[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

The Getic unit is causing crashes sadly, I will remove it. Sadface.

I do intend to make up for the lack of heavy lancers for some factions with buffs to the limited cavalry units against other cavalry, i.e. Caledonian Nobles (for example) and particularly the Germanic light cavalry unit.

Missile units ARE being re-reduced, but slightly. Also, shouldn't a missile unit be good at disrupting flanking infantry? It's cavalry you want to run them down with, and I will make this a much more likely possibility with further reductions to mass and morale.

Do expect Cretans, Bosporans, and elite Dacians to hold their ground against cavalry though, just not to be incredibly effective at doing it compared with heavy infantry.

In fact, I CAN add units by modifying a ridiculous number of files, but that isn't too much considering what I've done already. In fact expect another file to get a modification, descr_model_battle (the change is actually to have Armenian cataphracts not have the freaky Iberian chain armored horse, as well as a couple of aesthetic fixes, such as making Elite Africans fight in the manner of Roman Legionaries).

If you want I will add the unit for you. I can remove the mercenary version of the Thraikian Hippies(not used anywhere) and replace it with your unit.

I don't think units like Caledonian nobles should get arbitrary bonus's against cavalry though. That makes little sense as they already can be effective if used properly. My issue with cavalry is that one charge is all that's needed now to rout infantry below 3/4 strength. We had just made skirmisher cav useful in 2.1.1 and now it seems as if charge cavalry will be the only way to go once more.

Quote:

---

the change is actually to have Armenian cataphracts not have the freaky Iberian chain armored horse

---

shhh dont tell vartan.

Another thing.Lancer cav Especially Cataphracts should charge the 2-3 rows. I dont know if its possible to give different masses for each unit. But Cataphracts should definitely have crazy mass.'

If you nerf archers even more we will have 30 ammo skirmishers throwing twigs not archers. I think complaints about archers are not due to Overpowered-ness but more due to personal benefit. Naturally Factions with light troops dont want to see their troops shot down by archers.Its like you DONT want or expect archers to kill.

Well we fought another battle with me as Saba and Robin as getai, the Saba are grossly underpowered with the Archer accuracy nerf, 8 120 man archers shooting at 1 Rhompharoi managed to kill just 1 in 11 or 12 volleys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Well we fought another battle with me as Saba and Robin as getai, the Saba are grossly underpowered with the Archer accuracy nerf, 8 120 man archers shooting at 1 Rhompharoi managed to kill just 1 in 11 or 12 volleys.

---

I think he is exaggerating but his archers didn't manage to kill much. I think playing with accuracy is alright but the difference is too vast between levied or non-professional archers and the heavier ones. The lower tier archers really don't do much at all.

I no exaggerating :_(

Due to repeated complaints about large missile sizes I nerfed the low tier archers who come in large 120 man units. I guess I will restore their accuracy then, and put Persians up to 120 men.

When I have regular internet access, I am trying to have 4 factions ready: Pontos, Sauromatae, Hayastan, Pahlava. The Getai are getting access to Scythian units, but I have made scythian units smaller than their full size steppe counterparts (exception: scythian nobles).

So you guys are suggesting a re-lowering of charge cavalry mass? I will put the suckers into action myself to see when I test out the new factions.

Well everyone was enjoying the useful skirmisher cav and they still have uses now. However, charge cav now does so much damage on one charge that it is almost impossible to not take 2-3 of them, price be damned. There does need to be some more testing with this though. I'd like to test how effective tired/very tired/exhausted cavalry is as opposed to winded/warmed up/fresh cavalry when charging.

We can do that. Will you be on later today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

The Getai are getting access to Scythian units, but I have made scythian units smaller than their full size steppe counterparts (exception: scythian nobles).

---

The HA are the only ones that i rly need. the rest are uninteresting.

Also , can u make Costobocii Axemen usefull plz? geati don't have any AP now with the Falx changes.

What new unit?

GG2, sooner or later, when you have a firm idea of what cavalry is going to look like, you'll need to talk to me so I can get the DHCS (Determining Heavy Cavalry Status) updated.

EDIT: Mass should be enough to make the charge slightly more devastating than in vanilla EB, but not an awful lot more. Remember, since cavalry may have only no stamina or hardy stamina now, the super heavy ones (which should invariably be non-stamina) would thus be limited to no more decisive charges than you can count on one hand. Also, there is a similar but reversed situation going on with archers in our new EB. In our previous EB, we would see strong archers. Now they are much weaker. We would do best to find a middle ground so as to make archers somewhat useful in picking off units. It would be ideal, for example, if you could situate individual foot archer units around either wing and do damage by shooting into the enemy line. Just my take on it.

Saba is horribly broken.

They lack any form of ranged attack.

http://www.mediafire.com/?abc8785mrlkm0b1

You will notice towards the end that my ethiopian 120 man archers killed a grand total of 5 slingers with all of their ammo...

Sorry I can't join the testing, my mini project too is currently on hold because of RL issues, but I gave a look to the EDU and I have few thoughts, and questions to GG:

1) I saw you ignored my bug reporting in the 2.1 thread, so I'll repost it here: Mada Asabara are bugged, they have 160 delay instead of 0, it's a vanilla-EB typo never fixed.

