Saka "building" bodyguard cav (I think an error)

[mikepettyrtw]

I know all about "March of Time" event and its effects on bodyguard cav. I don't think this is related. I think its an internal dictionary problem or something. Its easy to see in the custom battle menu. The actual Sakan general (ie your FM) is called something like "Saka late Catapracts" and the actual late Cataphracts are written as "Saka late Bodyguard". So when Saka is actually just recruiting Cataphracts, the name of the unit is showing up as "saka bodyguard cav"; with info as such. If you don't get what I'm saying, simply go to the custom game menu and play as Saka. There's clearly a unit of 40 men (on huge battle settings) called "Late Cataphracts" that is clearly the actual late Bodyguard cav; as well as a unit of 100 men (on huge settings) called "saka bodyguard cav" even though its clearly a unit of cataphracts.

I'm going into such detail because I think someone reported something like this a while back but responders thought is was a question about the "March of Time" event.
This is not a huge deal, proly just one messed up entry somewhere. I was just wondering if there was a solution.

I have EB 1.2 on BI (the problem was present on RTW.exe as well.)

PS. I love EB. I have not played vanilla or any other mod since installing EB. I am a Nomad steppe Kha-khan and have been since my first Parthia campaign in vanilla some years ago. I still remember my best Generals name "Arses the Horseman", ole boy left a sting of crossed swords around the middle east until his death in a ridiculously massive battle against (vanilla) yellow fever. He was only 24 IIRC. :hail:

[mikepettyrtw]

I have some screenshots of the units in question:
6784
6785

[seleucid empire]

those saka bodyguard cavalry (the 100 men one) are actually recruitable from as soon as you start the game. The Saka late cataphracts (40 men) are only available as bodyguards to your generals after march of time

also what is with that horde of elephants in your battle

[mikepettyrtw]

those saka bodyguard cavalry (the 100 men one) are actually recruitable from as soon as you start the game. The Saka late cataphracts (40 men) are only available as bodyguards to your generals after march of time

I understood that by looking in the recrutement viewer. But I still don't understand why their Cataphracts are called bodyguard cavalry and vice versa.

As for the elephants, I was trying to see how many I could nerf before dying. I have brought down elephants before with cataphracts, so I was just seeing the upper limit.

[mikepettyrtw]

Don't mean to be beating a dead fish, but can anyone explain?

[jirisys]

Don't mean to be beating a dead fish, but can anyone explain?

Maybe the EDU name is switched? (the dictionary name) Or maybe the actual text was written for the wrong unit? Are the descriptions switched too?

~Jirisys ()

[mikepettyrtw]

Well take a look at these:
https://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6316/sakacataphracts.jpg
The description doesn't seem to be messed up. It seems great, the only thing wrong is the name.
I took some screen shots of the specific units in question inside the EDU:
https://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9625/sakaedu1.jpg
and this too :
https://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1292/sakaedu2.jpg

I can't quite understand what I'm looking at. I'm not sure if I see the error or what.
This has occurred for several other people. Well, actually, anyone who progresses enough in their Saka campaign will encounter the "Bodyguard" cataphract issue.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Its a pretty simple edit of the text file if you'd like to change it. That being said, I think that bodyguard cavalry and late cataphracts are the same unit in theory. The reformed BG cavalry are certainly the later style of Saka Cataphracts. If anything, the recruitable cataphract unit should probably just read "Saka Cataphracts" or something along those lines.

[Arjos]

I'm in no way an expert in indo-iranian languages, but -bara should mean troop/group of soldiers, with the previous compound word denoting the type. Therefore Hadabara could very well mean cataphract (like Grivpanvar means neck-guard wearers).
Seeing how Ysaninu Aysna is the name for the early unit, it could be the names were misplaced, but I really don't know...

[mikepettyrtw]

Well, what would I edit? I can't really understand which entry refers to which unit.

[jirisys]

Notice that the saka cataphract have "Axe" as the secondary weapon, but the late bodyguards have "Mace", so it's very complicated.

