Gamegeek rules sounds good, but there were phalanx in camilian and polybian era, we was discusing about removing phalanx because they didnt exist in marian and imperial era :DD
Printable View
Gamegeek rules sounds good, but there were phalanx in camilian and polybian era, we was discusing about removing phalanx because they didnt exist in marian and imperial era :DD
Well that would be hoplite phalanx not phalangite phalanx. But I digress...
There is also the issue of people maxing out their heavy cav limit by bringing a general and 2 catas. The general shouldnt be classified as heavy cavalry or maybe the heavy cav limit should be increased to 4 to make up for the popular use of Generals on horseback.
GG: Can Axemen get a boost to their armour. right now they got 1 armour which will get them killed in melee by almost any unit.
These new rules are not to my liking. First, Some Factions have cheaper heavy cav then other meaning they can afford to bring more heavy cav, but with the restrictions both you and your opponent can bring the SAME amount of heavy cavalry, so its impossible for the faction with cheap heavy cavalry to get an advantage.
Second, Increasing archer limit to 7 was good but you ruined it when you said there was a heavy archer limit of 3. Give us the ability to bring as much heavies as we want. and What happened to the pricing heavy archers like heavy infantry idea. someone suggested 1.6k.
Why all these restrictions i thought we agreed to a "anything goes tourney" if someone brings to much cav his infantry and archer funds will run low, and if someone brings too much archers then he wont have slots for infantry.
Edit: The rule about saba getting 40k is very interesting but when i play with saba i feel like i have Extra money to spend .
I do not think even with 1 chevron Saba can utilize 40k. And storm, heavy cav limit was not increased. GG2 did not say that.
And the 3 heavy archer limit sorta fixes the problem of archer balance and them being used as heavy infantry.
how about giving saba ability of 2 chevron use.
Yea lets just make our rules so ******* complicated, even the 5 out of 100 people I tell about this and agree go away because of the damn rules, Good Idea!!
So your saying we need to get rid of rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
This is exactly what the "anything goes tourney" is about. why are you fighting against it in the other forum.
We need rules, I was saying that at present, they are alreayd too complicated.
... we used to play on huge because it was the best balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
The cav size bump would be mostly for lightly equipped cavalry and it'd buff special units for luso, numidia, and HAs. The main failing in the rules is the bumping up of archers it basically forces barb armies into the scary ball. Your skirms are toast and so are any cavalry you bring. If you're going to do this, you should consider bumping up slinger sizes an extra notch for barbs above what you will end up with kinda like you did for their archers, if only to soak up damage.
I don't like having a 'heavy' archer classification tbh. You should figure out another way of doing it like decreasing size maybe?
One more rule: generals do not count towards the heavy cav or caav limit.
Slow cavalry is dead cavalry, applies with much greater consequences to light cavalry.
Is there a limit?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Currently it is 3 heavy cav max, dont ask me how you classify heavy cav thats a whole other complicated process in itself.
Sounds interesting while complicated. At least the issue with steppe + phalanx would be solved this way...Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Is it your intent to make it so people are spamming elite phalanxes as pontus?
What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
They are too cheap. That is what he's talking about.
How would you like all elite phalanxes to be like that, but 100 men and less cost?
I don't know though the other elite phalangites should still be better than the pontos ones. The pontos elite phalanx should still be somewhere between pez and elite phalangites.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Agree with Kival. Chalkaspides are mere imitations of the true successor elites. That said, they are an elite in and of themselves if you get what I'm saying.
Current stats almost doom them to be superior, if that can be counted as doom. Therefore I think making ¨^elite phalaxes Tier 3 units is the wisest course of action. There would be statting to make the African Pikemen and the Chalkaspides inferior to the successor elites.
That'd be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
I'm wondering, kopis armed sword cavalry seems strictly inferior to asian axe armed cavalry. Lonchophoroi/Successor Skirmisher cav for instance die to them quite hard. Most of the cavalry form the range of 2k-3k will die to these guys when you use their axes including hippies type cav. Yet, they cost only 1.8/1.9k. I think you should consider stating axe attack down a little bit to atleast reign in the ridiculousness. :)
Ive been considering plus 1 attack for kopis armed for some time now. Youve convinced me.