2) It's ok I cannot convince you about my view on legionarian fighting, but the new spacing value make no sense, IMHO.
We have 2 ancient sources writing on the matter, AFAIK: Polybius and Vegetius.
The first claim legionarii fought as individuals and needed much space to swing their swords: 6 feet (roughly 1.8 mt.), wider than the current formation.
The second, who wrote in the 4 AD IIRC but used ancient sources, says they fought in a much tighter formation: 3 feet (roughly 0.9 mt.), exactly half the polybian value and shorter than the current spacing.
So, why didn't you follow Polybius or Vegetius, but decided for a third, middle value? Is there something I'm missing?

3) Why didn't you use the soldier radius (hidden value after mass) tweak to make hoplites fight more cohesively? Is it just a rumor, proved ineffective in tests?

Thanks and congrats for the release

EDIT: Here's an excellent sum of the individual spacing debate from Adrian Goldsworthy's The Roman army at war

To answer questions:

Aper, I did not ignore you. That was eliminated first thing when I started doing the Eastern units.

Levy archers are definitely getting an accuracy boost, but don't expect high kill rates at a distance of 180 meters, please! This will especially be true of horse archers, expect to need to close in order to achieve good kill rates with your limited 45 arrows.

You guys can now expect the Sweboz in addition to toe other factions in the next update. Expect them to be significantly better than in 2.1.1; for example, the Woithiz Watha will now have warcry, and Dugunthiz will come with 90 men and 20 defense, as well as a javelin attack of 10, high accuracy, and 3 ammo, with 5 shield to boot!

Here is how I imagine archers functioning:

-Levy Archers: Very cheap. Innacuracy means their main utility is aiming at large groups of enemies, not engaging in archery duels.
-Medium Accuracy Archers: Good for targeting units or blobs, and better at archery duels.
-High Accuracy Archers: Superb for targeting and weakening units, excellent accuracy. Should always win archery duels.

Quote:

---

Also , can u make Costobocii Axemen usefull plz? geati don't have any AP now with the Falx changes.

---

The Getai are one of the most versatile factions in the game, this being one of their shortcomings - they are jacks of all trades, masters of none except perhaps skirmishing. I will check them (the Costobocii) out later, for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Aper, I did not ignore you. That was eliminated first thing when I started doing the Eastern units.

---

Ah, sorry, I did not realized the version I downloaded had still the old asian units. Hurry leads to stupid mistakes...

Yeah, Greeks, Asians, and Steppe along with Sweboz have not been completed yet.

On a side note, Saba should get an archer unit which is not levy quality. Perhaps make Ethiopians in the same vein as Numidians? After all, Ethiopia was famous for high quality archer units. Arabs were as well, so maybe the Archer-Spears should be more in the middle tier and leave levy job for Sabean Archers?

Arabs weren't famed archers in Hellenstic-era sources I can recall (except mounted on camels), but the bow certainly was one of the main weapons wielded by the Sabaean nobility (not the javelin as far as I can recall), along with spears and fine, slender swords. Sadly I can't create a noble archer unit.

Now, Nubia was famed for its archers as far back as Ancient Egypt. Again the existing archer unit is an Ethiopian one, but if you want me to stat it as an axe armed, good quality Nubian archer rather than a club armed Ethiopian one, I could do that.

Yea that woould be good. Previously, a big advantage Saba had was the ability to spam alot of archers. That is useless now and you are basically forced to use eles which the opponent can expect and bring a simple 810 levy unit to counter them.

Why does the Saba faction need to be on par with the other factions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Why does the Saba faction need to be on par with the other factions?

---

It doesn't need to be, but it should at least be playable. Saba without decent archers is basically asking to be javelined to death.

Also, I feel as if 36k still works for this new edu. We havn't gotten half of the factions yet so I will reserve judgement on that, but at 36k, good quality armies are still a possibility for western factions.

Making Saba playable is almost a lost cause, IMO. If people wanted to play as an Arab faction, we could create one using the Eleutheroi - the Nabatu. Several units could act as effective stand ins for historical Nabatean units - the Sacred Band Cavalry as Agema troops, for example. Their actual army would be a mix of Hellenistic troops and tribal Arabs.

Saba has already been played as (see misterfred) very succesfully. What you have done is nerf them into oblivion

From a theoretical standpoint, we shouldn't be making any exceptions when it comes to the inherent properties of elements such as certain kinds of weaponry and armor that appear cross-factionally. That said, we make exceptions all the time in terms of stamina and morale, and other factors such as eagles and fear factors. These are usually either binaries (either enabled or disabled) or sliders that have incremental values (such as with stamina). So, we could work on Saba, sure. We could possibly give them all the stamina in the world, and all the eagles and the scary factors. But would we then be satisfied with ourselves? Tough one my friends.

Quote:

---

Saba has already been played as (see misterfred) very succesfully. What you have done is nerf them into oblivion

---

I am afraid you misrepresent here, my friend. Saba were rendered unplayable by the increase in utility of skirmisher units, a change that has been almost universally lauded if I understand correctly.

Lazy, were you around in the old EB environment? Before these new EDUs, armies were far, far more formulaic. Here was a basic prototype, of sorts:

X Heavy Cavalry
8 Phalanxes
X Thracian Peltasts/Keltohellenikoi
X Heavy Archers

Variation was extremely limited by the fact that all utility roles could be played by one unit, the Thracian Peltast, and all missile roles by the Cretan Archers. This was particularly exascerbated by the limitations placed on missiles, the small size of missile units, etc.