~Jirisys ()

[mikepettyrtw]

Well, I know for a fact, post MOT(March of Time) Pahlavan FM Bodyguard (the real one) have a wakasashi style sword as their secondary. The normal cataphracts might have an axe or mace as a secondary.
So that means that entry 301 in the EB EDU has no errors, but rather the error for misnaming of (saka regular cataphacts) as (saka bodyguard cav) must originate in export_units.txt --------- ie, what I think is the dictionary for EB. Its located in the following :
\Rome - Total War\EB\Data\text

HOWEVER

Entry # 460 AKA "Saka late Cataphract" is clearly misnamed. Saka do not have late Cataphracts. Only Pahlava have a "late Cataphract". Therefore entry # 460 in the EB EDU is in reality the Saka post MOT FM bodyguard unit! (IE YAY!!) :bounce:

But !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That makes this slightly more complicated by meaning to provide a fix for the error (Which I have dubbed the SAKA LATE CAT error), we must edit both :
\EB\Data\export_descr_unit.txt
&
\EB\Data\text\export_units.txt

I have never edited that file (export_units.txt), so I am going to need some help.
Nor do I know precisely what to change or repair.
I however have taken some screenshots from export_units.txt of the entries I think are related to this problem(correct me if I'm wrong) :
https://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8661/sakaexportunits1.jpg
and this one too
https://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2739/sakaexportunits2.jpg



PS. And way off topic, I was wondering, what nations must the Seleucids engage and be defeated by to obtain the cataphract reforms? I think its the following "Saka Rauka; Pahlava; Armenia; and Bakria, as these are the only ones who use Cats. And do you think this error in any way impacts this?

[Ludens]

PS. And way off topic, I was wondering, what nations must the Seleucids engage and be defeated by to obtain the cataphract reforms? I think its the following "Saka Rauka; Pahlava; Armenia; and Bakria, as these are the only ones who use Cats. And do you think this error in any way impacts this?

The FAQ (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?84854-Europa-Barbarorum-FAQ) only mentions Pahlav, Armenia and Baktria, but maybe that's an oversight because the Saka were included later than the others.

However, this error won't effect the reforms, for the simple reason that the reforms don't take into account the number of cataphracts. The reform is triggered by a character-trait, and the trait-engine cannot discern individual unit types. All that is required for getting the trait, is that the general loses a sizeable battle against an army that has a large contingent of cavalry.

[seleucid empire]

I always cheat to get the seleucid reforms. I hate cheating and never do it except in this particular case. Realistically, I really don't think two separate generals need to lose a battle to see how effective the cataphracts are. They could have faced them and defeated them but been impressed by how destructive they were.

Another thing. The eastern seleucid holdings are very underdeveloped in terms of military. If you lose a battle, it could set you back 5 years. Lose two and thats 10 years

[mikepettyrtw]

When I look at export_units.txt, I'm not sure what to do. But in the EDU, its a bit worse, I really have no clue what to do, can anybody help out, or provide some info?

[mikepettyrtw]

Pretty pretty please with candy on top, may I recieve some suggestions in this endeavor. If someone can tell me how to give ballons, I would gladly give 3 or maybe 90 even!


http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/353/279/e31.jpg




:ave:
:hail:
:help:
:help:
:pray:
:bigcry:
:wall:

Indeed it did!
Just how do I go about editing both of the aformentioned files to repair the unit misnaming?
C'mon, who doesn't want 90 BALLONS, there like catnip around here!

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I haven't edited the files in some time but I believe all that you must change is the name immediately to the right of the tagline in the first line of export_units.txt. The tagline must stay the same since this is how the model and skin are recognized (to the extent of my knowledge) but the entry to the right of that with the english and native names are what controls what you view in game.

I don't think the export_descr_units has anything to do with unit names.

[mikepettyrtw]

My friend, you are KING! Tell me how to give balloons (I have never given one before) and the post after will be filled with 90 of them!!!
https://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2016/sakacataphractstry1.jpg
https://img838.imageshack.us/img838/9270/sakacataphractstry2.jpg
https://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5914/sakafixed1.jpg
https://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1474/sakafixed2.jpg
Oh Brave Brave sir Robin, thank you !:hail:
Ballons.....yes....how do I post those!

[Arjos]

I think now you also have the native names mixed up: Hadabara should be cataphracts :)

[mikepettyrtw]

In the transition screens between campaign and battle map, they show a unit called Sahiya Hadabara, which I came to believe to be the post MOT Saka BG, I went to google translate and it says in Azerbaijani that "Sahiya" means "King".
IIRC, Azerbaijani is closely related to Osetian, which is one of the last Indo-Sythian languages. So I think it's safe to say that Sahiya Hadabara is post MOT Saka FM BG.
Thanks for making me confirm that though, as I had been wondering too.

