Printable View
Principes Cost 1185 and upkeep is 296 They have 82 Soldiers on large , Cohors Reformata Cost 1790 and have upkeep of 448, And have 102 Soldiers on large, and have 2 less armour than principes. But have testudo and +1 Morale compared to Principes
So Why they are much more expensive despite being worse, On my head the unit size explains some of the cost but still its 600 more
Opinions about that?
Cost of units in EB is based on historical factors as well as unit balance. Often, historically poor factions have units that are both good and cheap, and historically rich factions have units that are less good and more expensive.
For the Roman legionaries, Cohors Reformata are not expensive. It's the earlier Principes that are cheap.
Marian legionaries had their equipment bought and paid for by the state. Polybian and Camillan Principes provided their own equipment. That alone is the historical reason for Marian units costing more. Never mind the additional historical reason of the Marian units getting higher pay than their predecessors, to buy their loyalty in an increasingly unstable Roman Republic plagued by civil war between power-hungry generals.
Getting the Marian reforms is not entirely a good thing for Rome. By far the main advantage is that the legionaries can be recruited across a much wider area, not just Italy as under the earlier reforms, but the troops are more expensive and hardly any better than their Polybian predecessors. The Marian reforms are not recommended until the Republic is both large in area and rich in wealth (e.g. after Carthage, Lusotann, Epiros, Macedon and Koinon Hellenon have all been crushed) so money is not a serious problem anymore.
See this site for more info on the units in EB: http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.net/
it's not only about the equipment, there's also the training and physical quality of them men.
Principes are your reasonably well-to-do (upper middle class, by modern standards) small holders. They'll have the time and money to provide their own (often custom) equipment and to train themselves sufficiently, when it's their slaves that did most of the farm work.
Whereas, the Marian troops are practically anybody available and somewhat willing pressed into service as essentially mercenaries to their sponsor. These often are your urban poor or disenfranchised citizens that had lost their land and is in poverty (it's hard to find a job when it's cheaper to have slaves). These are not the healthiest stock of people for soldiering, the Romans know it, but by that time the number of suitable small holders have dwindled as their lands gave way to sprawling plantations full of slaves. Simply put, the Romans needed the numbers, and they now need to dig into their pockets for it.
Marian troops are Rome's zerglings, essentially. It's just that the Principes are cheaper because they are richer and fitter as individuals, like Titus has said.
Good points. So basically:
Principes = pillars of the community, the finest of upstanding non-aristocratic Roman citizens.
Cohors Reformata = the mob - or scum of the earth (as the Duke of Wellington called his English Redcoats).
The Cohors Reformata benefitted from better (more organised) training, but the human quality of the men recruited was worse than the Principes. Men underfed as young children (from poverty-stricken families) tend to grow up as slightly smaller and weaker adults than their well-fed, richer cousins.
I always wondered though about the lesser armor of -2 compared to the Reformata. I mean dont the Princeps and Cohorts Reformata basically have the same type of armor and gear? (chainmail shirts, gualic helmets and hispania swords) But the Reformata was just more standardized and paid by the state.
In reading the unit descriptions the only real difference i can see is a piece of bronze greaves on the leading leg of the Princeps...
It's exactly the greave. The thueros (Romaioi call it scutum) does not cover the entire body with the same amount of durability as the hellenic aspis. That greave on the lead leg makes a lot of difference.
Meh really? I would have viewed it as a +1 difference. But i guess maybe the other +1 Difference could be from the higher quality of the chainmail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Basileus_ton_Basileon
I always viewed that greave as such a minor thing relatively. I did not view a single bronze greave on a single leg is equivalant to the difference between a bronze muscle cuirass and a Chain mail shirt. Which makes the difference in the 2+ armor difference between the Camilian Citizen Calvary and the Polybian. Since you know its not even a full set of greaves...
I can't find the original post right now, but one of the EB statters mentioned that there is no additional bonus for having a second greave. All infantry in EB use the sideways combat-stance, so only one leg is close to the enemy.
A greave on the leading leg makes the difference between a weakspot and a place not to stab at(tho hitting the foot would be sufficient to keep the chap from running^^) however I'd guess the second point is due to better quality armor.
I concur. Personal equipment will always triumph over mass-produced copy-cat made-in-Roma equipment. :clown:
There are indications(or as some people say proof) that it was commonplace for marian veterans to save (part of)their salary and loot to buy better equipment.
hence we have the evocata.
Yep, that leg with the greave is the leading leg. The part of your body which is pretty much the closest to the enemy. Pretty sure having 1 gives +2 armour but the second only gives an additional +1 on top of that.
AFAIK the first greave gives +2 armour, and the second one gives no bonus.
