View Full Version : Unit Balancing Suggestions to CA
Well, I cannot come up with more elaborate advice right now, but I will at the end of next week.
Many of us know where and how to mod the unit stats.
Some units are or were overpowered
1.) Chariot Archers and many Egyptian units
2.) Elephants - their HP have been reduced, not sure about that, did not fight much with them after the 1.1 patch
Underpowered:
1.) Spears vs Cavalry
2.) Hoplites have some more issues, e.g. the "right-shift" phenomenon.
I suggest we collect some "better" stat set for these units. I still assume that spear boni are fine as they are, but BROKEN and not working at all right now.
Basileus
10-09-2004, 11:39
Some of the late roman units are abit overpowered if you ask me, Urban Cohort frontal attack on the best phalanx units and it kills 100 and only loses 10, even the spartan hoplite with hp of 2 gets a good beating heh..
My suggestions :
- Decrease the range, the ranged attack, the melee and the speed of chariots. Chariots were replaced by cavalry for a reason, and it was that they were unstable, and slower and less maneuverable than cavalry. The stats should reflect this.
- Remove the armour of desert axemen, and partially compensate by raising their defense skill. Desert axemen are overpowered, and on top of that, the picture is one of a shirtless guy, so all this armour feel just wrong.
- Slightly raise the power of the greek cavalry.
My suggestions :
- Decrease the range, the ranged attack, the melee and the speed of chariots. Chariots were replaced by cavalry for a reason, and it was that they were unstable, and slower and less maneuverable than cavalry. The stats should reflect this.
They have to change the charge speed of all units before they nerf the range of arrows. If not, this game will sadly denerate into an all melee rushing.
Remove the armour of desert axemen, and partially compensate by raising their defense skill. Desert axemen are overpowered, and on top of that, the picture is one of a shirtless guy, so all this armour feel just wrong.
I've never encountered the Desert Axemen before, but that observation is flat out hilarious!!:laugh4:
The phalanx units are also waving their pikes like conductors ~:shock And it kills units!! Like a touch-of-death effect.:scared: Imagine what's gonna be on Total War 4.....
They have to change the charge speed of all units before they nerf the range of arrows. If not, this game will sadly denerate into an all melee rushing.
I'm not talking about reducing the range of ALL the ranged weapons.
Only the chariot-based archers.
1. Many Egyptian units are way overpowered. The worst are the chariots and desert axemen. Very cheap and powerful and historically and realistically way more powerful than they should be. Camels have a bonus against chariots but chariot archers are killing my Bedouin warriors in a melee. Desert axemen are cheaper than early legionaire cohorts but have better stats. Sure, they don't have javelins but the javelins aren't that powerful to command that big of an extra cost. Pharaoh's bowmen are also overpowered. Compare their costs and stats to Cretan archers and they beat them easily even though, AFAIK, Cretans should be the best during this time period.
2. Phalanx units are way underpowered. Yes, they're vulnerable from the flanks and rear but in this game they are also vulnerable from the front. A frontal charge, by cavalry and some strong infantry, destroys their formation and makes them vulnerable to another charge from the front. Their formation should be able to hold against frontal charges much, much better.
3. Cavalry charges are overpowered. That and they can too easily withdraw, even after getting bogged down in the middle of an infantry formation, to charge again.
4. The upkeep cost of many later cavalry are too small compared to later infantry. Some infantry upkeep costs are ridiculous, considering how weak they are.
I'm not talking about reducing the range of ALL the ranged weapons.
Only the chariot-based archers.
If you closely observe the archers in the chariots you'll find they are in fact Pharaohs Guard archers. These guys are elite, top gear archers both with long range and armour.
If you want to do something with chariot archers I would suggest 2/turn build time for all chariots as the others have and a higher building requisite to perhaps equal to building a Pharaohs Guard Archer. But lets not nerf them people. They are suppose to be good, they are suppose to be feared and rightly so. You can take these guys down with skirmishers and support missle fire. They may do well in the field, but they get creamed in sieges.
I can't understand for the life of me why it seems so many people want to degrade the best units in the game? They "can be" hard to take down sometimes, but thats the whole point. I mean, isn't that why you chose to play on veryhard difficulty? To make it harder? Because on medium level, after playing 100+ years of 7 factions, I've yet to run into something I couldn't counter.
CA went and "tweaked back" elephants and I believe it was do so in large to people complaining that they are to uber. Beta testers didn't seem to find anything wrong with them, but after only a week of release, they make the change based on virgin gameplay feedback. Now that may have introduced a retraining bug. It's happened three times for me now.
Oopps, I ranted. I just thank the Gods that this game is easy for even me to mod. Cause after the nerfing is over, I can go back in and change the stats to their original settings.
I don't dispute they are top-notch elite, I'm just annoyed about how the chariots have the advantages of chariots (able to reap infantry, able to shoot arrows, able to cause fear, and so on), without any of the shortcoming (unstability and slower than mounted horses).
I advocate a reduction of range and ranged attack to simulate the difficulty to shoot while moving and being on a unstable ground. I advocate the reduction of speed because a chariot simply can't be faster than cavalry.
King Azzole
10-09-2004, 19:13
When 5 groups of chariot archers in a CITY can decimate 12 units of ARMORED hoplites, something is seriously wrong.. Also I would think shooting from a moving platform would be less accurate and unable to shoot farther than foot archers. Not to mention they turn sharper than a Viper GTS. I think the only balance they need is less melee attack, longer turning radii and shorter ranges. Then they would be realistic.
Red Harvest
10-09-2004, 22:25
Praylak and others,
My main concern is having the units make sense. Their stats should bear a resemblence to their training, gear, and historical use, plus they should resemble the 3d images... Egypt seems to be a bit powerful vs. other regions, and their stats don't make sense in some areas. Inconsistencies suggest Egypt wasn't really "finished" and polished before release.
Egyptian Unit Observations. Summary, there are severe inconsistencies in the way these units are shown in the game and their stats. Here are some examples:
1. Desert Axemen: Attack 10, Charge Bonus 5; Armour 11, Def. Skill 5, Shield 2. The 3D Units are shirtless with nothing more than a metal collar/throat protection and armbands, the unit description card shows shirtless, and it says lightly armoured. Therefore the armour rating makes no sense. Other Egyptian units like this have armour values no higher than 3 (most are zero.) The defensive skill could be increased a bit. These men should be very vulnerable to archers, but won't be so with an armour rating of 11.
