Just some small suggestions ;)

[Maksimus]

For EB creators and those powerfull members that make the finall Yes:shame:

Ok.. let's go

First, I am playing Epeiros and I would like if Epeiros could use baracks of Macedonia because I like the unit options for Pella that I won't use because of time spent in investing .. so I invest in economy there..see? .. And Is it possible that you make MediumPhalanx enabled to build in Epeiros? I only have Elite and Native now.. Basiclly I am loosing my plans without medium.. Realy..They are effective and they cost lesser..

Second.. and this is a generall proposition.. I think it would be nice if you would enabled Army and Royal Barracks to most Factions at the start.. but making the building time for them 100% longer.. So in that way no one would actually hava an option to build Elite units unless he is rich .. Wich takes time..

But it would be very nice to have Elite Phalanx to build after you sack an enemy city? Yes? So in that way.. the gamer would have at least one Elite unit that ciould boost his Campaign Morall.. this way, many don't even get to elites before they start a new campaign..

And actually I realy belive it would be very good for play if there are just a bit more elephants in the Successors armies.. .. Right now.. we can got as far as India and not to see one.. am I wrong?..

And, I will finish with this .. I think it would be very good if you can use enemy barracks (like - Ptolomei to use Epeiros) to some ponit.. Like, If I gain as Aegypt .. a Macedonian Royal Barracks - I could train some Native Phalanx and Lower-valued Cavalry - but not Elites- if I would like to train elites than .. yes, I would have to build my own from the start..

What do you think?:shame:

[Thaatu]

About Pezhetairoi, in 0.81 they were available in Ambrakia, but they were removed in this version. I don't know exactly why, except that Pezhetairoi represent Macedonian foot companions, who probably didn't settle in Epirus. That being said, mainland Epirus has weaker phalangites than other successors, and you should change your tactics, not the recruitment areas, accordingly. An Epirote player should make more use of his Illyrian and other non-hellenistic units, until he annexes Macedonia.

The reason why you haven't encountered elephants could be that you conquered Antioch too soon. That, India and Bactria are the only places where Seleucids can recruit them.

About the shared barracks, I thought using them was kind of a cheat/exploit..? Can't tell for sure.

[keravnos]

And, I will finish with this .. I think it would be very good if you can use enemy barracks (like - Ptolomei to use Epeiros) to some ponit.. Like, If I gain as Aegypt .. a Macedonian Royal Barracks - I could train some Native Phalanx and Lower-valued Cavalry - but not Elites- if I would like to train elites than .. yes, I would have to build my own from the start..


I believe this happens already. And truth be told, the Pezhetairoi that Pyrrhos took with him in Italia were Makedonians (and mercs). I am not sure how the recruitment changed, but I am sure there was a reason for it to change.

[Treverer]

...
I am playing Epeiros and I would like if Epeiros could use baracks of Macedonia because I like the unit options for Pella that I won't use because of time spent in investing .. so I invest in economy there..see? .. And Is it possible that you make MediumPhalanx enabled to build in Epeiros? I only have Elite and Native now.. Basiclly I am loosing my plans without medium.. Realy..They are effective and they cost lesser..
Dear sir, the Epirote starting position is IMHO already very strong, at least for a Human player. Consider the mines of Pella & Dalminion, too.

Here's my point of view, why I consider the Epirote starting postion very strong:

- Pyrrhus and his army can conquer both Makedonia and Thessalia in turn one, thanks to the Elephantes Indikoi.
- After disbanding both the Elephantes and the Petekoterei (spelling ?), the budget is balanced. Both Pella and Dalminion have most valuable mines and more mines are in the vincinity. All modern-day Greece/Albania provinces have/can have ports, thus allowing the profitable sea trade.
- Makedonia and KH are at war with each other, giving Epiros some time to consolidate and to prepare for the complete conquest of Hellas.
- Taras can either be defended by building stone walls, by recruiting Archer/Slingers and by replacing the Hoplites units with Levy Phalanxes. Alternativly it can be abandoned by dispanding all the units and by destroying all the buildings, the later giving a lot of mnai to the budget.
- The gov-buildings provide nice boni with acceptable mali.

Now, adding the Pezhetairoi to Ambrakia's unit rooster would strenghten Epiros further more, both when played by a Human or the AI. IMHO the actual distribution of units offers us players enough possibilies for early (and easy) conquests.

Yours,
Treverer

P.S. I'm actually playing a Epirote campaign on H/M, and even a "Terrible Tactician" like me had no problem in conquering Hellas by turn 20-24. By turn 100, KH's long dead, Makedonia's still reduced to Lesbos and Epiros is on the offensive in Italy ...

[Pharnakes]

TBH, I have never really understood why Maks is aligned with Baktria and KH with Epiros.

Surely it would make more sense to have Maks and Epirotes share, and then the Baktrains and the KH could share, if it was needed to conserve building slots. Afterall, they are the only two factions who use classical and iphracratean hoplites as part of their factional rooster.

[pezhetairoi]

@ Treverer

Uh, sorry but...did you say Epeiros could conquer both Pella and -Thessaloniki-? o.o

[Treverer]

@ Treverer

Uh, sorry but...did you say Epeiros could conquer both Pella and -Thessaloniki-? o.o
Ooops, thank you for pointing me to that stupid error. I've corrected it.

[Maksimus]

Ok.
Main of my post was about.. exploatation of opponents barracks.. so you can't just boost your budget by destroying it - you will need to plan carefully.. That is first main thing i wanted to state

And the second and most important is to make army barracks available at the start for successor states and to make option of them to share their buildings.

Still, I don't think I have made myself clear - I was refering (if not to share the barracks) then to at least make some lower-end units available in enemies barracks to built..

So if I take Pella that has army barracks I would have an option to destroy them and build my own or to use them to some extent..
And it would be nice if you could use enemy barracks 'full' after you build your goverment? No?

[Thaatu]

Well I wouldn't call destroying other cultures' barracks an exploit, because building your own barracks costs more than what you'd gain from the sacking. Of course AI can't destroy buildings, so it's a moral question whether one chooses to destroy enemy barracks. Bear in mind establishing a military recruitment system isn't done in an instant. In a border province which switched sides repeatedly, like Judea between Ptolies and Seleucs, the people were familiar with both sides and served with both armies. That's represented by Ptoly and Seleuc barracks that have not been destroyed by either side. Bleep, I managed to confuse myself...

Let's try again.

In order for a faction to start recruiting units immediately after conquering a settlement, it needs to have owned the place previously and have built barracks there. If all the successor states shared their barracks it would mean that an unknown faction for the newly conquered peoples could recruit immediately from the populace, without pacifying the province or supressing the resistance, which wouldn't be too realistic.

[jhhowell]

Since the thread title is rather general, I hope I may piggyback on this thread. ~:)

I would like to suggest a tweak to the recruitment of Scythians in regional MICs. This almost exclusively affects Hayasdan, in practice. They can get Scythian horse-archers in the basic regional MIC, and riders (archers with some melee ability due to the lance) at level 2. My suggestion is that these two units be bumped up a MIC level, so Scythian recruitment would be foot archers at MIC-1, horse archers at MIC-2, and riders at MIC-3.

Reasons:
1. Easy access to horse archers makes Hayasdan campaigns easier than they would be otherwise. A handful of horse-archer units do wonders for squishing rebel stacks or the typical Seleucid mini-stacks invading your land.
2. Since Scythians are so easy to get, both Armenian Skirmisher Cavalry and Armenian Horse Archers are useless units. Javelin cavalry is far worse than horse archers, and the Armenian HA require a factional MIC-3 and cost more than the Scythians but have identical stats. If the Scythians took an extra MIC level to acquire, the jav cav becomes a plausible option for the early game*, and the Armenian HA might well be available in Armavir before Scythians can be recruited in Kotais or Mtmumble.

* = tangential suggestion: switch the starting unit of Aspet Hetselazor for a unit of Armenian Skirmisher Cavalry. That assures that the latter unit will see play, and since early game Hayasdan relies heavily on the bodyguards the loss of a unit of medium cavalry is not very significant.

