I'll take your concerns into account.
Printable View
I'll take your concerns into account.
You know that we are not happy with them after change and you were raging about them before they've been changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
getai :
rhomphs have 11 attack but no ap
Komatai agrianai - too damn expensive..1767
Rhomps have very high lethality and bonus vs cav though. They are getting AP back though afaik. Its a bit surprising that rhomp is getting back AP tbh.
Bring elephants back to rome roster please dont tell me that they didnt use them :P
That reminds me. Rome should get Tarantine cav as mercenaries.
I discussed on hamachi with some people about cata fear, also i wanna share my opinion to remove fear from helenic catas, i mean REAL catas should get fear effect :D, pahlava's and hayasdan's catas, or maybe just Grivnapar, personaly for me scariest unit in game next to elephantes, so what you think about this..? :)
I'd be happy with removing fear from AS catas. Not entirely sure about Baktria, since they did field some heeeavy cav.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega
Wait, so better armed and armored cataphracts somehow aren't "scary" but their worse-equipped, otherwise identical Parthian Noble counterparts are?
Im posting again bcz i forgot to mention bactrian and saka catas as well :D they should keep fear wanna see your opinion about helenistics :D
I ask what's scary about any cataphract?
People were afraid of their "heavier" charge, but what's scary of an oven-man?
Can't they get "inspire" instead and another stat tweak?
I agree, cataphracts don't need the fear effect and I'd prefer to have it removed.
How about we stop using the fear effect altogether. It is a great effect for an arcade game, but I presume as we are aiming for historicity we might want to keep such a funny game mechanic out of the picture altogether. Right? =) [bring it on guys!]
Ok. I have to defend cata fear here. To put things in perspective, let's examine other units which have the fear effect. The two most absurd ones are chariots and uriodusios. Now, if I were a soldier, I'd be a lot more weary of oven-men crashing into my flank than seeing naked spearmen or outdated machinery like chariots. There would certainly be a psychological effect knowing that these guys who are crazy-armored on horses waiting to smash into somewhere. Certainly, fear would be greater seeing them and knowing they wait (even if behind enemy lines) moreso than seeing naked dudes or chariots standing behind the enemy line. Let's not forget that these bad boys were riding Nisean mounts, which were considerably larger and more powerful than most horses way back when.
All I'm saying is...compare it to some other units which have fear already.
@Vartan- I think that is a valid proposal. If you remove fear from whichever units have it, there would be no problems of inconsistency. Maybe let elephants keep them.
Worse equipped? I was under the impression that Greek cataphracts were equipped in roughly the same manner as their Iranian counterparts.
Although there are theories that they in fact lacked leg armor, apart from greaves.
I think that all the fear units, historically, were actually more awe inspiring than scaring...
Exception for elephants, even though after few encounters everyone got accustomed...
Ok, I think this is a misguided attempt to do away with an imperfect game mechanic. We are slowly coming to a balance with EB Online, that is, making the majority of factions playable in multiplayer. Yes, there are clearly stronger and weaker factions, but nearly every faction is playable in its current state (Saba and Sweboz excluded though Sweboz somewhat less so). However, once the Eastern Hellenistic factions were completed, what do we see in nearly every battle being fought? Thats right, its almost always a mix of Baktria, AS, Ptolies, Makedonia, Epeiros, and KH being played with our Rome fanatics putting in their two cents as well. Lazy plays Carthage and I'd say there are two or three players who actively use the so-called barbarian factions of the west. Removing the fear effect from units like Gaesatae or Uridusios makes the latter useless and the former not very impressive anymore. Factions like the Casse, god bless them, rely almost soley on the fear effect and getting quick chain routs started or else they will be shot to pieces by an opposing army composed of javelin armed troops and archers waiting it out in guard mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
In fact, guard mode is the main reason that I would stress that fear must be kept intact. Guard mode encourages camping and forming nice little lines of men for your opponent to dash his soldiers on, like waves on a rocky beach. It does not encourage being proactive or creative in your strategies. Since there are very few units that can win head on against any sort of medium-heavy infantry in guard mode, the only way around this, especially for many barbarians without great cavalry, is to create a localized fear effect which will help maybe break one of those guard moded units and disrupt the tidy lines.
And I will conclude by saying that the fear effect must be removed from cataphracts. (clever Cato reference :p)
Haha. Your Cato the Elder reference is appreciated :P
As I understand it, your argument is gameplay based rather than historically/logically based.
