About a cheap ways to win in Eb online battles

1. The 15-20 infantry cohorts quadrangular box

Since there is no max infantry limit with Civilized factions then a player can just buy a 15-20 infantry cohorts and position them all in a huge quadrangular box, and then just go away to cook a meal or clean the apartment, so when the player comes back then he has won regardless of that what the opponent had done with his units or the time spent in thinking out some strategy as a countermeasure. This applies especially if the opponent is using some western infantry factions.

It should be noted that in reality did the Roman army consist one third by an auxilary/native units from the war-zone in question, where the romans units were mostly outnumbered by the opponent but did still manage to win through their superior discipline and equipment, so how more does it say about the outcome in Eb online battles when the Romans have more units? I don‘t neccesarily think that the Roman faction is overpowered but its main problem lies rather in the players themselves who get too many legionary cohorts, so in order to counterbalance this then it should be made rules that the melee infantry of post-marian Roman army must always be 1/3 non-Roman units and in regard to Polybyan era then the Italian units are also included with the auxilia, so this should make it fair for the opponents in a similar way like there is a max limit to phalanx untits (about 8). Also since Steppe armies must have a minimum 4-8 infantry then the similar thing should apply about a Civilized armies where they must have a minimum about 4-6 non-infantry units which consist of cavalry/archers.


2. Making use of Roman or Phalanx factions with a huge settting against different factions.

Each legionary cohort is about 100 men on large while a phalanx unit is about 120 men, while the better sort of infantry units with a western factions do consist of about 80 men each. So since on huge setting this number is doubled then it makes the Romans and Phalanx armies simply outnumber the opponent even more.

For an example then lets say I have about 12 Iberian medium spearmen with Lusotana which makes them about 960 men on large and 1920 on huge setting, while the Romans have about 1200 men on large and 2400 on huge, while the phalanx army has about 960 on large and 1920 on huge with the addition of 4 other infantry units (since phalanx unit are max 8). So on large do Romans outnumber mine Luso units with 240 men which are similar to a two and half extra Roman units or a 3 extra Iberian medium spearmen units, while on huge setting this number gets bigger when it is about 480 men which are in real the same number of units but look rather upon it how the Roman lines get even more outstretched with their ranks maybe about 4-6 men deep each, where the similar thing can apply about the phalanx units how they get more wider in outnumbering the enemy. It is already too time-consuming to kill phalanx units from the sides or rear with ones own mobile infantry while ones own units tend to lose morale much sooner than the phalanx units, so on huge setting this disadvantage is increased even further for ones own western infantry.


3. The Magic button feature:

You can just buy a lot of cheap hoplites about 1300 minaii and put them on guard mode (but this can also apply about a legionary cohorts which are stacked together in a giant box), so regardless of that how powerfull and expensive infantry the opponent uses (excluding elites/shock) with a western faction then those heavy infantry will either way be killed or delayed so long by those cheap enemy units that it will recoil upon the opponents strategy in whole.

I played two battles with one Roman player, and I have noticed that when I had a guard mode on and did not attack with mine Neitos but the other player attacked with his cohorts then mine infantry won the battle, while in the latter battle when the situation was reversed then the Roman player won with his infantry. This guard mode thing is really a stupid device to acquire a victory when the player which attacks by pointing upon enemy infantry does always lose, so I think it does recoil upon people playing fair and enjoying the game. Since guard mode can't be removed from the game then I suggest that all players are forbidden to use it, so there is appealed to the players conscience and honesty in doing it in a conditionless way.

To make this hypothetical: Lets say that it would historically have happenend that a huge army of Gallic Neitos were about to engage with some lame Hoplite units, then the hellenic general would not know what to do because he would know that his men were inferior both in attack and defense to the Gauls, but then he would all of a sudden get an idea to push some magic button that would make all his men lot better than the gauls through some positive thinking alone, like that the same men had hitherto not already been doing all the best they could done in regard to their physical stamina and skills. Conclusion: Why does the guard mode button exist at all? Can‘t people just fight with one personality each and one body each, instead of having some alternate mode to switch on and off?


