Printable View
I'd agree with testing them first without the limitation as well. I just have the feeling that there may be problems which is why I am putting forth this idea along with GG2 so that if they do prove to be OP, then we will quickly have a solution on hand. Playtesting will be key of course.
I'm sorry - which questions do you want me to answer? I'd go ahead and answer them, but I'm not on my home computer and don't have the time here to search through the thread and dig up what exactly that was.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
The fact that there were not many new units created does not mean that there isnt a fundamental change going on. I would interpret this decision by the EB team as a result of a severe lack of evidence for specific units in the Indo-Sakae and Indo-Hellenes compared with that for the Romans. Thus a few general units had to be created; units such as Indohellenic Peltastai and Hoplitai, which are the sort of general-purpose well-armored Hellenic troops common elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
Having a look at an excerpt from the Saka Heavy Hoplites' description:
I have a hunch that anyone would interpret this as the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by EB Descriptions
1. The Sakae clearly had a major transition from nomadic confederacy to hegemony over a population of largely 'civilized' people, who fielded heavy infantry for their armies.
2. There was a fusion of Saka and Hellenic tradition in the creation of this unit, thus producing a very heavily armored heavy hoplite infantryman.
Thus, the Hoplitai Hellenikon will be represented as a heavier, if more expensive, version of traditional hoplitai, with either less 'discipline' (resilience to morale shocks) or 'morale' (general resilience to routing) due to a lack of the sort of motivation that fighting for one's own city-state would inspire in a man.
Hahahaha.
On one hand, I completely agree with your conclusions. On the other hand, I like arguing for the sake of argument, so I will continue this discussion.
First of all, I think you misunderstood the argument re semantics (“ABCD”)- it was restricted to semantics only.
Secondly, I think you are comparing Rome’s “era” limitations inappropriately.
The central thrust is that you have to correctly identify which factions you should compare Saka against.
In the entire game, Rome is the only faction which can feasibly support a clear era division. The Roman roster has been designed to do this specifically by EB team. Further, for gameplay purposes, it is quite feasible due to the enormous (and high quality) roster Rome enjoys. There are no other factions who can support an era division as comfortably as Rome. Their roster has not been purposefully designed. I hope I am not being rude in stating this is obvious. Rome stands in a league of its own and cannot be compared to other factions in terms of ability to support era division.
If you could make new units to add units to Saka’s roster (so as to allow the division into eras to be less painful), then it would be acceptable. But this can’t be done.
What we have instead, is a plethora of other factions who experienced different “eras/evolutions” within the EB time period. Gallic factions, Sweboz, Pahlava, Hayasdan and to a minor extent Sweboz, Carthage and AS. Now, these are the factions Saka should be compared to. Saka roster’s ability to support a division in era is far closer to these factions than Rome. The approach in making rules for these factions should form the basis of how Saka is dealt with (NOT Rome).
If Saka era divide is to be implemented: implement similar restrictions on these factions. If it is historical accuracy one is striving for, then Pahlava, Hayasdan, Gallic factions should suffer under that as well etc. For instance, in your example above, if a Gallic faction is bringing mail clad infantry and the recruitable cav, you should not be allowed to bring in tecitos. But to go to such an extent would be overbearing and unduly restrictive.
Regarding the other point you bring up, about saka getting access to heavy infantry- ive dealt with this earlier, so I wont go into it again.
EDIT: This post is stricly in reply to TCV's post. I didn't see GG2s post right before mine, so it does not refer to him when it says "you".
There is heavy theoretical debate going on right now. So all you Karl Marxes and Young Hegelians, when wilst thou begin the practical side of actually field testing to see what seems intuitively better in practice? o.0 far-fetched suggestion of mine, or perhaps what I would do had I all the time in the world...
EDIT: Other than Rome, which factions of ours actually went country-wide military reforms? I don't know of any. There were changes, of course, and EB team has implemented these. But don't wrongly misinterpret these as systematic military reforms by the state. Life went on as usual. Outside of the SPQR, it was usually a matter of adding on or revising what was fielded before. So perhaps in that sense I wouldn't go so far as division of eras. But that's just more theory! Now, with a division-less Saka...why so worried? Just do some field testing and discover the strategy against them.
I'm sorry, Shak (or is that Marx/Hegels? :p), but when I have GG2's attention that takes priority. I hope you can understand. :p
Well, I'll go from memory here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamegeek2
1) Why were the Ordmalica (Goidilic two-handed hammer guys) taken out of the game?
2) The Germanic levies cost very slightly less than Illyrian levies, but are significantly superior. (+2 attack, +3 defence, +3 morale and better stamina.) This despite them also having the same number of men in their units. Is this really correct? If so, how?