I disagree with your argument. The way fear is important to making Western barbs useful, so too is fear needed for Parthia and Hayasdan. Parthia and Hai do not have good effective armies once cata fear gets taken away. Western barbs have access to high morale, relatively inexepensive, high quality infantry coupled with very workable cavalry. P + H on the other hand have terrible infantry (Armenian nobles being the exception, but they are only 70 men and are expensive). Fear is necessary to complement the really poor infantry.
With regards to Casse: if saba and sweboz can suffer poor, lopsided, relatively unworkable rosters, why can't Casse too? It's not as if they were particularly awesome in pitched battles historically.
To put it in another way, it would be incredibly inconsistent and illogical to let celtic factions/units keep fear, saying they are unplayable otherwise, whilst removing cata fear from P + H.
And, prepare for war, for you have found peace intolerable. (Scipio quote there)
Watch Brave heart, look at the scotish mans face when they tell him "300 heavy cavalry" he wets his pants. "300 heavy horse?!?!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
seee cav were scary , braveheart says so
With fear for Pahlava, AS, Baktria and eventually Saka, Hayasdan with fear is meaningless anyway. Pahlava and Saka work fine even without fear (see for example Lazy as Saka in one of the tournaments), definitely so for Baktria as well. The only ones who would need it are Sauros (who don't get it) and Hayasdan, who as I said are negated by the better ones having it as well.
So, no, your argument doesn't work there.
Oh, and Gaesatae + Uirodusios don't get scare because of gameplay reasons (although taking it away would, indeed, have the gameplay effect Robin describes). They get it because people who do not care about their own safety - which they appear not to do - are ******* scary opponents. It doesn't matter what equipment they've got - if you care about your life and your enemy appears not, he has a huge mental advantage over you. The fear factor for them is definitely warranted IMO.
---
BTW, if you allow me to brag, my indian kataphract elephants just had 956 kills. Beat that! :laugh4:
Hayasdan would work fine without fear now as well. All they needed was a buff to their infantry which they received. Nothing more was needed. Over prevalence of fear makes some factions like the Lusotana difficult to play again. Almost every faction is capable of bringing some type of fear inspiring unit to the battlefield when previously it was only a handful along with factions that could get elephants if they so desired.
1) Looking at Lazy's result is not appropriate since its a different EDU. For one thing, HA have been significantly nerfed since then. Your other arguments re: cata fear are not backed up by reasoning or examples, so I will not respond to them. I will only say this:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
The 2 Gallic factions are perfectly playable (I am not saying excellent) without fear units. The fear units make them particularly effective at certain strategies. Similarly, Pav + Saka + Baktria might be playable, but it will loose an imp edge. Why should 1 faction lose an edge and others keep them? Why is it ok for "barb" factions to have fear units, but not "eastern" ones?
You'll note I make no mention of AS. For the sake of gameplay, I think its fine if their catas no longer have fear.
2) Re why nakeds are scary. You did not follow the conversation. Robin was making the point that nakeds were imp, and the post u read was responding to him. Regarding your argument about nakeds, I do not disagree that it would be off putting to see guys who are so fanatic that they have come up naked to fight, not caring about dying or hurting their wee wees. What I am saying is that how can you argue that they should retain "fear" effect, whilst the historical equivalent of a tank does not? Try to understand that I am not saying cata should retain fear and celts lose it. I am saying for consistency's sake either everyone loses it (cept eles) or everyone keeps them along with nakeds and chariots.
Also, I'd like to point out that a lot of the factions Robin pointed out on his list (in last his post before this) are non cata factions. Catas certainly do not make the game unbalanced; they make life hard for the opponent. Same can be said of a barb fear rush.
Removing fear is retarded. What is the point of playing Aedui/Arverni/Casse/toalesserextentSweboz then? It completely makes them useless .
And how in bloody hell are Parthia and Hai useless without fear? Did Saka/Sauro not completely obliterate everything in June WITHOUT fear?
And roach basically did a 2v1 today with Parthia, not relying on fear effect, since the charge obliterates everything already. You have to realise giving scare to cavalry has a very negative effect because stuff like cata takes ages to kill and ruins balance.
POST RESPONDING TO LAZY:
June was diff EDU lazy.
Also, this is a really badly articulated post. I have no idea what you are trying to say about ruining balance or how saka and sauro winning in June has anything to do with Pav and Hai having fear.