In regard to these issues then there is simply just manipulated with the game engine rather than by applying a fluid strategy, like it has nothing to do with any merit or effort in developing as proper strategy, because the battle is mostly just already decided by some irrelevant factors. Many people talk about having the system historically correct, but it can also be said that it should be realistically correct like the same natural laws would apply about the modern man in being in the same position. The main aim of all rules is to create a fair basis for all the people involved, so instead of gazing upon some petty factors about the surface or minor issues then it should be kept to the spirit of the rules by means of that how the player himself must be considerate toward his opponent and give him at least some decent chance of defeating the player with his available units of balanced army. For is it the purpose with this strategy game to be both entertaining and educational, where it should encourage players to be constantly testing out new tactics and formations regardless of the result of some single battles, while it is a rather petty thing to be always choosing again and again the overly safe way while never learning anything from such victories, while I believe that you can often learn more from own defeats. Although this knowledge has been aquired through a battles with other players then it is still not meant to be some personal attack against them or that I am attempting to defend mine own defeats and shortcomings, but the purpose of this article is rather to point to these enumerated factors in an objective way and create a fair basis for all players to simply enjoy the game.

1-Boxes are fairly easy to deal with if you know how to and if they go out to lunch, you just surround them and take the win... Otherwise shoot them in the back, hit the same units over and over again. You have initiative. Use it.

2-You're outnumbered whichever way. I don't really see how this is cheap at all? Phalanxes die to being out maneuvered and Rome's large infantry sizes represent their ability to raise massive amounts of infantry. Likewise they have pretty much useless cavalry and have to make due with mostly Heavy Infantry + Archer to win.

3-Seems like alot of people have issues with this. While guard mode is flipping annoying some units are completely useless without it such as hoplites. Hoplites basically suck for thier cost. They die to nearly every other heavy infantry unit because of their crap stamina and super dense formation as with everything on the KH Roster that is heavier than Thuerophoroi. They don't have their historical interlocked shield pushing power or anything. The only thing they have going for them is their high density when in guard mode and high mass which makes it hard to push them back. Guard mode is a device to defeat stronger units with weaker ones if the weaker unit is in formation.

Now... I have one thing to say since I'm probably the one you think about when you complain about guard mode since I'm primarily an infantry faction user: The people who rant about guard mode are usually the ones who completely fail with some sort of massed frontal attack. If you want to have some strategic play, STOP DOING FRONTAL ASSAULTS. Guard mode is not magic, guard mode will not insta-win you the game. All it does is allow for units to get a stamina advantage so they can slaughter your units. The main way you can beat guard mode units is by positional play. You have to outmaneuver them and draw them out of position. If you hit guard mode units out of position they are completely screwed and have to abandon guard mode. If you hit a guard mode unit in formation, you are idiotic. You know that its very hard to bear guard mode units form the front so just stop doing it.

Another thing of note: Play at lower money if you hate guard mode and massive infantry spam. The main reason you are out numbered by Rome and the Greeks is that you both max out on 20 unit armies and its alot easier to break guard mode units that aren't +1 chevroned each.

EB battles are mainly won on the flank. Line vs. line, the line in guard mode will generally win. History somewhat supports this since the Romans crushed the Gauls all the time fighting cautiously, with their characteristic slow step backwards in battle which Polybius noted. In EB multiplayer I have watched a lot of replays and the replays show that a lot of people don't understand the stamina factor, so they attack in line against a line of equal size in guard mode, and they predictably lose via exhaustion and morale collapse. When skilled players compete, they often draw their lines within javelin range, and then exchange javelin showers (generally a waste of javelins since they are best used to fire into your opponent's flank or back and cause few casualties in frontal exchanges). After javelins are wasted, then skilled players often try to outmaneuver their opponent's flank, or try to destroy the enemies' cavalry forces. The winner at the flank emerges as the victor by surround/slaughter or cavalry charging the opponents rear. Is it boring? Arguably so. But there is a lot of room for evolution of gameplay still, since very few players micromanage at the flank with high proficiency, and troop selection and general strategy and battleline arrays are often rather simple and oriented towards simple rectilinear battle. I think that the key is to attack obliquely and crush the flank, once the flank is seriously threatened the rectilinear formations dissolve and the battle becomes the bloody aweful mess just like it should be. In those situations the Eurobarbs are well equipped to win with their superior man on man lethality, perhaps you should focus more on getting to that point. Those pantodapoi phalanxes have garbage morale and go down pretty easy if one does not voluntarily impale oneself.

Speaking of bloody awful mess: http://www.filefront.com/16996473/crazy.rpy

Features guard mode and lulz. Was a really fun game. Any game that disolves into someone horse's being chased around the battle by someone else's horses is usually a good game.