[mikepettyrtw]

To a one Brave Brave Sir Robin , I am so thankful for your help in the Saka Cat's Error. I have finally found out how to post balloons. Feel free to put them in your signature. Here are exactly 30 Balloons! Plus Thank You in 9 Languages
Teşekkürler
Ви благодариме
Danke
شكرا لك
Sağ olun
谢谢您
Спасибо
ありがとうございました
გმადლობთ
Thank You

:balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2: :balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon:: balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon:
PS:

I will be installing Himachi tomorrow, and I look forward to the day you try to assault my flanks.....I have always wanted a true challenge....Guess my faction of choice...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Haha, I accept your gracious offer of 30 balloons though that seems somewhat excessive for a simple text swap:laugh4:

I look forward to seeing you on Hamachi although this is a very slow time of year for online play so don't be discouraged if you can't find a game at first. If you need any tips on using steppe armies ask Arjos. He knows a few things about such warfare:charge:

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I always cheat to get the seleucid reforms. I hate cheating and never do it except in this particular case. Realistically, I really don't think two separate generals need to lose a battle to see how effective the cataphracts are. They could have faced them and defeated them but been impressed by how destructive they were.

Another thing. The eastern seleucid holdings are very underdeveloped in terms of military. If you lose a battle, it could set you back 5 years. Lose two and thats 10 years

I hate cheating too, but I have to say I disagree with you on the Seleucid reform. After all, if you're winning all your major battles, why would you need to update your army? It's obviously working fine the way it is. And if you only lose one major battle to a large enemy army with lots of cavalry, then most Seleucid leaders would blame the losing general for making a mistake, rather than blaming the troops themselves. After all, the Seleucid army is based on Alexander the Great's army, and he did fine with it, so if 'you' can't, there's more likely to be something wrong with 'you', not the army.

If the Seleucid Empire loses one major battle, it's probably a fluke occurrence, no need to worry, just assign a better general next time. If the Empire loses two major battles, especially two in a row, then that would call for a more thorough investigation as to the cause.

Oh, BTW, the eastern part of the Empire is underdeveloped, but the many available mercenaries make up for that. Just hire them before your enemies do.

[seleucid empire]

I hate cheating too, but I have to say I disagree with you on the Seleucid reform. After all, if you're winning all your major battles, why would you need to update your army? It's obviously working fine the way it is. And if you only lose one major battle to a large enemy army with lots of cavalry, then most Seleucid leaders would blame the losing general for making a mistake, rather than blaming the troops themselves. After all, the Seleucid army is based on Alexander the Great's army, and he did fine with it, so if 'you' can't, there's more likely to be something wrong with 'you', not the army.

If the Seleucid Empire loses one major battle, it's probably a fluke occurrence, no need to worry, just assign a better general next time. If the Empire loses two major battles, especially two in a row, then that would call for a more thorough investigation as to the cause.

Oh, BTW, the eastern part of the Empire is underdeveloped, but the many available mercenaries make up for that. Just hire them before your enemies do.

Ahh I disagree there. Antiochus III was the one who introduced the cataphracts and he didn't suffer any major defeats in the east as far as i know and in fact he won the Battle of the Arius river where the Bactrians had thousands of Catas. He also won victories over the Parthians who were forced to sue for peace. The fact that he won against them didnt stop him from introducing them to his army at all.

They really don't need to lose. Look at the Romans, they incorporated the arms and armour of many of their enemies even after defeating them (chain mail from the gauls, gladius from Celtiberians etc..)

I cheat only on this one occasion because i like blitzing. Also Its actually very hard to get the trait. Believe me ive tried and lost a few battles on purpose before but never got the trait in any general, even after losing 2/3 of my army and 2/3 of my generals bodyguard. The only time ive ever seen the trait in any of my characters without cheating is in one of my games around 160 BC when my governor of Antioch randomly got the trait for no reason. He had no battle experience either

And it seems unfair to me that Seleucids are the only ones who have to lose their battles for the reforms.

