So I'm changing some stuff in EB, but maybe I should think on it some more...

Posted for commentary. Advice on what clever EB team design decisions I'm accidentally breaking would be especially valuable.

Current setup:

EB 1.2, all quick fixes patched in.
The Modesty Mini-mod and the Big Tree Removal mini-mod applied. The second is the more important; not being able to see your troops unless you zoom WAY in gets old about midway through the first battle in a forest.

Additional modifications:

Unit rebalances
Ships, and artillery roughly halved in cost to recruit and maintain, elephants cost less to maintain. Advanced ships got their costs dropped by more in % terms than the lower-level ships, and all ships take 3 turns to build, so building more naval ports, upgrading existing naval ports, and building better fleets may now actually be worthwhile ... and, maybe, I'll actually see some AI fleets and - dare I hope - a Roman invasion of Carthage. And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.

Levy and Native Pikemen stats slightly reduced. Scythian Horse-Archers cost more.
Prices for pike units evened out and slightly increased overall.
Maintenance for almost al elite infantry units of size 30 reduced (druids and gaesatae being the exceptions) by about 60-100 minai. I also should drop the build price; both values don't seem to be taking unit size into account in stock EB.

Reducing the hassle required to get large cities to settle down, while keeping cash flow under control
The Colonia building has been rewritten and is now a structure that adds 40% extra public order (via happiness bonus) at the cost of a whopping penalty to law, and therefore all revenue (for one faction, edited to be the human-controlled faction). For all other factions, it just adds some happiness (so the AI doesn't have to struggle as much with keeping order). No need for slavery and extermination!
High-level theatres have a bigger happiness effect.

Other building edits
Building times (and sometimes also costs) revised; some important military buildings, like walls, gymnasiums, and naval ports, take longer, many happiness buildings take less time, other buildings (temples, law, economic, etc.) are usually unchanged (ports take longer, markets take less long).

There are now three levels of forge, but each forge now only affects armour (+1, +2, +3). Roads can be built in smaller towns. Total building tree time-to-complete is now slightly longer than it was.

Government building revised. Type 1 government buildings only have a 1 penalty to population growth (and often no penalty), Type 4 governments for non-barbarian factions grant significant happiness at the expense of a minor law penalty and a new penalty to unit morale, and most of the population growth/penalty and unit experience bonuses are removed for non-barbarian factions. Various other changes. The end result is that Type 1 is now more generally worth building if available and Type 4 is a more acceptable option, even given that you can't put family members there to help keep order and add bonuses.

Other changes I'm pondering
- all long-range missile units (range > 80) of size 80 to be changed to be size 60, with costs adjusted to match.
- all melee elite infantry now of size 60 to be changed to size 80, and costs adjusted to suit.
- Another drop in artillery prices. Consider upping their speed to infantry pace.

Big game problem that I don't know how to solve
EB gives the human player too much time to expand and create a big empire that no AI empire can really challenge. Even if Rome were to properly expand overseas at its historical pace, that's no good if you can easily make a Parthia or Macedonia that owns 20 cities by 250 BC. Having to limit your expansion so that the AI empires can keep pace can get boring.

A few thoughts:
-Why increase the price of Scythian horse archers? Are they noticeably cheaper than alternative low-level HA units? Unless you mean steppe HA in general, in which case it may impede the steppe factions that are already struggling with a low income.
-The team removed the higher forge-levels because they did not fit in the EB statting system. They actually considered getting rid of the forge entirely, something I support. EB unit stats work on the WYSIWYG-principle, and the differences between units are subtle. If a unit wears a normal chainmail suit, he gets the same base armour as all other normal-chainmail units (there are other modifiers for armour value, but they are not important in the example). It's not unrealistic that a good armourer improves the quality, but +3 is a bit much: a +3 chainmail suit would approach the protection of a muscled plate in the EB system. For that matter: muscled plate and similar high-end armour represents the peak of the armourer's art, so I doubt their quality could be improved substantially. Back to the example: high-quality chainmail would be considerably more expensive than the standard stuff, and armour already represents the main cost in equipping a unit, so recruiting a unit with upgraded armour should also cost more.
-Type III governments are rarely used by players: maybe you could look at balancing those?
-There is no way to make the A.I. competitive with the player when it comes to expansion. The human mind is simply far better at planning. I don't think there is any solution beyond unbalancing the game further in favour of the A.I.