Check out the battle with Me v. Jirisys... clear example of how to beat guard-entrenched units... http://www.filefront.com/16973657/v.TheJirisys.rpy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Check out the battle with Me v. Jirisys... clear example of how to beat guard-entrenched units... http://www.filefront.com/16973657/v.TheJirisys.rpy.

---

Yes... with a legionnary cuadrangular box:clown: (and the fact the i got steppe with a cived:clown:)

You had it easy, you only needed to fight less men, i was outnumbered, there were less infs

Besides, tourney army rules are :daisy:ed thanks to mister Vartan

~Jirisys (All thank him, for with him we have 20 legionaries:clown:)

Any of you who mentioned the historicity of guard mode should take back what you said. Guard mode is--and let's be honest with each other here--one of the most if not the most ridiculous feature and switch in the Rome: Total War system, as well as other systems. The point of the guard mode, as the developers of the game envisioned and then created it to be, is to force units who have just beaten an enemy unit not to chase after it, but to stand their ground. This is like Starcraft 2 and its higher and higher intentions of reaching out to the newbie community. Not to be offensive, but you might as well increase your skill when playing this game. You should constantly scan for units that are chasing enemy units if you wish to stop them. Also a problem is the engagement artificial intelligence of the RTW system (and perhaps other TW systems). If the developers had programmed it correctly (which they did not), units chasing enemy units would keep chasing the routing unit until at least one of their soldier ran into a non-routing enemy units, at which point the unit would engage said non-routing enemy unit. This code is a matter of conditionals in the engagement AI, something which clearly was left out, even in engine revision 1.9 (Alexander).

The problem with guard mode, especially in an online gaming environment with replay files that are incomplete and have ridiculously little information (e.g. they do not include information on unit switches such as guard mode), is that it is hard to enforce. If it were up to me, the only units that would be allowed to use guard mode would be the classical and Macedonian phalanxes (i.e. classical Greek Hoplites and any of the units in the Macedonian phalanx formation). I'm sure you all understand. After all, why wouldn't you? It's a game switch and some code behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

for with him we have 20 legionaries

---

I am thankful for your gratitude, appreciation and respect. Thank you so, so much. Thanks. A lot.

If you are facing 20 legionary cohorts, pretend like the SPQR just sent you 3 legions, and that you are about to get taught a lesson in warfare. It will be at least some consolation.

1.2.3. That is why it is so annoying playing against romans. They have better infantry , better numbers , the magic button and all that at a pretty measly cost.

For me , i think , fighting will never be the same after seeing so many hoplitai/cohort boxes. that is why i try to play differently by adopting steppe tacs , berserk tacs ,ellie tacs or just plain phalanx tacs. They at least give me a chance against them by putting in a situation where guard mode is disadvantageous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

1. The 15-20 infantry cohorts quadrangular box

Since there is no max infantry limit with Civilized factions then a player can just buy a 15-20 infantry cohorts and position them all in a huge quadrangular box, and then just go away to cook a meal or clean the apartment, so when the player comes back then he has won regardless of that what the opponent had done with his units or the time spent in thinking out some strategy as a countermeasure. This applies especially if the opponent is using some western infantry factions.

---

It reminds me: in one of the battle replies there is one fight between Carthage and polybian SPQR: 12 units of principes, 4-5 units of triari plus some cavalry against an Carthaginian army composed of spearmen, light infantry, archers, slingers and only a few heavy inf. units. It's true that Carthage cannot field an decent army to oppose such a mass heavy inf. spam under the rules we have (i don't know about the other factions, i play Carthage). I'm not complaining really, it's just that i won't take a battle against any post-camilian SPQR army on this tourney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

The problem with guard mode, especially in an online gaming environment with replay files that are incomplete and have ridiculously little information (e.g. they do not include information on unit switches such as guard mode), is that it is hard to enforce. If it were up to me, the only units that would be allowed to use guard mode would be the classical and Macedonian phalanxes (i.e. classical Greek Hoplites and any of the units in the Macedonian phalanx formation). I'm sure you all understand. After all, why wouldn't you? It's a game switch and some code behind it.

---

I'd definitely make a case that any "Shield Wall" units should be able to use defense mode. Those units often engage in combat similar to the way the hoplite does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Any of you who mentioned the historicity of guard mode should take back what you said. Guard mode is--and let's be honest with each other here--one of the most if not the most ridiculous feature and switch in the Rome: Total War system, as well as other systems.