I mean historically the Macedonian reformed phalanx only appeared after losing to rome in the Macedonian war but you don't need to lose a battle to trigger those reforms. The Seleucids introduced the Cats under Antiochus III who defeated the Cataphract nations but you still need to lose two major battles to get them. That made no sense to me so I just decided to cheat. Despite hating to cheat, Ive never lost any sleep over cheating for the Cat reforms. Usually If I use cheats I would get disgusted with myself and start a new game but Not for this. Not ever.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I agree with what seleucids said except for the part about the Romans. The Romans did in fact lose many battles to the Celts and Celtiberians, probably a main reason why they decided to adapt their styles of weapons and armor. The Romans were master imitators; they did the same with their formations after engaging and being defeated by the Samnites on multiple occasions. Before Telamon and still to a lesser degree afterward, the Romans were terrified of the Gauls partly because their city had been sacked by migrating Celts. And we all know that the Celtiberian Wars were some of the bloodiest and most hotly contested conflicts that Rome ever involved themselves in. They were supposedly highly controversial in the eternal city itself at the time because of their great cost in money and lives.

[seleucid empire]

I agree with what seleucids said except for the part about the Romans. The Romans did in fact lose many battles to the Celts and Celtiberians, probably a main reason why they decided to adapt their styles of weapons and armor. The Romans were master imitators; they did the same with their formations after engaging and being defeated by the Samnites on multiple occasions. Before Telamon and still to a lesser degree afterward, the Romans were terrified of the Gauls partly because their city had been sacked by migrating Celts. And we all know that the Celtiberian Wars were some of the bloodiest and most hotly contested conflicts that Rome ever involved themselves in. They were supposedly highly controversial in the eternal city itself at the time because of their great cost in money and lives.

Ah perhaps that was a bad example. I was just trying to say they don't always need to lose crushing defeats before they adapt.

Its really unfair that only the Seleucids have to lose two massive battles and in the end, the stupid impressed by cats trait still doesn't show up

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Ahh I disagree there. Antiochus III was the one who introduced the cataphracts and he didn't suffer any major defeats in the east as far as i know and in fact he won the Battle of the Arius river where the Bactrians had thousands of Catas. He also won victories over the Parthians who were forced to sue for peace. The fact that he won against them didnt stop him from introducing them to his army at all.

The Seleucids introduced the Cats under Antiochus III who defeated the Cataphract nations but you still need to lose two major battles to get them. That made no sense to me so I just decided to cheat. Despite hating to cheat, Ive never lost any sleep over cheating for the Cat reforms. Usually If I use cheats I would get disgusted with myself and start a new game but Not for this. Not ever.

Antiochus III introduced cataphracts into the Seleucid army because his father, Seleucus II Callinicus, had been badly defeated by Parthian cataphracts under Arsaces I.

[seleucid empire]

Antiochus III introduced cataphracts into the Seleucid army because his father, Seleucus II Callinicus, had been badly defeated by Parthian cataphracts under Arsaces I.


"The Cataphract (Kataphraktoi) were first introduced into the Hellenistic military tradition with the Seleucid Antiochus III the Greats anabasis in the east from 212-205 BC. With his camapaigns in Parthia and Bactria he came into contact with Cataphracts and copied them. "

from a website

Even if Seleukos II was defeated, It was Antiochus III who actually introduced them and he did it AFTER his anabasis

I'm not trying to start a fruitless argument. If ive offended you, im sorry. Im merely stating why I use that particular cheat. After all, the reforms are extraordinarily hard to get :/

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

"The Cataphract (Kataphraktoi) were first introduced into the Hellenistic military tradition with the Seleucid Antiochus III the Greats anabasis in the east from 212-205 BC. With his camapaigns in Parthia and Bactria he came into contact with Cataphracts and copied them. "

from a website

Even if Seleukos II was defeated, It was Antiochus III who actually introduced them and he did it AFTER his anabasis

I'm not trying to start a fruitless argument. If ive offended you, im sorry. Im merely stating why I use that particular cheat. After all, the reforms are extraordinarily hard to get :/

Don't worry, we're not arguing, just disagreeing. I agree the reforms are difficult to get, personally I like that though.

By the way, when you said you lost two major battles and didn't get the reforms, were your defeats CRUSHING defeats? I wonder if they need to be....

From your post I wonder if the army of Seleukos II did encounter cataphracts - I assumed they did because if the early Parni didn't have cataphracts, the early Parthian bodyguard in EB wouldn't be cataphract-like.

[seleucid empire]

I didn't realise they needed to be crushing defeats isnt it just a loss of a percentage of your army and your generals bodyguard? Maybe Seleukos II didn't face true 'cataphracts' only the early variant. Im beginning to wonder if the Parthian recruitable cataphracts should be available that early. After all, the Parthians declared independence only in 238 BC under Arsaces which was 8 years before the reign of Seleukos II so Im guessing they would still have fought with their original tribal cavalry???

which brings me to my next thought, The Parthian Kingdom did not exist in 272 BC. The Satrap of Parthia broke away under Andragoras in 255 BC and in 238 Arsaces lead a revolt against Andragoras which formed the Kingdom. So technically, the should not exist when you start the game. Although, considering how important the Parthians became later on, it would be a poor choice to leave them out of the game.