You have also not bothered reading my argument. If you respond to what I've actually written, and bother to read it properly, I will do the same.
Calling Vartan's post retarded is not an appropriate reaction. He was just considering it and wanted our thoughts.
Long version:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Short version:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Even when you look at ancient texts about cataphracts, no one speaks of how scary they are, but rather how majestic is their appereance, plus mentioning how devastating is their charge...
While naked warriors get words of how inspiring they were for their comrades and "off putting, nerving" for the opponents...
As TCV said, when we pile rear attack, charge, already engaged and fear it becomes too much of an overkill...
Tcv a lot of what you have responded to was my post to ok lazy not your. I am on train atm, will clarify @ home.
First off my apologies to Gaius.
Armored Elephants have to be nerfed. 2 Akontisai emptied their javs on one unit of eles killing only 3. At a price of 15000 this is definately overpowered. I suggest a ban on this unit for now.
I hope that is clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
OMG I HATE THIS FORMAT. lol. My post just ended up being part of the quote. I will try to rectify later. I'm tired now.
How dare someone insult the tournament god-king like that?! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
I want to remind everyone that, believe it or not, you can actually give Armenian cataphracts the fear effect while removing it from the Pahlava. Remember, they're different units and so it isn't the case that both either have it or don't. This is not a suggestion, just a reminder for those claiming this or that about P+H combinations of fear or not.
Anyway, this is for Brave Sir Robin. My suggestion to remove the fear effect, while not an actual call to remove it but rather something to think about, was not misguided at all. You yourself said it best and surprised me with your observational self by pointing out another quite ruinous game mechanism, namely guard mode. In combination with use of the fear effect, we have such a problem, yes. But as we can all see, if you remove the fear mechanic while also removing the guard mechanic, you have essentially rid your game of this problem with both fear imbalancing as well as guard imbalancing. This is not about the volume of urine men peed on the battlefield upon spotting cataphracts, but rather about a gameplay mechanic which, in my thought, should have either 1) never existed, or 2) been improved upon (a non-trivial task). The truth is, when you balance your EDU with fear effects (and to a lesser extent, guard mode) in consideration, this is what happens. You get a situation in which you are now determining who gets which mechanic in order to find a balance, and then to justify it somehow, but never in a satisfying manner.
TL;DR Fear and guard go hand in hand in terms of their imbalancing effects. Remove both and you have removed such effects. Proceed to balance EDU knowing full well that fear and guard are out of the picture. If you would oppose this idea, resume justifying various combinations of imposing or ridding of these mechanisms. Good luck.
While I can agree to don't use guard mode, since afaik it can't be nerfed, I hope the EDU won't get too arcade removing features (even the history backed ones)...
Imma gonna use teh guard mode.
is there way to disable guard mode? it would encourage tactics instead of sitting and waiting, and charging would be less of a death wish, this would probably remove the value of pikewalls however, as the best defence becomes offense. btw nakeys should keep scarey, catas probably shouldnt, but should get some other buff to maintain their price.
Some units are useless or at least not as useful as they historically have been without guard mode. Especially hoplites are no good without guard mode.
The strength of hoplites was historically in their shield-wall formation. Guard mode is a fine substitute for shield-wall, as it functions similarly in-game.
Change the radius and increase charge to 20ish, it helps reduce the importance of guard mode as units won't spend all their time spread out and unable to concentrate mass.
When I call a feature an arcade one it means it isn't historical. History and arcade are meant to be opposites here in the terminology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
Why the common misconception that history and game mechanisms need a one-to-one correspondence? That's not how it needs to work. There are always more than trivial ways and alternatives to this superficial shield-wall?-let's-design-a-feature-called-shield-wall approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Case in point. Don't know if it works or not, but it's an example of what I describe above. And I'm not sure if the whole the-engine-sucks-so-let's-keep-features argument holds too strongly.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
You complicate things far too much. There really is nothing special about the Celtic factions without fear. Since they cannot really hold their own without it.
Anyway, scary should be removed from cataphracts. Their major weakness was that they tired quickly when moving into position for charges. Now they can do a good job of scaring infantry by standing still behind the lines therefore doing away with this weakness somewhat. The 1 shield value means that they don't have to worry too much about slingers when standing still either.
No scary should not be removed from catas.
Forget scary. I don't know which genius thought up the idea of that feature in the first place.