2. Desert Cavalry: Attack 7, Charge Bonus 3; Armour 3, Def. Skill 4, Shield 4. The rider is the same unit as the axemen, and graphic looks like an axe, but the units stats file says "mace" and blunt. The stats look reasonable, except for the shield rating of 4, and the weapon rating of "light." That shield rating is used for the long shields, not these little square things. It should be a 2. This is inconsistent in many cav units! The rider graphic should be updated for appropriate weapon or the light rating should be heavy, I'm not sure.
3. Pharaoh's Guards: Attack 12, Charge Bonus 8; Armour 7; Def. Skill 7, Shield 5. This one is screwed up in one regard, the unit graphic has NO shield yet it gets a 5 for the shield? They are wearing some nice looking armour in the 3D images. So the armour could even be boosted a few notches to compensate for the lack of shield.
I've compared these three to Nubian Spearmen, Nile Spearmen, Nubian Cav, Nile cav and other units in other factions to reach the conclusions above.
Chariots are special cases, and I'm not sure how to evaluate all of their stats. The missile stat is VERY high: 13. Such high numbers have ridiculous kill rates in the game. The range looks fine for this one, but the missile value is high. All the very common but "elite" archery units need toned down. Missile units did not do well vs. heavy infantry in this period. The defensive stats showing in the game unit card are for the mounts/chariots rather than the men. My main problem with them is their mobility vs. cavalry (since they have three riders), and lack of severe terrain speed modifiers, rather than their base stats. They should be godawful slow turning. The archers get 2 hit points (since the 3rd man/driver can't fire), while the regular chariots get 3. This probably has some impact since the individual chariots won't die until their hit points are exhausted.
Pharaoh's Bowmen get very high range (170), plus a 14 missile stat compared to the standard Egyptian Bowmen's range of 120 and missile stat of 7. I can accept the range, but the missile stat is overdone (as are so many.) Elites should be a substantial bump up from basic, but these guys are over the top. On top of that they have good attack and defense. They are well armoured, and their no shield stats are consistent (zero.)
The standard archers have reasonable stats for shirtless guys without shields.
Red Harvest
10-09-2004, 22:37
Shield stats are all over the map...and don't match the graphics in the game. When I look at shield stats, I never know what I'm going to find. Look at Numidian cavalry, and the small shielded variants of Roman cav, plus Egyptian Desert Cav. They get 4's for shield values??? They have small shields! Others like the round shield Carthagian and Iberian Cav. get values of 2 (makes sense!) The longshield guys get 4's. Should large wicker or leather shields get the same rating as heavier large shields? Perhaps they should lose a point?
The really fun ones are units like pharoah's guard. They have no shield, yet they get a 5 shield stat.
I think CA needs to either update unit graphics or get the stats consistent, then start working on balancing. Afterall, if they give high shield values to unshielded units, it is going to be tough to figure out what the heck the game engine is/should be doing. Meaning of course, that it will be tough for the player to figure out what they are supposed to be doing...
If you closely observe the archers in the chariots you'll find they are in fact Pharaohs Guard archers. These guys are elite, top gear archers both with long range and armour.
If you want to do something with chariot archers I would suggest 2/turn build time for all chariots as the others have and a higher building requisite to perhaps equal to building a Pharaohs Guard Archer. But lets not nerf them people. They are suppose to be good, they are suppose to be feared and rightly so. You can take these guys down with skirmishers and support missle fire. They may do well in the field, but they get creamed in sieges.
Good? Feared? They are completely obsolete by the time depicted in the game. That's like creating a Napoleon: Total War game and making knights the most powerful unit in the game. They do very well in sieges, especially defending. They can turn corners very easily, something they shouldn't be able to do. They have the speed of medium cavalry and insane melee and they can easily run down skirmishers and support missile fire.
Cavalry were a hard counter to them and rendered them obsolete. In this game, they kill cavalry.
Egypt's units shouldn't be the most powerful in the game. Their units should be like that in MTW, the cheap, numerous ones. The elite units during this time period all belonged to other factions. The best units in the game shouldn't be obsolete units. Not to mention Egypt's elite units are ridiculously cheap for their power.
Egyptian chariots get a combat bonus for fighting in desert.
Wierdly, having lost large numbers of men in the campaign to chariots, I did some custom battles last night & had a single legion take down 2 units of chariot archers on medium difficulty, though I did start out with 2 & the first got mashed early in the battle.
Likewise, a roman cavalry unit easily beat chariots on medium but got slaughtered on very hard.
Well, your legions wouldn't be able to catch them if they skirmished properly, which is another problem. I used mostly Arab cavalry and Bedouin Warriors against them. Both have a bonus in deserts as well and the Bedouins actually have bonus against chariots, being camel riders. The chariots either beat them horribly or I barely win with lots of casualties.
This is from the stat files:
type east chariot archer
dictionary east_chariot_archer ; Chariot Archers
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type Medium_1
soldier east_chariot_archer, 27, 9, 1
mount heavy chariot
mount_effect elephant -8, camel -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, frighten_foot, cantabrian_circle
formation 8.5, 9, 15, 15, 2, square
stat_health 2, 2
stat_pri 13, 4, arrow, 120, 60, missile, archery, piercing, none, 25 ,1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 9, 6, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr launching, ap
stat_pri_armour 6, 5, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 1, flesh
stat_heat -1
stat_ground 0, 1, -6, -1
stat_mental 10, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 2, 1060, 330, 110, 160, 1060
ownership pontus
type egyptian chariot archer
dictionary egyptian_chariot_archer ; Egyptian Chariot Archers
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type Medium_1
soldier egyptian_chariot_archer, 27, 9, 1
mount egyptian chariot
mount_effect elephant -8, camel -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, frighten_foot, cantabrian_circle
formation 8.5, 9, 15, 15, 2, square
stat_health 1, 2
stat_pri 13, 4, arrow, 120, 60, missile, archery, piercing, none, 25 ,1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 9, 6, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr launching, ap
stat_pri_armour 6, 1, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 1, flesh
stat_heat -2
stat_ground 0, 2,-6,-2
stat_mental 10, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 570, 330, 60, 90, 570
ownership egypt
They're similar in almost all respects. Pontus' is stronger than Egypt's, though I'm not sure by how much. Look at the price however. 1060 vs. 570. Somebody must really love the Egyptians. Many of their units follow a similar pattern. Pick a similar unit from a different faction and compare. Egypt's is horribly underpriced.
Chariots are powerful, but you have to know how to counter them. I have no problem defeating the Egyptians, even numbers, even outnumbered, battle after battle in the game (unless you are talking MP, that's not my issue). You just have to come to battle with the right stuff. Of course chariots are going to tear up armored hoplites - the hoplites can't get close enough to even smell them, much less touch them with those long pointy spears. Don't come crying that your hoplites are dying any more than Crassus cried at Carrhae at what Parthian horsearchers did to him :) The game calls them missile cavalry and for all practical purposes that's what they are. So you have to fight them as that. For the Romans against the Egyptians, that means having artillery and archers. My Roman armies fighting the Egyptians who bring alot of ranged units to battle always have two onagers, and at least 4, maybe 6 archers.
