[EB] How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and East

Before I say anything then I have to confess that I will not be playing multiplayer untill the Europa Barbarorum 2 comes out, so this is more like a suggestion for that when that time comes.

When playing as the Western barbarian factions then they are mostly bound to some light slinger units, so when there is played against Hellenic or Eastern factions then the slingers get massacred within an 1 minutes so that then next will the cavalry be massacred and the infantry gets doomed because of their lack of mobility.

But if the Western barbarian factions could be able to hire Cretan mercs against the Hellenic and eastern factions (and also Rome) then they would at least get some chance to counter the enemy archers and Horse archers, so it would encourage players to use other factions rather than Rome and Carthage in the west. This option would not be allowed when Western faction competes against other western factions.

Like for an example then if a western barbarians would meet with an Hellenic and eastern factions, then it is because that either party would have travelled to the territory of the other one, so a western barbarians travelling through eastern territories would be able to hire cretans and vica verca with western mercs.

Like if the Cretans were the most famour mercs in the east then the Celtibrerian heavy infantry (dunaminica) would be the most famous mercs in the west, so when a western faction would compete against an eastern factions then the latter would be able to hire Dunaminica to balance the changes.

it would balance it somewhat but it would be totally ahistorical. cretans working for gauls or sweboz? highly unlikely.

I do however agree on the fact that barbarians need some buffing , but i do not feel that the problem is in the units available ( gauls didnt exchange missile fire with hired cretan archers lol) but in the price. Gauls ARE expensive , as the cost/bang ratio is pretty low. Not to mention most units have 80 men , which is ....bad , while greeks have phalanxes of 120. i mean , how many greeks were there compared to gauls ? From what i've read, usually barbarian armies were larger than their adversary , not smaller.

Sweboz are ok , as long as they have THE BIG BAD Forest. Don't forget , MP is usually around "grassy lands " and Irish marshlands.

Maybe the roman cohorts and phalangists should be reduced to 80 men per unit rather than by adding to the other factions.
It should also be done something about this phalangist immunity to missile fire.

Balearic slingers only get 20 ammo but it is not like they chose to throw big rocks all the time - should have their range and ammo increased (especially when fighting against other ranged units). Slingers should also consist of 80 men per unit like the archer units (instead of being only 60 men)

Gauls half-naked or light units should maybe be increased to 120 men per unit (large) - But for mine part then I am never going to play again as Gauls.

Not all factions are meant to stand around and idle through a passive missile exchange. The Gauls were historically known mainly for crushing power in hand to hand combat, not long range skirmishing, and EB did a decent job reflecting this. So if you want to sit around and arch you are better off playing another faction. If you want to charge your infantry the Celts are the best since they have the most diverse array of high lethality infantry in the game along with the cheapest, the Bataroas and Botroas. Celts also have an abusable advantage in MP because they have access to a greater amount of +morale and -morale effects than any other faction in the game. For my part I find that no other faction in the game quite has the chainrouting power that the Gauls do when used properly with stacked negative morale effects like nakeds' fear, carnute druid chant, cavalry charge etc, flank/rear surround, chariots, etc. In MP if these morale effects were skillfully abused, people would very likely start complaining about Gauls being overpwoered, "Gauls just route my infantry line and then butcher my archers, then my cavalry stand no chance" it would be almost the reverse of what you are saying. Don't stand around and arch. Fight like Caesar at Pharsalos, overload the flank with infantry, route enemy infantry and then run down and butcher the archers standing behind them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Not all factions are meant to stand around and idle through a passive missile exchange. The Gauls were historically known mainly for crushing power in hand to hand combat, not long range skirmishing, and EB did a decent job reflecting this. So if you want to sit around and arch you are better off playing another faction. If you want to charge your infantry the Celts are the best since they have the most diverse array of high lethality infantry in the game along with the cheapest, the Bataroas and Botroas. Celts also have an abusable advantage in MP because they have access to a greater amount of +morale and -morale effects than any other faction in the game. For my part I find that no other faction in the game quite has the chainrouting power that the Gauls do when used properly with stacked negative morale effects like nakeds' fear, carnute druid chant, cavalry charge etc, flank/rear surround, chariots, etc. In MP if these morale effects were skillfully abused, people would very likely start complaining about Gauls being overpwoered, "Gauls just route my infantry line and then butcher my archers, then my cavalry stand no chance" it would be almost the reverse of what you are saying. Don't stand around and arch. Fight like Caesar at Pharsalos, overload the flank with infantry, route enemy infantry and then run down and butcher the archers standing behind them.

