My first impressions

Just tried the mod today, overall looks good, the huge strategy map is teriffic. Also I notice some bugs, archers with no arrows etc.

But the most important part seems to be battles, where the balance is not what I expected...
- some units "runs" with a too low speed, making the animation odd, a la Michael Jackson Moonwalk
- the battles way too long, no more strategy / flanking / charging working closer to "normal".... I surrounded an enemy infantery with two of my units, then charged with a cavalry and they resisted for ages.
- more then that, in the end, the enemy general alone was fighting minutes against about 150 people (including spearmens) that encircled him....way too unrealistic...

This is my personal opinion, hope it helps for the final release.

The battles are suppost to be long. This is the EB way of things.

That general thing is annoyingly halarious. IIRC, the team was going to look at making that stop happening some time in the future.

"some units "runs" with a too low speed, making the animation odd, a la Michael Jackson Moonwalk"

The team have probably investigated these movement rates in great detail, they're probably accurate.

"- the battles way too long, no more strategy / flanking / charging working closer to "normal".... I surrounded an enemy infantery with two of my units, then charged with a cavalry and they resisted for ages."

Longer battles are a plus for me, the loading screens are a bit of a pain, but acceptable.
I personally like the battles much more than the vanilla ones. There is far more strategy involved for me in winning a medium battle in EB than a VH one in vanilla. In vanilla, it basically reverts to a system of pin with cavalry, flank with other cavalry, unless they are phalanx, at which point you skip stage one and hit them in the back as they turn around.

Vanilla, with a few exceptions, tended to revert to battles being decided instantly because of the low morale, with cavalry dominating the field too much. In EB, a flank attack isn't guaranteed to break an enemy, but it helps enormously.

Additionally, in EB, I have to use tactics I did not even consider for vanilla. I've used screens of skirmishers (to a good effect) to cover my reforming. I've used (with good, but not sickeningly good results) light cavalry to delay sections of an enemy army. I've used ambushes, traps and historical formations to realistic and definite effects. The strategy is there, but much deeper and subtler than vanilla.

"- more then that, in the end, the enemy general alone was fighting minutes against about 150 people (including spearmens) that encircled him....way too unrealistic..."

I don't see that as too unrealistic, was the general healthy, young, a great warrior, a veteran? All these traits add hit points to him. Also, of those 150 men, how many do you think can actually reach him, and wouldn't they get in each other's way a lot, how tired were these men, all exhausted because the entire army had been committed? If so, they'd be much less effective.

I didnt play that much to go further, maybe you are right. Longer battles are nicer, of course, but not that long to affect the strategy. In the battle I told you about, it seems that flanking had no effect...
Thanks for sharing advanced experience

In vanilla I used to play romans and used legions most of the time. Not much cavalry, this allowed a slower and more strategic games for me.
If you used mostly cavalry, you probably havent played romans .. I think in MTW2 the battles last just fine, if you're using large units.

If you ask me, the battles in EB is way better than does in vanila. No more broke before inpact. And no more super cav. :2thumbsup:

I use my cav to keep enemy skrimishers out of the way and to protect the flanks and help the flankers. As flankers I use assult infantry, like does elite iberians carth can buy in iberia.(I so love the shit out of does guys)

The believe the EB-team made does enemy generals super because of the retarded AI :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lovejoy

No more broke before inpact.

---

I actually got some guys doing that in EB. I had a whole legion against a half stack of leaderless lugoae britons. They charged my line but the whole army turned and ran just before melee. They were tired from walking all the way across the battle map and my legionaries chased them down and kill the lot of them.

EB battles pwn!

I've had moments I haven't had since Viking Invasion. Moments where I thought I might actually lose a battle to the AI! :sweatdrop:

The thing is, afp (funny, your name is just like the denomination of a retirement fund in my country), that you should change your perception of the game, and don`t judge it by comparing it with vainilla.

As I understand it, EB doesn`t try to modify vainilla and improve it. EB tries to create a simulation of reality based on the RTW engine, with all the disadvantages and limitations that the engine may have.