Your ideas on improving A.I. navy use sound sensible. Let me know how they turn out. Reducing the costs of siege equipment and elephants also sounds good, although keep in mind that in reality only the wealthiest states could afford such units.

Thanks for sharing your views; I could not have asked for a better person to get the straight word on why things are currently as they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

A few thoughts:
-Why increase the price of Scythian horse archers? Are they noticeably cheaper than alternative low-level HA units? Unless you mean steppe HA in general, in which case it may impede the steppe factions that are already struggling with a low income.

---

This change is a crude attempt to prevent non-nomad factions from hiring absurdly cheap horse-archers. I was playing Macedon and was able to BUILD HAs in Crimea for amazingly little money. After learning just how powerful HAs are for anyone with a decent income, I actually disbanded all the units I'd recruited, just to keep the game sane.

I think any horse-archer unit for a non-nomadic people should have a mantenance of at least 450 minai. Nomadic people should get much cheaper versions; I do think that the existing price for Scythian HAs is perfectly reasonable for such factions. A better answer is to have two version of such units, one for nomadic factions, and the other for everyone else (this is already done in many cases, but the costs aren't different enough IMO). I'd also recommand not allowing people to hire HAs in the walled partly-Greek cities in the Crimea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

-The team removed the higher forge-levels because they did not fit in the EB statting system. They actually considered getting rid of the forge entirely, something I support. EB unit stats work on the WYSIWYG-principle, and the differences between units are subtle. If a unit wears a normal chainmail suit, he gets the same base armour as all other normal-chainmail units (there are other modifiers for armour value, but they are not important in the example). It's not unrealistic that a good armourer improves the quality, but +3 is a bit much: a +3 chainmail suit would approach the protection of a muscled plate in the EB system. For that matter: muscled plate and similar high-end armour represents the peak of the armourer's art, so I doubt their quality could be improved substantially. Back to the example: high-quality chainmail would be considerably more expensive than the standard stuff, and armour already represents the main cost in equipping a unit, so recruiting a unit with upgraded armour should also cost more.

---

I understand what you're saying. My own take is that, with unit armor values ranging from 0-10, even a +3 bonus doesn't represent entirely different or hugely expensive gear, but instead a combination of better-made helmets, shields, footgear, or linen/leather/scale armor, a less motely assemblange of protective gear (what people are wearing correspondingly more closely to what they should be wearing), more careful government inspection and testing of amor, and better training. Instead of those skirmishers going to war with whatever they brought from the farm, they're wearing sturdy leather sandals, cheap head and neck protection, and maybe some light linen, quilting, or leather about the chest. Enough to slow down blows and arrows a little.

I certainly appreciate how adding armor, weapon, and experience bonuses messes with game balance. For example, weak units become stronger relative to elite units. However, I want to be able to optimise my recruitment centers enough - for me, pre-battle preparation and unit boosting is a vital part of the fun - that forges count as a Good Thing. I believe that my removal of all weapon bonuses is enough to keep cheap units under control, given the fact that the EB team seems to have balanced units assuming such bonuses. A +3 forge takes 18 turns and upwards of 15000 minai, not a small investment. But testing is needed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

-Type III governments are rarely used by players: maybe you could look at balancing those?

---

Seldom used? Of course it depends on the faction, but I personally think Type 3 governments in stock EB to be a worthy option. They're the quickest and most readily available government you can set up that allows your family members to come in and provide bonuses, which I've found is *really* important (mercenary generals being quite pricey...). They help population growth (the population growth penalties for types 1 and 2 in stock EB make me always think twice before building them in the early and mid game), they sometimes grant unit experience bonuses, and they not infrequently are better for overall unrest than type 4s, even before any governor gets involved. For certain factions, in short, they seem the one government type that doesn't need some sort of help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

-There is no way to make the A.I. competitive with the player when it comes to expansion. The human mind is simply far better at planning. I don't think there is any solution beyond unbalancing the game further in favour of the A.I.

