[EB] EDU Balance Proposals

i'm not sure if it was intended (or even if i'm posting in the right thread since it seems there's no thread for the 2.1.1 EDU) but i noticed that the Ambakaro have not received a boost to their javelin attack, unlike their mounted counterpart. the Jugunthiz also seem to be forgotten, as was the Taxilan Agema.

and while we're at it, is there some specific reason why some Celtic units received no charge bonus (i mean, if it hard to believe that lowly units like batacorii or batroas have more charge than pictones and eiras)?

Ambakaro are not skirmishers, they are elite troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Ambakaro are not skirmishers, they are elite troops.

---

the same could be said of the Pheraspidai.. i mean "Peltastai" Makedonikoi. they're elite the assault troops of the Hypaspistai, not skirmishers (dunno why they changed their name). and a similar case could be made for the Komatai Epilektoi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raest

and a similar case could be made for the Komatai Epilektoi

---

Elite skirmishers are not skirmishers? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Elite skirmishers are not skirmishers? :inquisitive:

---

as you may have noticed, the english translations (or even the actual unit names) may deviate from the actual purpose of the unit. if you bothered to read the actual description of the unit at hand, you may have noticed that nowhere does it state that they were actual skirmishers like their lesser brethren, but actually light line infantry. plus, as the sentenced you have quoted explicitly states, i said "similar case" (not the same) and "could" as in "if one wished, one could (like i just did)" nothing else. just sayin'

EDIT: although, to be fair, there are instances of the unit description being quite a bit different than than the actual model ingame (like the thracian prodromoi mentioning shields when there are none on the model, or the lucanians mentioning knives when in fact they're equipped with spears)

Your point is...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raest

as you may have noticed, the english translations (or even the actual unit names) may deviate from the actual purpose of the unit. if you bothered to read the actual description of the unit at hand, you may have noticed that nowhere does it state that they were actual skirmishers like their lesser brethren, but actually light line infantry. plus, as the sentenced you have quoted explicitly states, i said "similar case" (not the same) and "could" as in "if one wished, one could (like i just did)" nothing else. just sayin'

EDIT: although, to be fair, there are instances of the unit description being quite a bit different than than the actual model ingame (like the thracian prodromoi mentioning shields when there are none on the model, or the lucanians mentioning knives when in fact they're equipped with spears)

---

Well, unit descriptions really mean nothing for GG2's stating; in fact, some changes go directly to contradict unit descriptions. This isn't something I defend - it's just how it is. :shrug:

In any case, I've read their description and I don't see anything contradicting their use as better skirmishers. In fact, considering that this is Getai, their description specifies hit-and-run tactics and that they can stand in the battle line, I would see it as perfectly fair to interpret them as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LazyO

Your point is...?

---

His point is surely that if the skirmisher bonus is applied to one non-skirmisher unit, by what criteria do you deny it to others?

I do not think that was intended. Non Skirmishers are not supposed to get the bonus, that is, javeling units without the Skirmish mode option

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Well, unit descriptions really mean nothing for GG2's stating; in fact, some changes go directly to contradict unit descriptions. This isn't something I defend - it's just how it is. :shrug:

In any case, I've read their description and I don't see anything contradicting their use as better skirmishers. In fact, considering that this is Getai, their description specifies hit-and-run tactics and that they can stand in the battle line, I would see it as perfectly fair to interpret them as such.

---

it says that Getai had a penchant for hit-and-run (as kind of a "historical excuse" for lightly armoured elite line/ambusher/flanker units). by that same logic, the Ambakaro should also get the skirmisher bonus since the Lusos are prone to hit-and-run and ambushing tactics, or at least the Caetrannan (since it even mentions they were ideal skirmishers due to their light equipment and usual tactics. and no, they don't get the +2 skirm bonus. hell, they didn't even get the +1 like the balearics). anyway, i can "let slide" the Ambakaro (and totally disagree with the Makedonikoi and Epilektoi), but i really don't understand the omission of the javelin bonus to the other 2 (and digging a bit more i saw that the Balearic Light got only +1 and not +2 and they are a light infantry/skirmisher unit), or the barbarian charge bonus deliberately applied to some units and not to others with no apparent reason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

His point is surely that if the skirmisher bonus is applied to one non-skirmisher unit, by what criteria do you deny it to others?