Other proposals I have in mind:
-Stat Peltastai Makedonikoi and Hypaspistai as a high-quality veteran units, rather than an elite ones.
You should stat the Peltastai as vet and Hypaspistai as Royal Guard so pretty much like the Agema that everyone else gets.
Javelin cav seems woefully ineffective also :\ I dunno if you can make them 'effective against cavalry' or whatever. I know the idea is that they harass cav but it seems like they can never hit anything...
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...iNmNl&hl=en_USQuote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
I'm sure a couple of levels into ESL is enough for anyone to understand how heavy cavalry is determined. I would skip the first page because it contains the most English.
----------------------------
What a mess.
Post it on the website in the rules section
Where are your manners?:laugh4: Please post it on the website in the rules section.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
The vartan does not require manners.
Seconded.Quote:
The vartan does not require manners.
Perhaps not, but he certainly deserves it.
To return to the topic, I believe you missed to up the Numidian archers' ammo, as they still only have 20. Small thing, but it's just something I noticed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Speak for yourselves please. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Thanks, and gg2 just mentioned it to me. We'll be fixing that certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Right, heres a list of suggested changes and ones I have thought of that Ive compiled.
1. Increase Teceitos, Indian Longbowmen, and Drapanai to 100 men unit size (Large)
2. +1 sword attack for kopis and falcata armed cavalry. Kopides are statted so they are approximately identical in effect to axes and maces, but cost slightly more. The kopis was a superb cavalry weapon, therefore it seems reasonable for it to receive a slight bonus for cavalrymen who wield it.
3. Stat elite phalanxes as Tier 3 veterans, not Tier 4 elites, so they are a reasonable cost.
4. Increase light HA and skirmish cavalry numbers to 60 men (large) and some medium cav units (medians, armenians, hippeis, and equites mainly)
6. Increase the skirmisher javelin bonus from +1 to +2, and apply it to Peltastai Makedonikoi and skirmisher cavalry
7. Increase slinger size to 80 men
8. Increase the shield value of some light barbarian units and increase costs correspondingly. Gaeroas are almost unuseable simply because they die SO easily to missiles. A big shield should block missiles at least somewhat effectively.
9. Increase Georgian infantry morale to 13, Peltastai morale to 11
10. Make Dacian elite skirmishers capable of skirmishing, and make them better at it (same with Thracians on the second bit)
11. Make Cretan archers better in some manner, perhaps by giving them their massive range back.
12. Make Indian elephants either cheaper or increase their numbers.
13. Make Indohellenic noble hoplites Tier 3, not Tier 4, to differentiate them
--- MAJOR HA PROPOSAL ---
1. Remove cantabrian circle from horse archers
2. Increase numbers of Rider units to 60 men
3. Increase numbers of common HA units to 70 men (the ones with shortswords)
The point of this is to make it so there need not be any restrictions on steppe cavalry and missile limits, moving towards the no-rules highly-balanced zone that I think we want to be in. As of right now an HA in cantabrian circle defeats a Persian or similar archer, but foot archers should easily outshoot horse archers. We may even be able to remove the HA attack reduction if this is done.
For archers screwing up cav, my suggestions are:
1. Stat heavy archers with more archer skill so they cost more to bring but are better as archers.
2. Lower morale of light archer units (6 for persians sounds good).
-Wait... you can make 70 man units?
-I'd HIGHLY discourage stating down elite phalanx. There's no reason to, they are fine. Who the heck ever assembled an army that was all silvershield/bronzeshield?!? You can already and it should be discouraged.
-Can you make the lightly armored barb units just have more men instead?
-I like the idea of removing cantabrian but I rather keep it. :p
-I'd say limit cav size to 60 max.
You don't need to balance everything at once, just make some small tweaks and see if it works first.
