Saka "building" bodyguard cav (I think an error)

I know all about "March of Time" event and its effects on bodyguard cav. I don't think this is related. I think its an internal dictionary problem or something. Its easy to see in the custom battle menu. The actual Sakan general (ie your FM) is called something like "Saka late Catapracts" and the actual late Cataphracts are written as "Saka late Bodyguard". So when Saka is actually just recruiting Cataphracts, the name of the unit is showing up as "saka bodyguard cav"; with info as such. If you don't get what I'm saying, simply go to the custom game menu and play as Saka. There's clearly a unit of 40 men (on huge battle settings) called "Late Cataphracts" that is clearly the actual late Bodyguard cav; as well as a unit of 100 men (on huge settings) called "saka bodyguard cav" even though its clearly a unit of cataphracts.

I'm going into such detail because I think someone reported something like this a while back but responders thought is was a question about the "March of Time" event.
This is not a huge deal, proly just one messed up entry somewhere. I was just wondering if there was a solution.

I have EB 1.2 on BI (the problem was present on RTW.exe as well.)

PS. I love EB. I have not played vanilla or any other mod since installing EB. I am a Nomad steppe Kha-khan and have been since my first Parthia campaign in vanilla some years ago. I still remember my best Generals name "Arses the Horseman", ole boy left a sting of crossed swords around the middle east until his death in a ridiculously massive battle against (vanilla) yellow fever. He was only 24 IIRC. :hail:

I have some screenshots of the units in question:
Attachment 6784
Attachment 6785

those saka bodyguard cavalry (the 100 men one) are actually recruitable from as soon as you start the game. The Saka late cataphracts (40 men) are only available as bodyguards to your generals after march of time

also what is with that horde of elephants in your battle

Quote:

---

those saka bodyguard cavalry (the 100 men one) are actually recruitable from as soon as you start the game. The Saka late cataphracts (40 men) are only available as bodyguards to your generals after march of time

---

I understood that by looking in the recrutement viewer. But I still don't understand why their Cataphracts are called bodyguard cavalry and vice versa.

As for the elephants, I was trying to see how many I could nerf before dying. I have brought down elephants before with cataphracts, so I was just seeing the upper limit.

Don't mean to be beating a dead fish, but can anyone explain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikepettyrtw

Don't mean to be beating a dead fish, but can anyone explain?

---

Maybe the EDU name is switched? (the dictionary name) Or maybe the actual text was written for the wrong unit? Are the descriptions switched too?

~Jirisys ()

Well take a look at these:
https://img443.imageshack.us/img443/...ataphracts.jpg
The description doesn't seem to be messed up. It seems great, the only thing wrong is the name.
I took some screen shots of the specific units in question inside the EDU:
https://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9625/sakaedu1.jpg
and this too :
https://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1292/sakaedu2.jpg

I can't quite understand what I'm looking at. I'm not sure if I see the error or what.
This has occurred for several other people. Well, actually, anyone who progresses enough in their Saka campaign will encounter the "Bodyguard" cataphract issue.

Its a pretty simple edit of the text file if you'd like to change it. That being said, I think that bodyguard cavalry and late cataphracts are the same unit in theory. The reformed BG cavalry are certainly the later style of Saka Cataphracts. If anything, the recruitable cataphract unit should probably just read "Saka Cataphracts" or something along those lines.

I'm in no way an expert in indo-iranian languages, but -bara should mean troop/group of soldiers, with the previous compound word denoting the type. Therefore Hadabara could very well mean cataphract (like Grivpanvar means neck-guard wearers).
Seeing how Ysaninu Aysna is the name for the early unit, it could be the names were misplaced, but I really don't know...

Well, what would I edit? I can't really understand which entry refers to which unit.

Notice that the saka cataphract have "Axe" as the secondary weapon, but the late bodyguards have "Mace", so it's very complicated.