---

something like that, yeah. or maybe even, "how do you differentiate light/assault infantry with 6 ammo from "real" skirmishers"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

I do not think that was intended. Non Skirmishers are not supposed to get the bonus, that is, javeling units without the Skirmish mode option

---

neither the epilektoi nor the makedonikoi have the Skirmish mode option

I am suggesting to increase Cohort Pilla atack by +1, its stupid that most famous roman javelin have atack 4.... I think that this suggestion is fair because Carthage Iberians have pilla atack 5 :inquisitive:

Raest you make a point which I agree with. And TCV gg2 has actually come to me more than once with why a certain unit's stats should be altered because of such and such a line in their descriptions. I think he did this recently with some Lusitanian units, that were in some sort of cult of devotion and that they would fight to the death. And so he gave them a morale rating that I completely disagree with, but it's from the description. Now the description doesn't read, "Notice to all modders: You may want to increase the morale of this unit to 25 sometime in the near future." Rather, it's his interpretation of the historical description.

Regarding some units gaining a jav bonus and some not. Here's how it works. If the unit has a skirmishing ability and it's clearly noted as a skirmisher, it got the bonus. Some units I initially forgot and Kival spotted them and fixed those for me. But a unit which has only a couple of javelins that is intended to be a front line warrior that may be used as a skirmisher does not make it a 24/7 skirmisher, so to speak. As for the Germanic skirmishers (Jugunthiz), you're completely right. It's one of those that neither I nor Kival spotted. I'm sorry about that. If it is any consolation (though no real excuse), these bonuses will really be of no consequence within a month's worth of time if we're able to release a new EDU balancing system. That would not necessarily be using all of these arbitrary bonuses we're currently using. Does that help explain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vega

I am suggesting to increase Cohort Pilla atack by +1, its stupid that most famous roman javelin have atack 4.... I think that this suggestion is fair because Carthage Iberians have pilla atack 5 :inquisitive:

---

AP weaponry is meant to have a lower attack (roughly accuracy of striking) rating than its non-AP counterparts for obvious reasons. At the end of the day, the minor difference in attack rating is negligible because the effectively higher lethality (due to AP) more than makes up for it, by far, as seen in many cases with AP usage. Same applies to the pila, except only a couple are thrown and that's that, so you don't see prolonged use of them and the outcome of their effects as you would with melee AP weaponry for extended periods of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Raest you make a point which I agree with. And TCV gg2 has actually come to me more than once with why a certain unit's stats should be altered because of such and such a line in their descriptions. I think he did this recently with some Lusitanian units, that were in some sort of cult of devotion and that they would fight to the death. And so he gave them a morale rating that I completely disagree with, but it's from the description. Now the description doesn't read, "Notice to all modders: You may want to increase the morale of this unit to 25 sometime in the near future." Rather, it's his interpretation of the historical description.

Regarding some units gaining a jav bonus and some not. Here's how it works. If the unit has a skirmishing ability and it's clearly noted as a skirmisher, it got the bonus. Some units I initially forgot and Kival spotted them and fixed those for me. But a unit which has only a couple of javelins that is intended to be a front line warrior that may be used as a skirmisher does not make it a 24/7 skirmisher, so to speak. As for the Germanic skirmishers (Jugunthiz), you're completely right. It's one of those that neither I nor Kival spotted. I'm sorry about that. If it is any consolation (though no real excuse), these bonuses will really be of no consequence within a month's worth of time if we're able to release a new EDU balancing system. That would not necessarily be using all of these arbitrary bonuses we're currently using. Does that help explain?

---

thanks for the explanation. i totally get the "his interpretation of historical description" and that's exactly why i was asking, to see if it's just a matter of disagreement over the interpretation or if it was a mistake that slipped past QC ;)