---

Well I don't know about the intentions of the game designers, but there is historical evidence as to the efficacy of guard mode, especially in Roman warfare. In Hellenic hoplite warfare the characteristic motion was the press forward of shield on shield (othismos), phalanxes inflicted both weapon damage as well as massed blunt pressure with an aim or rupturing an enemy formation, breaking morale, trampling opponents etc. So there the defensive mode is dubious. I tend to think that sarissa phalanxes were a bit more flexible since shield othismos was not an objective. However the Hellenic historian Polybius, who was a confidant of Scipio Aemilianus, the greatest Roman general of his day, and who accompanied Aemilianus during his siege of Carthage during the 3rd Punic war, and was in a great position to gain authoritative knowledge on Roman warfare, explicitly said in his history that the characteristic motion of a Roman legion in battle was a slow step backward. Add to that the well known fact that in battle Roman legionaries were oathbound to not move from their station. This is basically describing static defensive infantry warfare. The triplex acies system of hastati, princiipes, and triarii was designed to exhaust the enemy and enable the Romans to maximize their combat endurance. Why the emphasis on long term battle, with military drill practice of principes and triarii succeeding one another? The point was for the principes, or if necessary, the triarii to break an exhausted enemy. The enemy was exhausted through hours of combat, "diu atque acriter pugnatum est" (they fought fiercely and for a long time") statements like that are common in Roman history. But beyond all that is simply the testament of Polybius, that the standard motion of a Roman legion in battle was a slow step backwards, they would kill one man after another piling up the bodies of the dead, slowly retreating. That is defensive fighting, and guard mode in EB is a representation of that. If you don't like how overpowered it is I can understand that, attackers tire far too quickly and it makes flanking too important, but in its basic idea it is reasonable for defensive formations to conserve stamina better than attackers. Hannibal at Cannae placed his Gallic forces in the center in a thin line and had them fight defensively, slowly giving ground against the impetus of the deep Roman columns, eventually the Romans tired, were surrounded, suffered morale collapse and were massacred. Ariovistus tried the same against Caesar but failed, the legions overpowered his shieldwall. But it's just a way to win, fight conservatively until your opponent runs out of gas, then overpower him. In principle it has a historical basis, its just IMO too strong in EB.

I find the guard mode Romani the easiest opponent:
- Easy to outmaneuver
- Easy to surround
- You can dictate the speed of the battle
- Romani players tend to be impatient (no offense), so sooner or later they will attack you
- If they bring too many cohorts, they won't have good cavalry
- If they bring too many cohorts, they won't have good archers
- They are extremely vulnerable to well placed AP units on the flanks
- Morale penalties (If you have nudists)/cavalry charge from the rear + exposed flanks will call for a fast rout
- Factions which have phalanxes can easily force the Romani players to leave their guard modes (Just poke the front line, protect your flanks, the opponent has to attack if he doesn't want a slow defeat)

Edit:
http://www.filefront.com/16999033/1v...ainstSlick.rpy - Romani player was forced to attack me.

You don't have to worry about slick only , you got an entire cohort of players , mostly roman. I just love when they complain about steppe tacs:))

First, @Fred, please. Not in public. Not in public, please. Please. << I'm starting to beg, but I mean it.

And Geticus, you just repeated yourself. Guard mode and historicity. Listen, it's great how the hoplites fought in history. That's perfect, fine, and wonderful. The discussion isn't about how they fought, though. It's about the in-game switch known to us as "Guard Mode". Guard Mode has nothing to do with history, and everything to do with the video game. It isn't a historical concept, but a video-game concept, particular (or peculiar, shall we say) to the TW series of games. It is nothing more or less than what I mentioned regarding the chasing (or lack thereof) of routing enemy units. That's it. Nothing more to it. But its exploitation is what concerns people, definitely including the author of this thread as well as myself; I won't lie.

The only problem with guard mode is EB.
Guard mode lets your units tire more slowy, sometimes hoplites do not seem to tire at all by fighting. In Rome Vanilla this wasnt a problem, because most fights resolved in like 1 afte contact, because one side fled. In EB units have extreme high moral and defense values, so fights take much longer, so guard mode starts to make a difference.

If you do have to assault a guard mode line. The best method is to charge and pull back on one unit repeatedly with some heavy assault troops.

I don't know about Rome though. You can usually take htem out in a cavalry engagement. However if you can't... yeah Imperial Rome is lame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I don't know about Rome though. You can usually take htem out in a cavalry engagement. However if you can't... yeah Imperial Rome is lame.