3) Gaelaiche are identical to Gaeroas, in cost and stat, except that Gaeroas have a better charge and a longer jav range. Is this correct? It used to be that the Gaelaiche were slightly superior but also slightly more expensive.
4) Golberi Curoas are identical in stats to Bataroas, but still cost 1503 (IIRC) while the latter cost 1472 (again, IIRC). Did you forget to lower their cost? (To anyone who may wonder: this question is very old; indeed, I think it dates back to the very first version of 3.0. The Bataroas/Golberi Curoas had their stats decreased and made identical, but only Bataroas became cheaper.)
5) Is the EDU documentation kept up-to-date? I have come to the conclusion that it is not, but I might as well ask again for confirmation.
Those are it, I guess. However, I can add a few new ones as well, since you've gotten my hopes up (~;)):
6) This new Bosphoran faction within the Sauromatae faction you're planning, what would their general's unit be?
7) In this note, why did some general's bodyguard unit lose their eagles while others retained them?
8) On that note (yeah, I just keep on going!), why did Uirodusios lose their eagles?
That's all I can think of for now. I think. I'll get back if I come up with any more. :wink3:
Oh, and @Vartan: the Saka roster hasn't been finished, so we can't do any field experiments with them yet. That's why we've kept it on the theoretical battlefield.
@Gamegeek2; I think fighting for ones life is motivation enough. Since these are not some random levies picked up and thrown into battle without any preparation whatsoever. Are the normal greek hoplites not fighting for some random general they could not care less about?
1. The Ordmalica were, it seemed, a rather gross inaccuracy, much as the Merjoz of old. One could argue the same for several of the Goidilic units, but I decided, for now, just to remove one offender.
2. The Germanic levies are intended to be significantly superior to any other levy with comparable equipment - as are the celtic ones. I may make the Illyrian levies stronger, good thought.
3. As of right now, the Gaeroas have better charge and javelin range while the Gaelaiche have better morale. I think I differentiated them this way arbitrarily just to make them different, when I should just make them identical to each other; or, even better, I could get a better proposal from one of you guys (which is what I really want).
4. I think I intended for the mercenary version to be more expensive, but this wasn't done systematically, so I should probably change it.
5. The documentation is mostly up-to-date. I intend to expand upon it in later updates.
6. I'd probably give the new Bosporan faction either the Aeldary Ambaltae (albeit with unit size re-reduce) or perhaps I'll give the Hellenistic Mercenary General better stats, the standard general unit size, and other perks and make that their bodyguard.
7. Which ones lost their eagles?
8. Why should Uirodusios have an eagle? It's a bunch of naked fanatics - scary opponents, but I don't think they'd inspire you on much, like a general would.
About eagles, wouldn't foot nobles or agema or royal guards inspire troops?
I dunno, foot guards didn't keep the rest of the army from cheesing it at Pydna.
Or just to show that gone the elite, the rest goes bananas :P
That's the problem. We wouldn't want instant losses upon rout of the elite. I'm grossly not expanding on this right now, but in terms of gameplay, we don't want this to happen. I know because I formerly was wondering why elite military units amongst all factions weren't given eagles. This is why I wouldn't give them eagles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
It would still make sense, historically speaking, but yes can see the "officers sniping" spoiling the game...
Gallic generals are missing the eagle.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
As far as Uirodusios and eagles, I believe that seeing members of your own tribe willing to fight naked was considered by the Gauls a great sign of bravery and inspired them to fight on as they would want to match their comrades. This is different from the Gaesatae who were from a separate tribe and were hired as mercenaries by Gallic leaders.
Does anyone know what the crap warcry even does?
I think it gives an attack bonus for about 15-20 seconds. Not really the most powerful thing especially since the two units that received it are both magnets for archer fire and would do well to not remain exposed for the duration of the cry.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Is this a change you made with the very last update? It was not so when I (originally) asked that question, but maybe that's changed. I'll check it again later today. Personally I think we should keep the Gaelaiche slightly superior to the Gaeroas, as they are reform units from Transalpine Gaul while the Gaeroas are "basic" Cisalpine Gauls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamegeek2
Perhaps making Gaeroas better able to skirmish (i.e., not make them outright skirmishers, but better at filling in that role) while the Gaelaiche are better melee fighters is a reasonable distinction. This because the Gaeroas' description outright says they can be used as "impromptu skirmishers" - while already true, they could be made superior to other units like it. It's an idea.
The Brihentin have, as Robin said, lost their eagles. I *think* the Somatophylakes Strategou also have. I can check out more completely later today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamegeek2
Edit: no, the SS were fixed now; only Brihentin generals still lack eagles of the "playable" factions.
I think Robin's correct, but I can't help think that it has something to do with the Uirodusios' association with Casse as well. Their rampant hero worship, and general fighting doctrine, seems to indicate to me that someone fighting naked would be one of such leaders in their army, rather than one of the followers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamegeek2
I wanted to ask, purely on a technological side, were the Kretikoi bows so advanced? Shouldn't they be quite inferior compared to eastern and steppe ones?