[bovi]

It's a moral question whether one chooses to destroy enemy barracks. Bear in mind establishing a military recruitment system isn't done in an instant.
You should always destroy any barracks that you don't have the ability to use. It's unrealistic if the original owner retakes the place and can immediately recruit elites. Re-establishing the system might be easier than establishing it in the first place, but you've lost much of what the system consisted of as the place was taken by invaders.

[Maksimus]

You should always destroy any barracks that you don't have the ability to use. It's unrealistic if the original owner retakes the place and can immediately recruit elites. Re-establishing the system might be easier than establishing it in the first place, but you've lost much of what the system consisted of as the place was taken by invaders.

First of all, If you give me 5 members that after Destroying enemy barracks Build their owns - I will applause (this is not the same about Regional b's), because that is simply loss of time and money, and plus, you invest in your own barracks (in Homeland) UNLESS you Cheat?? maybe..
If you cheat in any way.. any realy, and this is for all that are in this thread - you have no real sence of my post.

Second, That prob where it is ''unrealistic if the original owner retakes the place and can immediately recruit elites'' is created by allowing CPU to bulid and have Army and Royal barracks in almost every city after .. I don't know.. 20 historic years.. That means it is realy bad for realisam and historic note that it is even available..

That is solved either by implementing 'CIty Mod' or making 10* longer construction time for barracks! And that wont 'give' cheap levies to CPU because CPU is not even building Elites all the time.. I have every proof for that..
- If you wont AI to use best units after building Army or Royal barracks you must DISABLE him to recruits 'lower-end' units after building Army or Royal B's..
So.. You see, this suggestions of mine are about dinamic's - Becaus you as a player can build Army And Royal barracks after 20 historic years while CPU has them (bcs of EBBS script) after 5 of 10..:wall:

My point is to Set construction times for Barracks *10 times and to make All Greek and Indo-Greek or Hellenic faction in general to use each other factions.. That is much more real that from what you stated Bovi..

These posts of mine are result of a simple wish to state my opinion of EB 1 - with a goal to make it better.. I realy like EB, so it is somewhat more pressure on me to express some of the solutins I have implemented in some of my mods - they worked very nice..

thank you :yes:

[Thaatu]

You should always destroy any barracks that you don't have the ability to use. It's unrealistic if the original owner retakes the place and can immediately recruit elites. Re-establishing the system might be easier than establishing it in the first place, but you've lost much of what the system consisted of as the place was taken by invaders.
I don't think it's that unrealistic. If you take a highly developed Pella, which is conquered by Epirus for a few turns, then taken back by Macs. If the barracks are destroyed, it'll take more than 7 ½ years to be able to recruit Silver Shields again. What could have realisticly happened during those few seasons that wiped out the memory of Argyraspidai? Personally, I destroy the previous barracks after a few years of occupation, unless I completely sack the place.


Maksimus, remember that if the barracks would take longer to build, you couldn't build anything else during that time. The AI would still focus on barracks, so it wouldn't prevent them from building them, but it would hamper their efforts to improve the settlements.

Edit: Oh, and remember that type 5 MIC can only be built with a type I government. That's sort of a "City mod" restriction, although I too am of the opinion that AI (especially Eleutheroi) developes its provinces too quickly. By 220 BCE there are almost no backwater places left, but that's a basic flaw in RTW.

[konny]

When we take "barracks" not as buildings but as the military organization of a province it wouldn't be unrealistic if all factions share the same local barracks, and if factions of the same culture (for example all Hellenic or all Cetlic-Germanic) would share the same factional barracks.

Local barracks represent a state of military constitution that is genuine to a given province or its population, regardless who controlls it. Therefore it should not be necessary for a new conquerer to establish these institutions as long as some one else had established them before, or there are this old that they are set at game start.

If, for example, the Sweboz conquer a Greek polis in EB they are able to raise Greek Hoplites; but only after installing the appropiate buildings/institutions. When you think it over, it doesn't make much sense, because they are able to raise Hoplites since the local militia is organized in a way that leads to the Hoplites as the major arm. The Hoplites were allready there before the Sweboz, or whoever, came. The Sweboz themselves have nothing of the kind to offer to a new conquered province that would lead to a Hoplites-Army.

So, you could create a recruitement system in which the basic units that about everyone can raise in a given province come from the lowest local MIC and that this local MIC is allready placed at the start. It would be correct, because these unis are the local militia that fight and are equipped in their traditional way, long since before the game starts.


That is not meant as a suggestion to redo the EB recruitement system, so no need for "we won't do"-answers.

[Thaatu]

It would require some persuation for Greek hoplites to join forces with a conquering Germanic horde. I don't think it'd be all that realistic that a Sweboz army conquers a Greek city, and immediately whole Hoplite regiments are willing to fight for the unknown invaders. Of course a few "traitors" (such as spies and diplomats in game) would be willing to help, but not thousands of soldiers.

[konny]

Honestly, I don't think that it is realistic for a Sweboz warband to conquer a Greek city at all. I had used the Sweboz as an example of a faction that had no idea of Hoplite warfare at all. More appropiate might be the Romans, but they did have Hoplites themselves.

On the other hand, I can't imagine what time consuming persuations a conquerer would have used to draft the subjected people to his army. In the end, he is the conquerer... :whip:

[Redmeth]

But in the end this engine is what it is and EB is made to fit a game... I don't know how many of you would be willing to play if we made regional MIC build times take 10 years+ or stuff like that, or type I govs taking 20 years or stuff like that...

EB should provide enjoyment while increasing people's historical knowledge for the real deal there's always books...

[Thaatu]

On the other hand, I can't imagine what time consuming persuations a conquerer would have used to draft the subjected people to his army. In the end, he is the conquerer... :whip:
The conqueror could force them to be crappy unreliable levies (done in game in three turns), but not true professional soldiers like hoplites, unless he was very politically savvy. Or just enough of a charismatic figure to gain their trust and affection instantly, but that can be represented by mercenaries.


But in the end this engine is what it is and EB is made to fit a game... I don't know how many of you would be willing to play if we made regional MIC build times take 10 years+ or stuff like that, or type I govs taking 20 years or stuff like that...
I miss the version where type I gov took 20 turns to build... :candle:

[Redmeth]

I miss the version where type I gov took 20 turns to build... :candle:

It would have been too long for the player vs AI (the AI get them free) and it slows the game a bit too much IMO, in reality to establish homeland even 20 turns (5 years) would be too soon I believe.

[konny]

The conqueror could force them to be crappy unreliable levies (done in game in three turns), but not true professional soldiers like hoplites, unless he was very politically savvy. Or just enough of a charismatic figure to gain their trust and affection instantly, but that can be represented by mercenaries.

That is a limitation of the game engine: The conquerer can either have Hoplites or he can not. There is no way to represent his popularity within this class of citizens that might hinder (or improve - the former leaders must not have been very popular among this class) his abilty to raise them.

On the other hand: He is the conquerer of that town and can raise an existing local militia force by simply ordering it.

There is no need for him to establish new military institutions, distribute new equipement or hold new training. That would be the case, for example, when the Romans conquer Taras and start to raise, equipe and train Legionars there (i.e. establishing of factional MICs).

[Tellos Athenaios]

I miss the version where type I gov took 20 turns to build... :candle:

Ah that's where you got your avatar from, isn't it? Or... was it yet another version back: 0.74?

Anywho currently there's the difference between Local & Factional troops therefore the difference between Instantly-Available the moment you grab that local MIC & the Long Road to Full Development.

In other words: the MIC sharing already occurs with regional barracks for an in game purpose. The Factional MIC sharing is AFAIK something from 0.8 version and it would mean a LOT of work to change it for no significant effect in game. Conquer the Koinon first if you feel the urge to share MICs, I'd say. :juggle:

[bovi]

I don't think it's that unrealistic. If you take a highly developed Pella, which is conquered by Epirus for a few turns, then taken back by Macs. If the barracks are destroyed, it'll take more than 7 ½ years to be able to recruit Silver Shields again. What could have realisticly happened during those few seasons that wiped out the memory of Argyraspidai? Personally, I destroy the previous barracks after a few years of occupation, unless I completely sack the place.

The highly developed Pella won't be as highly developed anymore after months or years of occupation where the new rulers are recreating a MIC in their own image, or even just laying waste to the infrastructure of the previous owners. While I am not sure what the differences are between Epeiros and Makedonia's MIC models in particular, I am sure that there were good reasons for not using the same.

