
Kretan Archers
Numidian Cavalry
Ligurian Cavalry
Goidilic Cavalry
Gallic Light Cavalry
Numidian Nobles
Hellenic Medium Cavalry
Gallic Noble Cavalry
Siluri Warband
Asturian Axemen
Ligurian Infantry
Celtic Naked Spearmen
Celtiberian Heavy Infantry
Ilergetan Soldiers
Alpine Shortswordsmen
Goidilic Noble Infantry
Greek Classical Hoplites
Goidilic Shock Infantry
Vasci Armoured Shock Infantry
Ebherni Armoured Shock Infantry
Three-span Arrow Projector

So for someone who want the regional units to add some diversity to my Iberian armies what MICs do I need for expansion regions to do this?

d'Arthez

02-16-2012, 09:43

Lusos have no reforms, so that is one less "worry."

With regards to the units you requested:
Balearic Slingers - level 2 regional MIC on the Baleares
Numidian Archers - level 2 regional MIC in North Western Africa (west of Atiqa)
Kretan Archers - level 4 regional MIC on Krete, or in Alexandreia or Antioch
Numidian Cavalry - level 2 regional MIC, in every province west of Lepki (including Lepki)
Ligurian Cavalry - level 3 regional MIC in Liguria only.
Goidilic Cavalry - level 4 regional MIC in Irish provinces.
Gallic Light Cavalry - not available (that is what the recruitment viewer suggests)
Numidian Nobles - level 4 regional MIC in African coastal provinces. This excludes Atiqa and Kart-Hadast itself.
Hellenic Medium Cavalry - not available (that is what the recruitment viewer suggests)
Gallic Noble Cavalry - level 5 regional MIC in most Gallic provinces. This includes Massilia
Siluri Warband - level 3 regional MIC, Cambriae only (Wales)
Asturian Axemen - level 4 regional MIC in Cantabria and Asturia
Ligurian Infantry - level 2 regional MIC in Liguria
Celtic Naked Spearmen - level 2 regional MIC in the whole of Britain and Ireland, and parts of Central Europe
Celtiberian Heavy Infantry - level 4 regional MIC in Celtiberia
Ilergetan Soldiers - level 3 regional MIC in Lacetania
Alpine Shortswordsmen - level 3 regional MIC
Goidilic Noble Infantry - level 4 regional MIC in Ireland
Greek Classical Hoplites - level 3 regional MIC. Also recruitable on Sicily, and in Taras and Rhegion.
Goidilic Shock Infantry - level 3 regional MIC in Ireland
Vasci Armoured Shock Infantry - level 5 factional MIC in Asturia and Cantabria
Ebherni Armoured Shock Infantry - level 4 regional MIC in Ireland
Three-span Arrow Projector - level 4 regional MIC. You can recruit those in Turdetania, Massilia, Atiqa, Kart-Hadast (and the province below, Byzacena; can't remember the name of the capital, Roma, Capua, Syracuse, Arretium, Taras, and various cities in Greece, Egypt and the Seleukid Empire.

These results were obtained with EB recruitment viewer 1.1 They may be off in some cases.

Basileus_ton_Basileon

02-16-2012, 09:45

No fair! don't spoil the new kid.

The Recruitment viewer is literally 2 mouse clicks away (if you're using win7). If he's too lazy to bother, then why do you have to? :clown:

d'Arthez

02-16-2012, 09:49

I wanted to look up most of these myself, as I am planning on a Luso campaign. Needless to say, those Gauls will be subjugated.

Nightmare

02-16-2012, 12:18

I initially started reading this thread because I had started a lusitan campaign myself (I had heard rumors about how "ferocious" they were, or how much armor-piercing they have, etc). So far, I haven't seen much in the way of ferociousness or armor-piercing, and as far as barbarian factions go, I seem to prefer the getai over everyone else (who really DO seem to have ferociousness and ap out the ying-yang). But having said that, it hasn't been a particularly awful campaign either, and maybe I'll end up seeing more interesting units down the pipe.

The Stranger

02-16-2012, 13:44

d'Arthez

02-16-2012, 14:20

Thanks for clarifying that The Stranger.

