[EB] How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and East

Here's a crazy idea. How about a limit on Cretans? That way every single Mediterranean army won't bring 3 in every single battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I think the idea is that MP SHOULD be artificially balanced because it is not meant for historical accuracy, it is meant for personal enjoyment separate from the spirit of the campaign which involves the historical accuracy side of the game. I don't think people deploy MP armies to display accurate Roman armies, they play to win!

---

People play most games to win. For instance, people play RTW online to win. Yet there are techniques used there that people don't like to see used when playing EB online. I think perhaps it's just easier to find a balance or a common ground in the realm of fair-play than in the realm of unit stats/costs.

Quote:

---

As such, balance is important if everyone would like a unique feel and playing style to factions without compromising their chances for a victory. For example, if I play as Aedui because I want to combine fear units with a ferocious charge on one flank which might break a lesser foe, I want a chance to win if I handle the tactical aspect properly. I don't want to lose because the Aedui simply can't win against comparable costs of Thracian skirmishers and levy phalanxes without an incompetent opponent (note that I am not saying this is the case but this is the gist I get from reading previous posts). Perhaps by reassessing the costs of various units for MP would help balance things a bit.

---

Right, but the costs of units as they are at the moment are derived from a system. That is, if two units are nearly identical, with one having 1 more armour point than the other, you will almost invariably see a slightly higher recruitment cost for that unit compared to the unit with 1 less armour point. There are of course other factors involved in the original determining of EB unit recruitment costs. But at the end of the day, stat values are virtually always remaining untouched for the MP realm, leaving only cost, as you bring it up, to be the remaining factor. There can be units A and B where A costs more than B, but where B defeats A. Cost doesn't always have a perfectly direct correlation with efficiency, and efficiency is dependent upon which unit B unit A is facing. It's quite easy to nuance the whole ordeal. Therefore, how would you begin to reapply price tags, if you will, to the 500 odd units of EB? A daunting task if you ask me! :idea2:

Quote:

---

If a team of 5-10 people could rank units according to predetermined classes (ie heavy cav, light infantry, etc.) then perhaps new cost values could stop some of these rules and make the cost effective argument irrelevant. Instead, players can fight with the tactics they want to play with rather than saying, "well I want to win and use Pezhetairoi but I should just buy 2 units of Thracians instead since they are so cost effective."

---

The reality is that the so-called cost-effective argument is always there. It's like a schizophrenic incarnation that won't go away. It's why we consistently see the army compositions we see.

Quote:

---

IMO this is why I play the original RTW multi still with one of my friends but we havn't played EB much. While the vanilla game is gimmecky, thats fine for MP, I don't care that Arcani are historically inaccurate, I just want to hide them and at the right moment spring them on his archers while he wonders where they came from. Also, it is a little more balanced cost wise for the units.

---

Balancing can be systematic or non-systematic. I see the original Rome balancing to be lying closer to the non-systematic. More often would you see a non-correlation of the type mentioned above in RTW than you would in EB. As for gameplay in the MP realm, between the ad hoc and the historicity-oriented styles, I would remove that dichotomy from the realm of competitive online gameplay. That, I believe honestly, is something of a more personal decision, and due to the nature of ad hoc gameplay styles (per the Arcani example you mention), it's quite hard if not impossible to quantify and standardize the style to suit competitive gaming. You bring up very relevant points, I must add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sdragon

Here's a crazy idea. How about a limit on Cretans? That way every single Mediterranean army won't bring 3 in every single battle.

---

Kretan Archers do a great job indeed for the amount of money they cost, and plenty of players may use some, most or all of their mercenary options by using Kretans. One proposition would be, as Sir Robin mentions above, to alter the recruitment cost of the unit(s). Although quite skeptical, I can see more merit in increasing the cost of a unit of Kretan Archers instead of limiting the number of that specific unit one can bring to the field. It reminds me of so-called "superweapons" in some C&C, or more correctly, Westwood RTS games back in the day. They were quite effective, and so you would see the option of disabling them. Is there enough data to show that some units in (our case) EB are so effective (e.g., Kretans) that they should be numerically limited?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

IMO this is why I play the original RTW multi still with one of my friends but we havn't played EB much. While the vanilla game is gimmecky, thats fine for MP, I don't care that Arcani are historically inaccurate, I just want to hide them and at the right moment spring them on his archers while he wonders where they came from. Also, it is a little more balanced cost wise for the units.