You complicate things by maintaining an extra feature. Removing features is called simplification. Adding or maintaining them is called complication. If a unit cannot hold its own without fear, that unit's stats need to be reviewed, and this should go without saying. You cannot and will not comprehend this train of thought until you stop thinking in a framework which uses an attribute such as fear. Remove it from the equation and try to think of what that system looks like. This is hard but not impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
But vartan, scary barbarians is source backed, its removal would be going all arcade with the edu...
As long as we do no have another way to represent the function of hoplites, we should stay with guard mode. Only when we can find another way, we should thinking about deleting guard mode. One should not decontruct everything without any alternatives. If asms idea is working: perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
By the way I'm still not sure if it is possible to delete guard mode.
Indeed. What's the point of naked fanatics if not beeing scary (or/and perhaps inspiring). They surely did not have the best equipment, they had some fighting skill, sure, but without fear there is no reason to favour them before armoured troops. And as arjos and other already said, the scary effect of naked fanatics is not arcade or made up. It's pretty accurate historically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Not this this has anything to do with the fear debate, but I wondered if you guys might be able to quote some sources as to when nakeds were found scary. With my limited knowledge, all I know is Telamon, where the nakeds did "impress" the Romans, but not in the way the game depicts it.... by lowering Roman morale. Elephants did that. Sources say that scythe-chariots did that pre-Alexander; but I haven't been able to find much re: nakeds. The info I've read indicates that they "inspired" their own troops more than they caused enemy morale to drop.
In that sense, I think Arjos' recommendation that fear be removed, and inspire (ie. eagle) adopted instead makes sense.
That passage says it all: the Romani were intimidated, but since they were naked missiles and pila annihilated them...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
While if we take Carrhae, the panic was caused by the arrows forcing a tight formation on which the cataphracts inflicted many casualties...
Also if we compare the two, on one side you have the Romani actually scared and preferring to throw javelins; on the other you have the Romani trying to even charge at the cataphracts, because they saw how keeping ground was only working to the Parthian's advantage...
The two mentalities, imo, clearly show which was scary...
Ok, I was about to go to sleep till I saw this; so I'm blaming you for sleep deprivation, lol. I think you are taking a very subjective intepretation in comparingTelamon and Carrhae. Polybius did not say that the reason Romans used pila was because they were scared (ie. did not want to fight hand to hand). He does not say that Romans were scared and preferred to throw pila. What he does say is that the Gaesatae shield's were too small to be effective vs the pila volley. After suffering significant casualties, the Gaesatae (presumably) realised they were getting slaughtered and needed to do something, and they decided to charge the Roman lines. And were shrugged off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
It would have to be an incredibly stupid commander who gave the order NOT to use pila against an unarmored foe with small shields- especially considering that it was the standard Roman practise to throw pila before engaging in hand-to-hand.
In other words, the fact that they threw pila does not indicate that they did so because they were "scared" of fighting hand-to-hand. They were just following standard procedures; and a procedure which would be doubly effective due to a lack of enemy armor. If the Romans broke and fled when the Gaesatae charged, or engaged in hand to hand, it would be indisputable evidence of the "fear" effect as represented in RTW. That did not happen.
Its also interesting to note that in that particular instance, the Gaesatae were being prima donnas- one of the reasons Polybius gives for them taking off clothes is because they did not want them to get caught in the brambles. Polybius also mentions that they were "equal to their foes [Romans] in courage". Obv Polybius is not going to say anything bad about the Romans, but it is interesting to note that he commented that "Roman courage" was equal to Gaesatae courage.
The situation in Carrhae was very different. The cataphracts were on horses, and Crassus was acting like a moron. There was no way they could really rely on throwing pila against the cataphracts as they would need to brace, and because of limited amount of pila per man. Also, keep in mind that even against units that are very scary, professional soldiers will initially follow orders and only later on, "when the going gets tough" lose heart and flee. Very rarely is there a total break of morale upon sight of an enemy unit.
Lastly, Crassus was leading a body of professional troops (this was post Marian-reforms), whereas in Telamon, they were old school citizen levies.
As a post script, I'd like to add, I am not advocating for removal of naked fear (unless of course there are other factors like fear being removed generally). I was just curious about what the sources were. I felt I had to respond to Arjos' post since it took a very slanted view.
Also, I am not entirely sure they used pila since I seem to recall pila was adopted after Telamon- but I am using that word since Arjos did, and since he is a most learned chap.
I must say that I'm not too sure about when the pilum first appeared, I thought was with the camillian reform post Allia...