I wish there were emergent factions in EB to represent the Parthians

[Arjos]

they would still have fought with their original tribal cavalry???

They'd still have heavy armoured cavalry, although in smaller numbers...


So technically, the should not exist when you start the game.

At the start date they are the Parni, members of the Dahae Confederacy, becoming the Parthian Kingdom, with its administrative buildings, it's sort of a reform...

[Ludens]

I didn't realise they needed to be crushing defeats isnt it just a loss of a percentage of your army and your generals bodyguard?

No, you are right. The trait-engine checks percentages lost, not the type of defeat.


Maybe Seleukos II didn't face true 'cataphracts' only the early variant. Im beginning to wonder if the Parthian recruitable cataphracts should be available that early. After all, the Parthians declared independence only in 238 BC under Arsaces which was 8 years before the reign of Seleukos II so Im guessing they would still have fought with their original tribal cavalry???

Not necessarily - you don't start a war with the biggest empire in the region if you are unsure about your military capacity. I don't know when cataphracts appeared, and it's quite possible we can't pinpoint the moment as there not enough sources on the Seleucid and early Parthian armies. Either way, it wouldn't have been overnight thing. It may well have been project started under Seleucus II, but only completed after Antiochus III conquered (and plundered) the east.

[mikepettyrtw]

which brings me to my next thought, The Parthian Kingdom did not exist in 272 BC. The Satrap of Parthia broke away under Andragoras in 255 BC and in 238 Arsaces lead a revolt against Andragoras which formed the Kingdom. So technically, the should not exist when you start the game. Although, considering how important the Parthians became later on, it would be a poor choice to leave them out of the game.

I wish there were emergent factions in EB to represent the Parthians

Somebody must either hate Pahlava or is getting hammed by some silver chevron'd Cataphracts. (JK):rtwyes:
The Saka were the first to have Cataphracts; and they began their development some 100 years before the start date.(Correct me if I'm wrong) If I recall in game text (some of which is visible in the screen shots in this thread), the development of Cataphract began around the time of the Battle of Guagamela, and so was well complete by 272 I believe.
Note: The Saka did not cease their tribal nomadic system until they settled in Baktria and India (hence Saka reforms). You can build Saka Cats in places with nomadism and pastoralism. You don't have to settle down in cities to stick a Kontos on an already heavily armored nobleman's horse! All it takes is a big tree lol:laugh4:
If what you are saying is correct, then Pahlava would never have stood a chance AT ALL against the Seleucids. I does not matter where you are (who you are playing as), the fact remains that Pahlava is already vastly disadvantaged, anyone who played a campaign as them knows this.... They are one of the few checks on grey death, and even yellow fever, without Cat's they would be steam rolled in 30 turns.
(The AI build them early, and they have a great effect on Auto-Calcs.)

so Im guessing they would still have fought with their original tribal cavalry???
Which brings me to my last statment.....
Cataphracts are their original "tribal cavalry". You can recruit them by spending your starting money to build a high kings herds (or Royal Courts can't remember)(IIRC) in Khiva and if IIRC, also with a bit more money, you can build the buildings required to train them in Nisa too.

The Grivpanivar:verycool: (SP) monster Cat's are their settled Late Elite Cataphracts that are only build-able in places with Pahlava reformed Gov.
Now if they started the game with those things (Grivpanivar), then I could understand your sentiment.

[moonburn]

that was fixed as the parnii federation at 272 from wich the parthians eventually took form from

[seleucid empire]

Ludens - The Seleucids faced rebellions and wars everywhere so maybe the Parthians took a chance and succeeded even when their military was no match.

@mikeprettyrtw - Nah, I never have trouble facing parthians anymore. With realistic Movement mod, I can avoid their field armies and take both their cities wiping them out in 3 seasons. So winter 272 BC = no more Parthians

Of course they should be disadvantaged, only rebelled in 238 and against the regions largest empire as you said.