You are talking about elites being available immediately upon recapture, elites who used superior equipment and were training a long time to be such elites. Why would their intermediate masters allow them to train in the enemy's fashion while under their rule? 7,5 years may or may not be a more precise time scale for rebuilding what was destroyed or damaged or killed during the occupation than no time at all. Still, it means a representation of the investment needed to rebuild to the previous level, considering getting men of eligible age to be soldiers, training them for years, getting blacksmiths trained (or imported) and the infrastructure those need, etc.

[Maksimus]

First of all. Konny, my hopes are with you on this, I agree in total with your stands on these issues .. - I belive, (and I will make that happen if EBs wont do it on EB 1.1) that regional barracks - are regional and should be in use for all no matter what faction to come along..

And yes, if we compare historic-and EB features at desc_start or at the Campaign start - we come to a fact that there are more then several buildings/walls/sewers/teathers/roads missing at the start of the game that are realy 'setback' in a way of gamplay..

Thaatu, sorry, but the game is simply made that way.. and if we look what Seleuc did after wining Lysimachus.. well .. he just forced his army right away to come at him to Macedon:shrug: and even when Ptolomy son killed Seleuc in his tent the army came to fight for him in Macedon - that is 3 hand.. like, even Lysimachus forced them to fight at the first place.. So~:smoking:
we can say that every attacker is in practise forcing his army to fight.
So, even if (for example) Celts are to gain Athenai, they would use Hellenic regional units atleast as a part of their 'new' enlighten tough on military warfare for Greece.. The same goes for Casse in India or Hellenes in Spain..

Redmeth, What do you mean by the AI getting something for free? You mean the EBBS script? Or auto process_cq ?...

My point here is.. that, all buildings should have as much as posible mutual :coffeenews: faction use.. Offcourse greeks are greeks and nomads are nomads, celts too,
But it is irational ussualy to have to build new regional barracks (for example) in a city that has 20000 population when it is gained from by Greeks from Greeks!
So, I will say shortly - At game start, there should have been more buildings already built (set in descr_start).. At least in Major Ancient centers.. By that pattern, main buildings (like Palaces and barrcks) should take much longer to construct (like in Docks values or x10), and mutual use of these (now rare buildings) by all factions should be wide! Exept some on barb-greek-roman directions.. When Romans and/or Greeks should not have the option to use barb barracks - but barb's could find more than they need to produce their own in Greek/Roman army barracks..

Sorry if this was to long.. :bow:

[Maksimus]

The highly developed Pella won't be as highly developed anymore after months or years of occupation where the new rulers are recreating a MIC in their own image, or even just laying waste to the infrastructure of the previous owners. While I am not sure what the differences are between Epeiros and Makedonia's MIC models in particular, I am sure that there were good reasons for not using the same.

You are talking about elites being available immediately upon recapture, elites who used superior equipment and were training a long time to be such elites. Why would their intermediate masters allow them to train in the enemy's fashion while under their rule? 7,5 years may or may not be a more precise time scale for rebuilding what was destroyed or damaged or killed during the occupation than no time at all. Still, it means a representation of the investment needed to rebuild to the previous level, considering getting men of eligible age to be soldiers, training them for years, getting blacksmiths trained (or imported) and the infrastructure those need, etc.

The point here is that you are playing a guessing game with us. Because -rebuilding what was destroyed or damaged or killed during the occupation is not a sure stand - you know , you acctually have an option to occupy, exterminate or enslave the population .. And it is bad to belive that any soldier or potentional soldier would be left in the city as it is! The new 'retaken' city would be using it's barracks with new men that would come in the city from the country or other cities.. see? Or we can guess that some 'native phalanx' would pop in elites ranks - while less trained population would fill in Native phalanx ranks..
So, nobody here belives that there would be guerila training camps in occupied town..
There are just wast examples of cities being recaptured ower and ower again during the Diadokhoi Wars.. The barrcks browser should be based on the 'Recrutment viewer' not on limits

[Thaatu]

Thaatu, sorry, but the game is simply made that way.. and if we look what Seleuc did after wining Lysimachus.. well .. he just forced his army right away to come at him to Macedon:shrug: and even when Ptolomy son killed Seleuc in his tent the army came to fight for him in Macedon - that is 3 hand.. like, even Lysimachus forced them to fight at the first place.. So~:smoking:
we can say that every attacker is in practise forcing his army to fight.
So, even if (for example) Celts are to gain Athenai, they would use Hellenic regional units atleast as a part of their 'new' enlighten tough on military warfare for Greece.. The same goes for Casse in India or Hellenes in Spain..
Taking someones army is easily represented by bribing. I guarantee you that if the (soon to be) Galatians would have conquered Athens, the Athenians wouldn't have joined them and fought in a classic hoplite formation against their own cousins. If the occupation streched out to decades, then the Athenians may have begun serving in their rulers' military (in gameplay terms until the sufficient MIC's were built). Hiring mercenaries is a great way to represent local allies that can be gained immediately, like in Hannibals voyage.

[blacksnail]

Maksimus, a lot of what you are talking about is not possible due to hardcoding, would not work with the way we handle recruitment in 1.0, or it directly goes against the very deliberate pace of exploration in EB. If I was a historian I might be able to say "and it does not follow historical examples," but I am not, so I won't. ~:)

[Maksimus]

I realy edited this thing myself.. it is just some export_descr*.txt and descr_start.. Do I am sure it would change the way EB is handling recruitment in 1.0, or that it directly goes against the very deliberate pace of exploration in EB - yes.. sorry, I like EB 1, it's just that I am a hard-coded veteran here and I make mods .. so
The perspective is this... the point actually,.. ok..
All factions are fighting for resources and 'trade routes' (like ports) for money, then they fight for Big Cities - why? - because they need the population to 'tax' and army to use - how? if there are no options for them.. unless to wait 20 years..
In my campaign with Epeiros I took Carthage and I can not build my units at all and there are 'royal bs' ... So now, I will have to give Carthage away, not using it's population for my army and then go in and extermianate all of them just to keep peace I can not hold (because there are 30 000 people)

So, my politic's is that you make a City Mod thing, like making Big Cities Big - or Biger in every aspect, and leave small to be samall by limiting their development only through construction time (that should be set to high, like for some docks)
- In that way, player will be able to finish his campaign while building elites rare (but from the start in his homeland) and still fight big battles for big enemy cities that are now only able to produce Elites.. Nice?
In that way Army barracks and Royal would be rare.. and realistic..

anyway.. I am tired now.. will post tomorow more:Zzzz:

[Maksimus]

Taking someones army is easily represented by bribing. I guarantee you that if the (soon to be) Galatians would have conquered Athens, the Athenians wouldn't have joined them and fought in a classic hoplite formation against their own cousins. If the occupation streched out to decades, then the Athenians may have begun serving in their rulers' military (in gameplay terms until the sufficient MIC's were built). Hiring mercenaries is a great way to represent local allies that can be gained immediately, like in Hannibals voyage.

But are there not enough proff for otherwise? Just look at Roman army or Alex in the East..

Still, I belive that too for Athens, but, Imagine that let say Celts win in Athens in any way - even if Hellens would give it for free for the sake of peace - for example.. Now, you are the king of the celts - you go into Athens like China went into Hong Kong.. or NATO in East Europe?? Still those are ancient times -but, you can gain their trust in cuople or steps..
First, you make Athens a 'client kingdom', second you leave your greek king to gather the army of Athenians, and the third - you brain-wash them to go after Corintos or Rhodos fighting for 'democracy' or Athenian clutural influence there...
So, now, you as a Celtic King that has larger army then Athenians just pick up the gold and leave everything else to them.. like in the game..

So, we here are actually guessing.. to much, we all know that you could have 1000 ways of making 'others' fight your battles - if you have dominion.. or stronger army.. That is wery similar today.. (Irak?)

[konny]

I guarantee you that if the (soon to be) Galatians would have conquered Athens, the Athenians wouldn't have joined them and fought in a classic hoplite formation against their own cousins.