~Jirisys ()

Well, I know for a fact, post MOT(March of Time) Pahlavan FM Bodyguard (the real one) have a wakasashi style sword as their secondary. The normal cataphracts might have an axe or mace as a secondary.
So that means that entry 301 in the EB EDU has no errors, but rather the error for misnaming of (saka regular cataphacts) as (saka bodyguard cav) must originate in export_units.txt --------- ie, what I think is the dictionary for EB. Its located in the following :
\Rome - Total War\EB\Data\text

HOWEVER

Entry # 460 AKA "Saka late Cataphract" is clearly misnamed. Saka do not have late Cataphracts. Only Pahlava have a "late Cataphract". Therefore entry # 460 in the EB EDU is in reality the Saka post MOT FM bodyguard unit! (IE YAY!!) :bounce:

But !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That makes this slightly more complicated by meaning to provide a fix for the error (Which I have dubbed the SAKA LATE CAT error), we must edit both :
\EB\Data\export_descr_unit.txt
&
\EB\Data\text\export_units.txt

I have never edited that file (export_units.txt), so I am going to need some help.
Nor do I know precisely what to change or repair.
I however have taken some screenshots from export_units.txt of the entries I think are related to this problem(correct me if I'm wrong) :
https://img19.imageshack.us/img19/86...portunits1.jpg
and this one too
https://img411.imageshack.us/img411/...portunits2.jpg



PS. And way off topic, I was wondering, what nations must the Seleucids engage and be defeated by to obtain the cataphract reforms? I think its the following "Saka Rauka; Pahlava; Armenia; and Bakria, as these are the only ones who use Cats. And do you think this error in any way impacts this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikepettyrtw

PS. And way off topic, I was wondering, what nations must the Seleucids engage and be defeated by to obtain the cataphract reforms? I think its the following "Saka Rauka; Pahlava; Armenia; and Bakria, as these are the only ones who use Cats. And do you think this error in any way impacts this?

---

The FAQ only mentions Pahlav, Armenia and Baktria, but maybe that's an oversight because the Saka were included later than the others.

However, this error won't effect the reforms, for the simple reason that the reforms don't take into account the number of cataphracts. The reform is triggered by a character-trait, and the trait-engine cannot discern individual unit types. All that is required for getting the trait, is that the general loses a sizeable battle against an army that has a large contingent of cavalry.

I always cheat to get the seleucid reforms. I hate cheating and never do it except in this particular case. Realistically, I really don't think two separate generals need to lose a battle to see how effective the cataphracts are. They could have faced them and defeated them but been impressed by how destructive they were.

Another thing. The eastern seleucid holdings are very underdeveloped in terms of military. If you lose a battle, it could set you back 5 years. Lose two and thats 10 years

When I look at export_units.txt, I'm not sure what to do. But in the EDU, its a bit worse, I really have no clue what to do, can anybody help out, or provide some info?

Pretty pretty please with candy on top, may I recieve some suggestions in this endeavor. If someone can tell me how to give ballons, I would gladly give 3 or maybe 90 even!


http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...53/279/e31.jpg




:ave:
:hail:
:help:
:help:
:pray:
:bigcry:
:wall:

Indeed it did!
Just how do I go about editing both of the aformentioned files to repair the unit misnaming?
C'mon, who doesn't want 90 BALLONS, there like catnip around here!

I haven't edited the files in some time but I believe all that you must change is the name immediately to the right of the tagline in the first line of export_units.txt. The tagline must stay the same since this is how the model and skin are recognized (to the extent of my knowledge) but the entry to the right of that with the english and native names are what controls what you view in game.

I don't think the export_descr_units has anything to do with unit names.

My friend, you are KING! Tell me how to give balloons (I have never given one before) and the post after will be filled with 90 of them!!!
https://img545.imageshack.us/img545/...hractstry1.jpg
https://img838.imageshack.us/img838/...hractstry2.jpg
https://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5914/sakafixed1.jpg
https://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1474/sakafixed2.jpg
Oh Brave Brave sir Robin, thank you !:hail:
Ballons.....yes....how do I post those!

I think now you also have the native names mixed up: Hadabara should be cataphracts :)

In the transition screens between campaign and battle map, they show a unit called Sahiya Hadabara, which I came to believe to be the post MOT Saka BG, I went to google translate and it says in Azerbaijani that "Sahiya" means "King".
IIRC, Azerbaijani is closely related to Osetian, which is one of the last Indo-Sythian languages. So I think it's safe to say that Sahiya Hadabara is post MOT Saka FM BG.
Thanks for making me confirm that though, as I had been wondering too.

To a one Brave Brave Sir Robin , I am so thankful for your help in the Saka Cat's Error. I have finally found out how to post balloons. Feel free to put them in your signature. Here are exactly 30 Balloons! Plus Thank You in 9 Languages
Teşekkürler
Ви благодариме
Danke
شكرا لك
Sağ olun
谢谢您
Спасибо
ありがとうございました
გმადლობთ
Thank You

:balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2::balloon2: :balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon:: balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon:
PS:

Quote:

---

I will be installing Himachi tomorrow, and I look forward to the day you try to assault my flanks.....I have always wanted a true challenge....Guess my faction of choice...