RE: skirmishing ability
iirc, if a unit has the "prec" attribute it doesn't have skirmishing, correct? well, Makedonikoi Peltastai and Komatai Epilektoi do have said attribute/cannot skirmish but they still got the bonus, that's why i asked why other units that cannot skirmish but have lots of ammo (i.e. 6; some might say a "skirmishing amount of ammo" ;)) did not receive the javelin +2 bonus (among them are the Ambakaro (which seemed weird to me since its mounted counterpart got the bonus), Caetranann, Gestikapoinann, Balearic Light Inf (they received only one) and the Taxilan Agema) and was curious behind the rationale for the "barbarian charge bonus" of some celtic units (or more appropriately, the lack of it :)), chief among them the Eiras and Pictone Neitos (since the former are quite elite and relatively similar to the Calawre which got a substantial bonus of +4, while the latter are noted in the description to have had a powerful charge)

it was mostly out of curiosity since i'm using a custom EDU for singleplayer that's for the great part based on this one (for now i do not play MP online but i though others that do might want to know about such minor details, so that they can be more easily addressed for a future version:creep:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raest

thanks for the explanation. i totally get the "his interpretation of historical description" and that's exactly why i was asking, to see if it's just a matter of disagreement over the interpretation or if it was a mistake that slipped past QC ;)

RE: skirmishing ability
iirc, if a unit has the "prec" attribute it doesn't have skirmishing, correct? well, Makedonikoi Peltastai and Komatai Epilektoi do have said attribute/cannot skirmish but they still got the bonus, that's why i asked why other units that cannot skirmish but have lots of ammo (i.e. 6; some might say a "skirmishing amount of ammo" ;)) did not receive the javelin +2 bonus (among them are the Ambakaro (which seemed weird to me since its mounted counterpart got the bonus), Caetranann, Gestikapoinann, Balearic Light Inf (they received only one) and the Taxilan Agema) and was curious behind the rationale for the "barbarian charge bonus" of some celtic units (or more appropriately, the lack of it :)), chief among them the Eiras and Pictone Neitos (since the former are quite elite and relatively similar to the Calawre which got a substantial bonus of +4, while the latter are noted in the description to have had a powerful charge)

it was mostly out of curiosity since i'm using a custom EDU for singleplayer that's for the great part based on this one (for now i do not play MP online but i though others that do might want to know about such minor details, so that they can be more easily addressed for a future version:creep:)

---

1. you can use the Komatai Epilektoi to shower the enemy with javelins in a skirmish-like manner . try doing that with Ambarako. They will be focused down ASAP due to lack of shield. this unit is not made for skirmishing , but for full-on combat against highly armoured elites or heavy spearmen
1.a Balearic light infantry have the largest jav range in the whole game. I do not think that they should surpass numidian skirms in attack for example

2.on the barbarian charge bonus , i agree for the Eiras and the pictone neitos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

1. you can use the Komatai Epilektoi to shower the enemy with javelins in a skirmish-like manner . try doing that with Ambarako. They will be focused down ASAP due to lack of shield. this unit is not made for skirmishing , but for full-on combat against highly armoured elites or heavy spearmen
1.a Balearic light infantry have the largest jav range in the whole game. I do not think that they should surpass numidian skirms in attack for example

---

1. i'm not sure i follow... the Ambakaro do have a shield (only -1 compared to the Epilektoi) and a significantly higher armour than the Epilektoi (overall only slightly inferior to the Makedonikoi, but significantly higher morale)

1.a) also the Hyrkanian Hillmen, Tabargane Eranshar, Ambakaro, Iabarannta all have the same range (and the Iabarannta have a better attack by 1), while it's explicitly stated that the Balearics were elite skirmishers and outstanding mercenaries so i don't see why they shouldn't have the same attack value (derived from that +2 bonus) as the Iberian Ambushers and Numidian javelinmen

The change of the elite skirms of the getai would be my mistake by the way. I proposed and made the change while checking the cav skirm changes. I thought that they are very strictly speaking a skirmisher unit just lacking the skirm ability and be similar to the peltastai makedoni in this regard.
That would be true for some Iberian units too though they have mostly ap- javs, a change here would be problematic. For every unit which actually has the skirm ability but did not receive the bonus it's just an application mistake not a disagreement. I did only check the cav skirms because I did not know of any missing foot skirm unit.

I think it's good to discuss some details here but as far as I know the new version will be a complete overhaul from the basic EDU by the way.

Input from the fans is the second most important thing I take into consideration. Here is the order of priorities:

1. Historical accuracy
2. Fan Input
3. Game balance
4. GG2 and Vartan's opinion/debate

Hey, random questions, can we create a new thread for the new balancing system? This thread is about balance proposals and somewhat limiting. I'd like to see and talk about the system.