Why shouldn't they? They had no problems to march in hughe numbers with Alexander; and a generation before they had no higher opinion of the Makedons than of the Illyrians, Thrakians or Celts. The only reason why the Athenians would not have fought for the Celts would be that the Celts wouldn't had any need for them.

And since it does always take one turn (i.e. 3 month) to raise a unit in an EB town, it still would take them years to raise a full army of Athenians.


But really, I am not intending to change the recruitement system of EB in any way. It is just an idea how a system like this with local and factional MICs could be done in another way.

[Watchman]

Uh... I'm pretty sure Alexander's armies never had a very notable presence of Greek citizen-soldiers. Mercs, and Thessalian horse, yes, but that's not exactly the same thing... and the Persians seem to have had rather more hired Greek foot when it comes to that.

Incidentally, one would imagine the Sweboz with their tribal-warrior system would have an easier time wrapping their heads around the concept of the citizen-soldier hoplite than the Celts with their specialist warrior class...

Also incidentally, Alex's conquest of Persia doesn't really compare since the RTW engine can't really model the way he was able to make use of the inherently divided loyalties of (semi-)feudal aristocracies to secure himself a decent pool of local "quislings" to help run things and free most of the Macedonian troops to fight the war. Feudal nobility is funny that way; if they can't see any merit in bending knee to you they can cause no end of grief (as you need to put down an endless succession of pesky minor opponents, and find a new ruling class somewhere), but if it's in their interests they can jump ship startlingly easily and make for some fairly smooth sailing as most of the day-to-day adminstration continues undisturbed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

First of all the Hughe numbers with Alexander appear to be on Alexander's request... not like the Athenians offering their service. This (immediate levying of local troops) is best represented through hiring Mercs.

The second thing is really: regional MIC means regional troops means getting the local populace on your side. Factional MIC means factional troops (citizens!) means getting your own people to take over the lead in all local affairs.

Since regional MICs are by culture group and therefore the Epeirotai can use the Mak & KH regional MICs I don't really see that aspect as an issue. Unless I am misreading the thread, of course.

Since factional MICs are a different structure altogether... And still: it is possible to use the factional MIC of some other faction: Epeirotai can use the KH MIC; AS can use the Ptolemaioi' MIC (and particularly vice versa is a nifty exploit - or at least that was the case when I beta teste 0.81a; one could recruit Hetairoi in Antiocheia this way); Maks and Baktria share MICs...

Thirdly a lot of the code and therefore building sharing is the way it is because it was most convenient or arbitrary chosen at an earlier stage. In this case the 2 MIC system is something which has got to do with EB 0.8 and the new engine restrictions of RTW 1.5. At that point the unit rosters looked widely different and while I haven't played the factions much enough to remember any particular similarities... I do recall that the Baktrians and the Maks did & do have considerable similarities in unit roster. I.e. both have pezhetairoi and thureophoroi (the latter is only available to Epeiros as of 1.0).

[Maksimus]

Ok, I agree with you ~:) Do you just said that it is all set-up like it was chosen among EB memebers - and that is fine realy - EB 1 is the best :bow:

Still, this is just a suggestion.. and I am waiting for 1.1 version to come, so I could mod a bit...

If you Tellos Athenaios could please just note me here I realy need this to know - so, are you people from EB done with regions and settlements names - so that no changes could be expected there.. Because I would start to make my notes.. - thank you:coffeenews:

[konny]

First of all the Hughe numbers with Alexander appear to be on Alexander's request... not like the Athenians offering their service.

No doubt on that, it is what I meant: the land is conquered/subdued and the conquerer is able to demand the local forces to fight for him.

[Maksimus]

I just don't know why is it such a big trouble to set native units 'training limits' just to the region limit? That said, I mean that no matter whose building you recapture - you should be able to use it in the way YOU USE TEMPLES.. right?
I don't see the prob in that ? - do It is highly more likely that Romans or Greeks would destroy temples in Aegypt or Carthage and then built their own or even build their own no matter the temple that is already there.. why should there be any difference in barracks-system?:no:

[Foot]

I just don't know why is it such a big trouble to set native units 'training limits' just to the region limit? That said, I mean that no matter whose building you recapture - you should be able to use it in the way YOU USE TEMPLES.. right?

Because then the government system would have no part to play in the recruitment system, which is very important for us. So we have to link recruitment to barracks and barracks to government. If you could just start recruiting units regardless of the government then it wouldn't be EB.

Foot

[Maksimus]

Because then the government system would have no part to play in the recruitment system, which is very important for us. So we have to link recruitment to barracks and barracks to government. If you could just start recruiting units regardless of the government then it wouldn't be EB.

Foot

Why not? The EB is not 'rich' by it's unit recruitments.. that is rare if you don't cheat.. I know that I am not taking towns because of units.. I take them because of money and posiblle access to sea trade.. the EB is that for me.. The limits of this kind just spread the resources in wrong direction, and they are irrational and 'funny' in a way..:birthday2:

I and I am sure most of players always take most of army resources to their capitals.. and you can't even build a road without goverment of your own? Right?
I realy think that the 'tweak' of 'training limits set on regions' would not make players underdevelop the town.. especially if there is a mine:pirate2: ..

note: Foot, please .. what about my question to EBs.. are there going to be land-region or names changed in 1.1 ? if you ignor this - it's quite alright:whip:

[NeoSpartan]

Mak there are 2 things u gotta remember:

1-MIC means Military Industrial Complex, and is represented by a RTW "barrack". The MIC of faction X is how that particullar faction is able to mobilize its citizens, nobility, and industries for the purpose of war making. And it is all directed by the Head/s of state. The in EB the MIC IS NOT! a training site.

2- Factional MICs are sometimes "shared" from faction to faction. This can be historically driven as is the case of Arverni and Aedui MICs (they both were allieances of tribes with a similar culture, language, and way of fighting). Sometimes, is kinda to engine limits..

3- Regional MICs are shared besed on CULTURE. Because regional MIC represent the mobilization of low-level citizens, and some elements of local industry. The "royalty" and other "rich" members are represented in the Factional MIC.

4- If you think about, conquering a people and then using that conquered population to fight with you is affected by LOT of different variables. Such as the political system in previous existance, (as Watchman noted, feudalism can be easy to control as long as you are able to win some of the nobles to your side), the culture of the faction, the way the faction produced soldiers etc....
--Lets take a look at a couple of examples in RL and see how EB's MIC system is able to simulate that:
--A: U as the Romans conquer Athens. After defeating their army now you have to deal with the local citizenry, the local aristocrats, rich merchants, religious leaders. In addition you are immidiatly submereged into local politics. Now that YOU have become the ruling head... now well.... you have to rule. Its silly to think that immidiatly you can (a) persuade the citizenry to fight for you, (b) convine the nobles to do the same and help bear the cost of financing the military, (c) convince the merchants to trade with you, pay new taxes, and use their facilities to help in the production of weapons, (d) convince local polititians and religious leaders to support and endorse your call to arms, etc.... See.... ITS COMPLITCATED! There are several ways of accompleshing this, BUT NONE are done in a matter of 3 MONTHS (an EB turn).
---EB represents this in several ways:
-----1st you need to establish rule of law and start building up communication and cooaperation between you and the local element of the newly conquered sociely, and the s**t they bring with them (religion, politics, economic issues, etc). In that time there is very little you can't do in game in terms of building, and (since ur Roman and they are Greeks) there nothing to train. However you can BUY local soldiers to fight for you, (mercs).
-----2nd you build a "goverment system" II, III, or IV. What does that mean? Simply type 2 means that ur making that people part of your faction. You are building COMPLEX ties between Rome and Athens since you are making Athens a province of rome. (NOTE: that Gov't Type II is posible becasue Rome historically conquered this area and made it a province.) As you move down the Gov't tier the ties your setting up become more simple. (REMEMBER: the specifics of type gov't I, II, III, IV vary from faction to faction as each faction had its own way of doing things. READ THE DESCRIPTIONS!! :yes: ))
---3rd Regional MIC means that you are setting up connections, cooperations, and you are directing elements of the citizenry, local merchants, and some influencial politicials. The Regional MIC I is a simple orginization of you calling on the poorests and easiest to persuade members of the citizenry to fight for you. That is why u get Acconstistae and Hoplitai Haploi. As you increase the complexity of the MIC you are able to get more influencial and wealthy people to work under your direction, hence u can train Hoplites (citizens of $$ who could afford their own equipment). HOWEVER, as you noticed regional MIC WILL NOT allow for the training of elite soldiers. Elite soldiers, like the the new Elite Hoplie, were among the richest, most policically connected memebers of society. And those people were pushed aside when u came in because they were your #1 opposition as they had the most to Loose under ur rule, and the most to gain under the previous rulers.