So, if you want to judge EB, you should not compare it with vainilla. You should logically criticize it, considering the inherent limitations of the engine. You shouldn`t think whether this game adjusts to a previously known gameplaying experience. You should think whether this game adjusts to your knowledge of history, and whether it is as close as it can gets to reality, considering the engine over which is based on. Gameplay? That`s a dinamic and subjective concept.

Cheers.

PS: If you found my post weird or even pedant, I didn`t mean that. It`s because i`m drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afp

If you used mostly cavalry, you probably havent played romans .. I think in MTW2 the battles last just fine, if you're using large units.

---

My battles last about 10 minutes. 5 to charge infantry, and charge cavalry. Whole enemy army routs from cavalry charge. And I normaly have 6 cavalry or less, including general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

I actually got some guys doing that in EB. I had a whole legion against a half stack of leaderless lugoae britons. They charged my line but the whole army turned and ran just before melee. They were tired from walking all the way across the battle map and my legionaries chased them down and kill the lot of them.

---

Lol roman legions vs tired celtic militia? I'd run too if I was them. The Boii rebels spawn like a million armies of them cause almost no one takes that area, they are so much fun to kill.

The one thing I really noticed about EB when I tried it the first time was that cavalry is insanely wonderful at breaking units if you can get them to speed and into the back of a tiring and engaged unit. It is also nice that they need alot of distance to deliver 'breaking charges' where lots of people get roadkilled and launched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orb

"- more then that, in the end, the enemy general alone was fighting minutes against about 150 people (including spearmens) that encircled him....way too unrealistic..."

I don't see that as too unrealistic, was the general healthy, young, a great warrior, a veteran? All these traits add hit points to him. Also, of those 150 men, how many do you think can actually reach him, and wouldn't they get in each other's way a lot, how tired were these men, all exhausted because the entire army had been committed? If so, they'd be much less effective.

---

How is that realistic at all? The other day I was besieging a Parthian city and had to take down a Parthian Late Cataphract general. I threw two 100+ man Pezhetairoi units at him and it took literally more than two minutes straight for him to die, all the time while he killed dozens of my men. Generals should be tough so they don't die at the drop of a hat, but if they get stuck in a melee, they should die just like most other soldiers. Having more vulnerable generals makes the player more conscious and careful with them anyway.

Also, why are Parthian general units and late Parthian cataphracts equipped with armour from about 400 years after the EB timeline? Most Pahlava units look good, but those guys just stick out like a sore thumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

How is that realistic at all? The other day I was besieging a Parthian city and had to take down a Parthian Late Cataphract general. I threw two 100+ man Pezhetairoi units at him and it took literally more than two minutes straight for him to die, all the time while he killed dozens of my men. Generals should be tough so they don't die at the drop of a hat, but if they get stuck in a melee, they should die just like most other soldiers. Having more vulnerable generals makes the player more conscious and careful with them anyway.

---

I had a battle similar once, though it was three groups of merc pezheter(sp)isms versus two Seleucid generals. They charged straight through the front of my spears and ten minutes later I had lost the battle. Neither general died, though there were only about a half dozen guys left in each group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fondor_Yards

Lol roman legions vs tired celtic militia? I'd run too if I was them.

---

Me too. I was suprized that they attacked me at all. I think it was the pila that made them break...

its funny though, i've seen dozens of times where a general died on impact, or even in the opening skirmishing. most often its in a heavy cav clash, though.

the levy celts are very much prone to insta-routs, especially the britons. but remember that the britons are set up with weak-morale and morale-bonus units, so their lower level guys need champions nearby or they will break upon receiving some heavy javelin fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Also, why are Parthian general units and late Parthian cataphracts equipped with armour from about 400 years after the EB timeline? Most Pahlava units look good, but those guys just stick out like a sore thumb.

---

The general model itself is still the old crappy vanilla one. Blame CA, there's doubtless a better one in the works somewhere for EB.

Well the team has been saying they will completely revamp the parthians at some point *soon? porbably not*. A full 360 or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afp

- some units "runs" with a too low speed, making the animation odd, a la Michael Jackson Moonwalk

---

Hi,
I beleive, afp, that these units are running slowly beecause they are exhausted or very tired. This is a nasty hangover of vanilla where tired units running have the same animation as fresh ones. As they don't run/walk as fast when they are tired, this makes it look like their feet are slipping on the group. Unfortunately it is unfixable. Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fondor_Yards

Well the team has been saying they will completely revamp the parthians at some point *soon? porbably not*. A full 360 or something.