---

You are right about the strategy. the problem comes when you try to apply as you simply don't have enough men. Good gaulish units have 80 men. phalanxes 120 , romans 100. And that high letlaity is a trap for light minded , vs high armour they rly suck. I do however like them once they reach the backs of enemies:))))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

You are right about the strategy. the problem comes when you try to apply as you simply don't have enough men. Good gaulish units have 80 men. phalanxes 120 , romans 100. And that high letlaity is a trap for light minded , vs high armour they rly suck. I do however like them once they reach the backs of enemies:))))

---

The key is to combine the Gaulic charge with the classical oblique attack like the Theban general Epaminondas. Sarissa phalanxes dominate in parallel line fights. The Gauls have to approach at a slant, or just smash one flank and ignore the rest of the enemy line. The gaesatae warhead leads the strong flank, turns the battle sideways and routes down the line. Cavalry surround the rear, dumping the javelin barrage at the same time as the gaesatae flank onslaught for enhanced morale reduction. The general masses of the Gaulic line, the bataroas, axeman mercs, whatever infantry spam really, just helps sandwich the enemy line, increase morale pressure and aid in cutting down the routers. It's mainly a matter of timing, its just easier to keep an army in a static position and watch a missile exchange, attacking a strong formation in guard mode requires superior micromanaging and focusing firepower at the vulnerable flank, after the morale loss from nearby troops routing becomes contagious it is very feasible to create a chainroute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Before I say anything then I have to confess that I will not be playing multiplayer untill the Europa Barbarorum 2 comes out, so this is more like a suggestion for that when that time comes.

---

Suggestions for EB2 are better posted in the EB2 forum. I don't know if the EB team visits here. However, since the thread developed into an MP tactics discussion, I'll leave it here for the time being.

Romans don't break. not with prima cohors spam. they do have 15 morale and highly disciplined. you can pressure them on 1 flank but the rest of their army will circle and surround you due to your lack of men (they will have 100 for your 80)(cheaper too , with very good mass)
Greek phalanxes...at 120 men they can really stretch so reaching one flank is very very hard. Not to mention greeks have a killer of a cav which will punish you the second you turn ur back to them.

Don't get me wrong , i think the gauls are well made , but just too damn expensive cost/unit. i think a 100 men /unit would be more balanced. All gaulish vs Roman/greeks involved a superiour number of gauls. That means:
1: either cheap gauls
2:or either bigger unit sizes

They are more powerful if you have not requisite 20 unit armies. But even then 20 Celtic Axemen only break even against 16 Cohorts.

Celtic axemen are ok but the strength of the Gauls lies in the longswordsmen and morale units, chiefly the gaesatae. Also Rhaetians Tekastos are a lot better axemen with their AP javelins, better morale and stamina so they are a better choice for the AP portion of the army. But don't overlook the Northern Gallic Swordsmen, they supply the masses of Gaulic armies with their big numbers, wide coverage and high lethality. Bataroas and Botroas (for Britons) are the basic troop of the line, like the levy phalanxes of Hellenistic armies, they should be present in any army and their main weakness, their weak morale, should be bolstered with eagle troops like druids, nakeds, generals, what have you.

To me the math is there, if the Gauls are filling their mass with 0.225 lethality and the other guy has 0.13 then the Gauls should do well as long as their morale holds up. So 20 celtic axemen will never really show the strength of the Gauls. To run the Gauls right a few things have to be in place: 1)at least one gaesatae; 2) some cavalry, skilled leuke epos micro on the flank separates the men from the boys; 3) big battalions of longswordsmen for general lethality, this means bataroas and botroas; 4) some + morale effects to bolster the Bataroas, in SP I just use strong druid generals with good +command/+morale or Teutatis worshipping shieldbiter/berserker types, but in MP without strong generals British druids are the most cost effective since they are tough and affordable.