Example: B: Makedon conquer Athens:
-The same story as before HOWEVER... here u can set up a type I goverment which securely puts Athens under direct rule. This re-aligment of Athens will take time. Hence Type I takes LONG time to make.

Remember though the Factional MICs may be shared based on history OR game limits. So... keep an eye on that.


So as you can see... you CANNOT train men to fight after just coming over and city. Its not that simple. Not even today....

Look at Germany after WWII, or Afganistan/Iraq... How long and how complicated is it to RE-establish a fully fuctioning military? How long did it take Germanit to field their own Air Force? :book:

[Tellos Athenaios]

If you Tellos Athenaios could please just note me here I realy need this to know - so, are you people from EB done with regions and settlements names - so that no changes could be expected there.. Because I would start to make my notes.. - thank you:coffeenews:

Regions and settlement names are done for 1.0. Reason: any change in those names requires the script to be adjusted accordingly... And that's just too much work (with too much of a slip-up chance involved, such slip ups have been the cause for many a CTD from 0.7x through 0.8x) to start doing now when we actually want to throw much of the internal workings of the script overboard in favour of new, 'flashy' M2TW thechniques.

[Maksimus]

Mak there are 2 things u gotta remember:

1-MIC means Military Industrial Complex, and is represented by a RTW "barrack". The MIC of faction X is how that particullar faction is able to mobilize its citizens, nobility, and industries for the purpose of war making. And it is all directed by the Head/s of state. The in EB the MIC IS NOT! a training site.

2- Factional MICs are sometimes "shared" from faction to faction. This can be historically driven as is the case of Arverni and Aedui MICs (they both were allieances of tribes with a similar culture, language, and way of fighting). Sometimes, is kinda to engine limits..

3- Regional MICs are shared besed on CULTURE. Because regional MIC represent the mobilization of low-level citizens, and some elements of local industry. The "royalty" and other "rich" members are represented in the Factional MIC.

4- If you think about, conquering a people and then using that conquered population to fight with you is affected by LOT of different variables. Such as the political system in previous existance, (as Watchman noted, feudalism can be easy to control as long as you are able to win some of the nobles to your side), the culture of the faction, the way the faction produced soldiers etc....
--Lets take a look at a couple of examples in RL and see how EB's MIC system is able to simulate that:
--A: U as the Romans conquer Athens. After defeating their army now you have to deal with the local citizenry, the local aristocrats, rich merchants, religious leaders. In addition you are immidiatly submereged into local politics. Now that YOU have become the ruling head... now well.... you have to rule. Its silly to think that immidiatly you can (a) persuade the citizenry to fight for you, (b) convine the nobles to do the same and help bear the cost of financing the military, (c) convince the merchants to trade with you, pay new taxes, and use their facilities to help in the production of weapons, (d) convince local polititians and religious leaders to support and endorse your call to arms, etc.... See.... ITS COMPLITCATED! There are several ways of accompleshing this, BUT NONE are done in a matter of 3 MONTHS (an EB turn).
---EB represents this in several ways:
-----1st you need to establish rule of law and start building up communication and cooaperation between you and the local element of the newly conquered sociely, and the s**t they bring with them (religion, politics, economic issues, etc). In that time there is very little you can't do in game in terms of building, and (since ur Roman and they are Greeks) there nothing to train. However you can BUY local soldiers to fight for you, (mercs).
-----2nd you build a "goverment system" II, III, or IV. What does that mean? Simply type 2 means that ur making that people part of your faction. You are building COMPLEX ties between Rome and Athens since you are making Athens a province of rome. (NOTE: that Gov't Type II is posible becasue Rome historically conquered this area and made it a province.) As you move down the Gov't tier the ties your setting up become more simple. (REMEMBER: the specifics of type gov't I, II, III, IV vary from faction to faction as each faction had its own way of doing things. READ THE DESCRIPTIONS!! :yes: ))
---3rd Regional MIC means that you are setting up connections, cooperations, and you are directing elements of the citizenry, local merchants, and some influencial politicials. The Regional MIC I is a simple orginization of you calling on the poorests and easiest to persuade members of the citizenry to fight for you. That is why u get Acconstistae and Hoplitai Haploi. As you increase the complexity of the MIC you are able to get more influencial and wealthy people to work under your direction, hence u can train Hoplites (citizens of $$ who could afford their own equipment). HOWEVER, as you noticed regional MIC WILL NOT allow for the training of elite soldiers. Elite soldiers, like the the new Elite Hoplie, were among the richest, most policically connected memebers of society. And those people were pushed aside when u came in because they were your #1 opposition as they had the most to Loose under ur rule, and the most to gain under the previous rulers.

Example: B: Makedon conquer Athens:
-The same story as before HOWEVER... here u can set up a type I goverment which securely puts Athens under direct rule. This re-aligment of Athens will take time. Hence Type I takes LONG time to make.

Remember though the Factional MICs may be shared based on history OR game limits. So... keep an eye on that.

To this point everything is clear..:yes: And I haven't made myself clear enuogh.. First of all, my impresion of using the regional MIC is based on my concluded tough that WHEN YOU bulid YOUR Goverment - YOU will be able to bulid and use ANY Barracks.. That is upgrade the enemy barracks as first option. The second would be that if maximum is already achived, you bulid a gov. and then use the barracks
That is not unrealistic at all... And when you make it a 'rule' that only if you built level 2 or 1 gov. and then be able to use it.. it would be nice..
It is just supposed to be conditioned in the script's .. like you use buildings (and barracks) 'IF' you have your goverment.. and that is all



So as you can see... you CANNOT train men to fight after just coming over and city. Its not that simple. Not even today....

Look at Germany after WWII, or Afganistan/Iraq... How long and how complicated is it to RE-establish a fully fuctioning military? How long did it take Germanit to field their own Air Force? :book:

And don't make comparations of such kind, ancient warfare and sate run are more dependent on cultural differences than states today...

And, I will be breif here realy -
I have my Masters on Geopolitical studies of EU and Euroasia to come in weeks... so, I very well know what happend/happens in WWII and US Oil/Gas/Coca war's in the world...

France and US used SS soldiers for their campaigns in North/West Africa (like 1953 war in Algeria, and IndoChina, and Vietnam to lesser extend) Even today, in Algeria, natives are afraid of Europe.. The famos Nazi songs of Foreign Legion are still actual in debates (almost 65% of all France soldiers in their post WWII campaigns - were German Soldiers) ..UK used Nazi expirience and men in South and East Africa, India, Middle East and SSSR used them for Siberia (but in extend that could not be comaperd to the West).. NATO was found in 1949 with WestGermany that is still full of Nazis and in 1955 when WestG was officially accepted in ... - WarshawPact was formed and the Cold War started! And don't you belive otherwise in 10 december 2007 - Russia is pulling it's troops, strategic weapons and tehnic - back to European soil (in European part of Russia).. There, you have new Cold War once again!
And you know what? WPact and ColadWar would have never been if som nazi US generals didn't allow German officers and soldiers to be in charge of nuclear rockets in WestG as early as 1952!
Just, don't get me started here:shame:

[Foot]

To this point everything is clear..:yes: And I haven't made myself clear enuogh.. First of all, my impresion of using the regional MIC is based on my concluded tough that WHEN YOU bulid YOUR Goverment - YOU will be able to bulid and use ANY Barracks.. That is upgrade the enemy barracks as first option. The second would be that if maximum is already achived, you bulid a gov. and then use the barracks
That is not unrealistic at all... And when you make it a 'rule' that only if you built level 2 or 1 gov. and then be able to use it.. it would be nice..
It is just supposed to be conditioned in the script's .. like you use buildings (and barracks) 'IF' you have your goverment.. and that is all

And that is what we used to have in 0.7x versions of EB. But 1.5 changed our ability to use the presence of buildings as conditionals for unit recruitment. We can't do what you suggest, because we used to be able to do but it is now hardcoded that we cannot.

