Why, exactly? Cataphracts would be quite experienced dealing with spearmen, as would their mounts. Note please that the catas' lances are a lot longer than infantry spears. However they are quite vulnerable in melee with spearmen.
Printable View
Why, exactly? Cataphracts would be quite experienced dealing with spearmen, as would their mounts. Note please that the catas' lances are a lot longer than infantry spears. However they are quite vulnerable in melee with spearmen.
All I know is that its about 6-2 against giving cataphracts the fear bonus. A month of testing has been done with the Eastern Hellenistic factions, more with Pahlava and Hayasdan, and the majority of us have found the fear factor to be imbalancing. Yes, cataphracts are counterable though some factions have more trouble with this than others. However, the ability to stand your cavalry behind your infantry with no way to charge the enemy and still have the enemy be afraid of the cataphracts is silly. And this is how cataphracts are used now.
Also Shak, you mentioned that to fight cataphracts you just have to defend against them when they swing around your lines. What about factions like the Lusos, the Celts, Sweboz, and to a somewhat lesser degree the Getai (who have good ranged options at least)? They can't just sit around and let their lightly armored infantry get shot up by 120 man persian units or elite and accurate Cretans, Syrians or Bosphorans. They need to attack. And this plays right into the cataphracts hands as instead of having to run to get to you, they can wait for you to come to them, all the while sowing fear amongst their enemies from a standstill position.
I've test this edu and I think something still not work:
1-Cretans very overpowered
2-imperial cohors and evocata overpowered
3-kopis infantry overpowered
4-kata and extraordinarii lightly overpowered
5-principes and hastati very underpowered
6-overhand hoplites underpowered
7-eastern archers quite underpowered
8-axemen lightly underpowered
The phalanx and light cavalry are good.
The same argument applies to Vojinos, Uirodusios, Pictones, Gaesatae, and the like; especially the former two. Would you suggest I remove fear from those units as well? I might from Vojinos, but the Uiros and the Gaesatae?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
The fact is that the fear and command abilities in general open up this kind of abuse. Command for generals is fine; command and fear on other units leads to some bad ingame results.
The cataphracts , I dont care about historicity in this case, remove their fear, it can be abused far more than other stuff.
And yea, remove it from the Vojinos, why would someone fear being eaten AFTER he is dead?
because hugely superstitious ancient peoples usually wanted to go to the afterlife with their limbs uneaten, secondly, the best way to keep meat fresh is to keep it alive, so im assuming it would more be fear of capture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Ah yes, but the weaknesses of these units are not stamina or maneuverability. Rather this is considered one of their strengths as they lack armor. Standing still is not too big a deal for units with great stamina but for units with poor stamina, its an advantage as they don't need to waste their energies.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Perhaps we should have it so that 75% of arrows from 175m afar from atop swiftly moving mounts should strike and kill their targets? I can only think of one word for this: genius. I hope you concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Wake up call: nobody is saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is that fear in RTW isn't fear. It's an asinine feature that needs to go. I have a hatred for many of the design features of the RTW engine I doubt most could understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
When we balance, we don't try to balance all matchups. You can't get all MUs to balance. And you don't want to. So if the fact is that Cata vs Barb faction is in advantage of the Cata, we're not going to try to modify it so that it's even. This ruins the balance on the other ends. If you tried increasing barb power to compensate, they become OP vis a vis other factions. Underpower the cata faction and it becomes UP vis a vis other factions. This is what I want people to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
-------------------------
Fact is, the debate over the fear issue is a bit more insightful if you start thinking in terms of the bigger picture. Think of fear and command, as gg2 mentioned. Start putting them on a plethora of units and you're just asking for a mess. Keep command exactly that, a leader (commander) bonus, and take the broken fear feature out of the picture, and you're left with a cleaner system to mold and work with. Truly, you're better off making barbarian warriors fearful by improving their fighting capabilities (and this wouldn't be ahistorical) instead of making them bull dung and having fear on them. I hope people see the sense in this because it's really a disgusting issue in my opinion. Mostly this and the whole notion of making all MUs "balanced". Heh...
But but but, they did shoot from 175m afar, if you bring them closer, they will get ripped to shreds, as moving fast apparently has no effect on the other units accuracy, and you are basically asking to die.
I agree, in June, they were OP, foot archers could not touch them with the cantabrian circle, but now, with it removed, it has made them pretty useless, especially since we do not have any missile limits, many factions can bring 8 (in the case of AS, even more) armored archers and completely nullify the historical advantage of steppe armies, their archery.
It's decided. Steppe horse archers will have better accuracy as foot archers. I can justify this because horse archers typically have a lifetime of training, I think.
Let's leave it this way: fear is not leaving the cataphracts unless it also leaves the Gaesatae. The only units I MIGHT consider keeping fear for, were it removed from these two, would be the black-painted nakeds that the Sweboz have.
