Units That Are Not So Great

First let me say what an incredible mod EB is and that I have wasted (or spent, as I tell myself) hundreds of hours enjoying this great game. The developers really are heroes of the video game industry and its impossible to overestimate the credit due unto them.


Alright, so you are playing as your favorite faction, you conquer your homeland, develop your economy and prepare to subjugate your nearest neighbor. You have been getting by with early game units so far, maybe supplemented with some heavier mercenaries and you have finished constructing higher level barracks in your core regions. You crank out an army of your factions more expensive troops and send them out to battle! Your enemy grudgingly musters his forces and marches to meet you in combat. If you're the Romani or Pahlava or Lussutannan your triarii, or cataphractoi or dunaminica tear through the enemy with unprecedented impetus, hurling the lifeless bodies of your foes onto the cold earth like so many dead leaves. If however, you (like me) are a die hard Hayasdan fan you notice something a little different happens. You charge your hardcore-looking Armenian Medium Infantry into the shoddy untrained ranks of Seleucid levies, only to see your magnificent army routed like a bunch of perfumed effeminates! True, your deadly armored horse archers will eventually win the battle but you are hugely disappointed by the performance of some of your coolest looking units!

Armenian Medium Infantry
primary weapon= sword
Cost= 1800ish, upkeep is 450
damage= 12
javies= 6
Charge bonus= 6
defense= 21

Both historically accurate and visually awesome, the Armenian Medium infantry looks good on paper, except their defense does seem a little low for someone so expensive and armored in iron. But my question is, why do much cheaper spear units slaughter them? Their description says they are "designed for a frontal assault on Hellenic pike infantry", but Parthian spear men beat them 1 on 1 about 70% of the time. Germanic levy spearmen rout them half the time for Armazhad's sake (don't get me started how easily real "Hellenic pike infantry" kill them). After fighting dozens of campaign battles with them, and finding Anatolian hill-men way better for flanking at half the cost, I disbanded all but a few of the unit I was most excited about using. With a few notable exceptions (Celtic lesser kings, dunaminica and such) I have found swordsmen in general inferior to their spear wielding equivalents of the same cost, especially considering how swordsmen get slaughtered in cavalry charges.

So what is the problem, the low lethality of the short sword? multiple ranks being unable to attack simultaneously? they need to be crappy to balance the powerful Hayasdan Cavalry? my poor tactical decisions?

I yearn to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter, and hope people will give a quick post if they too have a unit that did not live up to their expectations.

They're very underpowered and the Pontic Thorikitai (Carbon copies) has the same issue. First step is to up their lethality to 0.13. Then do some other adjustments I forgot. Check EB at TWC for the exact details, there's a few old threads on it and. I did some of my own tweaks too.

Sorry, I can't really elaborate, on a traction chair which is vibrating the sh** out of me. Hurts to even think.

I have found the same about the Pontic Thorakitai. They are depicted wearing mail and their name implies them to be rather well armored (just like the regular Thorakitai), yet their armour is lower than Thurephoroi, also their swords' lethality is only 0.1, not 0.13 as it the norm for shortswords. I have modded them to 11 armour and 0.13 lethality, though I consider making it 12 arm. just like the regular thorakitai and take away 'good stamina' in turn.
Other units I found underperforming during my Pontos campaign are the Cappadocian Heavy cav and Scythed chariots. The Cappadocians just have the usual problem of cav wielding spears in an overhand grip, which is useless charges. I would actually like to have them in my armies as a 'native' Pontic unit representing my realm's nobility, in contrast to all the Galatians and Hellens I use, yet Lonchophoroi or Galatian heavy cav ourperform them by far.

And the chariots... well, they are devastating, but not only against one's enemies, but even more so against own units. After they have taken some losses and I have retreated them behind my own lines, they just run amok out of nowhere, despite their morale being 'eager' or 'impetous'. Afterwards, they always charge my own general or cav units.

Thureophoroi have a very high armour rating, mainly due to their greaves and helmet. IIRC they'll be slightly toned down in EB II in terms of armour. 0.1 lethality is actually quite common, however usually only on units with low-quality swords (Celtic shortswordsmen, some HAs, some archers, etc.). Maybe it has something to do with the size and shape of the weapon as well. I don't know why Pontic and Armenian Swordsmen, despite being high tier, have that lethality rating, I guess you'd have to ask the team members who made the stats for these units.

Cappadocian (and similar) cavalry have fast AP secondary weapons, so they are at least versatile, even though their charge is not very powerful.

Pontic chariots are not bad, they are just difficult to use. Because of their morale, you can't send them out alone against a large force, for example (have a unit of cavalry or two guard their flanks). Use them properly and they'll rake in an insane amount of kills. They do tend to take big losses, though. Same for Steppe Elephants.

athanaric explained it well overhand cavalry are cavalry hunters and killers and units with bad morale need proper suport

hayasdan always had bad infantry the same for the pontus their strong suit are horseman (like the pontus are phallanx)

use them to guard cities and fight on the walls and they won´t disapoint you (much)

If I recall correctly, there are two separate problems with the Pontic Thorakitai. The first is that the name indicates they are an elite unit, while the stats and model are for a mid-level one. The current unit is supposed to be the Pontic equivalent of the Armenian Medium Infantry. The armour stat is actually correct. They use lower-grade gear than their Greek equivalents (lack of greaves and a simpler helmet count for a lot in the EB system).

However, there is a problem with their defence stat. Watchman mentioned that it (and that of the Armenian Mediums as well) should have received a +2 increase when they were restatted.

Thanks for all the input, and you blew my mind browski, I had no idea it was no easy to change unit stats! From a balance perspective it is beneficiary to buff them, but their weakness is necessary for historical accuracy(although I like the +2 defense). Armenia didn't raise huge armies of armored infantry and conquer Asia minor after all. It's cool that the Romani have blatantly better foot soldiers for a better price. Changing the noble cataphracts though, which originally cost more but are weaker than Baktrian Cataphracts, seems acceptable. I gave them a 44 charge bonus and improved the attack of their secondary (totally subjective but matches what I've seen about early heavy cavalry of the region) Now that I have made three posts, here's some pre-mediaval Armenian and Scythian soldier pics that reflect quite nicely some of the units the EB team made for us

Attachment 12187

Attachment 12186


Attachment 12184

Attachment 12185
This one shows about what I was going for with my new noble cataphracts, if only you could make them turn heavier with the Orontid reforms that never had a chance to happen irl

Attachment 12188

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clibanarius

Changing the noble cataphracts though, which originally cost more but are weaker than Baktrian Cataphracts, [...]

---

Not quite. They have better morale, stamina, defence skill, and secondary weapon lethality.
http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...y&category=any
http://europabarbarorum.heimstatt.ne...y&category=any