Printable View
Why would it? Both are recruitable in campaign and I've used both in battle numerous times. Thats why the Samnite Heavies are mercs and are skinned as such. You can use the Samnite Allied spears and the mercenary equivalent in the same battle as well if you want to.
So I made better hoplites.
On the soldier line, change the last number to 10 (mass), then add ', .15' to the end of the line to override default collision box radius from .4
I tested against hastati and the hoplites pushed so hard that they ended up in the middle of the hastati unit surrounded by hastati.
PS. spear seems to make phalanx slightly more pushy.
PPS. phalanx mass would need to be adjusted to be something like 15 so hoplites can be poked away.
We got problems,
Replay 1 : 3 britons late champions , 4 casse champions , 3 ebherni armoured shock infantry , 1 chariot , 1 druid , 4 slingers
WTF. You can elite spam and still get 17 units. Replay
Replay 2 : Settle for the above replay, I was going to give you a replay of Imperial archers shooting point blank range at gallic light cav , but i will look for it later.
GG you claim archers are fine, please come to hamachi so we can test stuff out.
I can tell u for a fact komatai toxatai vs gallic light cav results in 2 kills on first volley, 0 kills 2nd volley, 0 kills 3rd volley. POINT BLANK RANGE.
yah nothing wrong with archers.
I agree phalanx mass needs to be high.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Secondly, do u realize that phalanxes dont have bonus vs cavalry.
I Charged my Grivpanvar straight into a phalanx once the phalanx lost 20 men i lost 2 or 3, i puled back charged again that phalanx was decimated, i cant remeber the guy i was playing with but i hope he remembers.
GG TEST YOUR **** OUT!
http://www.mediafire.com/?5i9tfan5ibat2l2
guys who have time watch this short replay, also try ti fix arhers again you gave sagitari more shield but who knows what you decrease... bcz thanvare parsig which are cheaper than my sagitary beat my archers without problems i dont know what another smart thing i can say, also i hate new rules i hate them very hard bcz they suck and they are not balanced and not historical.... crap in any case :D one funny thing i also one so funny thing i found equites romani cost same as daha uezdaetae (dahae noble cavarly) lol, still cant reconcile with fact that cohorts have less defensive skill than archers, just pathetic move to make cohorts weaker in guard mode, why then they cost more if they are weaker than last edu......xD
I think no one will deny, our Missile system sucks.
I can't complain thus far, Storm. :) By the way why 2 last repalys are from games against me. :D
Before I begin, I must make an appeal to you: please make an effort to use some basic grammar at least. You know, proper punctuations, spelling and paragraphs. I shouldn't have to send your messages through expert code cracking teams just to figure out what you're trying to say. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega
Now, I've watched that replay, and I don't know what to say other than... you're wrong. The Heavy Persians were not defeating the Sagitarri; on the contrary, the Sagitarii were defeating the Heavy Persians. Granted, it wasn't going fast, but you will see that soon after your opponent runs forward the rest of his foot archers, his Heavy Persians who started the 1-on-1 shootout are equal in numbers to the Sagitarius they fought against. As they start out with 8 guys more, this means they had lost 8 guys more than you had. When they were both out of ammo, the Heavy Persians numbered 32 and your Sagitarius 37. That's not Heavy Persians beating Sagitarius, much less "without problems", my friend.
As for the rest of your Sagitarii who fought the rest of his Heavy Persians, watch that replay again and you'll see that you allowed him to fire at your guys without firing back. Not until after you had lost 11 guys in one unit and 13 guys in the other did you start shooting back. (This was because yours were out of range (due to slight hill advantage - in EDU numbers they have the same range.) When you admitted defeat, the Persians were out of ammo and I assume yours were too (if not, that would only work against you). This advantage thus meant that they ended up with 59(PH) vs 40(SA) as well as 64(HP) vs 42 (SA).
Since the cost differential is only 53 mnai, I don't know what you're whining for.