As for my interpretation, Polybius was saying:
And yes in this case were javelin throwers, point is that they preferred to hail missiles against a relatively small band (compared to the whole host)...Quote:
Very terrifying too were the appearance and the gestures of the naked warriors in front, all in the prime of life, and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. The sight of them indeed dismayed the Romans, but at the same time the prospect of winning such spoils made them twice as keen for the fight.
While about Carrhae, Crassus' mistakes were more about the route taken and the poor scouting, as you said the army was made of professionals (even veterans from Gaul), they reacted in the best way possible, and despite the horrible situation they still charged to respond the cataphracts...
The retreat was sounded because they didn't have any weapon to retaliate against such numbers of cavalry and the wounded were piling up, the frontal charges didn't rout them: instead they counter-charged...
Looking at Magnesia for another example (and with non-professional troops), we see the 1.200 roman equites still charging towards the overwhelming royal squadron of Antiochos, and they routed only when they got outflanked...
All this didn't make the allied left panic, not even the camp guards: bottom line is that Romani had no second thought about facing cataphracts, but tried to avoid full confrontation with naked Keltoi, ofc they were easy targets for missiles, but at the same time any slash could've impaired their limbs, still this wasn't recommended...
Also considering how the Gaisatoi were much praised mercenaries, sought by various coutries, doesn't give the picture of a burden nor a useless component for an army, what really happened at Telamon was that the Insubres and Boii let them choose whatever they wanted, instead of supporting them...
Now I think that's completely unfair, so I'll come to the defence of these my glorious nudes and point out that that's quote mining. The full quote given by Polybius is this:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
My emphasis added. As you can see, they are reported to having done so for practical and tactical reasons, not out of some vanity of not wanting their clothes to get ripped (or whatever your insinuation is exactly). Please don't insult their honour as the Men of Men again. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius
You still don't get it? Ever tried designing a game? (It doesn't have to be a video game.) Just because certain real-life warriors were 'scary' doesn't mean you need to create a game mechanic called 'Fear Effect' in your game in order to illustrate this. In fact, you don't need to illustrate it so blatantly at all. You can do just fine making sure they act as 'fearsome' warriors by making them fight better by way of stats. That's called inheritance. The warrior's fighting ability stats inherit the fear feature as a modification, an adjustment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
ASM has stood out more than anyone else to me in terms of thinking of concrete possible ways of managing this issue. The truth is, though, you'll never see functioning hoplites in EB, and if they are still missing weaponry and any primitive shield-wall feature (which iirc is lacking in M2TW:K), then you won't even see it in EB II. So we'll have to drop the whole attempt at making hoplites function as hoplites and have them function as freelancing warriors dancing on the field with their aristeia instead of the traditional phalanx. Cause the phalanx won't be there. It can't be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
You supposedly can using in-battle scripts but I'm against any 3rd-party stuff like that for security reasons.Quote:
By the way I'm still not sure if it is possible to delete guard mode.
The way battle dynamics play out with fear-inducing cataphracts is excellent, and fits well with historical observances. The cataphracts are slow, clunky, and vulnerable in melee (particularly against lighter horsemen with AP weapons), but resistant to missiles and devastating upon impact.
Cataphracts are not slow. Light Cavalry barely outruns them. They can just sit around for the whole battle behind a line and they eat up every other cavalry in the game bar the Sacred Band and Lanceari/Ambakaro, couple this with superior missile power of the Hellenistic factions, they are basically invulnerable to all but the most crazy of tactics (hehe shak :P), wheares all other heavy cavalry are extremely vulnerable to missiles and barbarian factions get screwed even harder because they do NOT have missile superiority, cannot protect their flanks now(sorry robin, spear infantry does not work anymore with cataphracts :( ) and their already fragile morale is further disrupted by the presence of fear, previously being their only trump card.
That concludes my defense of the barbarian factions.
I would also like to say that balance is being skewed more and more towards the Hellenistic factions and normal horse archers are SHIT as the main component of steppe armies.
OK im that genius who begins this discussion, so i see that im not the only one who is GENIUS and dont agree with me, remove fear from catas and give them eagle...Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Awesome. Lot's of juicy stuff to reply to.
First of all, @ TCV- I was only saying that tongue-in-cheek.