Also, does anybody else feel like those Harii naked infantry deserve 2 HP? They don't do drugs (but it's very suspect whether Gaesatae did drugs, either) but it would do a lot of good to balance that unit, given its small shield (which I need to reduce back to 3) and it would feel appropriate IMHO.
I support GG's Position.
Well if you all see fear as a broken feature, let's test its complete removal...
But how on earth are the Woithiz Wāthā more deserving for it? Those warriors painted themselves to avoid being spotted in night ambushes, in daylight they are just Uirodusios...
^This.
Ok, remove fear, but, compensate for it for the celtic factions
GG2, I'm gonna sound rude saying this but so forgive me in advance:sweatdrop: but what makes you the final decision maker regarding the edu? Yes you have put the time and effort into putting it all together which we are very(!) thankful for, but I don't understand how that makes your decision "right" and everyone else's wrong. It is still just your opinion. Shouldn't a vote of the regular players be the way to solve this?
Also, if we remove fear it would be wise to re institute a missile limit. IMO we should do this anyway as every battle begins with missile duels with even more missile units being held in reserve causing 2v2's to take over 45 minutes which is absurd.
For the record, I don't see fear as a broken feature. If this is the case, then we should limit cataphracts to one charge a battle. It's a broken feature that they can charge 4-5 times before being exhausted. Engine limitations (i.e. 3 levels of stamina or representing fear) exist people, don't act like they don't.
If per Vartan's recommendation, we would remove fear from say, Uridusios, they would need somewhere around 20 attack and defense to justify their price, unless we of course lowered the price to 1000 or so. Even without fear, they'd be the first target for archers and larger sized levy units with bigger shields would become better options. Making them ahistorically better fighters than anyone else because they are naked is just as silly as the fear bonus.
Robin, the mechanic prompts exploitation no matter where you put it. Ergo, I propose cutting fear from all units except MAYBE the black-painted Suebian warriors. Uirodusios would get command back but lose fear. Gaesatae woud lose fear. Et caetera.
The problem here is that everybody is proposing to gut one unit type's abilities because they feel it is easy to exploit, but they aren't going after others simply because they aren't used as often. By comparison with how Epeirote players make use of Uirodusios, Cataphracts are completely fair! I have actually seen people park their Uirodusios right behind their phalanxes and have them just sit there to scare the enemy. That is far worse than any cataphract exploit, because you at least aren't putting 4000 of your mnai to actual combat use if you just leave your cataphracts sitting there. But if you leave your naked sitting there, you have spent far less mnai and are getting the same result. Plus, the naked units can still throw javelins (Gaesatae are particularly effective with their javelin attack) or do similar things (cataphract archers can do that too, I suppose).
So if I am to cut fear from cataphracts, fear is leaving the naked units, Pictones, etc. as well.
I'd second that. I don't see any reason to favour the gaesatae ove the harii. And I don't think that gasatae could be represented well without the second HP. I'd give a second HP for all no to light armoured troops which are known for fighting further when (heavily) wounded.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Infantry already receive a morale penalty when fighting cavalry and the charge itself is scary in a sense that it destroys about a quarter of even heavy infantry units instantly from the front. Cataphracts don't need the frighten_foot attribute to actually cause a morale shock to units while infantry do because charges don't work as well as we'd like and infantry don't kill fast enough to lower morale significantly. My arguments are being mostly based on gameplay rather than realisms sake for the record. I don't think the engine can properly simulate a realistic battle and so I feel that gameplay needs to be in balance with historical accuracy, especially with something which is not so clear cut as fear effects in battle situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Oh and naked or lighter armored fear units parked behind phalangites or any composition of main line are an easy target for missiles, something cataphracts are not.
Remove fear and let's see what happens, but from all units...
I don't like it one bit though...
But best historical solution is this:
removal of Gaesatae replacing it with Uirodusios, Pictone lose fear, give slighty better stats to Uirodusios and Woithiz Wāthā, they keep fear and catas get inspire...
Harmata Drepanephora keeps fear and Cidainh gets it replaced by inspire...
This is following ancient sources, rest is arcade and not liking RTW's features...
i agree that cataphracts sitting behind the phalanx scaring enemy infantry is ridiculous, i dont see why fear should be removed as a mechanic but if people are gonna insist on abusing fear then its not very fair, however i was reading an account by suetonius on the invasion of anglesey i think, and he described the druids as not doing anything, but the soldiers believed they were the furies, and so were scared despite not being attacked by the druids, with these kinds of units the fear mechanic isnt broken, its working exactly as historically described.
there must be a way to maintain historical accuracy while also maintaining balance, cataphracts for the sake of balance shouldnt get fear, units like gaesatae should have their armor reduced or something so if a sneaky player decides to just sit them behind his line they can be easily destroyed by archers . as arjos said, why not change some of the fear units to inspire instead? idk im just saying id really like to not have to simplify the game
Just though it would be interesting to add- Roman legions were scared of slaves as well (during revolt of Spartacus). I do say that slightly tongue-in-cheek Crassus had to decimate to make them more scared of him than the slaves.