Burebista Prima cohort spam seems pretty strong but Rhaetian axemen and Northern Gallic swordsmen are both cheaper, have equal numbers, and cover more space (1.2 vs 1), so Gauls vs Romans I think a gaesatae/AP Rhaetian axemen warhead would overpower most any flank, and the Bataroas, while inferior, should hold up long enough if supported by the general, druids, and/or nakeds. The key with Gauls is to be qualitatively overpowering at the flank and to start the chainroute, if you win the cavalry contest and start routing down the line, I don't think there is any infantry that can withstand -morale from gaesatae fear, friendly troops routing, cavalry charge/ javelin volley from the back, pressure from the front, and getting a little tired, they pretty much all route. I might add that leuke epos are great at killing generals. Basically the thing about EB is that a lot of people like bombproof infantry, rectangular formations, and frontal assaults in line, and this favors Hellenistic phalanx based factions and Romans. If you like surround/slaughter horde tactics then then longsword/javelin troops are for you and gaesatae are the kings.

What about raising the range and damage of barbarian slingers (celtic, shephard, numidian) from 1 to 2 like it would involve a hellenic slingers? Because there is a lot of difference between the 2 and 3 damage (upgraded).
2 = worthless but 3 = fair amount of damage)
ALSO change the Balearic slingers.

For whats the use of having a slingers if their range is about 140 to 160 with only 1 damage plus light armed so that half of them are massacred before getting into range of enemy archers of the east? We don't have to be 100% precice with historical facts if it does ruin the gameplay with the western factions. Because I have tried to chase out the eastern factions with only an infantry and it is a foregone conclusion.

But about gauls then I understand this tactic which you have been describing but I did not post this originally because of them alone, but also because of other factions like Lusotana.
For although such a change of Cretans would be un-historical in regard to missile matter then it would at least make some player chose other factions than Rome or Carthage - But I will forfeit this cretan thing for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

To me the math is there, if the Gauls are filling their mass with 0.225 lethality and the other guy has 0.13 then the Gauls should do well as long as their morale holds up. So 20 celtic axemen will never really show the strength of the Gauls. To run the Gauls right a few things have to be in place: 1)at least one gaesatae; 2) some cavalry, skilled leuke epos micro on the flank separates the men from the boys; 3) big battalions of longswordsmen for general lethality, this means bataroas and botroas; 4) some + morale effects to bolster the Bataroas, in SP I just use strong druid generals with good +command/+morale or Teutatis worshipping shieldbiter/berserker types, but in MP without strong generals British druids are the most cost effective since they are tough and affordable.

Burebista Prima cohort spam seems pretty strong but Rhaetian axemen and Northern Gallic swordsmen are both cheaper, have equal numbers, and cover more space (1.2 vs 1), so Gauls vs Romans I think a gaesatae/AP Rhaetian axemen warhead would overpower most any flank, and the Bataroas, while inferior, should hold up long enough if supported by the general, druids, and/or nakeds. The key with Gauls is to be qualitatively overpowering at the flank and to start the chainroute, if you win the cavalry contest and start routing down the line, I don't think there is any infantry that can withstand -morale from gaesatae fear, friendly troops routing, cavalry charge/ javelin volley from the back, pressure from the front, and getting a little tired, they pretty much all route. I might add that leuke epos are great at killing generals. Basically the thing about EB is that a lot of people like bombproof infantry, rectangular formations, and frontal assaults in line, and this favors Hellenistic phalanx based factions and Romans. If you like surround/slaughter horde tactics then then longsword/javelin troops are for you and gaesatae are the kings.

---

yeah did the math there too and i got the same result on paper. but practice says otherwise.From moment one after you start the battle you realise that the enemy will have no problem flanking you as the 80 man units are no match to the line length of greeks /romans . Waiting for the enemy to atack..not a good ideea..they have arrows ..many ...and long range....bad. Ok ..we attack then. our superior lethality should make this a bloodbath i guess. Wrong!!!u get ur face pawned with elite gauls (2000 mnai) vs spear units/romans ( 1300sh/1700sh). Any flanking? nope..sry..his line just too long. => epic fail.

Ok , next time i'll do it differently. Cavalry.yeah..That would work. They are cheap , have 0.225 lethality...they should be something in cavalry fights. I start the game , see the enemy..i have the cavalry advantage...do some maneuvering...catch his cavalry...charge....they charge....close battle. ok , this is where i want him....thinking...kmoooooon lethality.................Face palm. Cavalry dead....rest of army just no match.

ok , third time...i cant flank i cant win cav fights with HCAV...must attack....Mass one flank. yeah..that's a great ideea ...ill overburden one flank..gaesatae..axemen..the drill. battle starts ..getting closer to the enemy...charging ...i see my enemy surprised...good thing..i start doing some damage on the flank , pressuring...pressuring ...flanking with cavalry ..protewcting them with spearmen so to discourage enemy cav....FACEPALM..AGAIN. The rest of his army circled around and did a "CANNAE" move on me , encircling me pretty much. bloodbath started.....high lethality...bla bla bla ...gauls ...they shoud be good at this....FACEPALM. LOST.Encircled.With fewer numbers and with concentrating power on 1 flank..my numbers appeared even fewer...thus easier to flank. DAMN. DAMN DAMN.