@ Arjos- you are still taking a very slanted view. The Gaesatae were acting as a rear guard, and they were facing "half" of the Roman army. As I said before, it would be very stupid of a commander NOT to use javs against them. It's like in EBO where you have falxmen/Bastarnae in front of you during skirmish stages and you choose NOT to use arrows/javs against them (where you have the option of doing so), and instead, charge them with infantry. Does that mean as a general you are scared of them, or you are making best use of resources? Undoubtedly there is some argument that these dudes were given some respect, but I wanted sources where their capacity to lower morale was clear.
@Lazy- I do not think catas slant dynamics signifcantly towards Hellenistic factions. Catas are pretty easy to counteract. I've played against hellenistic factions many times and taken non hellenic whilst doing so. I've even had battles against 4-6 catas (in a 2v2) with me and my ally as non cata factions, and it was pretty easy to beat them. Pontos, Carthage, Ptoles, Sweboz for instance are great anti-cav factions. I am not 100% sure how the barbs fare since I am still a noob at controlling celtic armies.
Also, catas are very slow and cumbersome. Try running around very tired cataphracts. They get to that state very quickly, recover stamina very slowly compared to other cav. When facing them, you just have to wait for an attack and keep ur cav/spears in reserve.
@GG2- I completly agree with you. Having said that, I admit to the proponents of cata fear removal that it is absurd that an exausted, severely depleted cata unit lowers morale in the vicinity when it is running around- however, the same can be said of exhausted, depleted naked unit. I personally use Gaesatae to do that many a times- run them around purely to use fear effect. In fact, if anything, I use it more with Gaesatae than catas, since catas are a very expensive unit, and I cannot really afford to run them around purely for using fear effect.
Remove shield values from armored archers please. And horse archers are a no no as the main component for steppe factions. FIX THIS GG2 I EXPECT BETTER FROM FELLOW SAUROMATAE
On which basis should shield value be removed? Bospharans, Cretans and Syrians do have shields, they used them, you cannot artificially remove them for any kind of gameplay reasons. I think heavy archers have their problems now because they are so expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
They were surrounded by two armies, they were the front line on that side, and it's not a slanted view, it wasn't common for the Romani to prolong the missile engagement as much, even against the Galatikoi, Vulso ordered such measures: it wasn't a good move to engage them in close quarters...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
At Cannae the Gaisatoi are said to have been naked from the navel upwards, so maybe wasn't about the nudity, but the mobility these units had, and I think that falxmen worked the same way...
But their status still gave them a mental edge over the enemy...
Missiles were their weakness, and even superior armoured infantry avoided clashing with them, it was sure the right thing to do (throwing javelins at them), but at the same time this show how keeping a distance was preferable...
They make them invincible to arrows. Ok they were armored but still small shields will not have this big an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
At least cretans and syrians are not invincible to arrows. Perhaps shield value for bosphorans should be reduced, I'd need to think about that but otherwise I can't see the problem. You propably did not bring your archers close enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
I disagree, "barbarians" were masters of psychological warfare, pure superiority in fighting skills would be an over simplification...Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
And how fear plays out in those parameters? Even without it they'd still be slow, vulnerable in melee, resistant to missiles and with a devastating charge...Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
The biggest problem with cata-fear is that spear infantry does not do very well against them. I'm no expert for cataphracts but should they not still have to avoid spear infantry?
Why, exactly? Cataphracts would be quite experienced dealing with spearmen, as would their mounts. Note please that the catas' lances are a lot longer than infantry spears. However they are quite vulnerable in melee with spearmen.
All I know is that its about 6-2 against giving cataphracts the fear bonus. A month of testing has been done with the Eastern Hellenistic factions, more with Pahlava and Hayasdan, and the majority of us have found the fear factor to be imbalancing. Yes, cataphracts are counterable though some factions have more trouble with this than others. However, the ability to stand your cavalry behind your infantry with no way to charge the enemy and still have the enemy be afraid of the cataphracts is silly. And this is how cataphracts are used now.
Also Shak, you mentioned that to fight cataphracts you just have to defend against them when they swing around your lines. What about factions like the Lusos, the Celts, Sweboz, and to a somewhat lesser degree the Getai (who have good ranged options at least)? They can't just sit around and let their lightly armored infantry get shot up by 120 man persian units or elite and accurate Cretans, Syrians or Bosphorans. They need to attack. And this plays right into the cataphracts hands as instead of having to run to get to you, they can wait for you to come to them, all the while sowing fear amongst their enemies from a standstill position.