Now certainly the improvement in the missile department hasn't been great to date, but in the cavalry department things have gotten dramatically better. Not only do we have general units as a key unit in any player's arsenal, javelin cavalry are an important part of a well-rounded and effective cavalry force. Also, the cavalry battle and missile battle don't dominate the conclusion of the line fight anymore (the winner of the missiels would shoot the opposing cavalry, win that fight and immediately turn to charge the enemy in the rear and carry the day). A good Alexandrian fight for sure, but lacking in the numerous tools in an Alexandrian army.

I seek to have the Hellenes in the foreground as much as they used to be, but this may be due to the new crop of players favoring the western factions. But this likely has something to do with the strengthening of the hitherto unused cavalry form - the javelin cavalry - and the increased sturdiness of heavy infantry - both weapon systems of good use against cavalry, one due to its ability to inflict significant casualties at close range and engage subsequently (with buffed secondary weapons), one due to its improved ability to hold its ground. Light skirmishers have risen in importance as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antisocialmunky

Now because infantry has been buffed extensively, you really need to invest in a heavy cavalry wing to have an effective heavy cavalry wing (ie, you can't bring 2 with only missiles and be fine, you need light infantry escorts and a ton of other things which are countered by the opponent just getting more heavy infantry).

We were able to get it working at 36K because Prodromoi, Celtic Hoplites, Pandas(I used to use them at size 240 AP axes because they were so good in melee), and Thracians were so cost effective and Rome/KH/Gauls/Asian factions were the most played. This wasn't perfect because Carthage/Germania/Luso/Getai weren't very well balanced at 36K with Carthage not being all that effective and the other factions being very good against certain factions and terrible against others.

---

A promising statement, to be sure, an indication that we are moving in the right direction and not just using a very few unit types, though his statement about heavy infantry is not 100% accurate.

One thing to note is that barbarians will no longer have a monopoly on scaries after the next update - cataphracts will scare just as much, a welcome counterbalance to their relative underpowering in light of the advent of powerful kopis-armed Aspidophoroi becoming an integral part of Hellenic armies.

Also, I am looking for players to experiment with steppe armies composed exclusively of mounted units. This will probably bring up dilemmas of whether to bring more 70 or 60 man HA units or a better core of heavy cavalry, but I look forward to that discussion. Also, the new phalanxes will be ready tomorrow, but not the full Hellenic roster to go with, unless I can get a lot of work done on the train.

Well people eventually started using light infantry in 2009/2010 tournaments to run with their cav. However it never really was that good because you could take a heavy infantry which would both beat the light infantry and not get scared to death. Ideally, you need light infantry with AP or high lethality or something. Something like the old Thracians or Agrianians. Its actually really difficult to differentiate between infantry that are REALLY good in loose order and infantry that are REALLY good in formation... which is disappointing.

I mean, I suppose high attacking/formation density ratios are the only way but that doesn't really work all that well in this situation. Maybe a skew towards defense against armor and really good stamina while formation infantry get a slight shield bonus, armor, and less defense?

I mean, if you are in formation, and attacking forward, the shield bonus would give you advantage but you would have less defense skill from other directions. If you are lightly armed, you can actually fight better because you aren't weighed down but so much armor.

Additionally a low formation ratio and density for the light infantry and higher formation ratio and density for line infantry would make it so line infantry push hard.

This whole page is filled with techno talk.

Quote:

---

Also, the cavalry battle and missile battle don't dominate the conclusion of the line fight anymore (the winner of the missiels would shoot the opposing cavalry, win that fight and immediately turn to charge the enemy in the rear and carry the day).

---

All light cavalry that ive seen be brought against me in the game is invulnerable to arrows. What cav r u talking about ? The Only cav that die to arrows are levy cavalry. such as numidian javelin cav. I think EB will be unbalanced forever.

Storm, go play rocks, paper, scissors. I think that is the game you are looking for. :clown:

I still don't think Cataphracts should get fear. But I guess we will play test it and see how that goes.

And as far as using light units to run with cavalry, I know me and Lazy do this pretty regularly. Not the lightest units usually, but generally a unit with either fast moving, very good stamina, or preferably both. Spears are also a plus. Scutarii, Gestikapoinon and Alpine Phalanx are perfect examples of units that fit this role perfectly though almost any unit that moves relatively quickly will work. They don't need to win against enemy infantry that moves to support, they just need to help win the cav battle so your cavalry can give them a hand afterwards.

I just hope people will stop running their cav through my men when ive got them fully surrounded.
can infantry run speeds get increased ?

and yes rock paper scissors would be nice.

For cavalry, would it be possible to just increase charge and not deal with mass as much? That would prevent cavalry running through as easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

I just hope people will stop running their cav through my men when ive got them fully surrounded.
can infantry run speeds get increased ?

and yes rock paper scissors would be nice.

---

Its very rare that cavalry gets completely surrounded by enemies. On three sides perhaps, but there is almost always a gap for them to exploit.

Yes GG2, I started Multiplayer RTW in the time of 1 Cata 4 prodromoi 5 cretans 8 phalanx and thracian Peltasts.

@Robin, actually the best unit for doing that is the iberian velite. Though that has become outdated and im mostly using the 3 heavy cav as the only cav now. This is not vanilla where my javelin cav can tear apart enemy archers and actually do some damage.

Well at 40k you should be taking only heavy cavalry since it is easily affordable. That is why I don't see much reason to increase the mnai limit from 36k.

Exactly my point. 40k and carthage/saka/pahlav + some others get unbeatable with their heavy cav .