Ok , last try.....Chariots ...I make the plan...If i can get his cavalry and if he has no specialised skirmishers and if he has no elephants and i i can keep my forces safe long enough to have the cav advantage.....then i can win. Welll , surprisingly...all those almost happen..and I bask in the tremendous glory of a.......................DRAW. Facepalm.Facepalm.Monitor facepalm.

Bottom line: Lethality is good , but only for flankers. And even then it doesnt give you a huge advantage. AP much better. that is why my favourite unit is a 1.1 lethality unit with AP.It just kills EVERYTHING. And and has 4 shield , and armour , and trained ,and huge morale , and COSTS LESS THAN GAULS. Screw gauls..im getting some soap and become CIVILISED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Suggestions for EB2 are better posted in the EB2 forum. I don't know if the EB team visits here. However, since the thread developed into an MP tactics discussion, I'll leave it here for the time being.

---

Then thank goodness this thread isn't about EB2 (=

VikingPower (aka my friend VLN!) it's good to see you around. We're missing you! Sorry if this thread has turned into a Civilised vs. Barbaros pseudo-philosophical thread or a debate regarding how the others can hire your heavy inf as mercs but you can't hire their archers as mercs. You're completely right that if facing nations which, geographically speaking, would allow your general to have hired mercs along the way such as Cretan Archers, then you should have the right to hire them, within the merc limit. Seeing as they aren't on the roster, which nations were you thinking should the Archers be added to? Just Aed/Arv, or others as well?

Cheers.

Thanks Vartan for your friendly regard. I hope to see you all again when the new mods come out so that it will draw some decent amount of active players to the hamachi (EB 2, Dominion of the sword, Third age).

Well I guess that the original reason with this thread was rather biased because I felt that the Lusotana faction only needed archers to make it complete in all (it is rather strange how they don't seem to have any mercs at all).

But maybe the barbarian nations should still keep their slingers but the slingers should be modified to some point that they can survive for some limited time against enemy archers while the empahsis should still be on the infantry to do the work. So it will not be possible for slingers to have a ranged duel with other enemy archers but they can still survive for enough time to give some practical support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Thanks Vartan for your friendly regard. I hope to see you all again when the new mods come out so that it will draw some decent amount of active players to the hamachi (EB 2, Dominion of the sword, Third age).

Well I guess that the original reason with this thread was rather biased because I felt that the Lusotana faction only needed archers to make it complete in all (it is rather strange how they don't seem to have any mercs at all).

But maybe the barbarian nations should still keep their slingers but the slingers should be modified to some point that they can survive for some limited time against enemy archers while the empahsis should still be on the infantry to do the work. So it will not be possible for slingers to have a ranged duel with other enemy archers but they can still survive for enough time to give some practical support.

---

Modifying stats which were put in place for good reason is beyond me. Like I said, the one and only reasonable response here is to add mercs that would practically be available for hire in certain matchups.

I was going to suggest that:

1. The Balearic slingers would have the same stats as the Rhodian slingers and that all Celts could hire them as mercs along with Sweboz and Lusotana - don't care about the AP swords of Balearic

2. That the Celtic slingers could have a rhodian armour but be otherwise the same (and Sweboz and Lusotana could also hire them).

3. The main problem with that of being the Gaul faction was that the Hellenic slinger mercs were the best (upgraded) but you always had to skip them to get Rhaetix axemen instead, so another option is that only Barbarian factions can upgrade Celtic slingers twice.

It seems to me that Rhodian slingers should be allowed to be mercs and maybe the third issue can apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

I was going to suggest that:

1. The Balearic slingers would have the same stats as the Rhodian slingers and that all Celts could hire them as mercs along with Sweboz and Lusotana - don't care about the AP swords of Balearic

2. That the Celtic slingers could have a rhodian armour but be otherwise the same (and Sweboz and Lusotana could also hire them).