---

Haha, I accept your gracious offer of 30 balloons though that seems somewhat excessive for a simple text swap:laugh4:

I look forward to seeing you on Hamachi although this is a very slow time of year for online play so don't be discouraged if you can't find a game at first. If you need any tips on using steppe armies ask Arjos. He knows a few things about such warfare:charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

I always cheat to get the seleucid reforms. I hate cheating and never do it except in this particular case. Realistically, I really don't think two separate generals need to lose a battle to see how effective the cataphracts are. They could have faced them and defeated them but been impressed by how destructive they were.

Another thing. The eastern seleucid holdings are very underdeveloped in terms of military. If you lose a battle, it could set you back 5 years. Lose two and thats 10 years

---

I hate cheating too, but I have to say I disagree with you on the Seleucid reform. After all, if you're winning all your major battles, why would you need to update your army? It's obviously working fine the way it is. And if you only lose one major battle to a large enemy army with lots of cavalry, then most Seleucid leaders would blame the losing general for making a mistake, rather than blaming the troops themselves. After all, the Seleucid army is based on Alexander the Great's army, and he did fine with it, so if 'you' can't, there's more likely to be something wrong with 'you', not the army.

If the Seleucid Empire loses one major battle, it's probably a fluke occurrence, no need to worry, just assign a better general next time. If the Empire loses two major battles, especially two in a row, then that would call for a more thorough investigation as to the cause.

Oh, BTW, the eastern part of the Empire is underdeveloped, but the many available mercenaries make up for that. Just hire them before your enemies do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

I hate cheating too, but I have to say I disagree with you on the Seleucid reform. After all, if you're winning all your major battles, why would you need to update your army? It's obviously working fine the way it is. And if you only lose one major battle to a large enemy army with lots of cavalry, then most Seleucid leaders would blame the losing general for making a mistake, rather than blaming the troops themselves. After all, the Seleucid army is based on Alexander the Great's army, and he did fine with it, so if 'you' can't, there's more likely to be something wrong with 'you', not the army.

If the Seleucid Empire loses one major battle, it's probably a fluke occurrence, no need to worry, just assign a better general next time. If the Empire loses two major battles, especially two in a row, then that would call for a more thorough investigation as to the cause.

Oh, BTW, the eastern part of the Empire is underdeveloped, but the many available mercenaries make up for that. Just hire them before your enemies do.

---

Ahh I disagree there. Antiochus III was the one who introduced the cataphracts and he didn't suffer any major defeats in the east as far as i know and in fact he won the Battle of the Arius river where the Bactrians had thousands of Catas. He also won victories over the Parthians who were forced to sue for peace. The fact that he won against them didnt stop him from introducing them to his army at all.

They really don't need to lose. Look at the Romans, they incorporated the arms and armour of many of their enemies even after defeating them (chain mail from the gauls, gladius from Celtiberians etc..)

I cheat only on this one occasion because i like blitzing. Also Its actually very hard to get the trait. Believe me ive tried and lost a few battles on purpose before but never got the trait in any general, even after losing 2/3 of my army and 2/3 of my generals bodyguard. The only time ive ever seen the trait in any of my characters without cheating is in one of my games around 160 BC when my governor of Antioch randomly got the trait for no reason. He had no battle experience either

And it seems unfair to me that Seleucids are the only ones who have to lose their battles for the reforms.

I mean historically the Macedonian reformed phalanx only appeared after losing to rome in the Macedonian war but you don't need to lose a battle to trigger those reforms. The Seleucids introduced the Cats under Antiochus III who defeated the Cataphract nations but you still need to lose two major battles to get them. That made no sense to me so I just decided to cheat. Despite hating to cheat, Ive never lost any sleep over cheating for the Cat reforms. Usually If I use cheats I would get disgusted with myself and start a new game but Not for this. Not ever.