Btw- I noticed that some skirm cav have jav range less than skirm range so they never actually lob their missiles.
I Like the suggested changes.
Can someone please explain to me the TIER system?
I too dont think elite phalanx should be cheeaper, i would love it if you did,but i think elites are fine as is.
INCREASING ARCHER SKILL,can you do that!?!? cool.
i suggest +1 for archers,whatt do you think GG. its a BIG change.
Agree with many changes except statting down elite phalanx and also giving 70 men to light HA units. 60 is a big enough change and should suffice. Also don't feel as changing the shield of light barbarian units is the answer. They are already pretty cheap. The extra men solution would work, but I still don't feel like you would see many on the field for the corresponding price increase that would come. Barbarians generally just have better infantry options and so do the successors that can also use them.
Right, the other option is to keep elite phalnxes at 100 men and current prices. If thats fine, then we are OK.
I say light HA to 70 men (not including the riders) because of a few reasons:
1. If we are to remove cantabrian, they would get shredded by foot archers too easily for their cost. They will still lose costwise, I just want the steppe factions to have a fighting chance with steppe armies vs foot archers, if we are to ever reach the no army comp rules point.
2. They can
Also the current system for archers/slingers and javelins (respectively) works as this and I say we discuss it:
Bow determines base attack, range, and ammo
Levy/Crap: -1 attack, -10% range, +0 base cost
Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +.15 base cost
Good: 0 attack, +10% range, +.35 base cost
Very Good: +1 attrack, +12% range, +.6 base cost
Javelin determines base attack range and ammo
Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +0 cost
Good: +1 attack, +5% range, +.2 base cost
Very Good: +2 attack, +10% range, +.45 base cost
I wont get into base cost details on how it works because thats very confusing, all I will say is that +.2 base cost is between 100 and 200 more usually, depending on unit size. Cavalry are costed as if they have twice as many men as infantry, so they would go up a bunch too (this is what drives up javcav costs).
I feel this system needs changing.
Come on Hamachi.
NAO
YES, THANK you. Our missile system IS crap, we need some changes.Quote:
I feel this system needs changing.
What would you suggest?
Guys just to know are you planed to test roman faction, will be there major changes to them ?? I can help if you want.. Cheers
This plan is my current, modest proposal. A more radical plan would involve altering the descr_projectile_new file, to change missile accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Bow/sling and ammo determine base range and cost of weapon
Levy/Crap: -1 attack, -5% range, +0 base cost
Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +.15 base cost
Good: +1 attack, +5% range, +.3 base cost
Very Good: +2 attack, +10% range, +.45 base cost
Javelin determines base attack range and ammo + cost of weapon (technically it does vary, i forgot to mention that)
Normal: 0 attack, 0 range, +0 cost
Good: +1 attack, +10% range, +.15 base cost
Very Good: +2 attack, +20% range, +.3 base cost
Foot Skirmishers: +2 additional attack, +10% additional range
Cavalry Skirmishers: +4 additional attack
Id also want to increase cohors cost so its just above 1800, only so cohort only armies are not possible. Im thinking to reduce marian and imperial cost reduction to -17.5% to do this (currently it is -20%).
about the cohort spamming, i thought roman armies were historically cohort spams.
about the javs, only +2 attack do you think that will make a difference.
increasing accuracy sounds like a drastic change, i like it. from the front it might not matter cuz units have shields but attacking from the rear would be devastating thus rewarding the player who managed to maneuver his slings behind the enemy. Personally i support the idea.
P.S Any chance Thracian peltasts can get AP back?
and consider looking into agrianian assualts ,They might be under powered not getting much kills in my games. Same goes for the thracians even with high lethality taking away AP from them was a big attack nerf.
Here's a suggestion, because they lost AP how about increasing their attack.
Roman armies were historically roughly half legionaries and half auxiliaries. This translates as about 9-10 cohort units (yes, a spam), not 19 units and a general.
No chance they get AP back, with AP they were even more OP than AP Drapanai, which is saying something.