Also, Roman soldiers did not think druids were the furies, they thought the women running around screaming were the furies. They very soon recovered and killed all of them.
This kind of reaction against the unknown is very common- troops just get slightly taken aback.
BTW- the above was not to make any particular argument- just interesting info relevant to fear debate.
Hey guys, this might be irrelevant to this post, but I'd be grateful if someone who is currently on the Hamachi network but not playing leaves. I am trying to join, network is full.
Sames situation here i cant join as well... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
Shak made a back up room at:
id: EBOnline
pass: eb
Compensate with ridiculous charge values. That is the equivalent of localized fear. Charge, inflict enough casualties to quickly break. I'd say reduce stamina due to ferocity of attack for the nakeds. Drugs or not, you're going to get spent fairly quickly.
Also add warcry.
Thanks for bringing this up. I wish there was a way we could modify exactly how the CC affects the HAs, both offensively and defensively. As it is I think the effects are not programmed correctly as they can kill more than they should and don't die as much as they should. Too bad it's hardcoded cause you don't want to try to compensate (in vain at the end of the day) foot-A and HA for CC because it carries over into foot vs non-HA duels. That we can't touch CC except to enable or disable it is beyond annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
We've yet to take a democratic approach to the EDU-editing process...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Obviously I'm kidding. What do you think we've been doing this whole time? It's been about people's opinions the whole time. In fact, I think community opinion is #2 on gg's priority list of what he takes into account in the process (he posted this list somewhere a while back).
This is one concern I share. Perhaps a gameplay rule could be implemented? (Not a missile/unit limit.)Quote:
Also, if we remove fear it would be wise to re institute a missile limit. IMO we should do this anyway as every battle begins with missile duels with even more missile units being held in reserve causing 2v2's to take over 45 minutes which is absurd.
Or perhaps two charges. This is also a concern I share and a big problem with the RTW engine. Perhaps another gameplay rule.Quote:
For the record, I don't see fear as a broken feature. If this is the case, then we should limit cataphracts to one charge a battle. It's a broken feature that they can charge 4-5 times before being exhausted. Engine limitations (i.e. 3 levels of stamina or representing fear) exist people, don't act like they don't.
Exactly, why do you think I'd rather fear wasn't removed from the catas alone? There's a huge cost discrepancy as it is between the two.Quote:
If per Vartan's recommendation, we would remove fear from say, Uridusios, they would need somewhere around 20 attack and defense to justify their price, unless we of course lowered the price to 1000 or so. Even without fear, they'd be the first target for archers and larger sized levy units with bigger shields would become better options. Making them ahistorically better fighters than anyone else because they are naked is just as silly as the fear bonus.
Vanilla players will agree that this is by far one of the most OP mechanisms.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Well as to your last point Vartan, fear wasn't present with cataphract units prior to the 3.0 edu. The only faction with access to cataphracts which, imo, needed to be fixed for 3.0 in order to make it competitive was Hayasdan. Pahlava, Saka and the two Hellenistic factions were fine as they were without fearful cataphracts. In fact, the limit on 2500+ units is another bonus for Hayasdan, Pahlava and Saka as they can bring more super heavy cavalry than anyone else now. In fact, I've seen Pahlava army comps with 6 cataphract units used in battle, something no other faction can possibly hope for (and an absolute pain in the rear to deal with I might add). That point aside, Hayasdan's weakness wasn't in cavalry, it was in infantry and that has been satisfactorily addressed. Therefore, I am unclear as to why fear needed to be added in the first place. I would be afraid of any sort of cavalry charging me, cataphract or not.
Also one last point as devil's advocate. Why is there a dividing line between fully armored horse and mostly armored horses as the Hetairoi and Roxolani Nobles represent? Are these less scary because the horse has no neck armor?
It also has to do with historical accuracy reasons. Sarmatian horses weren't known to be overtly armoured, nor were hetairoi horses. Cataphract horses were of course very well armored. I have to fuse this with the games representation as best as I can.
Implementing charge limits is just draconian...Perhaps we are getting a bit too far? Can we not just nerf cataphract stamina further?
Unfortunately, no. There are only three stamina choices: none, hardy and very_hardy. Cats already have none.
Yes. They may have a slower skeleton, moving slightly slower than other cavalry so this hurts their stamina as it takes them a bit more time to get from A to B. However, this is minimal.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
And I thought Sarmatian horses were often depicted as covered in scales, aka the armor they wore? Or is this from beyond our time frame? The reliefs I'm thinking of may come more from the time of the mid to late empire.