This is because Premarian Roman cav gets a +7.5% cav cost for historical reasons (except Italici who get only +5%, just like postmarian cav). You get -10% cost for postmarian infantry though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega
Cohorts are now more expensive because they had their artificial cost reduction lowered. They still cost 10% less than they would for any other faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega
Actually, I think that the new missile system is a good improvement over the last one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormrage
I'll agree with Storm on this one point. GG2, it is my opinion that the shield values need to be reduced back to v2.1 levels. The extra shield values on units like light cavalry make them incredibly resilient to missiles from the front and sides, while only susceptible from the back. Maybe infantry can keep the extra point where applicable (i.e. shieldwall units), but for cav, it would be difficult to move the shield around on horseback to protect against missiles. I fought that test battle with the Komatai Toxotai against Storm who was using the various Roman Auxilia cavalry, who in all fairness, are more of medium cavalry than lights because of the extra armor. However, in about 6 volleys from the side on the Gallic cavalry, I killed about 4-5. When I swung around the back, it was more about 2-3 per volley. The difference here would be the shield which I think is too drastic for a small cavalry shield which would be more useful in melee than against missiles imo.
Also, slingers are now far too cost effective against all but the heaviest archers. Unless you are taking Bosphorans or the Dacian Elites(which are both incredibly expensive), it makes almost no sense to take archers. You are better off taking a cheap slinger unit that may actually win against the archers while costing nearly half their price.
We need a new mass system as .1 differences in mass do nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
I think that the 2 problems with the current missile system are that (1) missiles do jack to heavy infantry who aren't moving (well except for barbs and phalanx) and (2) you can kill enemy missiles. Shield values should probably be reduced by 1.
Missiles aren't supposed to kill heavy infantry. There was a good reason that archers were not popular in the West, and weren't until the invention of the crossbow, which could effectively pierce armour (arrows won't pierce through chainmail and cause damage unless you get hit straight-on).Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Slingers will have their attack reduced by 1.
Shields I am not sure about; I would have to lower javelin attack as well, which I am not in favor of doing, but if it's called for then sure.
TCV, I love your post. It points out exactly why I do not take Vega and Stormrage's complaints very seriously unless I actually see what they're going on about with my own eyes, in-game.
One thing you said is not correct, though:
Postmarian infantry have no cost reduction, and neither do the auxiliary cavalry (Hispanic, Germanic, Thracian, Gallic). Only Premarians receive an infantry discount, and I may remove the discount for Principes to encourage people to actually bring Hastati.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
GG, i ran into a light cavalry unit in the roman roster do you know how much armour it had, it had 5 armour . then i look down a bit then i see the sheild value 5 SHEILD!!!
what have u been drinking ?
Here is my proposition.
anything light,
medium armour 5-7
high defense skill
low sheild, 1 or 2 maximum.
and for the archers,
Decrease all archer morale by 4.
What will happen? Light cavalry will be vulnerable to missile fire yet att the same time preform well in melee, due to defense skill.
The Decreased morale will lead to light cavalry routing archers and slingers.
Maybe low morale will let bad archers rout if they lose too many men from missile fire? Problem is I think routing is difficult to pull off if you're not nearby the unit.
You can at least name the unit you're talking about. That one would be Equites Germanorum.
Let me give a scenario of the ideal battle system.
Note: the heavy cvaalry in this case are Cataphracts.
I attack my enemy our front line forces engage. I have heavy cavalry and light cavalry he has archers and slingers. If i bring in my heavy slow cavalry, they will get Devastated by slingers before i even touch his line. what to do ? My light cavalry are fast , i bring in 2 light cavalry and charge his archers and slingers, the archers only have time for 1 volley if he responded in time. my light cavalry quickly rout his archers/slingers making way for heavier and slower troops to flank ,in this case its heavy cavalry.
You see ? This is how a player should think. atleast the EDU should make players think like this.
Now lets see what would happen if someone was in the same situation but he is using the current EDU.
