How many units do you want to be killed by one volley? Be precise.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Printable View
How many units do you want to be killed by one volley? Be precise.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
First, slingers should not be able to take out archers. You shouldn't be aiming at archers with your slingers to begin with. Second, even if changes are to be made, it isn't to the archers, it's to the slingers. By the way, you could give any unit the lowest attack integer of 1 and they'd still kill. If I understand the system correctly, it has a minimum chance to kill. There's a reason why even if your attack is lower than the enemy's armour, you can still kill that enemy. It isn't as straightforward as attack minus defense.
4 slingers SHOULD be able to DEVASTATE armoured archers VARTAN>\, especially since the archers in question have no hseild just tons of armour. I think the base attakc of the slingers hsould be raised to increase the chance of a kill on impact. i mean with 240 stones falling down on 80 men and only 3 dye, some of the stones must have hit them en but the men didnt die becuase they have so much armour. so that the man dies on impazt or atleast a 50 percent chance of death. 3 kills out of a possible 240 thats insane where the hell did the other rocks go lol. im assuming some stones hit but didnt do anything to the archer is that the way it should work ?
I'd slightly disagree here, against heavy archers it's actually not a bad idea to use slingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Sure. Some attacks does not even hit (that's for missiles only), most attacks are stopped by armour, shield and defense (that's for melee only) and some attacks do not kill but only throw the enemy down (that's for melee only). That's the system. It would be crazy if every hitting stone would kill the unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Just to let you know: It's mentioned that in fact the imperial archers used shields, they should get MORE defense against missiles not less.
EDIT: Every reduction of armour would make the archer weaker against everything not only against slingers.
I have a friend that has experience with EDU's ill ask him about this .Maybe it is something more complicated then armour or attack maybe it has something to do with velocity, mass, weight ,(etc.), of the stone itself.
Trust me. You don't want to attack any archers with your slingers, unless you want to lose all of your slingers. Do you want to lose all of your slingers? That's the question. When you have a 60 man slinger unit against an archer unit of 80 men that was born to kill those 60 men of yours, is it really worth losing your 60 men and up to 600 or so mnai investment, only to take out 100 or 200 mnai worth of archers (a handful of men)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
Perhaps this actually is what I want. The archers would devestate my more valuable units perhaps and it seemd to be useless to use a bad archer unit against them. It will have no chance at all, I thought, but now I've reconsidered it and the difference is not that big. I thought it would be like 3 vs 10 for the bad archer or 2 vs 5 for the chevroned slinger but one could actually chevron the bad archer and get a 4vs10 which would be the same as 2vs5.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Ok, Vartan what if it is not a 60 man slinger against a 80 man archer, what if it is 240 slingers VS. 80 archers? and when you say archers are BORN TO KILL THESE MEN. The fact is VARTAN! that slingers are like wise born to kill this type of archer, does the word anti Armour mean anything to you. As archers are BORN to kill light units, slingers are likewise BORN to kill heavy unsheided units. As you stated the archers are doing what they are supposed to be doing slingers are getting devastated by archer fire, but our problem is heavy archers are NOT getting scratched by slingers. you claim that 80 man archers were born to kill 60 man slingers and i agree but are 240 slingers not born to kill 80 man archers?Quote:
Trust me. You don't want to attack any archers with your slingers, unless you want to lose all of your slingers. Do you want to lose all of your slingers? That's the question. When you have a 60 man slinger unit against an archer unit of 80 men that was born to kill those 60 men of yours, is it really worth losing your 60 men and up to 600 or so mnai investment, only to take out 100 or 200 mnai worth of archers (a handful of men)?
240 slingers against 80 archers is overkill. Are you alright?
EDIT: Honestly, are you okay? Why are you attacking 4 to 1? No wonder you're losing your battles.
Stormrage you fail to consider that most slinger units are only levy troops not professional soldiers. They lack the training of the better archers. They cost less not without reason. Also you should understand that armour does not weaken a unit. A normal archer unit will win against a normal slinger and obviously the chances will not be better against an armoured archer. Slingers just have better chances to kill (very) heavy armoured units than archers but that does not mean they will win against heavy archers because the archers are also very good in killing the slingers. Another point you need to consider are the different ballistic curves. It's much easier to prevent units being hit by slingers than being hit by archers.
Your 240 slingers will kill 80 archers but not with ONE volley but with a dozen perhaps.