---

True. Once i had a battle against polybian SPQR and i decided to make an experiment. So i charged the line composed of principes with a unit of Liby-phoenican cav. and one unt of my mighty Sacred Band Cavalry: allthough i was outnumbered in infantry my cavalry did some serious damage to the enemy and i actually won at the end. Anyway, my opponent had not only principes but hastati also (i thank him for being fair enough not to spam principes, triari and extraordinari).

I find many of the given solutions to be short-sighted and too time consuming to be applied in battles.

Like about charging the Roman infantry with heavy cavalry of 40 charge points, then although you can kill about 10-12 people with such attack, then try to apply this with 1-2 units against a 15-20 infantry cohorts which consits of 1500-2000 men, so you would probably have to charge about 150 times in order to kill such a multitude of men. And about charging back and forth against some single units with your own infantry or by avoiding a frontal attack, then these are too-shorted termed solutions which makes the player have to micromanage everything with his units, like there is neglected the strategy in whole or neglected in having a good overview of the formation while you just have to concentrate upon the corner-units of the opponent a little by little (units which have two sides open for an attack instead of all the other compressed units which have only one side open - like in front) or being FORBIDDEN to use frontal attack, like you always have to adapt to everything which the enemy does first of his own initative and revolve around his defensive mode instead of fighting upon some anoter basis for a more fluid possibilities to position your armies.

As Viking just said (post #18), it's ridiculous. Why should you fight fire with fire? You have an idle guard army waiting for you, and instead of being able to approach it and fight it, you have to throw in cheese of your own. At this rate, every online battle will be full of the world's varieties of cheeses by Christmas.

I pick up an oldschool "Hammer and Anvil" army with Pontos, and I do some battles. I lose to others, but I continue to use them, because it's a good army composition (in my opinion at least). After the 20th defeat I wonder what's the problem? My build is ok, or isn't it? Should I try to adapt to the other players? Nah, I can play my own style with my own units, I can go an all infantry army even with Saba, if I want. Another 20 defeats follow this. Maybe I was wrong, but-but I saw in the movies that frontal assauts are cool so they should work in this videogame too. Same happens. This is cheap, guard mode Romani are just so OP. I should change my army composition, I guess... let's see I don't need this and that, but these cheap AP guys might have some impact on those idle maniacs... oohhhh scary units (even if I dislike them!), a little morale penalty for the enemy is not bad... hmm should I try to outgun them with slingers if I know that they will have Kretans? Naaah, but a few will come handy as arrow fodders. Hmm heavy cavalry I might used them wrong, should I try to charge the enemy when it's in melee instead? Even guard mode won't protect their sorry [Instert flower here and imagine a black hole]. Or should I just go with light cavalry, I saw some quite good ones, maybe I should forget about the very expensive units and just buy cheap chevroned ones? Wow I checked that my Romani opponent has 2k men on large unit size, I guess I should change my tactics too, maybe I shouldn't go with an 1,3k elitist army because the 700 men difference is just too much, let's buy less high-end and more mediums and levies. OOHH BUT NOOO, WHAT HAPPENED WITH MY BEAUTIFUL ARMY? It doesn't look like what I imagined... (after the won battle) but at least can do the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

maybe I should forget about the very expensive units and just buy cheap chevroned ones?

---

Except aren't the Romani the only ones allowed to use chevrons in tourney battles? Maybe that was an older tourney rule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Except aren't the Romani the only ones allowed to use chevrons in tourney battles? Maybe that was an older tourney rule

---

Nope. Everybody can use chevrons - 1 per unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

Nope. Everybody can use chevrons - 1 per unit.

---

Oh ok, I guess it was just that generally the faction that has enough money left to do so with all their units is the Romani

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I pick up an oldschool "Hammer and Anvil" army with Pontos, and I do some battles. I lose to others, but I continue to use them, because it's a good army composition (in my opinion at least). After the 20th defeat I wonder what's the problem? My build is ok, or isn't it? Should I try to adapt to the other players? Nah, I can play my own style with my own units, I can go an all infantry army even with Saba, if I want. Another 20 defeats follow this. Maybe I was wrong, but-but I saw in the movies that frontal assauts are cool so they should work in this videogame too. Same happens. This is cheap, guard mode Romani are just so OP. I should change my army composition, I guess... let's see I don't need this and that, but these cheap AP guys might have some impact on those idle maniacs... oohhhh scary units (even if I dislike them!), a little morale penalty for the enemy is not bad... hmm should I try to outgun them with slingers if I know that they will have Kretans? Naaah, but a few will come handy as arrow fodders. Hmm heavy cavalry I might used them wrong, should I try to charge the enemy when it's in melee instead? Even guard mode won't protect their sorry [Instert flower here and imagine a black hole]. Or should I just go with light cavalry, I saw some quite good ones, maybe I should forget about the very expensive units and just buy cheap chevroned ones? Wow I checked that my Romani opponent has 2k men on large unit size, I guess I should change my tactics too, maybe I shouldn't go with an 1,3k elitist army because the 700 men difference is just too much, let's buy less high-end and more mediums and levies. OOHH BUT NOOO, WHAT HAPPENED WITH MY BEAUTIFUL ARMY? It doesn't look like what I imagined... (after the won battle) but at least can do the job.