By tribal I was thing along the lines of their BGs, archers and armoured horse archers (but not too armoured). Still moderately effective

Against AI they wouldnt be too bad would they?? Didnt they change it so horse archers do better in auto calc?? I mean Sarmatians usually gather a huge empire very early on and their cavalry has barely any armour in the beginning

[Ca Putt]

Horse Archers suck hugely in auto calc, especially when facing phalangites. That's why the Parthians are one of the less successfull AI factions(provided you do not play AS, Baktria or Saka) while actually not being that difficult, as horse archers fare much better when player controlled and while the Sakans can normally be mostly avoided the Baktrians are not that tough enemies aswell(unless offcource you face them later on). Furthermore Pahlavan economy is much better than that of Sakans and Sarmatians, meaning you can afford more armored horse archers and cataphracts.

As it is they are quite at a disadvantage and thus are not likely to evolve into something greater later on in most games, keep in mind that on turn 1 Pahalva rebell and thus anger the Selucid empire, long before they were able to, instead of quietly building up their forces.

Sauromatae is so "successfull" as noone else has a claim to those territories and they fight mostly eleutheroi. The provinces that DO have a faction, be it Saka rauka, Hay, the Koinon Hellenon, or the Getai, are quickly liberated from the sarmatians. Leading to sillily large Bosphoran Empires. (As Sweboz I once met the KH at both ends of my expansion on the same turn)

The EB starting Date is indeed quite a stretch, to be able to include factions like Koinon Hellenon, Baktria, Epiros...

[mikepettyrtw]

By tribal I was thing along the lines of their BGs, archers and armoured horse archers (but not too armoured). Still moderately effective

If thats what you want for early Pahlava, with no chance of Cat's until they settle, then this VVVVVVVVVVV will happen:

Nah, I never have trouble facing parthians anymore. With realistic Movement mod, I can avoid their field armies and take both their cities wiping them out in 3 seasons. So winter 272 BC = no more Parthians
in every single game!
As I just said......Cataphracts ARE their tribal cav, what YOU want is to make them into Sauro to make steam rolling them easier! (Sorry for loosing it right there):soapbox:
Nonetheless, what your saying, would turn them into Sauro, (The worst steppe faction in EB) and they would indeed disappear really fast. As another poster has said, HA suck in Auto_Calc.
Believe me, of all things, this I KNOW :shame: (lost battles that way)
When you play as a steppe faction, you have to micro-manage EVERY battle....You pretty much can never use auto_calc.
I know what your thinking :
But Saka almost always rule the steppe and kick Arche and Bakria's rear!
The only reason Saka rule the steppe is because they ARE master horsemen. They have access to highest range archers and horse archers in the game. Their regular HA will outrage Kreatan Archers and they have the best noble cav in the game. Even their early noble cav will defeat Hetairoi, let alone their armored nobles; which are their pre-MOT bodyguard unit, that IIRC are recruitable. Plus, as has been said before, they can get their Cat's fast (provided they have money, so on hard camp difficulty, expect them). By that time they would have had them anyway.
These people were some of the hardest to defeat in the history of the world, and it says something, that of all the settled leaders of history, only a handful can claim to have tasted victory while fighting them on their home front and all of them have the term "The Great" in their name. IIRC : Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great, Alexander the Great, and Antiochos III "the Great". 2 Persians, 1 Macedonian, and one Heterogenes.

That's it. Where as, everybody can say they defeated the Seleucid's, everybody can say they defeated the Romans (virtually every civ in history defeated them at least once even if in a minor engagement)....But nobody can say, they defeated a Mongol army on the Steppe. No one can say they defeated the Saka on the Steppe. Except other steppe peoples (that even apply's to the mongols, Subutai was defeated a handful of times fighting the Indo-Iranians)

PS. As I have said to you before, the Realistic Movement Mod unbalances the game, people have explained to you why here :
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142436-Some-factions-AI-even-worse-on-VH-campaign
From d'Arthez in that thread:

Which suggests that the AI of smaller factions (1-3 provinces) is rather hampered by the realistic movement mod, rather than helped by it. Of course this is a natural outcome. Also, because movement is greatly increased, AI will probably find it easier to send its armies to do something somewhere. Bear in mind that the AI completely forgets about its plans when you load a game (!), which has the unfortunate effect of leading to a million and one stranded superstacks. This of course will be more of a problem with lower movement speeds, due to the time (and reloading) involved. Hence those triarii stacks doing nothing. Realistic movement mod goes some way to eliminate that particular problem and eliminate said stacks as well, due to them being used!.