@robin, well once i trapped cav by having my cav pinning them in front and a infantry unit charging from the back. like a sandwich, another time the enemy cav was fighitng the back of my main line i brought 2 infantry from behind and made a trainagle, then they moved through my infantry and attacked the back of my line again.

Lets make a clear rule on cav movements please. Vartan ?

No need for rules, if you have a brain you can kill enemy cav before they get out, no need to make rules to cover up peoples sloppiness. Which is exactly what I think of these "fair play" rules.

Well, to tell you a few things about the upcoming update:

1. Elite units got a slight cost increase, mainly to counteract the fact that they get their stamina boost for free.
2. I am making the distinction between light and heavy troops in mass more pronounced
3. I am increasing cav charge values and lowering horse mass values.

4. The distinction between the Pahlava and the Sauromatae horse archers has become far more significant, and I have used historical data in my reasoning, primarily from this for the Sauromatae and from various sources regarding the size of Parthian armies, and accounts of their effectiveness, such as at the Battle of Carrhae.

The Parthian Army in Contrast With the Sarmatians, in the Context of EB Unit Stats

Typical encounters between the Roman Republic and Parthians seem to show that the Romans typically outnumbered them by between 3:1 and 3:2; ratios echoed later when the full strength of the Empire was brought against the more powerful Sassanids, who probably also put their full strength into play when the fought the Romans. This provides a guiding line for what the comparative sizes of fully mounted Parthian and infantry heavy Roman armies should be in combat. Smaller Parthian or Sassanid armies were able to achieve decisive victories over larger Roman ones by skilled archery (especially when additional supplies of arrows were available to the horse-archers) and judicious use of the heavy cavalry core, the cataphracts, which formed about 10% of their armies.

In contrast, the various Sarmatian peoples, confederacies, etc. seem to have been able to put very large hosts of horsemen into the field, but later on they seemed to have concentrated into a more professionalized, higher quality force, especially after the adoption of the kontos as an important weapon. For example, Strabo says that one of the two divisions of the Aorsi was able to muster 200,000 horsemen; likely an exageration, but a Chinese source describing the Yancai (Alans), who were located nearby, were able to put 100,000 horsemen into the field. Clearly their numbers were impressive at this early stage.

The records of the early Sarmatians in combat are not impressive. The Siracae, for example, were a small nation, but their king Ariapharnes mustered a large number of horsemen to take part in the battle of the Thates river. In this battle, his horsemen were apparently easily dispersed by the charge of the 'picked Scythian horse' of the opponent. Strabo provides an account of Sarmatians opposing an expeditionary force sent by Mithridates VI, in which a Roxolanic and Scythian force of 50,000 was defeated by a Diophantes (the Pontic commander) and his 6,000 troops; likely these included some heavy Bosporan archers, and definitely contained a phalanx. Strabo describes the equipment of the Roxolani as raw-hide armor, wicker shields, bows, and spears for close combat; in other words, the 'Aorsi Riders' unit.

Later sources from the 1st century AD describe the unstoppable nature of the charge of the Sarmatian horsemen, when executed properly. The lancers apparently wore varying amounts of armor, from fine and heavy scale to light scale or leather (which enabled the heavy legionaries to easily defeat fallen Sarmatian horsemen). Yet they were prudent enough to use feigned retreats and traditional steppe tactics when opposed by sturdy infantry wielding long spears. The importance of bows declined over time, and the number of arrows in graves did as well; but the archery of the Sarmatians seems to not have been as impressive or devastating as that of the Parthians, as suggested by their apparently poor performance before the first century AD.

--- TRANSLATION IN GAME ---
-Parthian horse archers have very large amounts of ammunition (50) and good archer skills. However, their numbers are equal to those of other light cavalry.
-Scythian horse archers come in smaller units than Sarmatians and have less ammo than Parthians, but thus end up as cheaper than either one.
-Sarmatian horse archers and riders have larger unit sizes and are cheaper than their Parthian counterparts, but suffer from lower accuracy and less ammunition.
-Early Sarmatian nobles also come in greater numbers than their later counterparts, but again, are less impressive
-Sarmatian kontos lancers are no cataphracts but have a devastating charge, better than their Parthian counterparts. I may yet make it better, but their high stamina lets them repeat their charges - do we want to change this?

East may win on high money, but they lose on low money. Expect heavy losses on 36k. I would find it hard to balance these. The fact is that well-used steppe is invariably stronger than corresponding civ, and since there will be no such distinction upon the final release of 3.0 for "official" tournament use next year (spoiler?), you'll have some clearly advantageous options at your disposal. And now that there won't be a distinction, there's no way to enforce a discrimination between steppe and civ, telling one not to battle the other. More situations will be possible than before, and we'll have to live with it and see where it leads us.

Storm, fair play allows you to retreat your horse no matter what (with the exception of running into pikes). This is indicated on the website. Lazy, we have fair play for many a good reason. I don't need to point this out, since you should by now know this well enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

-Sarmatian kontos lancers are no cataphracts but have a devastating charge, better than their Parthian counterparts. I may yet make it better, but their high stamina lets them repeat their charges - do we want to change this?

---

That's unfortunate, but like you say, they aren't cataphracts. If only there was a way to make their subsequent charges less devastating than the previous one...