According to my quick research, the Cretans used horn composite bows similar to what the Scythians, etc. were using. So the answer is no. Here's a reproduction of a Cretan bow I found, but I think it's from before the EB time frame. http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/19534
Cheers!
So in a way Krete was the westernmost hub of eastern archery tech, with a ready to take mercenary pool; had some talks whether their fame was mostly related to their melee capabilities, giving them a plus over any regular western psiloi, or actual ballistic...
Thanks again :)
Crete: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
And oh I didn't know Crete was taking in eastern archery technology. I thought it was independently developed. Thanks for clearing that up for me Arjos. You're the man!
Interesting. I did wonder about the Cretan bows.
There is a factor other than bow-technology or melee skill that could explain the reputation of Cretan archers: aggression and tactical skill. For example: Napoleon's light infantry didn't use special muskets or engage in close-combat fighting more often than other skirmishers, but they were very effective. This was the result of aggressive deployment and good leadership; I read that their marksmanship skills were actually poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Also, the TW games restrict the fighting to large-scale battles, but especially light troops would spend most of their time patrolling, skirmishing or raiding. Better bows or more accurate rifles won't make a great difference in these situations, since the enemy will often get too close for them to matter. Aggression and clever deployment are the deciding factors here.
This cannot be properly simulated on the TW engine, though.
Hey
Interesting discussion. I wanted to see what others said before I weighed in.
As far as I know, Cretans used composite bows which were not recurved (as many of the steppe peoples used) made out of locally available materials. Whilst these composite bows were more powerful than the self bows used by the vast majority of mainland Greeks, they would not be as powerful as the composites used further east or in the Steppe. It is very likely that they picked up some of the knowledge on bow-making from these regions, though there is nothing to indicate that they could replicate the same quality of bows. Even though they used composites, obviously not all composites are made equal (due to variations in materials, technology, know-how, etc). Even is the East and Steppe regions, there were significant variations in quality- a good quality bow could take upto 10 years to make (aging/gluing materials etc).
Just a quick note on the earlier link. Whilst it is incredibly interesting, the author of that post does not make his sources clear, nor which time period the bow he used refers to. I am generally reluctant to rely on such material.
The only source I have been able to find which speaks of Cretan bow range (Anabasis by Xenophon) explains that the Cretans were not able to match the range of Persian slingers or archers. Do keep in mind that Xenophon wrote earlier than the EB time period, though by this time, the Greeks had exchanges with Scythians (and would presumably have had an opportunity for trade and exchange of knowledge).
I am very inclined to agree with Ludens in his assessment of Cretan archers- namely that the reason for their renown is due to their aggression, ability to understand and follow orders and high morale rather than their prowess as marksmen or the power of their bows. Being scumbags also gives them that distinctive touch :).
Though this is purely conjecture, I think another reason for their frequent use and mention may well be because they were the only decent archers that the earlier Greeks, and most civilisations west of them, would have access to. By the time of Diadochi and late republic Rome, they already established a “brand name”. Plus, they would have been easier to integrate into a Western/Hellenic army (due to common language, culture and ethos) than say a band of Scythians or Persians.
I have always thought that a significant, unsubstantiated bias was given in favour of Cretan Archers in EB (strictly) in terms of their bow range and attack; and lately, accuracy. I think they should be inferior to Eastern and Steppe archers (even the medium-quality ones) in terms of range, attack. Accuracy should be same-ish as medium-quality, and slighly higher than persian levies. Melee and armor should remain the same though. They were noted as being crazy in melee and relatively heavily armoured.
All hail the Shak. Making long posts so I dont have to. Yay
I wasn't much thinking about accuracy, as with such big numbers in battle something is to get hit...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
But rather penetration and missile speed, then yes I agree that battlefield awareness must have been a nice addition, not to mention they spoke greek, which must have been a plus considering the employing "nations"...
So we wait and pray for gg2 to correct the Kretan monsters? Bahahah. Bosphorans remain the top dog then, eh? Those Greeks in the East must have learned quickly then!
I dont believe they were greeks, who says they were greeks? Isnt it much more probable that they were Scythians?
And what happened to your presentation?
I found a cheap way to win, a very cheap exploit . replay
Who needs archers just get all infantry and some cav . and even if the guy you go up agaisnt brings archers and slingers he wont do anything .
The Greeks colonized from Iberia to the Black Sea. :book2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
It had great reception. People asked many questions about EB, and I answered the best I could. If only presentation could be dedicated to the multiplayer aspect alone!
Sure they colonized, but how do you know they were great enough archers that we justify their place as the best in the game? If it were scythians I would be fine with it but....