3. The main problem with that of being the Gaul faction was that the Hellenic slinger mercs were the best (upgraded) but you always had to skip them to get Rhaetix axemen instead, so another option is that only Barbarian factions can upgrade Celtic slingers twice.

It seems to me that Rhodian slingers should be allowed to be mercs and maybe the third issue can apply.

---

Your model is fine insofar as it involves making certain units possible to recruit by certain factions, and arguably, with enough agreement, all slingers (or some) could be two chevron-upgradeable by all (or some) factions. But why do you wish to alter unit stats? There are other stats that certain people argue should be changed as well, but nobody has yet dared make a thread on the stat-changes for online play. Perhaps there isn't enough interest, or people are afraid to challenge the status quo. If it isn't too far-fetched, a thread for stat-changes should be opened.

Well in regard to the unit stats then I think that a Multiplayer battles between human players calls for another system than that in the Single player, where maybe the thing is not about that whether it is historical correct but rather how to balance out the gameplay with all factions, but I am not sure what say in regard to this unit stats which other people have been discussing about for I don't know what it is about. I guess that you have to make a discernment to that what is a neccesary changes and to that when players are only pedantic about some silly issues on the surface. Maybe a changes should mainly be applied to unpopular factions, like for an example then I think that nobody does ever pick Egypt above the other hellenic factions and the Scythian/Saka are also a rare pick.

You have noticed that most players fight on grassy plain maps like the Irish marshlands and so on but maybe it would add more flavour to a tournaments if that the competing players are supposed to fight three battles on three different maps, where two maps are on each others hometurf (like woods for barbarians and desert plains for nomads) while the third map is on a neutral zone which

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well in regard to the unit stats then I think that a Multiplayer battles between human players calls for another system than that in the Single player, where maybe the thing is not about that whether it is historical correct but rather how to balance out the gameplay with all factions, but I am not sure what say in regard to this unit stats which other people have been discussing about for I don't know what it is about. I guess that you have to make a discernment to that what is a neccesary changes and to that when players are only pedantic about some silly issues on the surface. Maybe a changes should mainly be applied to unpopular factions, like for an example then I think that nobody does ever pick Egypt above the other hellenic factions and the Scythian/Saka are also a rare pick.

You have noticed that most players fight on grassy plain maps like the Irish marshlands and so on but maybe it would add more flavour to a tournaments if that the competing players are supposed to fight three battles on three different maps, where two maps are on each others hometurf (like woods for barbarians and desert plains for nomads) while the third map is on a neutral zone which

---

Indeed. I just wish two things: 1) that balancing for MP would be easy, and 2) there was an indication of which map the replay was played on (I think I mentioned to Chris how great it would be if there were such a thing as a replay analyser, but he is working on a SP saved campaign analyser).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Maybe a changes should mainly be applied to unpopular factions, like for an example then I think that nobody does ever pick Egypt above the other hellenic factions and the Scythian/Saka are also a rare pick.

---

I always felt that some factions need a little tweak. But never in stats , but in availability.
Per example:

Sauromatae have no medium/light MELEE ONLY cavalry > so after choosing heavy cav (all HA) , you pick up a few medium cav HA and your archer limit prohibits you from getting any more cavalry (they are all HA )
Saka --seems ok to me , i've played it and it's balanced. I mean , i took on ACS toe to toe while i was noobish with saka and i've lost by the skin of my teeth.
Egypt --good roster , but a little inferior to other Diadochi. That is why it it not picked. maybe adding some mercs to the roster might add some interest there.
Getai -- dont have access to scythian units , even as mercs , although they have a fomeland with those units and they are pretty much the only neighbour of scythians.
Sweboz --moar trees:)
gauls ---Cheaper or bigger unit sizes...Gauls are uselesss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well in regard to the unit stats then I think that a Multiplayer battles between human players calls for another system than that in the Single player, where maybe the thing is not about that whether it is historical correct but rather how to balance out the gameplay with all factions, but I am not sure what say in regard to this unit stats which other people have been discussing about for I don't know what it is about.

---

But doesn't that defeat the purpose of EB? This mod is about historical accuracy. Other mods are about balance.

I have never been involved in MP, but from what I recall of old discussions previous attempts at instituting alternate MP stats never had much success. Most of the community simply continued to use the "officially approved" ones from CA or the mod team; and the EB MP community is already small enough without being split. Also, prepare for endless debates about what represent accurate and balanced stats. We base our ideas on what is balanced on our own playing-style, but the best MP mods require a different playing style for each faction.