I don't think the Parthians were very successful against the Romans. A quick scan of the Roman-Parthian Wars reveals that besides Carrhae, the Parthians really only defeated one other Roman army in the field and this was much later than our timeframe. Considering the logistical difficulties that the Romans would have in bringing a fight to the Parthians while comparing the relatively shorter distances from Ctesiphon to Syria and the Parthians' inability to hold Syrian territory, I feel as if Rome fared significantly better off in their wars than the Parthians did.

The Sassanids are a different story entirely. They were much better equipped to handle the Romans and came about at a time when Rome may be considered on the downswing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

That's unfortunate, but like you say, they aren't cataphracts. If only there was a way to make their subsequent charges less devastating than the previous one...

---

The only way to do this is by lowering stamina. However, there is no medium speed between full gallop and walking for cavalry and so we are forced to run cavalry all over the place if they are needed as deterrents or chase off skirmishers etc. This is why I feel as if cavalry was fine in previous versions. The increased mass makes the initial charge more effective now but lower stamina and animation speed limits the usefulness of cavalry in other tasks. For example, in this version, I will just keep a spear unit behind my lines to deter enemy cav attacks if I lose the cavalry battle or refuse one. A good stamina, quick spear unit can run parallel to my lines and stop slower and quickly tiring enemy cav from turning and smacking into my back. Previous to this version, that spear unit would have quickly been outrun and I would have needed two or three units behind the lines if I wanted to protect against cav.

Well, I am lowering mass but increasing charge strength now, as per ASM's suggestion. Perhaps that will work better. We shall see.

You are correct, properly prepared Roman armies were highly successful against the Parthians; for example, against Pacorus, the numerous Roman slingers inflicted heavy damage on the Parthian heavy cavalry, letting the Romans kill Pacorus and rout his army.

I am seeing a potentially similar outcome here in MP battles. Prepared armies of large kingdoms seem like they would be able to much better supply ammunition to their troops than steppe folk, but steppe nobles can expect to have a large number of arrows (one gorytos from a kurgan had hundreds of them!)

Hey steppe folk can get rocks from different regions , due to them migrating alot. I think steppe slingers should fire various colors of stones due to the historical tradition of steppe people having a hobby of picking rocks off the ground.

Oh and the Arabian peninsula had lots of desert pavement so i think suadi slingers should get plus ammo :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

Hey steppe folk can get rocks from different regions , due to them migrating alot. I think steppe slingers should fire various colors of stones due to the historical tradition of steppe people having a hobby of picking rocks off the ground.

Oh and the Arabian peninsula had lots of desert pavement so i think suadi slingers should get plus ammo :p

---

No such thing as steppe slingers Storm :p

I'm very interested to see the changes to the Hellenistic factions. Though I love to play the Eurobarbs in MP, Hellenes always hold a special spot in my heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

The only way to do this is by lowering stamina. However, there is no medium speed between full gallop and walking for cavalry and so we are forced to run cavalry all over the place if they are needed as deterrents or chase off skirmishers etc. This is why I feel as if cavalry was fine in previous versions. The increased mass makes the initial charge more effective now but lower stamina and animation speed limits the usefulness of cavalry in other tasks. For example, in this version, I will just keep a spear unit behind my lines to deter enemy cav attacks if I lose the cavalry battle or refuse one. A good stamina, quick spear unit can run parallel to my lines and stop slower and quickly tiring enemy cav from turning and smacking into my back. Previous to this version, that spear unit would have quickly been outrun and I would have needed two or three units behind the lines if I wanted to protect against cav.

---

The idea in my mind is to have either a hardy cav unit or a non-hardy one. Therefore you can expect plenty of non-cataphract cav to have hardy stamina if gg2 takes this approach. So you'll still have options in that regard that you mention, if not as limitless as before.

EDIT: The key here is that what you mention about previous cav should not remain unchecked in these developments. Reason is to not allow one tactic to become the be all and end all of EB Online.

It would be nice to have different types of cav instead of 'good chargers' and crap everything else. 3.0 has already addressed a ton of it but I think you should make the really heavy cataphracts something special, normal stamina and fear inducing. Atleast for the purposes of testing. After all they were used for frontal charges against weakened positions unlike heavy cavalry used for flanking tactics. There should be a difference between the heavily armed hellenistic cavalry covered with mail, shield, and cuirass and the ridiculously half or fully armored Cataphracts of the east. Main idea is to have the really powerful elite Cataphracts be really powerful sledge hammer cavalry to crack a battle line in its weakest spot. I suppose it would be somewhat difficult to balance the half armored Cataphracts though. Those would probably just be really powerful frontal charge but no scary.

Wont make no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

It would be nice to have different types of cav instead of 'good chargers' and crap everything else. 3.0 has already addressed a ton of it but I think you should make the really heavy cataphracts something special, normal stamina and fear inducing. Atleast for the purposes of testing. After all they were used for frontal charges against weakened positions unlike heavy cavalry used for flanking tactics. There should be a difference between the heavily armed hellenistic cavalry covered with mail, shield, and cuirass and the ridiculously half or fully armored Cataphracts of the east. Main idea is to have the really powerful elite Cataphracts be really powerful sledge hammer cavalry to crack a battle line in its weakest spot. I suppose it would be somewhat difficult to balance the half armored Cataphracts though. Those would probably just be really powerful frontal charge but no scary.

---

You have hit the nail on the head, that's why my current stats aim to do. I am fearing, however, that 50 charge plus scary may not be enough in light of lowered horse masses.