Foot

[NeoSpartan]

Mak can u write in 1 or 2 colors next time.. the last part was a pain in the but to read but I did.

remember one thing, an EB turn is 3 months. 4turns = 1 year (3months x 4 =12months).

[Maksimus]

And that is what we used to have in 0.7x versions of EB. But 1.5 changed our ability to use the presence of buildings as conditionals for unit recruitment. We can't do what you suggest, because we used to be able to do but it is now hardcoded that we cannot.

Foot

And what do you think about making factions 'share' high-end buildings, like army and royal barracks.. to some extend.. like if you take Carthage with Macedon, you will be able to use Cathaginian royal barracks but without elites.. no? .. it would leave some space to fast wining campaign..

Also.. why don't all Hellenes share?.. like barbs do? Barbarians share do they not? Almost all barracks and regional bs? So how come Epeiros can't share with Seleucids or Macedon?:shrug:

[Foot]

And what do you think about making factions 'share' high-end buildings, like army and royal barracks.. to some extend.. like if you take Carthage with Macedon, you will be able to use Cathaginian royal barracks but without elites.. no? .. it would leave some space to fast wining campaign..

Also.. why don't all Hellenes share?.. like barbs do? Barbarians share do they not? Almos all barracks and regional bs? So how come Epeiros can't share with Seleucids or Macedon?:shrug:

Hellenes are split, culture-wise into west and east. West hellenes share the same regional barracks and east hellenes share a different one. Celts share the same barracks because they all have the same reforms. Celts do not share their factional barracks with any other barbarian faction.

EB is designed to be played slowly so that is the play-style that we support in how we design the game mechanics. You can either change the game mechanics yourself to fit your play-style, or you can put up with what we have put in there. We are not changing things to suit a faster campaign.

Foot

[NeoSpartan]

--dang!!! I took a while to type this thing up! Foot beat me to it...

Again its not a Barrack. Its Military Industrial Complex, a completely different ballgame. Like I said above u can't just roll in and start recruiting.

Anywho... back in .74 u could use say the Level 5 MIC of faction X to train regional/factional troops. HOWEVER, you were "supposed" to establish your goverment type 1st and THEN you could train. But, due to engine limits this didn't work. As long as u did not destroy the previous goverment you could train troops. A lot of people when ahead and did this and it was considered an abuse (IF you played in VH/M, remembers rules don't apply in VH/VH).
---Why abusing??? You were abusing because historically (and even today) a type of goverment had to be established to before you could train anybody. (again, its based on MIC not barracks)

In .8x and Foot explained:
Foot ""And that is what we used to have in 0.7x versions of EB. But 1.5 changed our ability to use the presence of buildings as conditionals for unit recruitment. We can't do what you suggest, because we used to be able to do but it is now hardcoded that we cannot.""

So the new system of Regional and Factional MICs was put in place. And ALSO in order to make up for the lagging in training troops. (since now u have to make a govt + MIC). The EB team REDUCED the number of turns needed to make a government.
--ex:
--------In .74 Type I Gov't took 20 turns (5years). Since u don't have to make a brand new MIC, once the gov't is done you can now use/upgrade the existing MIC.
--------In .8x and 1.0 Type I Gov't takes 10 turns!! (2.5years!!) However this is offset by the fact that you will have to make a new Faction MIC. (or if ur luckly just rebuild it)


Now....Regarding Celts, the only building that they share without issues are the Regional MIC. The Factional MICs are only shared between Arverni-&-Aedui for Gauls. Meaning if I take an Arverni settlement I can train troops right off the bat. And then upgrade the MIC to the next level.

Those are the only two that make historical sence in its truest term. Why KH and Mak don't share factional MIC, and why KH & Epiros do???? I am not sure, however I am smelling both historical reasons and engine limits.

In the case of Carthege, they generaly used Mercenaries in their armies. Their local populance rarely made up the actual "meat" of their armies. This is NOT how Epiros did their war fighiting.

[Maksimus]

Hellenes are split, culture-wise into west and east. West hellenes share the same regional barracks and east hellenes share a different one. Celts share the same barracks because they all have the same reforms. Celts do not share their factional barracks with any other barbarian faction.

EB is designed to be played slowly so that is the play-style that we support in how we design the game mechanics. You can either change the game mechanics yourself to fit your play-style, or you can put up with what we have put in there. We are not changing things to suit a faster campaign.

Foot

That is a clear answer. I am very glad I don't have to type twice so one can understand me. Now, I am 100% sure that those settings are a part of game mechanics and play-style EB team made.
Note: Alexander himself would have troubles finishing his campaign as far as EB game-play :yes:

be well!

[Treverer]

Note: Alexander himself would have troubles finishing his campaign as far as EB game-play
Dear sir,

remember that EB/RTW is strategic game and as such not representing all aspect of real life.

A note to your light blue text (post 39): for the sake of humanity, one "cold war" was enough. And I hope (though "hope, love and faith are not scientific categories", as my professor used to say) there will be none again. Back to topic!

Yours,
Treverer

P.S. the text in light blue is easily readable if use a little trick. ~;)

[Tellos Athenaios]

Which means to select aforementioned text. ~;)

[Treverer]

Which means to select aforementioned text. ~;)
Hush! Let them young ones use their brain! ~;)

[NeoSpartan]

Hush! Let them young ones use their brain! ~;)

HEY! I was cramming for exams before the thanksgiving holiday :book: I had to let the brain rest. :shame:

[Maksimus]

Ok.. I post this nice little picture to show how hard it is to beat anything with cavalry.. And I played this twice!

Here we have two of my cavalry units that charget at that average barb peltasts .. My Greek Cavalry charged full form front, and my Hellenic MC charged full from the flank! Both of those units are produced at my Homeland with +3 moral (and as you can see + armour and + 2 expirience for GreekC)

This is what happend to them right after charge::

That note is for those who acctually don't use cavalry much and can say 'oh.. well that is because you have VH settings' - no, I played on Medium and I have the same result ... :whip:

https://img260.imageshack.us/img260/2320/konjicaic1.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

And I would understand if this was Barb cavalry /excluding the stepe/,... but this was successors cavalry.. They acctually hade 1/3 or 1/4 of an army made up of cavalry.. so did Carthaginians..

I will add + 50-100% attack to all hellenic/stepe/carthaginian cavalry with 25+charge right now ..

[Danest]

How often could the civilians in a town rebel in such a manner that it could completely overwhelm and expel the town garrison or local military? I find myself wishing that the rebellion would start very small, and then, perhaps, have to hire mercenaries from the local surroundings or something. Rebellions that start large are weird, though I can see them doing so from a game balance perspective (though, I'm not sure that this balance is realistic). Rebellions should need some time to grow, I'd think. But then I've seen some pretty weak rebellions too, once in a while.

[larsbecks]

Ok.. I post this nice little picture to show how hard it is to beat anything with cavalry.. And I played this twice!

Here we have two of my cavalry units that charget at that average barb peltasts .. My Greek Cavalry charged full form front, and my Hellenic MC charged full from the flank! Both of those units are produced at my Homeland with +3 moral (and as you can see + armour and + 2 expirience for GreekC)

This is what happend to them right after charge::

That note is for those who acctually don't use cavalry much and can say 'oh.. well that is because you have VH settings' - no, I played on Medium and I have the same result ... :whip:

And I would understand if this was Barb cavalry /excluding the stepe/,... but this was successors cavalry.. They acctually hade 1/3 or 1/4 of an army made up of cavalry.. so did Carthaginians..

I will add + 50-100% attack to all hellenic/stepe/carthaginian cavalry with 25+charge right now ..

1. The Komatai aren't average peltasts. They're decent infantry with armor, and shields.

2. Lance cavalry make the best chargers, like the prodmoroi in your picture, wich isn't one of the charging units. Overhead spears aren't going to have the best impact. Use them against non-armored units, rear charges, or chasing down fleeing enemies.

3. Don't charge from the front unless the enemy unit is exhausted or made up of armorless peltastai/akontistai/toxotai. If you really want a frontal charge try to put them on guard mode. They'll hit in layers. Do this with more than one unit all charging together for a lot of layers. And make sure they're lancers, not overhead spears like you did in your picture.