---

I believe, along with the proper revision and checking of all traits, this will be the big point of .9. Of course, this is also from the team who was going to release a quick patch to correct small bugs in a week from the .8 release. [Not a EB bash, just saying, 'things happen']

Hi guys, I read all your replays, thank you very much. I think we may miss one thing, the difficulty we play on. I tried that battle on Hard, some other people may play on easy or medium and the ballance may look different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afp

Hi guys, I read all your replays, thank you very much. I think we may miss one thing, the difficulty we play on. I tried that battle on Hard, some other people may play on easy or medium and the ballance may look different.

---

That`s right, the recommended difficulty settings for EB are Strategy Difficulty = Very Hard , Battle Map = Medium. Those are the optimal difficulty settings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afp

Hi guys, I read all your replays, thank you very much. I think we may miss one thing, the difficulty we play on. I tried that battle on Hard, some other people may play on easy or medium and the ballance may look different.

---

I play on hard as do many others. Medium is recommended because on Hard and Very Hard all the engine does for the AI is give it stat bonus'. Pretty lame. But I figure since the AI is thick as a post (Anti Intelligence) I should play on at least Hard to compensate. Seems to work out well for me as I get alot of enjoyment out of EB. Well, I did a couple weeks ago when I was actually able to play the darn game. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The general model itself is still the old crappy vanilla one. Blame CA, there's doubtless a better one in the works somewhere for EB.

---

It's not the vanilla model- that one's really bad. The current one is a different one; it's actually historically accurate, but just for a Parthian army from around 200 AD. It also looks much brighter than other EB models.

Quote:

---

Well the team has been saying they will completely revamp the parthians at some point *soon? porbably not*. A full 360 or something.

---

Good to hear.

That revamp applies mostly to the strat map. It will have some effect on battle map stuff, but mostly on strat map.

I think MP is probably referring to the general's bodyguard, not the general himself. One of our eastern guys will have to respond to that I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

That revamp applies mostly to the strat map. It will have some effect on battle map stuff, but mostly on strat map.

I think MP is probably referring to the general's bodyguard, not the general himself. One of our eastern guys will have to respond to that I suppose.

---

There aren't any pictures on the site, so I'll just run down off the top of my head:

1. Helmet is totally anachronistic, and appears at the earliest in the 2nd C. AD, but mostly later (it's of the same type as the kind found at Doura Europos).

2. Most of the body armour is based entirely on later sources, most notably the Doura Europos graffito of the 3rd C. AD.

3. Horse trapper and armour based entirely on Doura Europos finds (again, from the 3rd C. AD).

Also, since I don't think this warrants an entirely new topic, why do the Seleukid Hetairoi wear chainmail armour to protect their arms? There's absolutely no evidence for that, while there is plenty of evidence for cheir being worn. That choice baffles me, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fondor_Yards

Well the team has been saying they will completely revamp the parthians at some point *soon? porbably not*. A full 360 or something.

---

Dude... :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:

I mean,

seriously... :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

Its an error. The Romans get the same, the first set of family members have the early bodyguards but after that everyone has the later stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sdragon

Its an error. The Romans get the same, the first set of family members have the early bodyguards but after that everyone has the later stuff.

---

I didn't know that, but that's not actually what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that the late bodyguards are way, way too late as far as equipment is concerned to be a part of EB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Also, since I don't think this warrants an entirely new topic, why do the Seleukid Hetairoi wear chainmail armour to protect their arms? There's absolutely no evidence for that, while there is plenty of evidence for cheir being worn. That choice baffles me, too.

---

I am sorry, didn't get that. Do you mean scale?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keravnos

I am sorry, didn't get that. Do you mean scale?

---

Cheir was the Greek term for those metallic hoops worn over the arm for protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Cheir was the Greek term for those metallic hoops worn over the arm for protection.

---

Oh, ΧΕΙΡ, yep. Sorry, sometimes when I see Greek written in latin I get confused. I must ask for references.