Why lower them? Just make them the default ones we were using pre 3.0.

If mass is the same as 3.0, these new catas better cost 5-6000 each. Scary cavalry with 50 charge?:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

If mass is the same as 3.0, these new catas better cost 5-6000 each. Scary cavalry with 50 charge?:dizzy2:

---

Yes robin i told that to gg2 on hamachi but he said that catas are slow and dont have stamina i still think that if they have fear boost that they should have a slightly cost increase

I think the max applicable attack/defense diff is 32. So charge values that high may not make much of a difference :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vega

Yes robin i told that to gg2 on hamachi but he said that catas are slow and dont have stamina i still think that if they have fear boost that they should have a slightly cost increase

---

Current costing of Grivpanvar is about 4200. Do you recall how horribly underpowered catasphracts used to be? They were wrecking balls! And they will still be vulnerable. We will see, they may yet cost more later.

Come hamachi. I want to ask you something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Current costing of Grivpanvar is about 4200. Do you recall how horribly underpowered catasphracts used to be? They were wrecking balls! And they will still be vulnerable. We will see, they may yet cost more later.

---

Have we been playing the same game? Everyone who plays Baktria or AS almost always takes 2-3 cataphracts and those are Greek factions have various other options for light/medium cavalry as well as high quality infantry if you'd prefer to spend money there. And you can ask Lazy O about how effective Grivpanvar can be in v2.1.1. We fought a few battles when I was debating taking Pahlava for August.

You do recall that cataphracts now must contend with more 100 man heavy infantry units, enlarged light cavalry units of 60 men and 90 man slingers, right? And that the archers won't protect them as well anymore? I will run a quick test but the five factions are ready to go should you ask for them.

I'm going to have to agree with ASM on this one. We'll need to increase mass from vanilla EB slightly, since we cannot entirely rely on one factor, such as increasing charge by a ridiculous amount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I think the max applicable attack/defense diff is 32. So charge values that high may not make much of a difference :p

---

OK, so the full charge strength is maxed against units with 24 defense, or spear units with 16 defense; but remember apparently maximum values of attack and defense can go over 63 so I do not trust this maximum as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

OK, so the full charge strength is maxed against units with 24 defense, or spear units with 16 defense; but remember apparently maximum values of attack and defense can go over 63 so I do not trust this maximum as well.

---

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure we can balance the situation without going over what the proposed maximums are.

I've noticed that lower accuracy slingers have much better accuracy than lower accuracy archers. This may have something to do with the projectile angle being lower.

Its just something I heard in the mod forum. There is a limit of 32 between attack and defense differences. We can try really high stuff, it probably won't matter THAT much since you'd be flattening low defense infantry anyway.

Guys want to show you a replay how bringing roman cavarly vs steppe is useles this dacian ha are amazing 61 men with good charge and bloddy mis atack are so strong, we even didnt start battle i lost half of my army well gg2 watch this replay and you choose what should be changed :DDD http://www.mediafire.com/?o23c8dhuj4jj336

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vega

Guys want to show you a replay how bringing roman cavarly vs steppe is useles this dacian ha are amazing 61 men with good charge and bloddy mis atack are so strong, we even didnt start battle i lost half of my army well gg2 watch this replay and you choose what should be changed :DDD http://www.mediafire.com/?o23c8dhuj4jj336

---

Roman cavalry's supposed to be superior to steppe cavalry? I hadn't heard that one before. :2thumbsup:

I must say Vega that is quite unusual, the Roman cavalry appear to be missing their 9000 power levels.

Guys i dont understand why you are angry then when i use infratry spam and not choosing cav, next time if i spam spearmen and cohorts dont be angry please, i just say that cav is useles vs 7 ha with 61 men which have so much ammo and bloddy misile atack :(

Vega, what do you expect will happen if someone takes 7 Horse Archers regardless of the opposing teams faction? You are not talking Rome specific.

The solution to horse archers is foot archers. They are more accurate and have more men, they only have less ammo, but each shot flies more true. A foot archer also costs a little bit more than half as much per man. This advantage is especially pronounced by the lack of Cantabrian circle for HA, if I forgot to remove it from any HA unit please tell me.

I didn't save the battles we had last night, but Vega's Romans outdid my Sweboz (despite many units having a shield stat of 6, roman pila and arrows are still devastating) and my superior Hai cavalry forced overran his Pontic force, despite a decided inferiority in foot archers. I feel the story of the battle exhibits some interesting points, so here goes:

My army:

1 Hai BG
2 Armenian Cataphracts
1 Armenian Medium Cav
1 Nizakahar Ayrudzi (JavCav)
2 Steppe Riders
2 Syrian Archers
1 Eastern Slingers
5 Panda Phalanxes
4 Georgian Infantry
1 Armenian Noble Infantry

Vega's Army (IIRC)

1 Early Pontos BG
2 Scythian Heavy Cavalry
2 Steppe Riders
3 Bosporan Archers
5-6 Panda Phalanxes
6-7 Mix of Kuarothoroi and Pontic Thorakitai

My troops were deployed in a manner to maximize flexibility in infantry, while to overwhelm with cavalry. I placed the phalanx in the center with the general behind, with the Georgians directly next to the general, and the Georgians next to the general, with the elite infantry and slingers behind those; the archers were in loose formation in front. To the direct left of my formation, I placed my skirmisher cavalry, with the cataphracts behind these, and the medium cavalry behind those. Vega deployed his 6 heavy infantry units on the sides of his center phalanxes (3 on each side) and had 2 of his archers in front of the phalanx, with one behind as a reserve; one of his Scythian units were placed on each side of the infantry line. Both of us deployed our horse archers on either wing, far from the main line. His position was better suited to go into action quickly, and his reserve archer unit, I feared, would do much to counteract my preponderance in cavalry.