4. If you charge from the side make sure the enemy is pinned in front from infantry. And don't charge at a frontish angle, either, like in your picture. If you're charging from the side, come from the side or side/rear. Charge to the rear when possible. It will kill the enemy and demoralize them.

5. Re-charge. Once they hit and kill pull them out and charge again (if the enemy hasn't broken). Put them on guard mode so they stick together and all pull back instead of having a few of them linger around fighting when you want them to regroup and charge. And make sure you pull back at a distance far enough to compose as a unit and not rabble for the re-charge.

6. Don't expect a charge to be like a medieval knights charge. Horsemen at this period don't have stirups so they'll do some damage but won't kill everything that stands in their way.

7. If you leave your horses in the melee after the charge, switch them to their alternate weapons. They'll usually fight better with their sword/ax/mace than with the lance.

I play on hard and my cavalry always do well for me.

Here's your picture with visual tips:
https://img261.imageshack.us/img261/9672/konjicaic1ct0.jpg

[Thaatu]

And I would understand if this was Barb cavalry /excluding the stepe/,...
Actually both Celtic and Germanic cavalry were highly renowned.


but this was successors cavalry..
Actually they weren't successor cavalry in the sense. You had one unit of pure Greek cavalry, which wasn't as good as what the successors had, and one unit of Lonchoph... - nope, can't spell it - ...cavalry, which is designed for sustained melee combat, not charging.

Believe me, with elite cavalry you have no trouble routing the enemy. Or maybe I'm just better than Alexander (not claiming, nor denying)...

[Maksimus]

Thank you for the tip's larsbecks, I very much value your effort to do so.. still, I realy used my cavalry much.. and, on the picture - HellenicMC charged from the Flank .. that means (by me) , that they hit the left side of that unit - the side that had no front-men - and in a couple of second - that unit just 'moved a bit' so that it looks on the picture it was hit from the front..
Ok let me make it brief
this is my campaign on VH/VH
https://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1204/konjica3my7.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

And this is new charge from the flank with 'tweaked' stats in the same battle
https://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9360/konjica2nr7.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

And Thaatu, you are my friend so I wont quote you I vrey much now you are willing to help.. still, you see that those were Hellenic MC, they are better then Successor's realy, with higher moral and shield.. and attack.. and see this other picture? In this one, all three 'tweaked' units (with +50and/or+100% attack) had almost the same result) were making a bit better - that is realy what I want - to make them a bit better .. just so thet they would act as they are present in the battle

[konny]

As far as I can see your cavalry has allready killed 83 of the enemies by own losses of 55 (if all units had been full strength).

You would do much better if you:

- Turn off wedge mode
- Change to swords after the charge when fighting infantry
- Do not attack infantry with cavalry without support of your own infantry That is the way Alexander and his successors fought.

But among your army I only see one unit of Hoplites or, to a lesser degree, the Cretians that would be fit to do so. So replace the Chaonion Agema with Deuteroi and raise some Peltastai or Thureophoroi with the money you save. I would also disband the Hippeis and replace the Lonchophoroi Hippeis with Prodomoi. That will save you even more money to raise more medium infantry.

Medium infantry is used to fight enemies like Komatai head on, but because you "forgott" to field them, you'll have to (ab-)use cavalry instead - so no need to complain on the stats of the cavalry when they don't overrun the foe in a situation they are not made for.

[larsbecks]

https://img214.imageshack.us/img214/434/successormediumcavalrybl8.jpg
https://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6094/greekmediumcavalryzs1.jpg

Here are the two unit cards. The Prodromoi are better charging units for a few reasons:
1. Better total charge attack value. 38 vs 31. This means they have a better chance of defeating the enemy's defence value.
2. better lethality value, .4 to .15. Once they defeat that defence value they have a higher chance to kill the enemy unit.
3. AP factor. The Prodromoi get the AP bonus against any armored unit thus increasing their chance of breaking through the armor and scoring a hit.
4. Stamina. Its not a huge difference but the Prodromoi can repeat charge a lot.

Also, try out massing your cavalry units when you charge them in and taking them out after the charge so they can regroup. Put them in guard so they keep together. And use them in concert with infantry. Cavalry=hammer, Infantry=anvil. In my Mak game I use 1 cavalry unit for every 2 phalanx units. Also, if you want to mod the game for very powerful cavalry charges, change the lethality value. Cavalry charges are strong enough to beat opponent's defensive value. With a higher lethality rating they'll kill more of the enemy on impact.

[Maksimus]

About this 'Alexander way' - I will just say that there were some battles that cavalry solved directly charging into infantry (front or rare) during Alexanders and Diadkokhoi war's especially in 'great' battles of Successor's wars .. and even Roman campaign's in Parthia (after arows there were heavy cavalry) - but like this - you have no option left

And I tend not to lose 30% of my army having the same type of units like my enemy -- my peltasts and medium infantry would have always have heavy looses the way you are proposing it
- this way is safer and much better because I use archers to drag enemy directly to my phalanx.. then run them down with cavalry ...

The whole point in these last post's are to show how cavalry is underpowerd in full charge against a single anemy unit - even if you have 3 nice cavalry units - even if you full charge and hit them from the flank - and even if you add +100% attack - you are still ending in lossing (always) at least 30-60% of your cavalry ..

For historical note - Alexander and Hannibal used elite cavalry alot and they came back with 60-80% of them - or atleast with greater % of lose infantry

So.. I don't realy play this way - This is an example of how it is imposible to break any infantry with a full charge (even if you do it 2-3 times)

[Maksimus]

https://img214.imageshack.us/img214/434/successormediumcavalrybl8.jpg
https://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6094/greekmediumcavalryzs1.jpg

Here are the two unit cards. The Prodromoi are better charging units for a few reasons:
1. Better total charge attack value. 38 vs 31. This means they have a better chance of defeating the enemy's defence value.
2. better lethality value, .4 to .15. Once they defeat that defence value they have a higher chance to kill the enemy unit.
3. AP factor. The Prodromoi get the AP bonus against any armored unit thus increasing their chance of breaking through the armor and scoring a hit.
4. Stamina. Its not a huge difference but the Prodromoi can repeat charge a lot.

Also, try out massing your cavalry units when you charge them in and taking them out after the charge so they can regroup. Put them in guard so they keep together. And use them in concert with infantry. Cavalry=hammer, Infantry=anvil. In my Mak game I use 1 cavalry unit for every 2 phalanx units. Also, if you want to mod the game for very powerful cavalry charges, change the lethality value. Cavalry charges are strong enough to beat opponent's defensive value. With a higher lethality rating they'll kill more of the enemy on impact.

Aha... so if I increase the lethality value - that would mean what? If I want them to be stronger - I increase the lethality value like up?
And how do I swich to sword?

[Thaatu]

larsbecks beat me to it. Also Prodromoi have higher armor, which is more important than defence skill. Maksimus, don't worry so much about the stats. They have a lot more into them than might appear. Instead read the unit descriptions and check there what is said about the unit's place on the battlefield. You'll find out that units actually fit in their places. It changed my style bigtime when I did that.

[larsbecks]

Lethality is the number in parenthesis in the edu at the end of the stat line. By doubling lethality you'll double your kill rate upon impact. Doubling attack value starts meaning less and less as the value starts reaching numbers that are far higher than any units defense stats. And switching swords is done by holding Alt when you attack.

Since I use the Prodromoi solely for charging I don't let them linger for melee. Cavalry charging is like boxing. You want to hit, find a good angle, and then hit again. You don't want to stand in there and start slugging it out. That'll just wear you down.

If you really want to retain your cavalry have at least 4 in a battle and keep them together. Don't let one charge from the front and one charge from the side. Have all 4 charge in the same direction, preferably from the side to rear areas, on a tired opponent. And try it out with guard on. Mass charging will also likely break an enemy unit into retreat. Once they start running away your 4 cavalry can then chase them down and kill them easily.

[Maksimus]

Ok... I will mod some maybe + 30% attack to cavalry after EB 1.1 or something... It is also very unclear to me that even if they fit - they are of no 'great' use and cost alot - that wasn't realy true?