I've test this edu and I think something still not work:
1-Cretans very overpowered
2-imperial cohors and evocata overpowered
3-kopis infantry overpowered
4-kata and extraordinarii lightly overpowered
5-principes and hastati very underpowered
6-overhand hoplites underpowered
7-eastern archers quite underpowered
8-axemen lightly underpowered
The phalanx and light cavalry are good.
The same argument applies to Vojinos, Uirodusios, Pictones, Gaesatae, and the like; especially the former two. Would you suggest I remove fear from those units as well? I might from Vojinos, but the Uiros and the Gaesatae?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
The fact is that the fear and command abilities in general open up this kind of abuse. Command for generals is fine; command and fear on other units leads to some bad ingame results.
The cataphracts , I dont care about historicity in this case, remove their fear, it can be abused far more than other stuff.
And yea, remove it from the Vojinos, why would someone fear being eaten AFTER he is dead?
because hugely superstitious ancient peoples usually wanted to go to the afterlife with their limbs uneaten, secondly, the best way to keep meat fresh is to keep it alive, so im assuming it would more be fear of capture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Ah yes, but the weaknesses of these units are not stamina or maneuverability. Rather this is considered one of their strengths as they lack armor. Standing still is not too big a deal for units with great stamina but for units with poor stamina, its an advantage as they don't need to waste their energies.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Perhaps we should have it so that 75% of arrows from 175m afar from atop swiftly moving mounts should strike and kill their targets? I can only think of one word for this: genius. I hope you concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Wake up call: nobody is saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is that fear in RTW isn't fear. It's an asinine feature that needs to go. I have a hatred for many of the design features of the RTW engine I doubt most could understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
When we balance, we don't try to balance all matchups. You can't get all MUs to balance. And you don't want to. So if the fact is that Cata vs Barb faction is in advantage of the Cata, we're not going to try to modify it so that it's even. This ruins the balance on the other ends. If you tried increasing barb power to compensate, they become OP vis a vis other factions. Underpower the cata faction and it becomes UP vis a vis other factions. This is what I want people to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
-------------------------
Fact is, the debate over the fear issue is a bit more insightful if you start thinking in terms of the bigger picture. Think of fear and command, as gg2 mentioned. Start putting them on a plethora of units and you're just asking for a mess. Keep command exactly that, a leader (commander) bonus, and take the broken fear feature out of the picture, and you're left with a cleaner system to mold and work with. Truly, you're better off making barbarian warriors fearful by improving their fighting capabilities (and this wouldn't be ahistorical) instead of making them bull dung and having fear on them. I hope people see the sense in this because it's really a disgusting issue in my opinion. Mostly this and the whole notion of making all MUs "balanced". Heh...
But but but, they did shoot from 175m afar, if you bring them closer, they will get ripped to shreds, as moving fast apparently has no effect on the other units accuracy, and you are basically asking to die.
I agree, in June, they were OP, foot archers could not touch them with the cantabrian circle, but now, with it removed, it has made them pretty useless, especially since we do not have any missile limits, many factions can bring 8 (in the case of AS, even more) armored archers and completely nullify the historical advantage of steppe armies, their archery.
It's decided. Steppe horse archers will have better accuracy as foot archers. I can justify this because horse archers typically have a lifetime of training, I think.
Let's leave it this way: fear is not leaving the cataphracts unless it also leaves the Gaesatae. The only units I MIGHT consider keeping fear for, were it removed from these two, would be the black-painted nakeds that the Sweboz have.
Also, does anybody else feel like those Harii naked infantry deserve 2 HP? They don't do drugs (but it's very suspect whether Gaesatae did drugs, either) but it would do a lot of good to balance that unit, given its small shield (which I need to reduce back to 3) and it would feel appropriate IMHO.
I support GG's Position.
Well if you all see fear as a broken feature, let's test its complete removal...
But how on earth are the Woithiz Wāthā more deserving for it? Those warriors painted themselves to avoid being spotted in night ambushes, in daylight they are just Uirodusios...
^This.
Ok, remove fear, but, compensate for it for the celtic factions
GG2, I'm gonna sound rude saying this but so forgive me in advance:sweatdrop: but what makes you the final decision maker regarding the edu? Yes you have put the time and effort into putting it all together which we are very(!) thankful for, but I don't understand how that makes your decision "right" and everyone else's wrong. It is still just your opinion. Shouldn't a vote of the regular players be the way to solve this?