The battle opened with the traditional archer duel. Our steppe horse archers engaged on the flanks, each inflicting approximately 30% casualties on each other before retiring and commencing other work, which shall be detailed later. His 2 Bosporans that he sent to the front easily outdid my Syrians (spending 2100 on an archer unit pays off) in quality, so I had my archers switch to shoot at his phalanx; they inflicted about 40-50 casualties on his phalangites, but my engaged archers suffered approximately 70% casualties, while his suffered only 12%, meaning he had those Bosporans left over to serve as medium infantrymen.

Following this, he began an advance with his line of infantry, but I refused to retreat my archers, keeping them far in front of my line to get good shots at his phalanxes. Seeing this, Vega deployed a Scythian unit to wipe up my archers, and I brought my slingers and one of my horse archers to fire on his Scythians as I retreated my archers. He pulled back his scythian cavalry, which took volleys in the rear, neglecting their large shield stat. He then brought his horse archers and reserve archer unit to shoot my slingers, which they did, but I concentrated fire on his Scythians with my limited resources (I turned my horse archers to shoot his) and dealt them about 10 casualties, or 20% of their strength.

The phalanx lines then clashed, and my Georgians fired volleys of javelins into his phalanxes, inflicting an unknown number of casualties. They then took flanking positions so that my line looked like this /-----\. To hold the crucial left flank, where my cavalry were to make their decisive charge, I placed my elite noble infantry. His weakened Scythians went on a ride around my army to assault the rear, while my cataphracts charged and quickly overran his one unit of Scythians on the left, while the javelin cavalry peppered the flank of his assaulting heavy infantry. The two cataphracts and one Medium cavalry immediately turned against his flank, without bothering to do a full lance charge; the inferior quality Pontic troops routed, while the two units of sturdy Galatians held.

I retreated my cataphracts and mediums, and had my Javelin cavalry empty their saddlebags with spears in the backs of the Galatians, before I sent my medium cavalry after them again; they and the left flank infantry ground up the Galatians. The cataphracts mopped up some of the Bosporan archers that he used to reinforce the line (after this they were tired and I commited them to no further action), and the phalanxes murdered each other, with all of my phalanxes suffering more than 50% casualties, and his routing. That little bit of archer and javelin fire had paid off with a victory in the center. His Scythians reached the back of my line and charged the rear of the phalanx, but this was irrelevant as almost 50% of the phalangites were dead already. His preponderance of infantry on my right (his left) meant that he was winning there, but my general got in one charge on his flank there, and the command bonus helped my troops hang on long enough for me to win the center and left. Seeing the hopelessness of his position, Vega admitted defeat.

What does this battle prove? First of all, it disproves the statement by Antisocialmunky that a superior quantity of heavy infantry counters a well-supported cavalry force. My cavalry, all concentrated on my left flank (except the horse archers), overran his flank within two minutes in hammer-and-anvil style, while my right flank held off long enough to make my victory complete.

Second of all, phalanxes kill each other too fast, especially as Panda Phalanxes have only 15 defense. To mitigate this, I am removing light_spear from the attributes of all phalanx units (except the Germanic Pikemen unit), which should not affect combat against other infantry as other infantry must move to close quarters to engage enemies anyway. However, the resulting loss of the -4 defense penalty should prolong phalanx combat by an estimated 50%. It will also mean that the pikemen do not resist cavalry charges from the front as well, but I don't expect anyone to charge cavalry right at a phalanx from the front even then, and if that becomes a viable tactic, it can easily be added to the list of fairplay violations.

Third of all, Hai infantry seems to hold the line effectively enough to allow the cavalry to win important battles, especially when an elite infantry unit or a general is present to reinforce and/or inspire. The new Pontic Thorakitai are an important asset to Pontic players, with 90 men and short swords to defeat opposing spearmen, and the defense stats of Thureophoroi.

Fourth, the battle demonstrated what I feel is a key principle, that Vega recognized after the battle; inferior archers ought not to be put to use by shooting the enemy archers, but by absorbing arrows and firing at other targets, so your other troops may be victorious. For example, they weakened the Scythian cavalry slightly, and they dealt some damage to the phalangites, enough to win me a victory in the push of pike; the Bosporan archers did little but shoot my missile troops and engage in close combat, in which they are useful support troops but far from the infantry of choice; they barely increased the strength of his force in the decisive melee clash (he reinforced his line rather than using them as flankers), while my archers, for less cost, dealt more important damage in the center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Third of all, Hai infantry seems to hold the line effectively enough to allow the cavalry to win important battles, especially when an elite infantry unit or a general is present to reinforce and/or inspire. The new Pontic Thorakitai are an important asset to Pontic players, with 90 men and short swords to defeat opposing spearmen, and the defense stats of Thureophoroi.