Major factions will find it easier to send fullstacks somewhere, while smaller factions lack the economic resources to compete with the fullstacks that are sent to them. Hence Lusotanna being owned. Their economic basis is too limited to compete with the bigger factions around them. Upkeep costs are much less of a barrier to bigger factions than to smaller factions (if it would take you a year before a superstack saw some action, that could well mean an additional cost to your treasury of 25000 Mnai, due to upkeep). This is completely consistent with the SPQR being the dominant faction in Europe (it is the biggest faction in Europe, and the only real competition is locked in a three way war in Greece). Thus the realistic movement mod may have the effect of making money scarcer for smaller factions. They can get rid of more expensive troops more easily, but they also need the troops more, since a new superstack from Carthage knocks on the door every 3 or 4 turns for Lusotanna.

Sweboz suffers from the problem that too many roaming superstacks are within its reach. Beat one, and another one will defeat them. As far as I know, the realistic movement mod does nothing to increase the speed of recruiting, so their bank account takes quite a hit each and every time they have to raise a big stack (due to upkeep).

PPS. Pretty please, try and play a campaign as Saka on Very Hard Campaign difficulty with the realistic movement mod. You will see how the boot feels on the other end.:whip: Grey Death will form FAST! Even the finest nobles in the world are defeated by Argyraspidai full stacks.

[seleucid empire]

If thats what you want for early Pahlava, with no chance of Cat's until they settle, then this VVVVVVVVVVV will happen:

in every single game!
As I just said......Cataphracts ARE their tribal cav, what YOU want is to make them into Sauro to make steam rolling them easier! (Sorry for loosing it right there):soapbox:
Nonetheless, what your saying, would turn them into Sauro, (The worst steppe faction in EB) and they would indeed disappear really fast. As another poster has said, HA suck in Auto_Calc.
Believe me, of all things, this I KNOW :shame: (lost battles that way)
When you play as a steppe faction, you have to micro-manage EVERY battle....You pretty much can never use auto_calc.
I know what your thinking :
But Saka almost always rule the steppe and kick Arche and Bakria's rear!
The only reason Saka rule the steppe is because they ARE master horsemen. They have access to highest range archers and horse archers in the game. Their regular HA will outrage Kreatan Archers and they have the best noble cav in the game. Even their early noble cav will defeat Hetairoi, let alone their armored nobles; which are their pre-MOT bodyguard unit, that IIRC are recruitable. Plus, as has been said before, they can get their Cat's fast (provided they have money, so on hard camp difficulty, expect them). By that time they would have had them anyway.
These people were some of the hardest to defeat in the history of the world, and it says something, that of all the settled leaders of history, only a handful can claim to have tasted victory while fighting them on their home front and all of them have the term "The Great" in their name. IIRC : Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great, Alexander the Great, and Antiochos III "the Great". 2 Persians, 1 Macedonian, and one Heterogenes.

That's it. Where as, everybody can say they defeated the Seleucid's, everybody can say they defeated the Romans

PPS. Pretty please, try and play a campaign as Saka on Very Hard Campaign difficulty with the realistic movement mod. You will see how the boot feels on the other end.:whip: Grey Death will form FAST! Even the finest nobles in the world are defeated by Argyraspidai full stacks.

I don't really care if they turn into Sauros or not since I wipe them out in 3 turns. I would gain and lose nothing if the cataphracts were disabled for early parthians since i kill them long before they recruit it. Im thinking in terms of historical accuracy. Would they really have cataphracts with full armor like that?? The way I understood it was that in the beginning of the EB time frame the Parthian Kingdom didnt exist and was part of the Arche. If that was the case chow could they have developed the fearsome cataphracts so early?

Actually, I dislike facing Sauros more than Parthians. At least Parthians recruit mostly lightly armored horse archers and cataphracts. The Sauros have stacks of noble horse archers which are much more annoying since they are so damn versatile, even in the hands of AI. And yes I know that I cant auto calc, Ive played several Saka and Parthian campaigns where I exploited my bodyguards heavily

The reason those generals have the epithet of the Great is not cause they defeated a bunch of nomads (-___-)
Alexandros: Conquered the Persian empire in 8 years. Thats why he was named the great
Cyrus: Created the Persian empire. Faced the Medians, Lydians and Neo-babylonians, the 3 great empires of hie time
Darius: WAS DEFEATED by the Sycthians. He was named great for his administrative achievements like introducing Satraps and formation of the navy.
Antiochus III: only called the great cause he restored Alexandros empire outside of egypt and macedon