I've found that chariots die easily under archer fire. Put two auxila archers units firing on a chariot unit and it dies quickly - they just don't last long. There aren't alot of men in a chariot unit and they die like flies under archer fire. I concentrate fire on them first and take them out. Meanwhile my artillery is pounding the desert axemen who have to advance slowly on foot. And when the chariots are dead, my archers turn their attentions on them.
On medium, I routinely inflict losses on the Egyptian in a ration of between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1 in my favor. Best was 1260 Egyptians dead vs my 60.
Grifman
I did say that chariots die under archer fire. However, they could charge the archers and they have the speed to do it. Also, Egyptians have the best archers in the game and you'll lose the archer vs. archer duel if the enemy simply sits his chariot behind the archers. The AI does have some moments when it looks like it actually knows what it's doing.
A problem is besieging the Egyptians. The chariots are way too manueverable on the city streets and archers aren't very effective in sieges.
Missile cavalry die quickly when caught by light cavalry. Chariots, however, kill tons of light cavalry in the process. Even camels die in droves in a melee to them. Their melee ability is too high. They're just way too cost effective and way too powerful compared to what they were historically.
Mr. Juice
10-10-2004, 06:21
Missile cavalry die quickly when caught by light cavalry. Chariots, however, kill tons of light cavalry in the process. Even camels die in droves in a melee to them. Their melee ability is too high. They're just way too cost effective and way too powerful compared to what they were historically.
I'll second that.
Barbarian units need to be cheaper, and Roman/civilised need to be more expensive....
Some factions in the game have a really small selection of troops. Parthia, for example, has some really good horse units but they have too few troops in general. It seems CA focused on a few factions and many are really underdeveloped. Some, like the Gauls, only have generic troops with no real specialty.
Yes, Parthia's infantry is completely worthless....if you are going to make the skirmish AI "run to map edge and get stuck" then you could at least have given parthia better troops....
Good? Feared? They are completely obsolete by the time depicted in the game. That's like creating a Napoleon: Total War game and making knights the most powerful unit in the game. They do very well in sieges, especially defending. They can turn corners very easily, something they shouldn't be able to do. They have the speed of medium cavalry and insane melee and they can easily run down skirmishers and support missile fire.
Obsolete suggests its no longer effective in modern warfare. With the chariot archer we have a light platform being pulled by "two" well trained horses with a dedicated driver for it. Then you have two elite archers riding on it. Specifically speaking how is this no longer effective? I can understand how gunpowder eventually brought about making cavalry obsolete, but I fail to see how chariot archers are made into a thing of the past when a Phalanx crawls up to it.
Another thing I dont get is how it seems slingers with their comparatively low missile attack seem to murder chariots quite well.
I always thought the problem with Egypt was its cash cow regions, and the threat range of it's neighbours. It really doesn't have anyone but the Seleucids to challenge them and as if they don't have enough to contend with already. They don't border with anyone else for some time. You can't count the Numidians. This allows Egg to concentrate its forces and eventually get even more rich.
When I was playing the Seleucids I admit Egg was raping my butt. When I was able to field war elephants and hire camel warriors I smoked Egg with ease. War elephants arrow fire killed the chariots, and the Bedouins counter charged the Desert cavalry. Unfortunately the Seleucid AI doesn't seem to employ this and gets creamed.
I do completely agree and support with any who suggests unit prices needs adjusting. Thats what I think we need to be discussing here. Some unit prices are just off the wagon. They were kinda screwy in MTW too. I mean a unit of Horse archers upkeep being 110 (large size) is silly. A man and a horse should have a minimum upkeep cost of at least that of a skirmisher of 170? As chariots, should have a higher upkeep.
i agree with most of this stuff, but ph. bowmen are not overpowered (in the campaign) for the simple reason that they take two rounds to produce, and high tech.
chosen archer warband take 1 round and lower tech, and are about as good.
It seems CA focused on a few factions and many are really underdeveloped. Some, like the Gauls, only have generic troops with no real specialty.
Not trying to be a dick or anything Andrew, but whats up with that statement? Ever use Forester warband Archers?
Not trying to be a dick or anything Andrew, but whats up with that statement? Ever use Forester warband Archers?
His basic point is right. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though. rather they devote more time to, e.g. the battle ui, then develping x more factions. I think there's plenty of diversity as things stand.
I certainly don't agree about the overpowering units. Use of the right tactics is needed.
However, the spears vs cavalry is valid, and the hoplites are definately problematic.
I looked at all the faction unit lineups. Some, like the Scythians, have around 4 types of horse archers. Pontus has light javelin cavalry, heavy javelin cavalry, a few other unique units. Some, like Gaul, have only 1 or 2 units that are truly unique to them while some have tons of unique units. I was disappointed with Parthia's selection of cavalry. Sure, they are powerful but there's too few of them.
As for chariots, it wasn't the phalanx that made them obsolete. It is cavalry. Cavalry are faster and more manueverable. Historically, chariots are easily chased down and destroyed by light cavalry. They could easily separate the horses from the chariot, which would render the unit as just a regular archer unit, not to mention the momentum would hurt the guys riding the chariots. In this game, the melee ability of the scythes attached to the wheels of the chariots kill light cavalry really fast. Also, chariots have the speed of medium cavalry and the same manueverability, which is not true.
Yes, Parthia's infantry is completely worthless....if you are going to make the skirmish AI "run to map edge and get stuck" then you could at least have given parthia better troops....
Just like in history. Parthia had great horsearchers and great cataphracts, but Parthian infantry was largely peasatn levies - crappy and totally unable to stand up to Roman legionnaires. Parthia shouldn't get great infantry because they didn't have it. But they do have great cavalry - why don't you complain about Roman cavalry being crappy because it is compared to Parthia? :)
Grifman
I did say that chariots die under archer fire. However, they could charge the archers and they have the speed to do it.
And then your archers run behind your legion/phalanx and bye bye goes the chariot :) Again it's not that it's overpowered, it's simple tactics which people are not handing correctly.
Also, Egyptians have the best archers in the game and you'll lose the archer vs. archer duel if the enemy simply sits his chariot behind the archers.
Which is why you bring artillery along as the Romans - I can pound their slower moving archer infantry again and again before they even get into ranch. The Egyptian can't - and in a credit to the AI - won't just sit there when I start hitting it with artillery - it is smarter than that. It has to come out "to play" :) In addition I'll concentrate fire from two archer units on any one chariot/archer unit until it routes while the AI spread it's arrow barrages. Again, specific units, specific tactics for specific enemies. That's all it comes down to. Chariots are NOT overpowered because I can beat them EVERY time.