Looking forward to the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Then how about giving them attack to make up for the loss of AP.Quote:
No chance they get AP back, with AP they were even more OP than AP Drapanai, which is saying something.
If you look closely only units with AP are stated at 8 or 9 attack, this is natural so they dont become OP. but thracians lost their AP and they are still at 9 attack.
There are some cheap longsword units ( pretty tough nuts ) with 9 attack, Thracians also have a longsword (sorta) and have a decent melee attack for a skirmisher.
Do you understand lethality, storm? BTW before the new EDUs, Thraikioi had 7 attack and AP.
Check the recommendations with Makedon.
Also, skirmishers and arhcers/slingers mass is VERY bugged, they make cavalry stop to a halt, Ok, I understand, Elite Skirms could do that, im okay with it, but Balaeric Slingers? Gund i Palta? Crap Archers? I understand Bosphorans were melee troops as well thats fine but all the other missile troops should not be able to stop cavalry this is just ridiculous, I had 3 whole units of Aspidophoroi stuck in shepherd Slingers, in the same battle, Robin had 2 Lanceari units halted by Persian LEVY archers.....
I think its horse mass being somewhat lower than in other mods and vanilla. Maybe I could lower archer and slinger mass as well, though.
Hmm, horse mass would be the main factor, but would that not be editing the mounts_database file?
I dont know if you guys have seen this before, but I found it interesting, essentially a wargaming group, made up of actual and professional historians.
http://www.byzant.demon.co.uk/dbm.htm
Yeah, I generally agree with the changes. I think that the greek phalanx levies should have some sort of reason for their pricing. A morale bonus would be nice.
I think Elephants unit size/cost need to be rethought. We need to do some research on actual elephant number in armies. I know it used to be that elephants cost as much as 3 heavy cav but could only fight 2 head (which is not using them correctly because if you bring supporting cav, you can pin and then flank rofl pwn cav). The main issue is that its kinda a pain to control them because their formations are so spread out. I like elephants at half the size of vanilla EB due to that. Thus you should try and make it so each of the base elephant units is about as effective as a heavy cav unit as a base-line.
Heavy Cav kill Elephants 1v1. There is no contest. They simply stink too hard. If you bring a simple 800 mnai skirm, it wastes so much enemy money, and basically every other unit in the game has javelins, making elephants a SERIOUS liability.
You can make them more cost effective but I'm not comfortable with 1 unit of elephants being more powerful than a single unit of high end heavy cavalry. They do need to be most cost effective agreed since while Carthage used elephants, they weren't exactly all that common. India has a long history of elephant use.
I'd like cheaper but less effective elephants, too. You should be able to use elephants without choosing crap units for the rest of the army.
how about 7k for decent elephants. and why is cavalry supposed to be better then elephants?i thought elephants scare horses.
P.S GG i think you forgot to add the "bonus when fighting cavalry" trait to some phalanxes and i think spearmen should also get a bonus . i think you can contort the bonus value with "Spear_6" or something like that.
I'd say give Indians a discount of about 10% on elephants. Have the base naked (unarmored lol) one cost ~4500 (base 5000 * 90%) and have the same amount of numbers. Then make the elephant cataphracts a 1/2 sized unit that costs 5400 (6000 * 90%). You don't really need to make elephants worse since one or 2 skirm units will beat multiple ones (sad). You may want to make them slightly more vulnerable to missiles.
You should also make phalanx counter elephants to a certain extent as well because right now, you can't kill them/stop them with any sort of infantry. You'd also need to tweak their moral up (probably need to give them the discipline tag as well).
Who is Indian for you? Baktria and Saka?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Probably both. I suppose the reasoning is to make them cheaper (more common) than the African Forest Elephant which later went extinct.
So you'd want the Indian elephants to cost 4500 and 5400 (at least for baktria and Saka Rauka) but the african elephants should stay the way they are?
Rebalance them too. :]
I'm tired today.
I see.
Another proposal:
We should increase the javelin attack of all skirmisher-like units too not only for the ones which have skirm in their name or the skirm ability. For example garamantine infantry should get a bonus, too. In my own EDU modification I increased nearly all javelin attack stats but that would perhaps be too much and not solve the problem that most skirmishers are useless in comparison.