If this stat thing is a problem then we should skip it and rather keep mostly to that of adding some 3-4 mercs to the underrated factions

If there is going to be some changes to the unit roster with the Barbarian factions then we should mostly keep to the formula in making them formidable against the Hellenic and Eastern factions, where the ranged units are probably the most important while we should avoid changing the melee and cav units. But some underrated factions could be like a hybrid of two others and have some limited mercs. For an example then Koinion Hellenon and Macedon are the pure Hellenic factions, but Epirus could have more Gallic units as a hybrid while Egypt could have skirmishing units from the east or west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

I always felt that some factions need a little tweak. But never in stats , but in availability.

---

Exactly what I said =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

But doesn't that defeat the purpose of EB? This mod is about historical accuracy. Other mods are about balance.

---

Agreed. During the northern hemisphere school year we probably have less players than the number of fingers on one hand, so there would go the MP community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

If this stat thing is a problem then we should skip it and rather keep mostly to that of adding some 3-4 mercs to the underrated factions

---

It's all about placing the right people on the right rosters. Maybe roster availability thoughts should be spit and see where they land amongst the community. Hopefully you'll catch a few responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

It's all about placing the right people on the right rosters. Maybe roster availability thoughts should be spit and see where they land amongst the community. Hopefully you'll catch a few responses.

---

Sauromatae have no medium/light MELEE ONLY cavalry > so after choosing heavy cav (all HA) , you pick up a few medium cav HA and your archer limit prohibits you from getting any more cavalry (they are all HA )
Saka --seems ok to me , i've played it and it's balanced. I mean , i took on ACS toe to toe while i was noobish with saka and i've lost by the skin of my teeth.
Egypt --good roster , but a little inferior to other Diadochi. That is why it it not picked. maybe adding some mercs to the roster might add some interest there.
Getai -- dont have access to scythian units , even as mercs , although they have a fomeland with those units and they are pretty much the only neighbour of scythians.
Sweboz --moar trees:)
gauls ---Cheaper or bigger unit sizes...but if that is not available...dunno...some iberic?

I will make a new thread on the EB 2 forum what changed could be made in the MP unit roster, based on this recent discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

Sauromatae have no medium/light MELEE ONLY cavalry > so after choosing heavy cav (all HA) , you pick up a few medium cav HA and your archer limit prohibits you from getting any more cavalry (they are all HA )
Saka --seems ok to me , i've played it and it's balanced. I mean , i took on ACS toe to toe while i was noobish with saka and i've lost by the skin of my teeth.
Egypt --good roster , but a little inferior to other Diadochi. That is why it it not picked. maybe adding some mercs to the roster might add some interest there.
Getai -- dont have access to scythian units , even as mercs , although they have a fomeland with those units and they are pretty much the only neighbour of scythians.
Sweboz --moar trees:)
gauls ---Cheaper or bigger unit sizes...but if that is not available...dunno...some iberic?

---

--So what do you propose for Sauro in terms of specific unit additions to roster?
--ditto Egypt
--ditto Getai
--Roster changes won't repair trees for Sweboz. That's called 'choice of map', and everyone has that choice.
--Gauls - say what? o_O what are the max unit sizes anyway? and after which point would this imbalance the scale? (i.e. crackling-sauron-zerg phenomenon) and Iberic what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

I will make a new thread on the EB 2 forum what changed could be made in the MP unit roster, based on this recent discussion.

---

It doesn't really matter what ends up on the MP faction rosters because that's in the hands of the community anyway. Look at the 'units' lists for factional pages on EB site. It's what we use currently to list 'factional units' for most EB factions in both MP rosters as well as the wiki. In most cases the units match geographically with those factions, but in some cases there are mercs and non-factionals that end up on the lists. It's just an annoying nuance to deal with (I don't think we've bothered much yet in such a primitive stage of both the tiny EB MP community as well as the meager wiki).

Give barbs fire arrows so we can do the massive frontal assaults again :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Give barbs fire arrows so we can do the massive frontal assaults again :D

---

Are you serious? I thought the only archers y'all had were Sotaroas.

One archer is all you need :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

One archer is all you need :D

---

In that case, how large is this differential, between a Gallic army without flaming arrows and one with?