Also, if we remove fear it would be wise to re institute a missile limit. IMO we should do this anyway as every battle begins with missile duels with even more missile units being held in reserve causing 2v2's to take over 45 minutes which is absurd.
For the record, I don't see fear as a broken feature. If this is the case, then we should limit cataphracts to one charge a battle. It's a broken feature that they can charge 4-5 times before being exhausted. Engine limitations (i.e. 3 levels of stamina or representing fear) exist people, don't act like they don't.
If per Vartan's recommendation, we would remove fear from say, Uridusios, they would need somewhere around 20 attack and defense to justify their price, unless we of course lowered the price to 1000 or so. Even without fear, they'd be the first target for archers and larger sized levy units with bigger shields would become better options. Making them ahistorically better fighters than anyone else because they are naked is just as silly as the fear bonus.
Robin, the mechanic prompts exploitation no matter where you put it. Ergo, I propose cutting fear from all units except MAYBE the black-painted Suebian warriors. Uirodusios would get command back but lose fear. Gaesatae woud lose fear. Et caetera.
The problem here is that everybody is proposing to gut one unit type's abilities because they feel it is easy to exploit, but they aren't going after others simply because they aren't used as often. By comparison with how Epeirote players make use of Uirodusios, Cataphracts are completely fair! I have actually seen people park their Uirodusios right behind their phalanxes and have them just sit there to scare the enemy. That is far worse than any cataphract exploit, because you at least aren't putting 4000 of your mnai to actual combat use if you just leave your cataphracts sitting there. But if you leave your naked sitting there, you have spent far less mnai and are getting the same result. Plus, the naked units can still throw javelins (Gaesatae are particularly effective with their javelin attack) or do similar things (cataphract archers can do that too, I suppose).
So if I am to cut fear from cataphracts, fear is leaving the naked units, Pictones, etc. as well.
I'd second that. I don't see any reason to favour the gaesatae ove the harii. And I don't think that gasatae could be represented well without the second HP. I'd give a second HP for all no to light armoured troops which are known for fighting further when (heavily) wounded.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Infantry already receive a morale penalty when fighting cavalry and the charge itself is scary in a sense that it destroys about a quarter of even heavy infantry units instantly from the front. Cataphracts don't need the frighten_foot attribute to actually cause a morale shock to units while infantry do because charges don't work as well as we'd like and infantry don't kill fast enough to lower morale significantly. My arguments are being mostly based on gameplay rather than realisms sake for the record. I don't think the engine can properly simulate a realistic battle and so I feel that gameplay needs to be in balance with historical accuracy, especially with something which is not so clear cut as fear effects in battle situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Oh and naked or lighter armored fear units parked behind phalangites or any composition of main line are an easy target for missiles, something cataphracts are not.
Remove fear and let's see what happens, but from all units...
I don't like it one bit though...
But best historical solution is this:
removal of Gaesatae replacing it with Uirodusios, Pictone lose fear, give slighty better stats to Uirodusios and Woithiz Wāthā, they keep fear and catas get inspire...
Harmata Drepanephora keeps fear and Cidainh gets it replaced by inspire...
This is following ancient sources, rest is arcade and not liking RTW's features...
i agree that cataphracts sitting behind the phalanx scaring enemy infantry is ridiculous, i dont see why fear should be removed as a mechanic but if people are gonna insist on abusing fear then its not very fair, however i was reading an account by suetonius on the invasion of anglesey i think, and he described the druids as not doing anything, but the soldiers believed they were the furies, and so were scared despite not being attacked by the druids, with these kinds of units the fear mechanic isnt broken, its working exactly as historically described.
there must be a way to maintain historical accuracy while also maintaining balance, cataphracts for the sake of balance shouldnt get fear, units like gaesatae should have their armor reduced or something so if a sneaky player decides to just sit them behind his line they can be easily destroyed by archers . as arjos said, why not change some of the fear units to inspire instead? idk im just saying id really like to not have to simplify the game
Just though it would be interesting to add- Roman legions were scared of slaves as well (during revolt of Spartacus). I do say that slightly tongue-in-cheek Crassus had to decimate to make them more scared of him than the slaves.
Also, Roman soldiers did not think druids were the furies, they thought the women running around screaming were the furies. They very soon recovered and killed all of them.
This kind of reaction against the unknown is very common- troops just get slightly taken aback.
BTW- the above was not to make any particular argument- just interesting info relevant to fear debate.