The AI does have some moments when it looks like it actually knows what it's doing.
It tries really hard :) The suicidal chariot charges under hails of arrows from my archer auxila usually does it in though :)
A problem is besieging the Egyptians. The chariots are way too manueverable on the city streets and archers aren't very effective in sieges.
Just line up your legion in a street with archers behind them and they'll take out chariots everytime.
Missile cavalry die quickly when caught by light cavalry. Chariots, however, kill tons of light cavalry in the process. Even camels die in droves in a melee to them. Their melee ability is too high. They're just way too cost effective and way too powerful compared to what they were historically.
Are we talking history or gameplay wise. Yes, chariots were obsolete by the time of the game so their being powerful is unhistorical. But we were discussing gamplay right? :) And in that respect, though they are powerful, they are not uber-units - they can be beaten because I do it all the time, every time, with the right units and right tactics.
Grifman
Red Harvest
10-10-2004, 19:47
Actually, I've read some stuff that indicates that improved infantry in "barbarian" (meaning not chariot ruled) areas finally learned how to counter chariots. Around 1200 BC most ot the great chariot dynasties were conquered.
Grifman, I can counter chariots too, but that doesn't mean they make sense. Speed and mobility wise they don't play right. With the battle speed we have, they can be unreasonably hard to fight. One of my toughest fights was a few chariot archers, two pharaoh's bowmen, some axemen and some spearmen. I had a big hardened powerful force, but those chariots caused mayhem. I won a Phyric victory.
One chariot unit can usually be countered fairly well. But two combined with super bowmen was just a mess, with chariots flying in and out of the line routing weakened units, and not being chased down despite concerted efforts on my part. I had faced them before so I knew how to counter them. Of course I had no real archers in my faction...so your suggested tactics were absolutely non-starters. Most Western factions do not get archers early on. Even if I had a unit or two of elite merc archers, they would have been completely outgunned by the best archers in the game.
I'm discussing both. I'd like all the units in the game to function close to how they did historically. Whatever historically countered them should counter them in this game as well.
Sure, you can counter every unit in the game. The question is, is what the unit brings to the table proportionate to what it costs? Can you honestly tell me why a desert axeman who has better stats than the early legionary cohort costs less? The pila aren't that powerful to make them more expensive. Can you also tell me why the barely more powerful Pontic chariot archers cost 1060 vs. 570 for the Egyptian chariot archers?
I've used onagers. They don't do that much damage before the enemy closes in, though sometimes the stupid AI allows me to use all my boulders with impunity.
I've played Starcraft and Warcraft3. My definition of overpowered isn't something which beats everything else. If something is simply way more effective vs. what it costs, it is overpowered even if it has a counter. The time in the game when it is available is also a factor. You're beating the Egyptians' chariots/archers combo with more expensive, higher tech units because the Romans start so far away from them. You're also taking advantage of AI stupidity to counter them. Even if I'm just playing the AI, I'd like to play a game where I could counter a unit effectively if it was played by a human.
I could counter chariots as well but they are harder to counter than most units in the game. They also are a harder counter to units they do well against compared to other in game counters. To echo Red Harvest, they don't play right. What rendered them obsolete should be able to counter them the most effectively.
I'm discussing both. I'd like all the units in the game to function close to how they did historically. Whatever historically countered them should counter them in this game as well.
Then chariots shouldn't be in the game at all, except for the Britains. No one else was using them in the Med world. CA included them to ahistorically, as they did with most of the Egyptian units, since Egypt was governed by the Ptolomies, a Macdonian regime. You can't argue anything historically with they Egyptian faction because they aren't portrayed historically. And gameplay vs. history are two separate arguments - you seem to mix them whenever it suits you. Let's just talk one or the other so we can keep the arguments straight :)
Sure, you can counter every unit in the game. The question is, is what the unit brings to the table proportionate to what it costs? Can you honestly tell me why a desert axeman who has better stats than the early legionary cohort costs less?
Is there a further upgrade to the axeman? Early legionnaries are just that - you can then go to legion chain to regular legions to to praetorians to urban cohorts. If the Egyptians don't have a true further upgrade, then they're in trouble. They have a unit that is cheap, but stays flat with no tech movement upwards. You can't just compare unit to unit, but look at what happens over time.
The pila aren't that powerful to make them more expensive.
They seem pretty powerful to me. Two throws can whittle an opposing unit down by 10% minimum. I've seen plenty of units, exposed to artillery and archer fire route when they get within pila range and get hit - I'm talking those fearsome desert axemen btw :)
Can you also tell me why the barely more powerful Pontic chariot archers cost 1060 vs. 570 for the Egyptian chariot archers?
Nope, can't tell you that, but I can kill them both easily, that I can tell you :)
I've used onagers. They don't do that much damage before the enemy closes in, though sometimes the stupid AI allows me to use all my boulders with impunity.
They do fine for me, outranging any Egyptian archers you keep complaining about :)
I've played Starcraft and Warcraft3. My definition of overpowered isn't something which beats everything else. If something is simply way more effective vs. what it costs, it is overpowered even if it has a counter.
So you've played some RTS games with VERY limited factions and VERY limited units. What you have 3 factions in each of those, maybe 2 dozen units each, something like that. While in this game you have a dozen or so factions each with their own units? That's alot harder to balance.
I'd also say the other problem is your perspective. You're talking about RTS game where you have units and counters to units but where integrated battles with specific orders of battle don't exist - at least not to the extent they do in RTW. RTW doesn't play that way. You just can't look at individual units, but what they bring to your individual army as a whole. Your army is greater than the sum of it's parts if you know how to bring it all together combined arms. It's not unit X counters unit Y, but how units X+Y+Z can counter units A+B+C if used properly.
The time in the game when it is available is also a factor. You're beating the Egyptians' chariots/archers combo with more expensive, higher tech units because the Romans start so far away from them.
No, I've beaten them with Hastiti and Princeps and regular archers. Exactly where other than saying I've used onagers or archer auxila have I mentioned a higher tech unit?
You're also taking advantage of AI stupidity to counter them.
Nope, other than the suiciding generals - which is what I meant when I said "suicide charges" - sorry if that wasn't clear - I don't think I mentioned stupid AI or exploiting the AI. I generally don't try to exploit AI weakness when it is something I can control or manipulate.
Even if I'm just playing the AI, I'd like to play a game where I could counter a unit effectively if it was played by a human.