Same thing, infantry lines clash, i have light cavalry and heavy cavalry, my opponenet has slingers and archers. I bring up my light cavalry charge his archers my cavalry are now fighting half of that archer unit in melee the other half is firing arrows. light cavalry engaged and the archers are ignoring them firing arrows. im Serious ive tested all this out, they are shaken but thats it. His archers dont do much damage since i got 5 armour 5 sheild, or in some cases 8 armour 3 sheild. so niether unit is doing their job, i bring up my heavy cavalry his slingers take out 2 of my cav i continue. they are in position my heavy cvaalry charge at his infatnry, his slingers fire off another volley this time 3 die, his line breaks i win the day.
in the end Light cavalry didnt do their job , archers didnt do their job, and slingers didnt do their job.
One smart guy might argue that well if it takes 30 seconds to fire a volley and every volley gets 2 kills then in 5 minutes or whatever minutes u would have destroyed his whole unit, well this isnt Single player where the AI will leave his cavalry for u to shoot at for 5 minutes, in 10 seconds his cavalry would be mowing down your left flank.
im dont know all these fancy names.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
and most people bring a general that will give archers +2 morale, plus some might give them a chevron, thats another +2 morale.
the morale thing needs to be sorted out as well. im talking all units, the general/fear morale effects need to be taken into the equation.
I meant can't hit missiles. Actually it is somewhat accurate because no one could really figure out how exactly to deal with skirmishers. However, you should consider lowering morale for skirmishers. Right now they will actually hold against cavalry especially if you chevron them for an additional +2.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
gg2 you need to reduce the shield value for cavalry, and I mean light/medium cavalry. Slingers aren't effective as deterrents for them right now. This is primarily due to the higher shield value of the light/medium cavalry. There are claims I see that slingers are too powerful. Reducing their attack might cancel out this lowering of the light/medium cavalry shield value. You will need to figure out how to make the slingers less powerful if these people are correct in what they say, but still make them stronger against light/medium cavalry. You might need to look at accuracy since lowering attack won't do anything but worsen the problem.
And Storm stop being a griefer. Phalangites aren't supposed to have bonus against cavalry because that bonus is not applied solely from the front and with the sarissa alone.
Oh, I see. I got that straight out of the 3.0 documentation though, so was that something you forgot to change in an update, or have you simply neglected it to focus on the actual EDU? I just want to know how up-to-date it is, so I can more accurately regulate my salt supply when reading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamegeek2
These "claims" need to be supported by proof and tests, before we can even consider the situation. Its not enough that a person comes up and sais heavy infantry die too quickly, what is your defintion of die too quickly. maybe he thinks die too quickly is 1 kill every 10 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Now, people claim slingers are too powerful let see their facts, what is the slinger kill per volley? people are thinking 1 kill/volley is OP .
This claim is a bag of dung . Becuase...
1)Sheild Values have increased
2)Slinger accuracy has been significantly reduced, according to GG2.
Side note: Catas given +1 sheild, Imperial archers given +1 sheild.
So we see that slingers werent just nerfed they were nerfed 2 fold, lesser accuracy and high sheilds what more can u want , whats this rubbish about slingers still being too powerful.
well then u need more greifers to remind you of the basics of warfare.Quote:
And Storm stop being a griefer. Phalangites aren't supposed to have bonus against cavalry because that bonus is not applied solely from the front and with the sarissa alone.
Slingers are anti armour not anti light cavalry Mr.Vartan , killing light cav is the archers job.
P.S
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: i would edit that if i were you :laugh4:Quote:
Phalangites aren't supposed to have bonus against cavalry because that bonus is not applied solely from the front and with the sarissa alone.
For the second part i give u this :
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This will give bonus attack vs cav only for the sarissa.
Done worry Vartan, I know what im talking about. :grin3:
TCV dont worry about my english worry about what edu we gonna play next tourney, if you guys just ignore me dont know why i am even here i dont need to lose my nerves on this game, but ok gg2 will do it how he think it should be, just hope that rules will be changed at least :D Anyway robin your signature is awasome man! :DD
Storm, I thank my lucky stars to know someone as gifted at unintentional comedy as you.