---

Is it really more balanced? I haven't played in a while, but I always got the impression that beating the Romans with "barbarian" troops in MP was pretty difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Is it really more balanced? I haven't played in a while, but I always got the impression that beating the Romans with "barbarian" troops in MP was pretty difficult.

---

Of course RTW isn't balanced. It's just as unbalanced as, for instance, Emperor: Battle for Dune. One example of a well-balanced, unmodified game is Starcraft: Broodwar, assuming you have the latest patch.

What if the Thracian peltasts should only be accessible to Getai and Macedon, while all the other hellenic powers must make use of their other units. Pontos should manage to use the galatians, Koinon hellenon the hoplites, Egypt the Kleitarchos, and so forth, for the Hellenic powers did have inferior flanking units in comparison to the western ones.
I also do not think it is fair that the Romans should access to so many merc units after they became an empire, for most other factions are only based upon their home-region while the Italians do get all the whole world as their recruiting pool. Maybe the Polybian era should be the real one for the Romans.

In regard to the Cretans then I think they are supposed to use a short bow, so I don't understand their long range in comparison to the composite bow of the east.

About the rock-paper-scissor thing then I think that historically then:

Western infantry factions beat the Hellenic, Hellenic phalangists beat the Nomads, the mobile Nomads beat the Western infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Western infantry factions beat the Hellenic, Hellenic phalangists beat the Nomads, the mobile Nomads beat the Western infantry.

---

How does this make sense? If this were Age of Empires, then sure, maybe that is how it would work, but in a game actually based on tactics instead of just stats, this doesn't make much sense. Celtic infantry should not defeat phalanxes in a head on fight. They should be able to defeat them when flanking, but head on they would not be able to break through. Phalanxes shouldn't beat Nomadic cavalry if the cavalry keeps its distance and wears them out before striking. The only aspect that is true in this is that "barbarian" infantry really have little chance against Nomadic cavalry unless they can corner them.

A rock, paper, scissors system only works in games like Starcraft where tactics are irrelevant and the only thing that matters are stats. It doesn't make sense to employ such a system in a Total War game because, for example, there is a huge difference between a rear charge and a frontal charge in TW games. Cavalry should be able to charge spears in the rear with great effect, but they should be devestated charging spears from the front. If you have a rock-paper-scissors system where spears always beat cavalry, then you remove any incentive to use smart tactics like flanking and rear charges.

Well the Macedonians had a good success in conquering the Persians and while the Hellenic powers lasted then there did not emerge any parthian power. However when the Romans arrived as a western infantry based faction then they had easy time conquering the Hellenic powers but failed against the parthians (but at later they did get the hang of beating the parthians AFTER they became imperial and had developed better cav and archers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well the Macedonians had a good success in conquering the Persians and while the Hellenic powers lasted then there did not emerge any parthian power. However when the Romans arrived as a western infantry based faction then they had easy time conquering the Hellenic powers but failed against the parthians (but at later they did get the hang of beating the parthians AFTER they became imperial and had developed better cav and archers).

---

Your points are understood. But it doesn't take away from the fact that we're talking about Real Time Tactics. Not Super Mario Bros. Not Starcraft. Not Age of Empires. Not Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Is it really more balanced? I haven't played in a while, but I always got the impression that beating the Romans with "barbarian" troops in MP was pretty difficult.

---

Well, there are still "superior" factions such as the Romans, Seleucids, and Egypt. However, its quite easy to formulate a strategy for say, Gaul which revolves around the wonderful Foresters which involves ranged superiority and forcing a disjointed attack, or as Germania and its incredibly killer Chosen Axemen. Because each faction has unique units that are particularly good at certain things, but also have counters, almost any faction can be used successfully.

Of course using Numidia, Dacia, or Spain requires more skill but again, still possible.

I'm currently working on something that you might find interesting Vartan. Its non scientific and open to incredible amounts of interpretation, and so you might debate whether it is worthwhile to begin with, but it is a listing of the units and costs in a spreadsheet according to class which I can easily reference moreso than say the unit comparison program imo, in hopes to rebalance MP a bit. Its a task, but finals will be over in another week and a half and I should have some spare time coming up before the holidays hit.