---

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

Quote:

---

Fourth, the battle demonstrated what I feel is a key principle, that Vega recognized after the battle; inferior archers ought not to be put to use by shooting the enemy archers, but by absorbing arrows and firing at other targets, so your other troops may be victorious. For example, they weakened the Scythian cavalry slightly, and they dealt some damage to the phalangites, enough to win me a victory in the push of pike; the Bosporan archers did little but shoot my missile troops and engage in close combat, in which they are useful support troops but far from the infantry of choice; they barely increased the strength of his force in the decisive melee clash (he reinforced his line rather than using them as flankers), while my archers, for less cost, dealt more important damage in the center.

---

Reading this gives me the impression that I would like to be on the side with inferior archers, not superior archers. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

---

Lets not go crazy with those eagles now; it's enough that everyone's got at least one now. Giving it to more would remove the incentive to bring general units, and (I feel like I'm being a broken record on this) will serve to weaken the Casse further. Their particular fighting style would no longer be showcased in low morale units following their heroes into battle either; it would just be something everyone had, but with worse everything. It's definitely enough just to have them fight very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Lets not go crazy with those eagles now; it's enough that everyone's got at least one now. Giving it to more would remove the incentive to bring general units, and (I feel like I'm being a broken record on this) will serve to weaken the Casse further. Their particular fighting style would no longer be showcased in low morale units following their heroes into battle either; it would just be something everyone had, but with worse everything. It's definitely enough just to have them fight very well.

---

That's pretty much the case with Saba...you think Saba deserves compromise, too? I don't. But that's just my thought. There's nothing wrong with making all factions of the game work for the sake of having them work. :yes:

Saba get elephants. There is no unit in the Casse roster that can win a battle like elephants can.

That said, elephants should get a minor boost to hp if they havn't already. Maybe +1. Makes little sense that ellies get only one more hp than gaesatae.

Does that then make all the other ele factions which are already top contenders overpowered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

Reading this gives me the impression that I would like to be on the side with inferior archers, not superior archers. What do you think?

---

It's more of how you use the archers you have. If you have one archer instead of one line unit, and use that archer to badly damage the enemy cav, then you win the cav fight and can rout the line. But if you have five archers and the enemy has four identical ones, well then they cancel each other out much more, and the enemy has more line units to help break through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Does that then make all the other ele factions which are already top contenders overpowered?

---

Probably. That is why we should keep money at 36k. If anything, 34k would be even better as it would make the lighter units more important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

It's more of how you use the archers you have. If you have one archer instead of one line unit, and use that archer to badly damage the enemy cav, then you win the cav fight and can rout the line. But if you have five archers and the enemy has four identical ones, well then they cancel each other out much more, and the enemy has more line units to help break through.

---

It depends on the faction since defensive infantry are quite hard to definitively kill. Having an additional identical archer is actually quite useful if the enemy is packing expensive cav because it by itself makes it hard to use cavalry since it will have extra ammo to spend and will be able to swing cav engagements your way... which will make it much easier to win a cav fight and mass rout the battle line. Also good in no cav at all cases because then it can break away and prevent flanking because it can shoot flankers or doods chasing your cav in the back.

Elephants cannot win you a battle and a re a liablity. Simply too many faction have charger cavalry, heck even prodromoi can kill elephants, so can a lowly akontisai unit.

Problem is elephants still cost too much. A unit of elephants shouldn't cost too much more than a unit of cataphracts considering there are more ways to counter them than catas. Maybe 6500 for a unit of elephants?

Btw, this is based solely on balance, not on historical accuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Problem is elephants still cost too much. A unit of elephants shouldn't cost too much more than a unit of cataphracts considering there are more ways to counter them than catas. Maybe 6500 for a unit of elephants?

Btw, this is based solely on balance, not on historical accuracy.

---

I completely agree with you. I've agreed with you since even before you were playing EBO. We've yet to see the cheap elephant. But it does say a lot that expensive elephants have still won battles. Looking forward to 1.5x cata-cost elephants though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

That's pretty much the case with Saba...you think Saba deserves compromise, too? I don't. But that's just my thought. There's nothing wrong with making all factions of the game work for the sake of having them work. :yes:

---

Huh? In vanilla EB, Casse gets low morale but so many eagles to showcase their different fighting style of having heroes lead the tribes into war. When you gave general units eagles, you decreased this point, and if you start giving them left, right and centre, you remove this distinguishment altogether. However, it's even worse, because you're only removing the good part of this distinguishment (the eagles), but keeping the bad part of it (low morale for non-heroic units).

In other words, my argument is not simply "doing this would make Casse irrelevant", which is pretty much true, but also that it would remove a historical point from the Casse faction. In other words, if we agreed that not giving elites an eagle would be a compromise, then all we'd have to agree with would be that either way would be a compromise. If that's the case, then I'd go with the compromise that I see as more important, both from a historical as well as a gameplay perspective. I would compromise in the way that kept Casse floating... but I genuinely don't think that it's really a compromise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Elephants cannot win you a battle and a re a liablity. Simply too many faction have charger cavalry, heck even prodromoi can kill elephants, so can a lowly akontisai unit.

---

Nonsense. Elephants is what won Mr Fred's tournament as Saba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Problem is elephants still cost too much. A unit of elephants shouldn't cost too much more than a unit of cataphracts considering there are more ways to counter them than catas. Maybe 6500 for a unit of elephants?

Btw, this is based solely on balance, not on historical accuracy.

---

I too agree with this.

Did anyone try charging Prodromoi or any charger cav into elephants last year ? I think not, people werent that brave last year, and saying elephants won him the tournament is over simplifying it.

Ideally we would have armies with four elephants on large, eight on huge.