So do I, so where exactly did I say I exploited the AI please? Again, the suicide charge refers to the AI generals which I have no control over. Chariots in general don't suicide - they are a pain, but they are meant to be a pain in the game. They and the axemen are really the only two things the Egyptians have going for them.
I could counter chariots as well but they are harder to counter than most units in the game.
Why? I just laid out above how to counter them. Point is, which you seem to be forgetting is that they and axemen are the only two good Egyptian units. They should be the most difficult to counter. If they aren't then what are going to be the good units for the Egyptians? What is left for them really?
They also are a harder counter to units they do well against compared to other in game counters. To echo Red Harvest, they don't play right. What rendered them obsolete should be able to counter them the most effectively.
You're going back to history here and mixing arguments. If you're talking history, the whole Egyptian faction as presented is ahistorical, so let's not just stop at chariots :)
Grifman
Actually, I've read some stuff that indicates that improved infantry in "barbarian" (meaning not chariot ruled) areas finally learned how to counter chariots. Around 1200 BC most ot the great chariot dynasties were conquered.
Yes, but the game only models history loosely at best. Chariots and the Egyptians as portrayed are ahistorical.
Grifman, I can counter chariots too, but that doesn't mean they make sense. Speed and mobility wise they don't play right. With the battle speed we have, they can be unreasonably hard to fight. One of my toughest fights was a few chariot archers, two pharaoh's bowmen, some axemen and some spearmen. I had a big hardened powerful force, but those chariots caused mayhem. I won a Phyric victory.
They are among the Egyptians best units. Why should any victory against them be other than tough. I can see it now - chariots being weak and we'd all be screaming that the Egyptians are pushovers, beef them up, CA! :)
One chariot unit can usually be countered fairly well. But two combined with super bowmen was just a mess, with chariots flying in and out of the line routing weakened units, and not being chased down despite concerted efforts on my part. I had faced them before so I knew how to counter them.
And you won as you stated. It was just tough. Well, why shouldn't it be? I don't understand this line of reasoning. Do you want easy victories?
Of course I had no real archers in my faction...so your suggested tactics were absolutely non-starters.
Problem number one :)
Most Western factions do not get archers early on. Even if I had a unit or two of elite merc archers, they would have been completely outgunned by the best archers in the game.
Huh, Romans and Greeks both have archers early on - who exactly are you talking about?
Problem number two - please note, my tactics don't call for "a unit or two", I said a minimum of 4, up to 6 and that is with artillery, so you need more if you don't have onagers. I can't be blamed if you think 4 to 6 archers with 2 onagers means "a unit or two" :)
Grifman
I'm mixing arguments because I believe the two go hand in hand. Gameplay should be based on a certain amount of realism. Even if the Egyptian lineup is historically anachronistic because CA used Old Kingdom units, there's still no reason why they shouldn't have the same strengths and weaknesses as Old Kingdom units. In MTW, after all, the late Catholic units were vastly better armored and equipped than the late Egyptian units. CA balanced them simply by making the Egyptian units cost much, much less.
Your assumption is that if you can beat it, then it is balanced. However, you are a much better general than the AI. If the situation is reversed, you'd find using the Egyptians to be much easier than beating them. It's hardly true that Egyptians don't have anything else other than chariots. Their archers are better than your archers. The Pharaoh's bowmen are extremely powerful and you seem to be forgetting them. You have onagers. They have onagers as well. You have legionaires. Their desert axemen are powerful and cheap. They may be not as powerful as your most powerful cohorts but their cost makes up for it. Every single unit you used to counter chariots, the Egyptians have a similar or better version. If you play yourself, one using Romans and on using Egyptians, same denarii army costs, the Egyptian side will win a majority of the time. And what if you're playing as a different faction? The Romans don't have overpowered units like the Egyptians but they have a good selection of units and few weaknesses. The Parthians and Seleucids will have a much harder time and so will many of the other factions.
You never also responded to my charges that the costs of the Egyptian units are way out of line of their power. Elephants are also counterable. However, do you think they would be balanced if their cost is also 570? They are as counterable at 2490 denarii as they are at 570 denarii, after all.
Your taking advantage of the AI stupidity because you can clearly outthink it. You win by focus firing. If they can focus fire as well, will you come up on top? I'll give you a scenario. You have onagers. They have onagers as well. Their troops are better and more numerous than yours on a cost basis. Whatever your onagers focus fire on, they'll focus fire on the similar part of your army. They then move their archers forward to engage your archers in a duel. If they use focus fire as well, you'll lose. If you commit your legions, they have their desert axemen, who'll either win against your legions by strength or by numbers. Their chariots could help in firing arrows and could take out your cavalry and perform flanking attacks on infantry better than your cavalry can.
Think as the commander of the Romans. How can you counter the Egyptian army? Then think as the commander of the Egyptians. Is there seriously anything the Romans can do that you, now that you're in command of the Egyptians, can't do better and cheaper?
Red Harvest
10-11-2004, 03:14
By Western factions I meant primarily the following I have been using: Carthage, Spain, and Numidia. I've played the Romans a few times but I didn't have Roman archers all that early, although the Romans are very teched up compared to others.
Archery has been overly effective from what I've seen. A defining moment was when I watched a single volley from a single archer unit kill 14 or 16 Balearic slingers at max range. Even with a mass of vanilla archers as you suggest I would have had my hands full vs. the pharoah's bowmen with their extended range. I'm not sure I would have won the archery duel, it would have been very costly and I still would have been in for brawl. I had a large, strong cav army with lots of experience and a good general. It should have had a field day running down the superbowmen and chariots.
My most recent chariot experience was even worse. Try Numidia vs. those Egyptians...no archers for you, and no economy, so you can't lose any battles. Here comes the Egyptian steam roller...err...chariot army. I managed to beat one army because it was poorly constructed, three spear phalanx units, and a single chariot. And I bought every merc I could for the next one, but three chariots were far more than my poor army could handle.
Onagers, don't get me started on their high yield warheads. I only see them as being "fair" for seiges. The disappointing thing about RTW is the preponderance of wonder units. Have a problem with a wonder unit lacking its historical limitations? Answer is to buy another wonder unit equally lacking. Uggghhh.
Morindin
10-11-2004, 03:20
The Romans have problems with all archer based factions, not just Egyptians.
However, those Egyptian chariot archers are absurdly powerful and uncatchable. You can whittle them down with archers (provided you have them) but they do an insane amount of damage in the mean time.
Im still in two minds about desert axemen - havnt had enough experiance with them yet. Im not sure why they have the defence they do, it seems a little high to me.
Problems? The Romans actually have good cavalry. I just ran the archers down. Even pre-Marius, you can get Legionary cavalry. After Marius, the Praetorian cavalry is one of the most powerful in the game. Equites and Roman cavalry are both serviceable, cheap cavalry.