Slingers are really just there to kill cav in this game and suppress heavy infantry from moving. Their main purposes are to achieve asymmetric kill costs (a slinger costs 800/60 = 13.3 a man but a hoplite costs something like 16.25 and an elite infantry costs like 32.5 a man while chargers cost 100 man) and soak up arrows.
This is getting no where lets discuss some other issues.
Just a freindly question, what exactly is the proper way to use over hand spear cav. What is it good at killing?
Not much
Since 2.0 you want to use overhand spear cavalry to fight unarmoured men, while using any AP secondaries to fight armoured infantry and cavalry.
Sure but is their any reason to use them? For what are they better than infantry or underhand spear cavalry? I tend not to use them though I'd really like to see some use for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
People are afraid to use them, I think. I showed how they work in an early 2.0 beta and it's on my YouTube page. You can use light or medium cavalry with overhand spears to punish enemy foot missile units who have strayed too far forward, or whose player is being careless.
you may want to slightly bump up their missile defense values so they can do it without getting shot apart.
That's difficult. On which base should their shield or armour be increased? It would be wrong to give them 6 armour-points for the same armour another unit has witch 5 armour-points.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
You don't need to raise their armour points. And they aren't going to get shot, since the enemy is shooting at something else. That's why it's called punishment.
+ most over hand spear cav have a shield , which does well in deflecting arrows.
Sure. I just wanted to note that I don't see any way to make them more bullet/arrow-proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
... because their cav will prolly win anyway :DQuote:
Originally Posted by vartan
I suppose that I need to test the rebalanced cav first :]
Not really. Two medium cavalry with axes defeat prodromoi and Hellenic Cataphract.
Ok a few things I noticed. One, why do cappadocian hillmen get a bonus against cavalry? Two, Klerouchoi Phalangitai also get a bonus while no other phalanx does though I believe this is an old EB mistake.
I also have a suggestion for skirmishers. Since we are not going to make them better, can we at least make them cheaper? Akontistai should be cheaper than slingers or archers at least, even though they do have more men in the unit since they are considerably more useless.
They kill elephants and dudes with little armor. Problem is they just insta-rout due ot scaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Well anti-elephant is a very small role that rarely makes itself manifest. Dudes with little armor are better dealt with by archers who can fire several volleys off before the skirmishers come into range. Since you are limited to 5 missile units I can understand the use but why not just take a cheap medium infantry unit with javs instead assuming you can afford it? They can at least fight in melee and from my experience, you are much better off with a medium infantry unit than 2 skirms. The 20 unit limit prompts this somewhat, especially if you are purchasing cheaper archers.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Well, skirms aren't counted as missiles and the anti-elephant role is important and not all skirms are crap. The Eastern ones are quite alright due to their AP. Complaining about greek skirms is like complaining about celts having garbage archery.
There is a 6 skirm limit currently but it is to prevent forever auto run away armies. I suppose we can lift it once Iberia is a little less ridiculous.
What's wrong with the lusos, now?
I'm not complaining, simply pointing out that skirmishers have little role in most armies. How often does an opponent bring elephants? Once every 25 battles? And what eastern skirmishers are you referencing that have ap? The Baktrian Light infantry are the only ones I can think of. I'm not talking about peltasts or higher end skirmishers like baktrians, arabians or even the iberian types. I'm solely referring to the lowest tier of skirmishers. The gund-i-palta and akontistai types.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
As far as them not counting towards the missile limit that I can appreciate, but I also appreciate that if you have 5 archers or slingers, spending some of the remaining 15 slots on skirmishers is probably a waste, especially the lowest tier.
The Iberian ones are pretty ridiculous form what I've seen last year.
Could you elaberate that? I've played them a few times now so I can perhaps say something about if they are still ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
The anti elephant slot can be taken up by charger cavalry.
First of all, Which SKirmishers have AP???
and
why is there a limit of 5 missiles, when the missile class includes Slingers Archers AND horse archers. While there is a limit of 6 skirmishers but the skirmisher class only includes ONE type of unit SKirmishers. It doesnt make sense though i can live with it.
and robin i think even if you make them cheaper they wont be any better, i dont see whats the point in making them cheaper , they will still be useless.What do you hope to get by making them cheaper ?
EDIT: and hey guys, those thraikian pelteasts are supposed to be the best of the peltestai , right? So i gotta ask what makes them better then all the other peltasts ?
Better javelins. Better armor. Better melee. Does not insta rout. All round awsome units.