I've already redone the MP edu to make various factions a little more unique and limit mercenary recruitment where it makes sense. Mercenaries are wonderful for the campaign, but I believe unneeded in multi. There are enough unit choices as is. If you want Thracian Peltasts than play as Macedon or Getai. If anyone would want to take a look at what I have so far, I'll upload it shortly. Just putting some finishing tweaks on the document.

I agree that this rock-paper-scissor thing does not apply with EB but I was merely pointing out how some factions had more advantage against others.

But I was just wondering whether it would add more flavour to battles if none of the players had an army which were strong all round but there would always be one factor lacking. Like for an example if barbarians lack a good archers, nomads lack a good infantry, and civilized factions lack a good cavalry, so that each player would have to show more flexibility in outmanouvering the opponent instead of just waiting idly in some guard mode and shooting with cretans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Well, there are still "superior" factions such as the Romans, Seleucids, and Egypt.

---

Lies!

Quote:

---

However, its quite easy to formulate a strategy for say, Gaul which revolves around the wonderful Foresters which involves ranged superiority and forcing a disjointed attack, or as Germania and its incredibly killer Chosen Axemen. Because each faction has unique units that are particularly good at certain things, but also have counters, almost any faction can be used successfully.

---

One suggestion I can recall is that when playing in tournaments, you must play against a faction you may have faced in history. Another suggestion was to play on maps regionally accurate for the two factions that will fight. So you might fight in Gaul if the match-up is Gallic/Roman (some field, some woods, some grass). Or both. I can see the argument for having a diverse map-set and choosing that which will be more fair for the factions. But when it comes to restricting match-ups, I wouldn't go as far. The idea is to create new possibilities, to pitch Saka against Carthage, not because it happened (it did not!) but because people are curious creatures and get a kick out of **** like this :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Of course using Numidia, Dacia, or Spain requires more skill but again, still possible.

---

Pshh...maybe in RTW. EB is slower-paced, giving tactics a chance, and reducing the Starcraftiness of the original RTW (what would you call it then, the characteristic of RTW wherein people must click ever so quickly in order to get things done because RTW units have such low morale?)

Quote:

---

I'm currently working on something that you might find interesting Vartan. Its non scientific and open to incredible amounts of interpretation, and so you might debate whether it is worthwhile to begin with, but it is a listing of the units and costs in a spreadsheet according to class which I can easily reference moreso than say the unit comparison program imo, in hopes to rebalance MP a bit. Its a task, but finals will be over in another week and a half and I should have some spare time coming up before the holidays hit.

---

Don't worry, I'll view it with a scientific eye regardless (gotcha!) :laugh4:

The only issue is class. If you simply mean infantry and cavalry, that's one thing. But you can't even separate the types of archers, as some "archers" are actually cavalry, or infantry, and their archery aspect is but a facet of their self. If you mean light vs. heavy, for instance, those are for the Campaign AI; these markers alter recruitment habits, as we've all been told.

Quote:

---

I've already redone the MP edu to make various factions a little more unique and limit mercenary recruitment where it makes sense. Mercenaries are wonderful for the campaign, but I believe unneeded in multi. There are enough unit choices as is. If you want Thracian Peltasts than play as Macedon or Getai. If anyone would want to take a look at what I have so far, I'll upload it shortly. Just putting some finishing tweaks on the document.

---

Some of the factions are broken, as mentioned previously by a fellow player. It's good to have mercs, but limited and local, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

But I was just wondering whether it would add more flavour to battles if none of the players had an army which were strong all round but there would always be one factor lacking. Like for an example if barbarians lack a good archers, nomads lack a good infantry, and civilized factions lack a good cavalry, so that each player would have to show more flexibility in outmanouvering the opponent instead of just waiting idly in some guard mode and shooting with cretans.

---

Competitive online players demand armies, not leftovers of armies. It's tough to convince them otherwise (trust me, the "rules" are part of this convincing process!)

Didn't I claim that it would be subjective Vartan?:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Well, there are still "superior" factions such as the Romans, Seleucids, and Egypt. However, its quite easy to formulate a strategy for say, Gaul which revolves around the wonderful Foresters which involves ranged superiority and forcing a disjointed attack, or as Germania and its incredibly killer Chosen Axemen. Because each faction has unique units that are particularly good at certain things, but also have counters, almost any faction can be used successfully.