---

There's a mini-mod that adds win conditions to the file /EB/data/world/maps/campaign/imperial_campaign/descr_win_conditions.txt. I haven't played enough to have any opinion on whether filling in this file makes any difference, but the mod thread had some favorable reports of AI powers becoming more focused and determined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Your ideas on improving A.I. navy use sound sensible. Let me know how they turn out. Reducing the costs of siege equipment and elephants also sounds good, although keep in mind that in reality only the wealthiest states could afford such units.

---

I'll test, but be warned that I don't play enough games to be able to come up with a decent sample in any period less than real-world years. Don't hold your breath for any statistically meaningful results from me.

I made a number of changes to my EB of the sort that you are talking about. Here is a quick and dirty list:

1) All Forts costing 1,000 and all Watchtowers costing 50. The default prices are silly (0 and 1,500) when you consider the AI behavior and the usefulness of each structure.

2) ALL Units (except Boats and Siege) have had their maint values set to: Maint = #troops x ((Total Armor + 10 if Mounted) x 10 if Elephants). Boats and Siege had their upkeep costs reduced to 10%. It appeared to me that the AI wasn't taking upkeep costs into account when building armies - and that this had a significant impact upon their ability to develop. EDIT - The impact of this is to roughly halve the upkeep costs generally, with advanced units costing close to current and peasant units costing far less to upkeep than currently.

3) All Slingers lost the AP damage type but nearly doubled their ammo. Great for taking out huge numbers of unarmored troops - but far less effective against elite troops.

4) Government types and Shrines have been completely redone. All Factions have the same benefits from corresponding Religions and Governments. Two factions may have different Gods of War, but worshiping them provides the same benefits. It made it easier for me to know what benefits to expect when choosing a Government or Religion for a town.

Government 4:
taxable_income_bonus bonus -2
recruits_morale_bonus bonus 2
law_bonus bonus -1

Government 3:
happiness_bonus bonus 2
law_bonus bonus -1
trade_base_income_bonus bonus 2
taxable_income_bonus bonus -1

Government 2:
recruits_exp_bonus bonus 2
recruits_morale_bonus bonus 2
law_bonus bonus 1
construction_cost_bonus_military bonus 1

Government 1:
taxable_income_bonus bonus 1
construction_cost_bonus_religious bonus 1
construction_cost_bonus_military bonus 1
law_bonus bonus 2
happiness_bonus bonus 2
recruits_morale_bonus 2

And for the Shrines (At max build) :

God of War:
law_bonus bonus 4
recruits_morale_bonus bonus 4
recruits_exp_bonus bonus 2

God of Farming:
happiness_bonus bonus 5
population_growth_bonus bonus 2
law_bonus bonus 5
trade_base_income_bonus bonus 2

God of Fertility:
happiness_bonus bonus 6
law_bonus bonus 2
population_growth_bonus bonus 3
recruits_morale_bonus bonus 3

God of Forge:
law_bonus bonus 4
happiness_bonus bonus 3
recruits_morale_bonus bonus 2
trade_base_income_bonus bonus 3

God of Happiness:
happiness_bonus bonus 10
recruits_morale_bonus bonus 2
population_growth_bonus bonus 2
trade_base_income_bonus bonus 1

God of Governors:
law_bonus bonus 4
taxable_income_bonus bonus 2
trade_base_income_bonus bonus 2
recruits_morale_bonus bonus 1
recruits_exp_bonus bonus 1

5) I plan on changing some of the Unique locations to provide Experience bonuses instead of Morale - I would like each/most factions to have the opportunity to have at least 1 such location in the early game.

Creating a generic "nomad horse archer" faction for non-Nomad factions sounds like a better idea than upping the price of all basic HA units. It's a bit more work though: you have to add a unit entry, sort out the models, remove and create recruitment lines...

Regarding armour: I see where you are coming from, I still feel +3 is way too much. Standardisation and quality control are not going to improve the armour of the basic grunt to the level of an elite unit; and elite units would have had the best of the best regardless of local facilities. I also wonder how much difference this would have made in a pre-industrial society with a limited state-apparatus (and that's not even mentioning the more "primitive" factions). Lastly, even if we accept that government-controlled standardisation and quality-control had a significant effect, this would not have made a difference for bring-your-own-kit levy troops like akontistai and militias. In your example the akontistai would not be able to afford better armour even if it was available. If the state wanted better equipped skirmishers, they'd have to pay more (and in that case it makes sense to give them a decent training: equipment is a big cost factor; you don't waste that on some peasant spear-throwers).

