Faction Balance...

I realize that EB is trying to be as historically accurate as possible so it is inevitable that some factions will have superior unit selections.

I was just wondering how EB, or rather IF EB, will try to make the factions balanced against each other on a skirmish battlefield. I know in vanilla there are some factions that are completely outclassed by others.

For example, comparing the Seleucids versus the Aedui, it is not difficult to see who has the superior unit roster. I mean, cataphracts, Companions, pikemen, hoplites, elite spearmen, chariots, elephants (I suppose these last two will be included) against the Aedui's not so up to par noble cavalry, lightly armored shocktroops, and slightly less than Hellenic quality phalanxes... Not much of a matchup in skirmish is it?

I mean it is okay if they are not balanced. It really is. For one I would perfer historical accuracy over compromises made to balance.

No, we're not trying to directly balance factions against each other. If some horrible imbalance appears due to unit sizes/relative strength, we may adjust unit sizes, simply due to a 20-unit limit. However, faction balancing won't be done at all.

We do have plans to release a multiplayer patch that will balance things out for multiplayer, though not at the expense of unit diversity.

Great stuff; that's the historical way of things!

unbalanced factions are how it should be, its accurate and its a true represention of how it would be. i mean aedui(sp?) now part of modern france? (my geog is about as good as my speelin) - france were never any good in wars anyway! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bouchious

unbalanced factions are how it should be, its accurate and its a true represention of how it would be. i mean aedui(sp?) now part of modern france? (my geog is about as good as my speelin) - france were never any good in wars anyway! ~D

---

Yeap. I remember that short Corsican guy that commanded French armies in the transittion period from the 18th to the 19th century did not make much impression in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aymar de Bois Mauri

Yeap. I remember that short Corsican guy that commanded French armies in the transittion period from the 18th to the 19th century did not make much impression in Europe.

---

Here he and his bro made many friends. But hey, he was Italian, wasn't he? ~;)

Mumm... so the way is open for the GREAT QUESTION!!!

(I think you all know what it is at this point)

WHICH FACTION HAS THE BEST MILITARY ROSTER??? ~:grouphug:

Is it:

One of the Successors?

The Romans?

One of the barbarian factions?

Any others I think are pretty much out of the question.

Personally I have to go for the Seleucids. They are the best faction IMHO in vanilla and from what I have seen thus far, I think it will be the case once again in EB. You simply cannot beat that awesome blend of Hellenic, Persian and Indian warfare. Romans are good, but I suspect in EB that without their uberpowerful and uberfictional Praetorian Cavalry they will rely all too heavily on their legionnaires, the stuff that phalanxes, elephants and cataphracts love to chew up. MWAHAHA LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turin

Mumm... so the way is open for the GREAT QUESTION!!!

(I think you all know what it is at this point)

WHICH FACTION HAS THE BEST MILITARY ROSTER??? ~:grouphug:

Is it:

One of the Successors?

The Romans?

One of the barbarian factions?

Any others I think are pretty much out of the question.

Personally I have to go for the Seleucids. They are the best faction IMHO in vanilla and from what I have seen thus far, I think it will be the case once again in EB. You simply cannot beat that awesome blend of Hellenic, Persian and Indian warfare. Romans are good, but I suspect in EB that without their uberpowerful and uberfictional Praetorian Cavalry they will rely all too heavily on their legionnaires, the stuff that phalanxes, elephants and cataphracts love to chew up. MWAHAHA LOL

---

I like them all. You know, it's the way you use your military in battle that makes the best. ~;)

Heehee, well if it's historically balanced...you know which legions in red will be coming after you! ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turin

They will rely all too heavily on their legionnaires, the stuff that phalanxes, elephants and cataphracts love to chew up. MWAHAHA LOL

---

Phalanxes, elephants and cataphracts is precisely the kinda stuff the Roman legions chewed up in real life... and believe me, all that nice warfare is expensive, very expensive, it's difficult to have many, and even more to maintain them. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dux Corvanus

Phalanxes, elephants and cataphracts is precisely the kinda stuff the Roman legions chewed up in real life... and believe me, all that nice warfare is expensive, very expensive, it's difficult to have many, and even more to maintain them. ~;)

---

Pay attention to what Dux is saying... ~:) History was (is) full of constraints and trade offs that imposed a sort of balance of its own on things and that is what we are trying to simulate. On the other hand, the sort of "gamey", artificial balancing act that, in my opinion, plagued vanilla is something we are actively avoiding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turin

Romans are good, but I suspect in EB that without their uberpowerful and uberfictional Praetorian Cavalry ...

---

In vanilla Praetorian cavalry is surely overpowered and out of RTWs timeline but it is not a fictional unit.
The praetorian cohorts of the empire were supposedly organised like the cohortes equitatae of the auxilia. 75% infantry 25% cavalry. I don?t know when they had been introduced but Tacitus mentions Praetorian cavalry that did participate in the 69ad civil war.

well, seleucids do have a magnificent unit roster. but in campaign i think Baktria will rule. they also got persian and indian (and a bit greek) units. and there location is better on teh campaign map. seleucids will start of crumbeling, while baktria will start growing (having only one province and probably a good sized army to start with)

From my experience in EB, I think we are not trying to 'balance' anything: we are giving 'to each his own'. We'll try to reproduce as much as we can every faction warfare and circumstances. Then, we'll let the dice of History and destiny roll again, with the player skill as a determinant factor. ~:)

Of course, managing some factions will pose more a challenge than others. But hey, that you rule the world with a minor faction will be just as unlikely as in real life. But not impossible. You'll hardly get it. But, IMHO, if you get it, it is far more rewarding.

For skirmishes, you can easily 'balance' power the same way it is done in real life: sheer numbers. If a cataphract power is worth ten warriors, then have ten warriors for every cataphract. ~;)

[QUOTE=Dux Corvanus]We'll let the dice of History and destiny roll again, with the player skill as a determinant factor. ~:)
QUOTE]

Anybody seen Donnie Darko? I think of the RTW campaign as a tangent universe which has diverged from the primary universe, and from the point of diversion (270 BC in Vanilla), history takes another course. That, for me, justifies the fact that history doesn't repeat itself. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turin

Personally I have to go for the Seleucids. They are the best faction IMHO in vanilla and from what I have seen thus far, I think it will be the case once again in EB. You simply cannot beat that awesome blend of Hellenic, Persian and Indian warfare. Romans are good, but I suspect in EB that without their uberpowerful and uberfictional Praetorian Cavalry they will rely all too heavily on their legionnaires, the stuff that phalanxes, elephants and cataphracts love to chew up. MWAHAHA LOL

---

Pila.

Manuver.

Flank.

Hehehehehehe.

well, i agree with EB. whith balancing history becomes obsolete. in rtw the bets faction for quick conquering was Armenia. how weird is that? peopel could easily rule the wordl with a minor faction as armenia. eb is right