---

Fair enough, you'd know better than I would, I haven't played vanilla since 2005 (I think).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well the Macedonians had a good success in conquering the Persians and while the Hellenic powers lasted then there did not emerge any parthian power. However when the Romans arrived as a western infantry based faction then they had easy time conquering the Hellenic powers but failed against the parthians (but at later they did get the hang of beating the parthians AFTER they became imperial and had developed better cav and archers).

---

The Achaemenid Persian Empire was not nomadic, it was settled. They employed some nomadic mercenaries, but they did not generally employ the nomadic strategy of simply running away from the enemy and leaving empty land in front of them. They couldn't employ this tactic because they had cities, unlike the nomads, who just pack up and leave. If Alexander had tried to conquer the steppes to the North of the Black and Caspian seas, I sincerely doubt he would have succeeded, because the nomads simply would have run away. It is certainly possible for an infantry based army to beat a steppe army, but if the steppe army does not want to give pitched battle, there's not much chance of winning.

Well, the Persians did emphasis much more upon a cavalry and archers in comparison to the Macedonians, even that they did not apply horse archers tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well, the Persians did emphasis much more upon a cavalry and archers in comparison to the Macedonians, even that they did not apply horse archers tactics.

---

Which is why the Macedonians adapted.

Hmmmm, I wanted to upload my custom MP edu but apparently the file is too big...

Solutions anyone who might be interested?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Hmmmm, I wanted to upload my custom MP edu but apparently the file is too big...

Solutions anyone who might be interested?

---

Simple: Don't attach files to the Forum! Use remote file hosting; there are many free solutions available on the Internet (there have been for many, many years; I used to host files myself!) FileFront is the only one that comes to mind, but Google is your saviour.

http://www.mediafire.com/?4w1x3xsxng8m4m9

Hopefully that works

Quick guide to factions:
seleucid = SPQR
egypt = Kart Hadast
carthage = Pontos
gauls= Aedui
scythia = Arverni
britons= Casse
romans_brutii= Baktria
romans_scipii= Hai
romans_julii= Arche Seleukia
thrace= Epiros
macedon= Makedonia
greek_cities= KH
germans= Sweboz
spain= Lusotann
numidia= Ptolemies
dacia= Getai
armenia= Sarmatians
pontus= Saka
parthia= Pahlava

I think thats it. Take a look, let me know what you think. Its really quite simple to edit.

Did you include a synoptic readme file with summary of changes? Or are the changes sporadic and/or non-systematized?

No readme though I probably should have included one. The changes are systematic to a degree being based mainly on two principles.

The first relates to factional starting position in 272 bc. I know that the Romans ended up conquering about half of the map, but I don't think that should have such major implications on what units they can recruit compared to say, the Casse which never really expanded out of their starting province. Now there are exceptions to this. Unique factional units are allowed if they are not recruitable near the starting provinces. Take the Romans various cavalry auxilia and levantine archers as examples here. Non-unique factional units like Boii swordsmen or Galatians for the Gauls are on the other hand, not recruitable by the Aedui and Arverni. The Boii and Galatians are nowhere near the sphere of influence of these two factions. In fact, sphere of influence c. 272 is probably the best way to describe how other factions recruitment is handled. Therefore, Epiros has access to Italic units as well as some Gallic units which might be found north of Epirus. The Macedonians have access to Thracian units. The Saba get Ethiopian units as do the Ptolemies. Baktria and Saka get access to Indian units although I would consider leaving the non-unique Indian units off of the Saka roster.

The second point has to do with making each faction somewhat unique. Take for example Galatia. Bordered by Pontos, the AS, and the Ptolemies at game's start. I could give Galatian units to all 3 but doing so eats away at the differences between each. So, the Ptollies keep their unique Galatian heavies, Pontus gets the full Galatian roster, and the AS doesn't get any access which is ok, they have enough options as it is. Other problem "peoples" include various Celts which were heavily recruited by almost all Western factions in the game, Scythians, and Cretans which I am also a little unsure about in terms of who should get access. My decision was to limit Cretans to Mediterranean Greek/Hellenic factions. Scythians are limited to Pontos and Sarmatians though I would be open for Hai and Getai. Celts, well, if everyone can recruit Cuerpos and various Celtic spearmen, slingers, archers, etc, it takes away some of the reason to play as Aedui/Arverni. So they are limited as well.