I am sure - cavalry was very important in Successors warfare and they realy used alot of them .. so we imagine and know that some battles were won because of the cavalry that did not just wait in the corner - but caharged beautifully into the enemy and sometimes did great

anyway... thank you guys .. this realy made me more calm

But how do I 'SWICH' Weapons with cavalry.. you know to make them use swords in mlee?

[Thaatu]

Press ALT+click when attacking. They'll switch their weapons after the charge.

[konny]

About this 'Alexander way' - I will just say that there were some battles that cavalry solved directly charging into infantry (front or rare) during Alexanders and Diadkokhoi war's especially in 'great' battles of Successor's wars

I don't know much details of Diadoch battles, but when you look at Guagamela for example you'll have a good example of cavalry and infantry attacking together (as a nature of things the horsemen happened to be the first on the enemy). At Issus the picture is even clearer: the Makedonian cavalry routed the wing protection of what were not more than archers to open a gap for the infantry.


And I tend not to lose 30% of my army having the same type of units like my enemy -- my peltasts and medium infantry would have always have heavy looses the way you are proposing it
- this way is safer and much better because I use archers to drag enemy directly to my phalanx.. then run them down with cavalry ...

You are not losing a single man. You are replacing high end elite phalanx with average units of the same type to save money to raise more units of a type that is nearly completly missing in your army. As long as you are not fighting other elite phalanx heavy armies, everything above Deuteroi is a waste of money.


For historical note - Alexander and Hannibal used elite cavalry alot and they came back with 60-80% of them - or atleast with greater % of lose infantry

I didn't know that there are reliable detailed accounts of the casualties in Alexander's or Hannibal's army.

[Maksimus]

I don't know much details of Diadoch battles, but when you look at Guagamela for example you'll have a good example of cavalry and infantry attacking together (as a nature of things the horsemen happened to be the first on the enemy). At Issus the picture is even clearer: the Makedonian cavalry routed the wing protection of what were not more than archers to open a gap for the infantry.
That is right, the Issus picture is what I mean, because, in EB.. you can't realy route the archers if you dont have 3 Generals (in a single charge) or 3 elite cavalry

You are not losing a single man. You are replacing high end elite phalanx with average units of the same type to save money to raise more units of a type that is nearly completly missing in your army. As long as you are not fighting other elite phalanx heavy armies, everything above Deuteroi is a waste of money.
Oh.. I see, well .. yes, I agree 100% .. it's just that I am trying to boost my elite phalanx expirience so I can prepare them for Asia Minor .. ussually I use native phalanx.. but I can afford both now.. so I just want to destroy Dacia and then Head up to Sevastopol (Crimea) and then down to Sidon into middle Asia Mnor.. I will need all expirience I can get:yes:


I didn't know that there are reliable detailed accounts of the casualties in Alexander's or Hannibal's army.
Well I read it from Encyclopedia of Larousse and Military Encyclopedia of different kind.. basiclly those data are available at Wikipedia and Encarta I think.. Do we can all see that most of Alexanders Companions were still fighting each other even 20 years after his detah.. and good number of companion - companions were 'companies' from India that reached this far..

The most data I have are from wast Encyclopedia's were you have academic's and people of 70 years old that write about history.. not some young 'begginers' as it is tended to be published today (and if you are looking for some real heavy data - you should visit http://www.academie-sciences.fr/publications/generalites_gb.htm and see some reccomendations:yes: )
be well..:bow:

[konny]

That is right, the Issus picture is what I mean, because, in EB.. you can't realy route the archers if you dont have 3 Generals (in a single charge) or 3 elite cavalry


Now, that's for sure not right: yesterday I had a 'battle' with one Akontistai against one unit of Thessalian cavalry. Both units were full strength and without experince. The only thing I did was to order the Thessalians to charge the Akontistai and, once the charge was completed, to switch to swords. After that I just watched the show. The outcome was: All 240 Akontistai + generic General dead vs. about 30 losses among my horsemen.

In the following real battle, the same unit of cavalry, together with a unit of Hippakontistai(!), attacked several units of Makedonian psiloi. Because the Makedonian phalanx was at the same time clashing with my Hoplites, I didn't look after the cavalry fight after ordering the attack. The result was that all, safe a handfull, of the Makedonian skirmishers were either routed from the field or killed while my cavalry hardly had any losses (the Hippakontistai didn't lose a man at all).

After that I ordered the Thessalians to charge in the back of an enemy unit of Hoplites that was at the same fighting two of my Hoplites units from the front. And guess what: The Thessalians were cut to pieces...


Of course, you can say that you want to pin the enemy from the front and crush him with overkill cavalry (like that from RTW vanilla) alone from the back and win every battle in that way. But that would be very unrealistic and people would complain a lot if the cavalry would be stated that way.


Well I read it from Encyclopedia of Larousse and Military Encyclopedia of different kind..


Any numbers that we have from battles of that periode are from narrative sources and these are most unreliable when it comes to figure out details - in fact in a lot of cases we can't even say how strong the opposing army really was.

[Maksimus]

well, Thessalian cavalry is realy the one of the best in Hellenes... so I can see that is true - they also have a heavy horse.. that is not the case with Medium cavalry you have until you basicly finish the game.. anyway.. you should try to add + 50% of attack to any cavalry and it would not change much (do it would add a tiny advantage to my cavalry :laugh4: )

be well my friend!

[NeoSpartan]

....
You are not losing a single man. You are replacing high end elite phalanx with average units of the same type to save money to raise more units of a type that is nearly completly missing in your army. As long as you are not fighting other elite phalanx heavy armies, everything above Deuteroi is a waste of money.
....

hum... konny remember its VH/VH.... regular AI beat ur regular units any day. SO u have to field elites more often.... becasue of that u need an agressive style othewise you can't pay for ur armies. If u STOP ur income drops. Big time!

[NeoSpartan]

Mak I STILL don't understand why in the world you need to add 50%:jawdrop: more attack to some cavalry units.


like others have said, you want ur cavarly to be effective. Block the enemy infantry in the front and hit them with cavarly in the back (charge + recharge). Its Vh so the AI won't quit so easely.

In M... They will rout right after impact (most of the time), especially if you actually "charge". You said they didn't in M. I doubt it, maybe the AI had 10+ star general I faced one of those in H (fatige off) and Levy germanics never routed after being hit by cavarly, fighting Gaesatae and down to 20/120.

[konny]

hum... konny remember its VH/VH.... regular AI beat ur regular units any day. SO u have to field elites more often.... becasue of that u need an agressive style othewise you can't pay for ur armies

Playing VH/VH is no excuse for fielding masses of phalanxes without proper support infantry (and no reason to change the default stats of the units either).

[NeoSpartan]

Playing VH/VH is no excuse for fielding masses of phalanxes without proper support infantry (and no reason to change the default stats of the units either).

oh...... i though u ment something else... my bad.

[Maksimus]

Mak I STILL don't understand why in the world you need to add 50%:jawdrop: more attack to some cavalry units.


like others have said, you want ur cavarly to be effective. Block the enemy infantry in the front and hit them with cavarly in the back (charge + recharge). Its Vh so the AI won't quit so easely.

In M... They will rout right after impact (most of the time), especially if you actually "charge". You said they didn't in M. I doubt it, maybe the AI had 10+ star general I faced one of those in H (fatige off) and Levy germanics never routed after being hit by cavarly, fighting Gaesatae and down to 20/120.

Well, In VH it is very likely that you would have to use couple of lancer's in full charge to make enemy peltast (or even some harder peltasts) to run after first impact .. and If you do.. there is a question where is another enemy unit? It could be rught there.. so you don't even have time to force retreat so you can charge again...

And, yes... My enemies always have 7-10 star general against me. I think that is due to automatic mechanism thar makes your opponents worthy...

And.. I think I will go with just some 20-30% + to lancers.. and .. that is to cavalry of Hellenes and Nomads .. and maybe Barbs .. but for sure to Carthaginians.. and I am very seriously trying to decide should I give 2 HP for generals..:wall:

[Thaatu]

...and I am very seriously trying to decide should I give 2 HP for generals..:wall:
FM bodyguards are already the best cavalry that most factions have. If you add an extra HP to them, be sure to report back if any of them ever die. It'd be a miracle.