Iberian ambushers have the crazy ability to murder the crap out of cavalry due to their high morale and ridiculous javelin count. Its the only faction that can feasibly actually get a bunch of their uber skirms and use them to flank and jav in the back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kival
Charger cav can counter elephants but that's when you have no clue how to use elephants.
I made the skirm rule do you couldn't spam an auto run-away army. I suppose we can lift skirm restrictions and just add something to fair play rules to deal with skirmishing stalling.
I say its fair game, cavalry will still beat skirms anyhow, I know gamegeek2 used that, but it failed miserably against gauls but did well enough against cavalry.
thraikians dont have better javelins. but the rest is trueQuote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
yes, i feel the skirmisher restriction is not fair for factions that rely heavily on skirmishers like luso for example. restricting skirmishers for luso is like restricting cohorts for rome.+ skirmishers are not that good so limiting them is unnecessary.Quote:
I made the skirm rule do you couldn't spam an auto run-away army. I suppose we can lift skirm restrictions and just add something to fair play rules to deal with skirmishing stalling.
Lets say a person got an "auto run-away army" full of skirmishers , he wouldn't win a battle against a balanced army from ANY faction. That is what balance is all about its about having the EDU so balanced that spam army of any unit never wins against a well balanced army.
I misplayed against that gaul army. Engaged too early. Also that Luso army wont work well now without goidils, but the new general bonus should help some.
Lusotann get no access to archers though and its hard to say that Balearics are worth their price when matched against archers. Therefore, most players will see those skirmishers shot to pieces by archers before they can get around back and start pelting enemy infantry.
They would be very much worth it if cavalry were real cavalry and could kill slings and archers within seconds!!!!!!!
And why in bloody hell do Chalkispedes cost only 2400? Being elites phalanx with 15 morale?
/rant
that is a stupid question lazy, what about iberian assault infratry whos can smash roman cohorts without problems and they cost only 2200 :book:
Because they are not very good against most other stuff?. neitos also cost 2200, cohorts are cheaper, so it makes sense that they lose.
Haha, cohorts are substantially cheaper in fact.
Cohors are substantially underpowered as more as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Playing mp, legionaries simply do not count.
Roman player could save himself only with his cavalry (at least decent), then not in roman way.
Since when is a heavily armored, sword armed, 100 man unit, that costs less then 2000 minai, UNDERPOWERED?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus
im not very inteligble about roman troops so i might be missing something here.
You forgot the pilum which is an ap-jav. Roman Cohors are surely not underpowered.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Right you are.Quote:
You forgot the pilum which is an ap-jav. Roman Cohors are surely not underpowered.
The fact that Roman players are not creative and willing to recruit various mercs as complementary pieces is what dooms those cohorts. Not their inherent abilities as units in and of themselves. In this sense I give Vega a good amount of credit. He tried and succeeded at implementing phalangites with his legions and he has shown a willingness to use various other mercenary units. In that sense, he has improved upon how he originally did as Rome and his recent tournament record bears that out.
Yes robin i agree, Rome is weak, but with removing some important mercenaries why make them weaker...
You have elites like Praetorians now. Its not so much that legions are weaker but everything is better so you can't sit in guard mode forever :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus
Also ACS used to use phalanx too in really annoying way.
I think you are missing my point...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega
I don't think Rome is weak at all. I think people just rely on their legions to win battles themselves without any support and that is what makes Rome weak.
Rome is going to be "weak" as long as their units are not made to be God-like.
ASM, eastern skirmishers aren't AP.
Consider slingers that cost just as much as archers do, with the same amount of men.
I suppose I should try my hand at post-marian again for unit testing. Post-marian is weak for lack of charge cavalry but I really need to test the jav cav.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
I think the Marian-Imperials exclusively use Gallic cav as they're the only lancers.
Is it just me, or does it seem a little weird that Dosidataskeli have 6 more armour and 10 more morale than Dubosaverlacica and yet only cost 300 more mnai?
*jaw drops* Really? My my my that's so disturbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
I should not have played against you, Viking ;-). The Thorakitai Argyraspidai have the same armour as the Dubosaverlacica but 2 morale less, 2 defense points less, 2 attack points less and cost 400 more... While I agree that it is odd I don't think that the costs can only be seen this way though I don't know how they were calculated at first. It's also obviously something different to have this kind of unit as a phalanx or non-phalanx nation etc. - difficult...