Archery isn't overly effective, for me. If you shoot armored hoplites or even standard hoplites, they take few casualties with every volley. Against armored hoplites, even Cretan archers have trouble killing them. What they are very effective against are unarmored targets. Armored targets don't take much casualties.
Morindin
10-11-2004, 04:41
Problems? The Romans actually have good cavalry. I just ran the archers down. Even pre-Marius, you can get Legionary cavalry. After Marius, the Praetorian cavalry is one of the most powerful in the game. Equites and Roman cavalry are both serviceable, cheap cavalry.
Archery isn't overly effective, for me. If you shoot armored hoplites or even standard hoplites, they take few casualties with every volley. Against armored hoplites, even Cretan archers have trouble killing them. What they are very effective against are unarmored targets. Armored targets don't take much casualties.
Most late game archer units, such as chosen archer warbands, and so forth, eat all Roman Cavalry+ for breakfast in melee in a 1v1 situation.
I swarmed over most of the other races with ease in my campaign game, and I came to a scretching halt against Pontus/Scythia/etc.
I did have an amusing situation (for my enemy) in a multiplayer game last night when I had three units of upgraded cretin archers firing on one stationary unit of upgraded sacred band. 5-6 volleys later from all three units and maybe one sacred band had died :)
But besides that - im not really talking about normal archers, rather the Egyptian Chariot archers.
Praetorian Cavalry are 12 attack 22 defense. They're only slightly worse than urban cohorts. Of course, there are fewer of them, but I doubt any archer unit in the game can beat them in a melee.
If you're talking about the Egyptian chariot archers, I agree. They have a ridiculously overpowered melee attack. They also have the same mass as an elephant, in the game, which means they can break infantry formation as well as an elephant.
DisruptorX
10-11-2004, 05:11
Here's One:
Numidian Infantry have 200 upkeep, but they have a normal unit size and are one of the worst units in the game. ~:confused: Other units like them(eastern infantry) are 170.
At least they have 8 morale. That's still very high, however.
I'm playing Parthia and I only use their infantry for battering gates and walls. I use the cavalry afterwards. The other primarily cavalry nations like Scythia have better infantry and a better selection of cavalry. I'm going to have fun with Cataphracts soon, though, which is the point of me choosing Parthia, anyway. That and the 2 horse archers units they have. Scythia has 4 different horse archer units, though.
I'm mixing arguments because I believe the two go hand in hand. Gameplay should be based on a certain amount of realism. Even if the Egyptian lineup is historically anachronistic because CA used Old Kingdom units, there's still no reason why they shouldn't have the same strengths and weaknesses as Old Kingdom units. In MTW, after all, the late Catholic units were vastly better armored and equipped than the late Egyptian units. CA balanced them simply by making the Egyptian units cost much, much less.
No you can't mix them both. They have to be two separate arguments. If you argue historically, then we can end it here because the Egyptians as portrayed in the game did not exist at the time. Game over, debate over. CA is plain wrong. You want Egyptian NK units? Then the Egyptians will lose everytime, since NK units fought from chariots, already obsolete, and Egypt was conquered by armies of the type (Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian) that Western style infantry armies had defeated again and again. If Persia was second rate, then a NK army would be third rate. You can't argue historically and then expect balanced gameplay - you can't have it both ways. A NK Egyptian army would be a walkover.
So either argue history or gameplay, you can't logically argue both. And since history means the Egyptians would be a worthless weak faction, you're really just left with gameplay. So drop the history - you're going nowhere fast with it.
Your assumption is that if you can beat it, then it is balanced.
Maybe not since I can beat them 100% of the time :) They certainly aren't uberunits like you think they are.
However, you are a much better general than the AI. If the situation is reversed, you'd find using the Egyptians to be much easier than beating them.
Maybe so, but it is the AI that I am playing against. That's the balancing that has to be done. Note we're talking the campaign game here, not MP. So the game has to be balanced with me playing against the AI. The argument was that chariots were overpowered, but I've shown they can be beat, again and again, quite handily.
It's hardly true that Egyptians don't have anything else other than chariots. Their archers are better than your archers. The Pharaoh's bowmen are extremely powerful and you seem to be forgetting them.
No, I never said mine were better. I just beat them with what I had.
You have onagers. They have onagers as well. You have legionaires. Their desert axemen are powerful and cheap. They may be not as powerful as your most powerful cohorts but their cost makes up for it. Every single unit you used to counter chariots, the Egyptians have a similar or better version.
Cost is largely irrelevant. Both units take one turn to build, armies can only have so many units. If I have plenty of cash - and I always do, then whether my unit costs more is irrelevant - I can always bring an equal number of high priced units to battle to beat his cheaper unit. But I can turn your cost argument against you - I suspect Roman archers are cheaper than your Pharoah archers and your chariot archers - so what if I "spam" the Egyptians with cheap archers :)
If you play yourself, one using Romans and on using Egyptians, same denarii army costs, the Egyptian side will win a majority of the time.
But I'm not playing myself so that is irrelevant. Your argument wasn't some theoretical issue with you playing yourself, you were saying that chariots were overpowered because how hard they were to beat in the game. Since I've shown they aren't hard to beat in the game, that says you are mistaken. If you want to change the argument now, we can do that, but that's not what the original argument was, was it? :)
And what if you're playing as a different faction? The Romans don't have overpowered units like the Egyptians but they have a good selection of units and few weaknesses. The Parthians and Seleucids will have a much harder time and so will many of the other factions.
Can't speak for the Parthians, but the Seleucids have many similar units to the Romans and more. They're next on my agenda, having just finished the Scipii campaign. And I suspect a cataphract/horsearcher army of the Parthians would do pretty good against the Egyptians.
You never also responded to my charges that the costs of the Egyptian units are way out of line of their power. Elephants are also counterable. However, do you think they would be balanced if their cost is also 570? They are as counterable at 2490 denarii as they are at 570 denarii, after all.
Look again, I did respond. I said that I thought pila make the legionnaire a good buy but that I had no solution for the Pontic chariot vs the Egyptian one. How is that not an anwer? :)
I don't think Egyptian axemen are as powerful as elephants so you comparison is ludicrous. I don't find the cost of axemen to be out of line. They are a deadend - Egyptians have no equivalent of higher level legion units - you didn't answer that point yourself :)
Your taking advantage of the AI stupidity because you can clearly outthink it.
Ok now we're getting silly. Of course that I can outthink, but no reasonable person considers that a cheat or exploit. If I'm not allowed to play the game, then we'll just put the AI in command of my units and sit back and watch what happens. That would be alot of fun now, wouldn't it? This argument is getting silly.