Type III: maybe I am too used to factions with a large expansion zone.

Win conditions: I already use that mod. A.I. works a bit better, but it's hardly competitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi En Son

I made a number of changes to my EB of the sort that you are talking about.

---

Hello Yoshi En Son, welcome to the .Org.
~:wave:

1) You consider watchtowers almost useless? They provide a permanent borderguard for zero upkeep. Also keep in mind that they don't represent a single tower, but a network of border posts and patrols. 50 mnai is too cheap. I am not sure about the price of a fort: the Romans built such things every day at the end of their march. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning.

2 & 3) High upkeep and AP slingers were chosen because the team feels this is more realistic. Classical armies were prohibitively expensive and therefor mostly recruited on an ad-hoc basis. The A.I. does not understand that, but they get financial aid anyway. Stone or lead bullets cause blunt trauma: armour does not resist that as well as it does arrows or swordcuts. I agree slingers are a bit overpowered, but we already have archers for the unarmoured troops.

4 & 5) Rebalancing temples actually sounds like a good idea. Many temples have bonuses that do not work properly. Loyalty (as opposed to law or public order boni) and morale bonuses do not appear to have an effect, while the tax bonus amounts to a tiny 1%. However, for reasons of realism I don't like all factions to have exactly the same government and temples.

Well, forts affect movement. If they are free - it isn't hard to delay an enemy attack with decoy forts. The AI is pretty dumb and will just attack forts for a few years while you build up a defense for the cities. The AI also has a habit of spamming watchtowers at the early part of the game. At 1,500, when was the last time that you spammed them during the first 20 turns? Heck, even at 50 mnai I almost never put up watchtowers. It isn't as though they buy time to allow you to intercept anyone with an army. Not to mention, Spies are much more useful.

As for slingers - I disagree with them having AP, but it doesn't matter. I like my slingers, you like yours.

I wouldn't mind giving many factions variety to better reflect their Gods, it was just too much of a hastle - so I gave them all one set which I felt was roughly balanced. Though, I find myself only using 3 of the temples... a big part of that is because the benefits from the other 3 temples can be achieved by the myriad of other buildings available (happiness, law, pop growth). There is a good chance that I'll end up axing some of the other buildings which will increase the usefulness of those temples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi En Son

Well, forts affect movement. If they are free - it isn't hard to delay an enemy attack with decoy forts. The AI is pretty dumb and will just attack forts for a few years while you build up a defense for the cities. The AI also has a habit of spamming watchtowers at the early part of the game. At 1,500, when was the last time that you spammed them during the first 20 turns? Heck, even at 50 mnai I almost never put up watchtowers. It isn't as though they buy time to allow you to intercept anyone with an army. Not to mention, Spies are much more useful.

---

True, but spies cost upkeep and do not live forever. I always use a couple of watchtowers to keep an eye on my stable borders. What I do not do is spam forts to block the A.I. :shrug: Difference of playing style, I guess.

Hmm... did you balance your unit per sheet or per "feeling"? I mean did you use a fixed formula for their cost upkeep and upgrades?

My opinion on slingers is that EB has their stats and AP ability just right - but the units contain too many men.

Unlike archers, who can stand in rows 10 deep and everyone can still fire by firing up into the air, dropping their arrows down on the enemy, slingers should only be 2 rows deep, but in a very wide formation. Make a slinger formation too deep, and the men in the rear will start hitting their comrades in front of them as the enemy close the range, since sling bullets travel on a much flatter trajectory than arrows!

Therefore, I think slinger units should be only half the size of archer units. Only 30-40 men on Large unit size, 60-80 men on Huge unit size. Standard formation, only 2 ranks deep. With their upkeep remaining the same, since training a slinger takes longer than training an archer, the sling is harder for a novice to use accurately. Slingers were very skilled people.

So you have the choice of buying slingers for the armour piercing ability, or archers for the greater firepower provided by having twice as many men in the unit.

Source: http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/sling.html