I agree with what seleucids said except for the part about the Romans. The Romans did in fact lose many battles to the Celts and Celtiberians, probably a main reason why they decided to adapt their styles of weapons and armor. The Romans were master imitators; they did the same with their formations after engaging and being defeated by the Samnites on multiple occasions. Before Telamon and still to a lesser degree afterward, the Romans were terrified of the Gauls partly because their city had been sacked by migrating Celts. And we all know that the Celtiberian Wars were some of the bloodiest and most hotly contested conflicts that Rome ever involved themselves in. They were supposedly highly controversial in the eternal city itself at the time because of their great cost in money and lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I agree with what seleucids said except for the part about the Romans. The Romans did in fact lose many battles to the Celts and Celtiberians, probably a main reason why they decided to adapt their styles of weapons and armor. The Romans were master imitators; they did the same with their formations after engaging and being defeated by the Samnites on multiple occasions. Before Telamon and still to a lesser degree afterward, the Romans were terrified of the Gauls partly because their city had been sacked by migrating Celts. And we all know that the Celtiberian Wars were some of the bloodiest and most hotly contested conflicts that Rome ever involved themselves in. They were supposedly highly controversial in the eternal city itself at the time because of their great cost in money and lives.

---

Ah perhaps that was a bad example. I was just trying to say they don't always need to lose crushing defeats before they adapt.

Its really unfair that only the Seleucids have to lose two massive battles and in the end, the stupid impressed by cats trait still doesn't show up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

Ahh I disagree there. Antiochus III was the one who introduced the cataphracts and he didn't suffer any major defeats in the east as far as i know and in fact he won the Battle of the Arius river where the Bactrians had thousands of Catas. He also won victories over the Parthians who were forced to sue for peace. The fact that he won against them didnt stop him from introducing them to his army at all.

The Seleucids introduced the Cats under Antiochus III who defeated the Cataphract nations but you still need to lose two major battles to get them. That made no sense to me so I just decided to cheat. Despite hating to cheat, Ive never lost any sleep over cheating for the Cat reforms. Usually If I use cheats I would get disgusted with myself and start a new game but Not for this. Not ever.

---

Antiochus III introduced cataphracts into the Seleucid army because his father, Seleucus II Callinicus, had been badly defeated by Parthian cataphracts under Arsaces I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Antiochus III introduced cataphracts into the Seleucid army because his father, Seleucus II Callinicus, had been badly defeated by Parthian cataphracts under Arsaces I.

---

"The Cataphract (Kataphraktoi) were first introduced into the Hellenistic military tradition with the Seleucid Antiochus III the Greats anabasis in the east from 212-205 BC. With his camapaigns in Parthia and Bactria he came into contact with Cataphracts and copied them. "

from a website

Even if Seleukos II was defeated, It was Antiochus III who actually introduced them and he did it AFTER his anabasis

I'm not trying to start a fruitless argument. If ive offended you, im sorry. Im merely stating why I use that particular cheat. After all, the reforms are extraordinarily hard to get :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seleucid empire

"The Cataphract (Kataphraktoi) were first introduced into the Hellenistic military tradition with the Seleucid Antiochus III the Greats anabasis in the east from 212-205 BC. With his camapaigns in Parthia and Bactria he came into contact with Cataphracts and copied them. "

from a website

Even if Seleukos II was defeated, It was Antiochus III who actually introduced them and he did it AFTER his anabasis

I'm not trying to start a fruitless argument. If ive offended you, im sorry. Im merely stating why I use that particular cheat. After all, the reforms are extraordinarily hard to get :/

---

Don't worry, we're not arguing, just disagreeing. I agree the reforms are difficult to get, personally I like that though.

By the way, when you said you lost two major battles and didn't get the reforms, were your defeats CRUSHING defeats? I wonder if they need to be....

From your post I wonder if the army of Seleukos II did encounter cataphracts - I assumed they did because if the early Parni didn't have cataphracts, the early Parthian bodyguard in EB wouldn't be cataphract-like.

I didn't realise they needed to be crushing defeats isnt it just a loss of a percentage of your army and your generals bodyguard? Maybe Seleukos II didn't face true 'cataphracts' only the early variant. Im beginning to wonder if the Parthian recruitable cataphracts should be available that early. After all, the Parthians declared independence only in 238 BC under Arsaces which was 8 years before the reign of Seleukos II so Im guessing they would still have fought with their original tribal cavalry???

which brings me to my next thought, The Parthian Kingdom did not exist in 272 BC. The Satrap of Parthia broke away under Andragoras in 255 BC and in 238 Arsaces lead a revolt against Andragoras which formed the Kingdom. So technically, the should not exist when you start the game. Although, considering how important the Parthians became later on, it would be a poor choice to leave them out of the game.

I wish there were emergent factions in EB to represent the Parthians