The EB-stat system is based on the idea that the body is mostly covered by the shield, so armour is most effective on those bits that are sticking out: the head and the lower-half of the leading leg. The trailing leg, on the other hand, is the part of the body that is farthest from the enemy. Should an enemy weapon get past the shield, it's still more likely to hit the body or upper leg, so greave on the trailing leg would not add much protection. The team felt it was too minor to include in the stat system. Double greaves appear only on units that are already pretty well armoured, anyway.
The armour of the most units might be as realistic as possible concerning the actual situation in the time frame of EB, but there are two things which make this "realism" quite unrealistic game wise:
1. The armour is the primary value which is considered in autocalc, and therefore the disadvantage of unarmoured units is quite obvious.
2. The defence skill doesn´t not have an overall protection like armour does; on the battlemap this simply leads to unbalanced results.
One can´t make it perfect due to the limited RTW engine, and every one has his own view on different things, but the main goal of EB, to realisticly represent ( in game: on the campaign/battle map ) leads to very undesired results ( one simple example: Lusos rampaging their way through Gaul; their lowest levy unit has an armour value of "4" ( iberi milites, 240 men ), while the best armoured gaulic swordmen have a value of "5" ( Bataroas, 200 men ).
I, for my part, think that there is a descrepancy between the historical realismus, and the ingame situation. And i don´t want to start talking about "Triari spam" of the Romans ( "14" armour value, meaning "game over" for any barbarian faction ). As much as i love EB, and appriciate the hard and dedicated work of all team members who have been involved in making this modification possible, i wonder why there were never made needed fixes for the balancing the factions ( not everyone can mode even the EDU, but moding EDB with the complicated EB system is quite difficult ).
I hope, in EB II the approach will be more sofisticated concerning the unit balancing.
Is there some threads or links explain the EB-stats system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Not that I am aware of. I know from comments by the EB team that the armour value is calculated by adding up the modifiers of individual pieces of equipment (+2 for a helmet, +2 for a greave, etc.). The same formula is used for all units (though unarmoured barbarian close-combat infantry get an additional +1 armour).Quote:
Originally Posted by kidpacific
Lethality depends solely on the weapon used, but I don't know how the other stats are calculated.
Thank you, Ludens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I'm not questioning you, but I want to know this system more precisely.
Would you pls explain the armor calculation (other parts besides the head and the leg) or list some links related to EB stats system.
Thanks forward.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is artificial historicity-based unit stat imbalancing the same way there is historicity-based unit cost imbalancing. Notice how several people here mentioned that the Reformata's higher costs relative to the Principes are not explained fully through stats but through external, historical factors. (An interesting point to pick here would be: how exactly are these historical factors quantified when deciding costs.)Quote:
Originally Posted by vollorix
On the same token, I can anticipate unit stat imbalancing. Just like you can adjust unit costs for historical reasons, you might do just the same for unit stats. Subsequently, you might have certain regions with higher defense skill, or artificially higher armor, to counteract the fact that some of the more urbanized factions had heavily armored units. You are bound to have unintended consequences on the campaign map, as well as the battle map. The AI, after all, isn't going to roleplay on the campaign map like a human player might. This delicate (im)balance between what the historical realism and the gameplay balancing is nothing new in modding, and I expect it to be a hot and prevalent issue for years to come. I must note, though, that with a more complex engine with more possibilities and features for the modder, comes a better shot of juggling the two issues in a more pleasant fashion, so to speak.
That's the thing: as far as I know the EB team never explained their stat system. My knowledge has been pieced together from scattered comments by the developers in threads like this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidpacific
As i said: defence skill of a unit in game doesn´t reflect the actuall "defence skills" of soldiers back than. As does not the armour, to be fair, but in case of armour, it still serves as overall protection ( it protects against missiles too, but the lower values do not matter that much as those super high values of some civilized units, wich are simply "arrow proof" ). So, leaving barbarian factions with little to no armour simply means their doom ( and the Lusos in my example are therefore so strong against other barbarians, because their heavy units are armoured to the teeth; this is good, actually, so they can oppose the Romans and Carthies, and possibly also very historical accurate, but game wise it´s just unwise to balance units this way - it leads to actuall unbalance after couple of decades ). Of course, would the Arevaci been in EB I, and would they fight against Lusos with the same intensity as the Gauls do against each other, the "big picture" would look probably quite differently, but there are no Arevaki there... ). Maintaining historical accuracy at the cost of balance of power between factions doesen´t appear an ideal solution to me. That´s all.
Agreed. In all my games, when the Lusotanns take any of Numantia, Pallantia or Vellika from the Eleutheroi, I use Force Diplomacy to take that city away from the Lusotanns and give it to the Arveni. I do the same with Arse, giving it to Carthage, and with Emporion, which I give to Koinon Hellenon. This makes life harder for the Lusotanns.Quote:
Originally Posted by vollorix
Some might think this makes the Arveni too powerful, but I disagree since the Arveni end up fighting a three-front war, against Aedui, Romani, and Lusotani, which only a strong faction can survive.