I think the slinger v archer problem may have something to do with the trajectories of the missiles? The slingers have more of an advantage because their missiles fly in a straighter line and therefore hit anything in the way. Archers put more arc on their shots and therefore not only have to worry about getting their x coordinates right, but also their y's if you get what I'm saying. I'm not sure how this relates to the accuracy values but it definitely needs some fiddling with.
And Vartan, personally I don't consider slingers too powerful against anything other than most archer units. I must ask however, what prompted this reboot of the missile system in the first place? Was there something terribly wrong with it in earlier versions? I'm just curious.
Thank you Vega! I made it myself. If you'd like one for Rome I would be happy to make you one. Just pm me or ask me next time you see me on hamachi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega
Archers need a accuracy boost. and not a .1 accuracy boost mr.gg . Big accuracy boost. So that they accualy kill what they are supposed to kill, and the things they arent supposed to kill wont get killed becuase they have armour. if u follow.
I dunno, hastati have more pilum and they function pretty well as of now. You should leave it alone.
Also, I found out that .2 radius makes Romans units stand shoulder to shoulder while attacking (more realistic). So I think we should make hoplites and shield wall infantry have .15 radius and most line infantry .2. It just looks much better and they function more realistically.
EDU: http://www.mediafire.com/?8o1ofhtfmkk9bk4
Slingers aren't supposed to deter medium cavalry. Medium cavalry should run over slingers and then turn to do something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Lowering shield values would run counter to my entire objective of strengthening lighter infantry and cavalry, which has been very successful. How would you propose to balance the two? Reduce the shield boost for only heavier troops?
Do you READ my posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Hold on a second, u just said u are strengthening light infantry and light cav, strengthening agaisnt what ? Archers ?
So your plan is to make the one thing archers are supposed to kill, invulnerable?
So i geuss the 5 sheild cav wasnt a mistake.
and the 0 kill per volley Komatai toxotai vs light cav, point blank range, 0 KILLS! that is your plan right ?
Thats cool.
I Vote we fire GG.
Yeah hastati are fine as is imo. As ASM said, there are more of them to toss pila, but they also function well as flankers or flank guards because of their larger numbers when running into the nasty AP infantry that players often use to flank the main line.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I would say that light cavalry needs to be kept away from missiles in general. They weren't used pre 2.1 because their missile attacks sucked, not because they couldn't defend properly against missiles. Light cav are cheap glass cannons. A well positioned light cav can kill of an entire heavy infantry unit in about 15 seconds with 4-5 jav volleys to the back and then harrass enemy heavy cavalry if need be. Smart players would be wise to use up the majority of the enemy's arrows before bringing in lighter cavalry. The problem is more with the units like gallic light auxilia cav and median mediums, that is units with a decent amount of armor and shields. Slingers and archers wisely positioned behind the main line shouldn't be single handedly killing these units off, but should be causing enough casualties to at least make your opponent think twice about moving them into range which they currently do not. Of course, caught in the open, light and medium cavalry should be killing off the slingers and archers in turn, but I think low morale for missile units has that working quite fine atm.
It doesn't make sense that you need to spend 1800 more mnai to kill a slinger and how that unit will get shot apart if there are enough slingers. :p
I mean heavy cavalry costs more than heavy infantry but you can mass murder the heavy infantry for the fraction of the cost because they are re-useable. Cavalry just gets shredded against missiles. So it is kinda pointless right now to counter missile with cav because your cav will basically be out of the fight for the rest of the game.
I suppose you can make light infantry counter slingers or push them off the field but all that does is allow you to join lines faster and your missiles just do support fire for the rest of the battle to counter cav attacks.
You should be asking the EDU editor. If I remember correctly (gg2 remind me if I'm forgetting), I had no hand in the decision to re-create the missile accuracy system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Increasing accuracy does not make an archer kill "what it's supposed to kill", it makes the archer kill more and more, including both what it's supposed to kill (whatever this may mean) and what it isn't supposed to kill (see last parenthetical).Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
How are you going to make slingers an effective deterrent to light cavalry then?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Only for comic relief.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
How do you fire someone who was never hired? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Easy,did i ever tell you about my cousin :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Fix slinger spams