You win by focus firing. If they can focus fire as well, will you come up on top? I'll give you a scenario. You have onagers. They have onagers as well. Their troops are better and more numerous than yours on a cost basis. Whatever your onagers focus fire on, they'll focus fire on the similar part of your army. They then move their archers forward to engage your archers in a duel. If they use focus fire as well, you'll lose. If you commit your legions, they have their desert axemen, who'll either win against your legions by strength or by numbers. Their chariots could help in firing arrows and could take out your cavalry and perform flanking attacks on infantry better than your cavalry can.
The problem is, this doesn't happen in the game. They balance the game with you playing against the AI, not the AI against the AI, or me playing against myself. Your argument is irrelevant. It's a theortical argument that doesn't matter unless you just want to argue it. But that's not your original argument. It was how chariots and axeman just tore up everything. Well they don't.
Think as the commander of the Romans. How can you counter the Egyptian army? Then think as the commander of the Egyptians. Is there seriously anything the Romans can do that you, now that you're in command of the Egyptians, can't do better and cheaper?
Sorry, you're playing the bait and switch game. Start with one argument, then see it not go well, then move to another, it not go well, then switch to another. We started with gameplay, I showed that they aren't ovepowered within the game, then you moved to history, which I showed was irrelevant, now you're moving to a theoretical me playing myself. Sorry, Homey don't play that game. I'll leave you to argue with yourself.
Grifman
Whenever a question of balance comes up in these games, there is invariably one person who says "xxxx isn't overpowered - I can beat them 100% of the time!"
Unfortunately this individual never realizes what exactly it means for a unit to be overpowered - which is, it requires effort and resources to defeat the unit far out of proportion to what it takes to field the unit. A 500g chariot unit should not take 3 units of archers and a unit of artillery to defeat. That's pretty clearly imbalanced.
So that deals with chariots problems under gameplay only concerns.
Next we come to historical concerns - one of the greatest strengths of the total war series is the units do what they did historically.
Let us lay aside the fact that egypt having chariot heavy armies right now is not historically correct, and instead focusing on making the performance of chariots historically correct. That is, the chariots should handle and perform like chariots back then did. No turning on a dime, no super accurate archer fire mowing down everyone, and no slaughtering cavalry (their counter) in melee.
SpencerH
10-11-2004, 15:37
I found Egyptian chariots to be very effective in a melee vs Greek cav but would run from the cav (and were therefore nullified by them) until after my phalanx and chariots had chopped up the remainder of the Egyptian armies. By the time the chariots had stopped runnng and killed my Greek cav, the battle was over.
Lord of the Isles
10-11-2004, 15:37
So either argue history or gameplay, you can't logically argue both. And since history means the Egyptians would be a worthless weak faction, you're really just left with gameplay. So drop the history - you're going nowhere fast with it.
Sorry, you're playing the bait and switch game. Start with one argument, then see it not go well, then move to another, it not go well, then switch to another. We started with gameplay, I showed that they aren't ovepowered within the game, then you moved to history, which I showed was irrelevant, now you're moving to a theoretical me playing myself. Sorry, Homey don't play that game. I'll leave you to argue with yourself.
Since some of us seem to have trouble following the rules, it would help if you posted the Grifman System for Allowable Discussion in full.
While I can see the need to stop Egypt being a pushover, I have two problems with its troops. Seeing chariots behave like hovertanks really hurts the authenticity of the game. I can suspend disbelief sufficiently to live with a thousand year out-of-date Egyptian army but not enough to watch its units do ludicrous things. And secondly, Egypt at the moment overpowers its AI neighbours in every game I've seen. Its cash rich provinces are no doubt a factor too but since they at least are historically correct, I'd rather its units were toned down.
I apologise in advance for all the Grifman rules of debating I've broken.
His basic point is right. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though. rather they devote more time to, e.g. the battle ui, then develping x more factions. I think there's plenty of diversity as things stand.
Selection may not be there, true, but has anyone considered that perhaps thats the way it's was intended? Like for similiar reasons why they cannot develop to level 5.
Red Harvest
10-11-2004, 17:14
Whenever a question of balance comes up in these games, there is invariably one person who says "xxxx isn't overpowered - I can beat them 100% of the time!"
Unfortunately this individual never realizes what exactly it means for a unit to be overpowered - which is, it requires effort and resources to defeat the unit far out of proportion to what it takes to field the unit. A 500g chariot unit should not take 3 units of archers and a unit of artillery to defeat. That's pretty clearly imbalanced.
So that deals with chariots problems under gameplay only concerns.
Next we come to historical concerns - one of the greatest strengths of the total war series is the units do what they did historically.
Let us lay aside the fact that egypt having chariot heavy armies right now is not historically correct, and instead focusing on making the performance of chariots historically correct. That is, the chariots should handle and perform like chariots back then did. No turning on a dime, no super accurate archer fire mowing down everyone, and no slaughtering cavalry (their counter) in melee.
VERY, very well said. Any time you have to use a quarter of your army to counter a single unit, and micromanage the engagement, something is a bit fishy. It could be historically accurate...but it better be a true super unit, not chariots.
Unfortunately this individual never realizes what exactly it means for a unit to be overpowered - which is, it requires effort and resources to defeat the unit far out of proportion to what it takes to field the unit. A 500g chariot unit should not take 3 units of archers and a unit of artillery to defeat. That's pretty clearly imbalanced.
Some people believe one particular unit should be an equal counter to said unit, denarii for denarii or there abouts. In traditional RTS games this makes good gameplay sense but RTW is anything but. They also think all factions should have a unit that counters everything that may come their way. The game uses both history and gameplay measures to make the whole experience enjoyable so at times it does contradict itself. But the end result is what counts.
I enjoy both the challenge when fighting these units and the power they yield when I'm using them. When I face them, it makes me think tactically, and the risk of defeat only adds excitement. My best and most memorable battles have been these situations. If its too hard, maybe I should lower the difficulty level back one notch. Why do have to always play at veryhard? On the other hand when I have access to these units I relish the opportunities they allow to crush my enemy like bugs. Whether its with elephants, chariot archers, heavy cavalry, late legions, onagers, etc, etc, (all uber units that need fixing go here), etc, etc.
Some factions don't have a fleshed out roster. Throw in a little bit of history to make you use better strategy to deal with this weakness and you got gravy gameplay folks. Might not have all the tools you need, but ones you have are great. Parthia and Armenia is a good example of this.
Rock, paper and scissors makes balance, but it's not always history and it's not always fun. It's harder sometimes to play a certain faction, or fight certain units, it's what makes a good game. I honestly believe this is CA's intent and in contrast to MTW, they done great.