The Stranger

02-16-2012, 14:22

np :P i edited them back in because they are kick ass and i think atleast the Vasci are needed, incidentally they are the best infantry in the world to hold a line, chokepoint or a cav charge. only high base attack with AP can kill these guys... or else 10000 levies but you will lose 75% of your army vs just 300 :P

Brave Brave Sir Robin

02-16-2012, 16:11

But also because the recruitment viewer is out of date and some of that info is incorrect. The Goidelic, Ebherni and Vasci Shock Infantries were removed from 1.2 so you can't recruit them unless you edit the buildings file. Lusos and in fact all barbarian factions cannot recruit siege equipment like arrow projectors. I'm not so sure they can even recruit Balearic Slingers or if they can just get them as mercs, same as with Kretans.

The reason you are finding recruitment options limited is this. Lusos can build Type 1 governments over most, if not all of Iberia. However, try to limit these to the western and southwestern provinces. In other areas, especially in the north and east build either Type 2, 3, or 4. Unfortunately, to get that nifty Iberian Heavy Cavalry you need a Type 4 government in one of the southeastern provinces. Leveling up your regional barracks will net you the "Iberian" units as opposed to the "Lusitanian" units. The Iberian ones are awesome and in some cases preferable to the Lusitanian variants. Because factional units for the Lusos are so limited, it can be hard to play them as opposed to other factions where you are almost trained to build the highest government building possible. Lusos are the exception to this rule.

athanaric

02-16-2012, 16:47

Generally speaking, the Lusitanian units are better skirmishers, with long range javelins, while the generic Iberians are better at combating armoured enemies, cavalry charges, and forming a battle line. A major exception to the latter is of course Rastaman.
Both rosters are kinda weak in the lethality department though. Which is why Ilergetes and Gallic mercenaries make such useful auxiliaries.

Lusos and in fact all barbarian factions cannot recruit siege equipment like arrow projectors. I'm not so sure they can even recruit Balearic Slingers or if they can just get them as mercs, same as with Kretans.
Just tested it (loaded an old savegame). Lusos can actually recruit all four kinds of siege engines at Gader, which is remarkable.
They also definitely have factional Balearic slingers (tier 2 regional MIC) and every faction can recruit Kretan Archers. Yes, even Barbarians.

Frtigern

02-16-2012, 17:00

Thank you d'Arthez for the work. I feel like a dolt for forgetting about the recruitment viewer. I rarely go into my directory anymore. But I believe it's productive to get this information out on this thread because the Luso's have a limited selection of units, but in certain places they can expand that.

these three units are taken out in 1.2 campaign but they are easy to mod back in by editing their line in the descr_building.txt

Yep, I've modded it to make them recruitable again, but only on conditions. My house rules will be to let the Romans, Arverni and Aedui develop to their fullest potential (if they survive), then send in my armored shock infantry to meet the gallic elites and imperial cohorts. By that time I should be quite sick of skirmishing tactics that I will be in it for blood and not many units can stand up against Roman stacks full of imperial cohorts or gallic fanatic/elite stacks.

But also because the recruitment viewer is out of date and some of that info is incorrect. The Goidelic, Ebherni and Vasci Shock Infantries were removed from 1.2 so you can't recruit them unless you edit the buildings file. Lusos and in fact all barbarian factions cannot recruit siege equipment like arrow projectors. I'm not so sure they can even recruit Balearic Slingers or if they can just get them as mercs, same as with Kretans.

The reason you are finding recruitment options limited is this. Lusos can build Type 1 governments over most, if not all of Iberia. However, try to limit these to the western and southwestern provinces. In other areas, especially in the north and east build either Type 2, 3, or 4. Unfortunately, to get that nifty Iberian Heavy Cavalry you need a Type 4 government in one of the southeastern provinces. Leveling up your regional barracks will net you the "Iberian" units as opposed to the "Lusitanian" units. The Iberian ones are awesome and in some cases preferable to the Lusitanian variants. Because factional units for the Lusos are so limited, it can be hard to play them as opposed to other factions where you are almost trained to build the highest government building possible. Lusos are the exception to this rule.

Thanks Sir Robin!