That would be useful as well but we would need to figure out the AP javelin vs non-ap javelin balance so we would have to include AP javs in any new proposed system.
Personally, I feel as if line infantry have decent enough javelin attacks as is. They usually ranged anywhere from 6-8 or 4-6 for ap ones. Skirms are usually more in 5-6 range which is no good since they derive almost their full value from those 6 or so javs. Afaik, there are no skirmisher units that use AP javs so if we don't bother changing the values of the heavier javelin-throwing infantry units then we don't need to worry about that balance.
Right, well light skirms with no skill bonus, like Artish Pada, are now at 6.
We really need to find a way to improve sweboz. The suggestion to lower their costs will not really help because all units just die too easy and do not really kill much.
I'd said we should gave em better numbers, at least they should function more like ZergQuote:
Originally Posted by Kival
That may be feasible especially with new data on population densities of central Europe.
I'd also say it may be good to remove 'fights well in trees' or add it to skirms and loose order units. Right now its too imbalancing to even think about fighting barbs in trees.
True, but what maps are you getting people to play where there are trees?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I'm not buying it until you tell me how often you fight on a map with more than 1% tree coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
http://ebwiki.tk/wiki/Category:Maps
More numbers dont help, with such low armor, youd be lucky to get away with 70 men before the fight starts.
LOW ARMOR!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA nice oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Erm... Yea, majority are porrly armored.
Indeed. They have three units with armor above 10, one unit with 6 armor and the rest is below 4 armor with most having only 1 or 2 armor. They suffer the most from reducing of club lethality and increasing of jav-attack. Though this changes are reasonable for itself, they are making sweboz the more useless. Perhaps we should think about increasing the shield value for all big shields. It would help the poorly armoured sweboz and similar units which have a big shield which should give some decent protection vs missiles.
Would this be a deviation from the consistency we've adhered to so far, where all units of all factions with a certain shield/size get a certain shield value? i.e., will the changes be Sweboz-exclusive? I suppose they would have to be in order to "fix" the Sweboz, no? since applying the same bonuses to others would only bring us back to square 1...I think.
Well the difference between Sweboz and Gauls should go a little like this imo. Gauls are better armored, Sweboz are more disciplined. Unfortunately, we have a situation where armor basically trumps all, especially with archers being so powerful. Therefore, the extra discipline doesn't help them all that much.
I'd give all units with big shields a better shield bonus and I don't think that it needs to be sweboz exlusive to help them. In fact nearly all sweboz units have big shields, so it would help them much against missiles (face to face) which are the biggest problem for sweboz. In melee it would not help so much as other factions would have better shield values too (though not all have so big shields). Sweboz specific changes should be according to historical evidence as gamegeek suggested: Good levy units together with nearly elite retainer units. The retainer units would need better stats in skill and attack (and morale?) but this alone would not help the missile problem. We should also try to evaluate why their elites are not as useful as they should be (if my impression here is true).Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Sweboz would still be highly vulnerable to missiles from the side and back but it would not be possible to devastate them with missiles face-to-face.
---
By the way I don't see the forest problem. Nearly all factions have (not only) barbarian auxiliaries which have wood fighting boni so if the players really play in a somewhat forested place they can bring those. It's also a tactical consideration in a slightly forested map not to go in the forest against sweboz and co.: what's the problem with it?
We did it for fun :]Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Though gamegeek improved the thracian cavalry and they are very viable as "light" heavy cavalry Getais do not have there historical cavalry in multiplayer because of the small numbers of bodyguard cavalry.
I'd suggest increased numbers for the getai bg unit to represent that and give them at least one cavalry unit with defense over 25. The best would be to make an additional non-bg unit of Phylakes Daoi but I fear that's not possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit description of Phylakes Daoi (Dacian Bodyguards)
That is very possible. EB does not fulfill all unit slots iirc.
Where have you been?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Under a rock.