Maybe so, but it is the AI that I am playing against. That's the balancing that has to be done. Note we're talking the campaign game here, not MP. So the game has to be balanced with me playing against the AI. The argument was that chariots were overpowered, but I've shown they can be beat, again and again, quite handily.
Overpowered is overpowered, not unbeatable. The game should be balanced whatever side you pick. If you pick the Egyptians and can steamroll through everything with ease, then they are also overpowered. I like the fact that factions have different starting positions and some are more powerful than others but I want the units to have at least some semblance of mp-level balance.
Cost is largely irrelevant. Both units take one turn to build, armies can only have so many units. If I have plenty of cash - and I always do, then whether my unit costs more is irrelevant - I can always bring an equal number of high priced units to battle to beat his cheaper unit. But I can turn your cost argument against you - I suspect Roman archers are cheaper than your Pharoah archers and your chariot archers - so what if I "spam" the Egyptians with cheap archers :)
For you, it is irrelevant mainly because you have a powerful empire by the time you reach Egypt. For nearby factions who are cash strapped at the start, it's a big problem. Check the stats of the archers. Roman Archers cost 190. Egyptian Archers cost 250, have the same stats but are 50% larger in size. You won't win that one by spamming. They'll have more than you at the same cost. Archer Auxilia cost 430. Pharaoh's Bowmen cost 680 but has more than double the armor (3 vs. 7), more than double the morale and more than 50% better missile rating (9 vs. 14). In contrast Desert Axemen costs 560 and Urban Cohort 860. The Axemen have 10 attack 18 defense. The Cohort has 14 attack 24 defense.
But I'm not playing myself so that is irrelevant. Your argument wasn't some theoretical issue with you playing yourself, you were saying that chariots were overpowered because how hard they were to beat in the game. Since I've shown they aren't hard to beat in the game, that says you are mistaken. If you want to change the argument now, we can do that, but that's not what the original argument was, was it? :)
That was part of my contention. Just because I didn't explicitly state it back then doesn't mean I'm changing the argument. I'll state it explicitly right now. I want to have some semblance of mp-level balance on the units in the sp campaign. Not necessarily completely balanced, just not having some units be way more cost effective than others. Are you sure you're not working for either the Bush or Kerry campaign?
Can't speak for the Parthians, but the Seleucids have many similar units to the Romans and more. They're next on my agenda, having just finished the Scipii campaign. And I suspect a cataphract/horsearcher army of the Parthians would do pretty good against the Egyptians.
Cataphracts are effective but expensive (890 denarii). You also need large city (12,000 population) to start building them. Egyptian chariots need large town (2,000) and chariot archers, minor city (6,000). Horse archers cost 440, get shredded in a melee by chariot archers, barely outrun them, are just as manueverable, have fewer arrows and barely has half their missile rating (7 vs. 13). Persian cavalry fare better but are more expensive (780) than chariot archers. I won by taking advantage of my auto-replenishing general and sandwiching chariots between Persian cavalry. That and because the Seleucid AI is stupid, sending infantry army after infantry army that I'm building chevrons against. I lost tons of cavalry and camel riders attacking chariot archers from the flanks and the back. Their melee rating is that powerful.
Look again, I did respond. I said that I thought pila make the legionnaire a good buy but that I had no solution for the Pontic chariot vs the Egyptian one. How is that not an anwer? :)
I don't think Egyptian axemen are as powerful as elephants so you comparison is ludicrous. I don't find the cost of axemen to be out of line. They are a deadend - Egyptians have no equivalent of higher level legion units - you didn't answer that point yourself :)
Ok, sorry I didn't make myself clear. 570 is for the chariot archers, who have the same mass for a charge as the weakest elephant version. The elephants have way more staying power but the chariots, from what I read in the files, and are actually more lethal in a melee and in a charge.
Sorry, you're playing the bait and switch game. Start with one argument, then see it not go well, then move to another, it not go well, then switch to another. We started with gameplay, I showed that they aren't ovepowered within the game, then you moved to history, which I showed was irrelevant, now you're moving to a theoretical me playing myself. Sorry, Homey don't play that game. I'll leave you to argue with yourself.
You're the one making up rules as we go along. Rules that only you understand, agree with and follow. I believe that realism, historical accuracy and gameplay stand hand in hand. You may bend them here and there but you shouldn't completely break them and shatter them to pieces. Chariots aren't the only obsolete unit by this time frame. Phalanxes were as well. Their problem is being underpowered, however, both historically and gameplay wise. Again, if Egypt's units are obsolete by this time period, they could make it balanced by making them cheaper, a la MTW. They shouldn't make them both cheap and effective, however.
Morindin
10-11-2004, 21:37
You guys should check out the Realism Mod at TWcenter.
It tweaks and balances a lot of the factions, units( and removes the silly ones), and names. Egypt gets a big working over being completely changed to the Ptolemaic Empire, gaining more modern Egytian units, losing ancient ones, etc.
It also has numerous changes to the AI and includes the killspeed/run speed mods, I posted a link in the modding thread here.
On the discussion of balance here. I think single player is a poor way to judge the balance of a unit. For example, I had problems with Scythian chosen warband archers in single player. Is the unit "warband archer" overpowered? Probably not. It could have been the Scythian temple bonus that was overpowered, and nerfing the unit may nerf it for other races.
The best way to judge is multiplayer, if you're finding one unit there (where all things are equal) owning the battlefield in a combined arms situation (and not against its matchup) then yes it needs to be looked at. There is also the issue of histroical accuracy too, but Im no expert on that.
There is also the other side of the fence, a lot of people get their ass handed to them by a unit and cry out "unbalanced" because they simply dont know how to handle a particular unit, or let their opponent exercise the units strengths.
Units such as chariot archers do have a weakness, that is melee. But if you cant catch them you can never exploit their weakness, so really they dont. Playing against the AI you can trick it into being trapped in a melee (exploiting the skirmish feature), again, this is why singleplayer is a poor judge of balance. But multiplayer a human is not so stupid.
Actually, the chariot archers are strong in a melee. I get significant losses attacking them from the back.
Morindin
10-11-2004, 23:53
Actually, the chariot archers are strong in a melee. I get significant losses attacking them from the back.
Well there you go. ~:)
Ok. I'm off to find the modding thread here.
Mr. Juice
10-12-2004, 00:40
Actually, the chariot archers are strong in a melee. I get significant losses attacking them from the back.I'll second that. Even my Bedouin Camels (which have bonuses in the desert, and more importantly to chariots) and 10 star general 30-50 unit cavalry take tremendous losses meleeing with Chariot Archers. They also lose just about every time they fight them one-on-one as well.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.