---

This scoff is blasphemous and rude. People are trying to enjoy their gameplay and the last thing they need to do is ruin it (more so) in order to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

This scoff is blasphemous and rude. People are trying to enjoy their gameplay and the last thing they need to do is ruin it (more so) in order to win.

---

This scoff is TRUE and deals with the TRUTH of this tourney

I can't even imagine why in the name of the dearest Scott, you did not put Legionaries as Hvy INF! Samniti milites are HEAVIER than legionaries? Are you kidding me

Besides, What you're saying is (I get to face 3 legions) that i SHOULD be outnumbered because, history says so... Well, I should also be able to outnumber them? So, let's have an ally, another guy on my side, and we fight like in campaigns... NO! This is a combat, where everything should be balanced, so that you only need to use Tactics, instead of just sorrounding them and killing them, like Cynoscephalae, like Teutonburg, like Gaugamela, like Granikus, like Carrhae, etc....

I like playing with (and as) the romani, but what you're doing is giving them an unfair advantage no wonder only phalanxes can defeat them, THERE ARE OTHER FACTIONS you know?

~Jirisys (:daisy:)

You guys really should play at lower money. The assumed 20 unit armies are really silly and leads to Rome and Phalanx factions outnumbering everyone.

Make romans cost more. Simple solution to a whole array of problems. Make them choose between units like pantodapoi or lugoae because of lack of money. For ex..i am yet to see 1 unit of vigiles in all games. As for chevroned cohorts , that is just..obscene.

Romans..highly trained ( paid instructors anyone ?) , highly motivated ( expensive to keep them interested) , superiourly armed ( AP , good attack , good shields , are you kidding me?) , low paid ( 120 romans get paid less than 80 naked gauls ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

Make romans cost more. Simple solution to a whole array of problems. Make them choose between units like pantodapoi or lugoae because of lack of money. For ex..i am yet to see 1 unit of vigiles in all games. As for chevroned cohorts , that is just..obscene.

Romans..highly trained ( paid instructors anyone ?) , highly motivated ( expensive to keep them interested) , superiourly armed ( AP , good attack , good shields , are you kidding me?) , low paid ( 120 romans get paid less than 80 naked gauls ).

---

The money issue is one of the largest ones as well. Cost is always an issue, but especially in our current system. And note that I'm not saying that budget is a problem, but cost. It's a lot of work going through all 500 units and changing costs, but it's nothing compared to the manhours the great team of developers has put in to the mod. The original complaint is a valid and just one, and there are unfortunately few ways of dealing with it. Yet people still choose to deny this. People would rather remain ignorant and turn their backs on the issue. There is a set of villages and they would rather have a subset burn to the ground rather than to battle these fires. The humane issues appear by the day to be far more troubling than the in-game issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

This scoff is blasphemous and rude. People are trying to enjoy their gameplay and the last thing they need to do is ruin it (more so) in order to win.

---

This is a multiplayer tournament, there are victors and losers after each battle. One side won't really enjoy the matches, you can't avoid that. If you want to win, do whatever it takes to win without violating the rules, after all, this is a competition. If you want to have a nice army with nice elites, do a campaign. Guard mode Romani are beatable, every army composition is beatable, if you don't want to change your tactics then live with the fact, you will be defeated by these players always.

For example, I had a battle against ACS a few hours ago, that was my first against a full steppe army. I was defeated so badly like never before, but I checked the replay, I know what I did wrong now. I will do some reforms on my anti-steppe army so I wouldn't commit the same mistakes next time.

I really dislike it when you go on one of your metaphor rants because metaphors are suppose to be easier to understand and your are mroe complex than the issue.

Changing Rome's budget won't really do anything since that just makes them completely fail in the cavalry department. Its viable in Polybian because allied cav is priced correctly. Like I said, play a lower money. Its not as predictable or silly.