Ugh this is a long post so hopefully I havn't lost you but the breakdown is as such.
SPQR - access to factional and Italic regionals
Kart Hadast - access to factional, African and most Iberian regionals
Lusotann - access to factional and all Iberian regionals
Aedui - access to factional units from Gaul, Celto-Germanic areas
Arverni - access to factional units from Gaul, Celto-Germanic areas
Casse - access to factional units from Briton, Hibernia and Belgica
Sweboz - access to factional units and Celto-Germanic regionals
Getai - access to factional units and some Celtic and Germanic regionals
Epiros - access to factional units, Italic, Illyrian and Celtic regionals
Makedon - access to factional units and Thracian regionals
KH - access to factional units
Ptolies - access to factional units, Egyptian, limited Anatolian and Ethiopian regionals
Pontos - access to factional units, Scythian and Galatian regionals
Sarmatians - access to factional units
Saka - access to factional units and Indian regionals
Baktria - access to factional units, East Persian and Indian regionals
AS - access to factional units, most Persian, Anatolian, some Caucasian regionals
Pahlav - access to factional units
Hai - access to factional units
Saba - access to factional units (I think this includes various Arab and Ethiopian units)

Play at less money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Play at less money?

---

The problems are the same, just on a scaled down version.

Maybe the western barbarian factions are really only meant to be played in woods against other western barbarian factions.

The Carthagae does already have most of the best units from Lusotana and Celts, while the Getai faction could be adequate faction along with Rome and Carthage.

For in general they lack a decent long range archers against Nomads and lack a cheap armoured infantry with good morale as a line holders against phalangist units.

If there are going to be tournaments in the future then one of them should be centred upon western barbarian faction only, like in RTW vanilla when people use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

If there are going to be tournaments in the future then one of them should be centred upon western barbarian faction only, like in RTW vanilla when people use them.

---

We don't see considerable amounts of players until the summer time, so we plan on having multiple tournaments then. Could you please talk about what you mean when you say "like in RTW vanilla when people use them"? Some of us haven't played RTW for a long time, and I personally don't understand what you mean.

As for the tournaments, if you mean having one tournament in which Western Barbarian nations duke it out, while Hellenic factions fight each other in another tournament, one for the Steppe, one for Eastern, and so on, then that's completely understandable. It would also require people's judgment in choosing appropriate maps for their battles/tournaments. It would even things out. So far, the tournaments have been quite open-ended and all-inclusive. These are not bad inherently, and people may choose to keep playing in such exhibition style matches. But if people feel that specialized groups of tournaments would be much more interesting, then it would be something to seriously consider. After all, one person may play in, for instance, both the Barbarian as well as the Eastern tournaments, if he wishes to play both the Arverni as well as the Pahlava.

Well, in RTW then all the barbarian factions are so poor that they never stand a chance against the major factions, so sometimes people host a battle which says for an example ''2v2 CWB only barbarians''. For that makes it an even match for everyone since all the factions are as equally bad, but othewise they are never used.

But I think it would be best to divide the tournament not even further by having also some pure-hellenic and pure-nomad tournaments, for the Roman and Carthage faction can compete on behalf of all the barbarians against other factions and most of these Hellenic and Nomad factions are good all-round in their unit selection.

But the players can decide such things next summer...

Viking makes a very good point. In vanilla there are "tiers"

Tier 1 is the major factions; Egypt Scythia Parthia Rome Sele Pontus and Carthage Armenia. SOme of these get relegated to tier 3

Tier 2 is average factions; Dacia,Thrace, Germania(considered to be the nemesis of rome in every way possible.

TIer 3 is the uselss factions; Gaul and SPain.

Maybe we could do it on a regional basis like

Western Europe: Celts,Germany,Luso

Mediteranean: Carth,ROme,Greece,Mace

Eastern

Would probably need refining

I play almost exclusively as the Arverni and I don't see any need for this: I am not a tactical genius by any means, yet still I'm doing fine against the Hellenes. Barring the nomads, I can't really say I've had a problem with the easterners either, so... :shrug:

Sorry, but how exactly can a faction like arverni stand up to a faction that can skirmish like Seleucids, Carthage many of the hellenes with their superior archers and skirmishers ?

Through mobility, aggressiveness and fear tactics.

In what way can the seleucids not simply refuse to engage you until half youre force is dead through arrow fire? They have superior cav and archers. The only thing the celts are good at vs them is their infantry.