Also they were not the only ones called great. A list of other people, many who never faced horsearchers are also called the great. The epithet doesnt only go to conquerers. They could go to kings who were superb administrator or they could go to Kings that won a victory against a Hated enemy or to kings that crushed all rebellions and restored order to a crumbing empire
list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_The_Great


I have already played a Saka Campaign since I started using realistic movement mod: It was not that hard. The eastern seleucid provinces are way-underdeveloped. 255 BC I had most of Iran and Bactra. The main problem WAS NOT SILVERSHIELDS. IT was trying to hold on to the damn cities with my quarter-stacks and crappy governors (but great generals)

P.S. I dont know why everyone is telling me how OP grey death is in VH/realistic mod. Im playing a VH, Saba Campaign with realistic move mod and let me tell you. Ptolemies are much more OP. They have four fullstacks in Egypt, One in carthage lands thats taken Lepki off them and 3 in the southern coast of Asia Minor. Its 262.........................

IN fact on VH camp difficulty with realistic move mod, Yellow fever always dominates if your not playing AS. I think its because they start of with better barracks and can send their elites early on. Without Realist move mod that would be a problem since they have so few places where they recruite elites. But with the mod it doesnt trouble them so they can send it everywhere.

The Only factions I hate facing more than Parthians are the Ptolemies and after that, the Romans


I can see that you will argue for the steppe factions till your last breath. I would do that same for hellenistic factions and Carthage (I like factions with both good infantry and cavalry) so lets just agree to disagree :LLLL

[mikepettyrtw]

The reason those generals have the epithet of the Great is not cause they defeated a bunch of nomads (-___-)
Alexandros: Conquered the Persian empire in 8 years. Thats why he was named the great
Cyrus: Created the Persian empire. Faced the Medians, Lydians and Neo-babylonians, the 3 great empires of hie time
Darius: WAS DEFEATED by the Sycthians. He was named great for his administrative achievements like introducing Satraps and formation of the navy.
Antiochus III: only called the great cause he restored Alexandros empire outside of egypt and macedon

Meh on my behalf....
I should have worded that more clearly. I was not implying that they are "Great" becuase they defeated nomads, ......Just that it takes a great general to defeat nomads. :wall:
As for Darius, the Scythians eventually vassalized, and he was never decisively defeated by them. Hence, the pontic steppe became a part of the Persian Empire.

can see that you will argue for the steppe factions till your last breath.
Actually no....My first major non-roman campaign in vanilla was as the Macedonians, and I greatly enjoy Hellenistic warfare. I have awesome memories of the romans sending fullstack after fullstack legonairies against my silver shields and slamming them in hammer/anvil tactics. :rtwno:
Of my save games I have right now, only one are steppe, the rest are Hellenistic. This is no fight to the death over Cat's. The Seleucid's are an awesome campaign that I enjoy.

I don't really care if they turn into Sauros or not since I wipe them out in 3 turns.
I got what you mean, but, when your not playing as the Seleucids, they are what keeps Grey Death from forming, (at least IMO) because they keep the AI preoccupied. This can occasionally cause Yellow fever, but in my campaigns at least, the Ptollies make enemy's fast once they go viral, so they lose what they gained equally as fast as they got it.
Even though at the start date, they were not independant, they were still armed, as were the Baktrians. They would have had Cat's, and nobles, and several other things that were fancy. ~:smoking:
That's all bro, no harm intended. I have never said that Hellens suck, and people who play them are lard. I have fought the Parthians as the Seleucid's as well. I am not religiously dedicated to a culture, or a peoples, or a heritage.

[Ca Putt]

On Cataphracts as Tribal cavalry: The thing about cataphracts is that they already were present pretty long, the equipment is hard but not impossible to craft/buy/steal for a nomad tribe. However they lack the capacities to field them at large scale. similar to the Dos... the other two ultra heavy chain veil footmen. They were disabled because they were just a small elite within a small tribe, that did not expand and is not represented as an individual faction in EB. The Parni on the other hand are much larger and afaik had a broader class of "potential cataphracts" than those two obscure Irish/Spanish tribes, furthermore they Did expand and are represented as a faction, thus it is plausible that with enough investment and battle "luck" a mighty Parni tribe would be well able to field their cataphracts on a sizeable scale. A Parni "empire" as powerfull as that of the Player would indeed be capable of that. Restricting a Parni empire that has that has managed to attain great wealth and huge tracks of land from fielding Cataphracts that they already have(in smaller numbers) would be a not quite nice.