TAB's are 80 men units while the Goildilic and Vasci units are 60, hence the cost difference. But something was seeming a little off with the Dosidatashkeli when I had those two units surrounded by literally 16 of mine and they still refused to rout.:dizzy2:
Kival, I'm sorry, but I must insist that they are overpowered. Ordmalica charging from the front kills at most 15 of them before routing, and that's if they can envelope. If fighting straight from the front only, they kill 7 if they have no exp or 12 if they do, and that's if they can avoid those javelins. TABs only killed 12 before routing.
They do cost 3266 mnai and come with a 60 + 1 officer number, but they cause fear, are hardy, have two 7 attack ap javelins, a 19 attack spear, a total of 39 defence, of which 23 is armour, 12 is defence skill and 4 is the shield. Due to being disciplined and having 30(!) morale, they never rout either, even, as Robin said, when completely surrounded by a far more numerous enemy. With this in mind, that 3266 price tag is nothing.
They need to be nerfed.
@Robin
Oh, I see.
@Viking
I was only joking ;-). I think not-rooting is not the problem, the solduros do not root, too. But the armour seems to be somewhat overdone. As we don't know if any of this units is historical at all we could just adjust the stats to the stats of the irish guys. They would still be strong but not unbeatable, at least I was able to beat Vikings Dosidatiaskeli ;-).
You mean my Dubosaverlacica. ~;)
Anyway, I know you better than to take you seriously, so I didn't (~;)). I just know you like them. Though, of course, I wasn't saying that "they can't be routed, so that in and of itself means they're overpowered". I was saying that, "they can't be routed, and that together with everything else, means that they're overpowered". It's a part of the equation, but not the whole of it.
Armor should be two higher than Dubos since they wear greaves, but this will be reflected in higher price.
Yeah, this names are cumbersome...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
ok here is the deal thraikian skirmishers should get either ap javs OR ap melee.\
becuase they are not living up to their title as best skirmishers, their jav attack is the same as an other skirmisher.
This "best skirmisher" thing does not have to be true. The iberian and lusotanian were also very renowned for their skirmishers as were the numidians.
Dosidataskeli have more than just greaves as an advantage IIRC. I think I made sure of that. I probably ought to nerf them, I did stat on them almost every single possible bit of armor. I will likely remove some. 37 Im thinking and a small price reduction.
One question though: is having only 60 men (compared with other elite 80 men) not a big disadvantage? Did i forget to give them 60 men because thats all they should have.
Did I forget to give the Thorakitai Argyraspidai 80 men, because IIRC they have 80 men.
They only have 60 men but 60 men which do not die are better than 80 or 100 who die ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Yes, they have, I've overseen that.Quote:
Did I forget to give the Thorakitai Argyraspidai 80 men, because IIRC they have 80 men.
Yes oddly enough the TAB's which are 80 men only killed 12 of the 60 men in the Dosidatashkeli unit :(
Since EB is all about historical accuracy, didnt indian longbow men plant their bows in the ground, to give the bow more force and propell the arrow stronger and farther .
maybe a range boost would be represent this.
That may not mean much if the bow wasn't that great.
Bamboo does not a good bow make. Cane, idk...
They are supposed to not die easily. Cavcharge from back maybe? Also yeah maybe a bit of an armor cut.
People aren't using as much cav as they used to which is odd to me.
Why? And what does it have to do with the changes? The cavalry is made stronger not weaker. And for some factions or situations it can make sense to bring no cav or not so many. I don't think that it's caused by the EDU changes, it's a change in mentality. People do not longer think "I can have five cav and five archers, so I have to use five of them".Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Id say its caused by 20 cohorts and Gallic fear armies, suddenly, 10 units of infantry does not seem like a very good idea considering how little damage archers do to armored infantry in EB.
Then one of our goals has been accomplished :2thumbsup: You freakin' lancer spammers...Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Well, people have always taken 20 cohort armies and gallic fear armies. I think its just that stamina is up and infantry last longer so cav is much less immediately useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Ok guys one suggestion about mercenary phalanx in Rome roster, ok its maybe stupid to use them for marian and imperial era but i think that there should be special rule that SPQR players can use them in camilian and polybian era right?
That sounds sensible for me.
I found a typo: Mada Asabara have an overhand spear with a delay of 160: shouldn't be 0?
Guys just to inform you that ◦EB Historical Battles Pack by LDC link dont work when i downloaded files, my winrar says that files are corrupt i tried downloading it 3 times same happens :2thumbsup: :P