@raest; You look like a sensible person, why not drop by our networks? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

@raest; You look like a sensible person, why not drop by our networks? :D

---

hehe, i most surely will sooner or later. i just have to finish my master's thesis first (and practice in SP some more) :)

Practising in SP will do you no good, only harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Hey, random questions, can we create a new thread for the new balancing system? This thread is about balance proposals and somewhat limiting. I'd like to see and talk about the system.

---

I think we can just loosely interpret the title of this thread, if that helps. I'm sure the OP won't mind.

Does the OP ever mind anything?

I've already made this "proposal" in hamachi but I'll rephrase it here too: Infantry bodyguard should be increased to perhaps 60 men. A unit of 40 men is not of much use in melee and a small cav unit has much more possibilities (charge, running around to give command etc.) than a small infantry unit. In fact all infangry bodyguards were used in melee and are not meant to stay behind. To give them 60 men would be less of a sacrifice for the infantry line which makes sense for the infantry heavy factions. They still would be not so flexible as a cavalry bodyguard but in exchange they would be less of a sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Hey, random questions, can we create a new thread for the new balancing system? This thread is about balance proposals and somewhat limiting. I'd like to see and talk about the system.

---

I would love it if you did so. Post your questions and suggestions there, for 3.0...

I think you should do it if you want to have the system/suggests in the OP.

I actually have a suggestion that will likely incite some argument. We all know that there has been a lot of complaining about Rome, both by Roman players and the opponents of said faction. The other day when Vega was raging about something, I made up some army comps to try to help him out. Most things were more or less fine, but I did notice one thing.

There is absolutely no reason for a player to select Marian Roman armies. Why? Well the main infantry contingent will be statistically identical to Imperials but they have no access to factional missile units like Imperials do. In fact, the only unit they have which Imperials do not is the Cohorts Evocata which are basically a redundant unit anyway with little use. Since both Marian and Imperial armies lack decent factional heavy cav (ridiculously crappy and overpriced Praetorians not counting), it is difficult for Marians to field a balanced army with the 5 merc limit. In fact, this sort of explains why many Roman players spam cohorts, simply because if they are taking Post-Marian or Imperial armies, they are somewhat forced to. The factional list for Rome is very small in these time periods.

Therefore, my proposal is that Marian Roman armies be given an additional 3 merc limit, up to 8. Historically, Rome relied a lot on auxiliaries which are personified in Imperial armies through the two spear units. However, Marian armies have no such unit while also lacking factional missiles, but still have the same merc limit as Imperials making them much less flexible. I feel as if this would add a bit of diversity to Roman armies and make people more willing to field Marian armies which I have never seen in tournament iirc. Also, the Samnite spearmen should be factional for Polybian Romans as they are for Camillan (this is the way campaign represents it), while the Samnite heavy infantry should be made available in the roster once again.

I move to give Saba Right of prima nocta, sorry just came back from brave heart, i mean Right of 2 chevron use.

No.

They only get a Historical I Win Button after Mohammad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I actually have a suggestion that will likely incite some argument. We all know that there has been a lot of complaining about Rome, both by Roman players and the opponents of said faction. The other day when Vega was raging about something, I made up some army comps to try to help him out. Most things were more or less fine, but I did notice one thing.

There is absolutely no reason for a player to select Marian Roman armies. Why? Well the main infantry contingent will be statistically identical to Imperials but they have no access to factional missile units like Imperials do. In fact, the only unit they have which Imperials do not is the Cohorts Evocata which are basically a redundant unit anyway with little use. Since both Marian and Imperial armies lack decent factional heavy cav (ridiculously crappy and overpriced Praetorians not counting), it is difficult for Marians to field a balanced army with the 5 merc limit. In fact, this sort of explains why many Roman players spam cohorts, simply because if they are taking Post-Marian or Imperial armies, they are somewhat forced to. The factional list for Rome is very small in these time periods.

Therefore, my proposal is that Marian Roman armies be given an additional 3 merc limit, up to 8. Historically, Rome relied a lot on auxiliaries which are personified in Imperial armies through the two spear units. However, Marian armies have no such unit while also lacking factional missiles, but still have the same merc limit as Imperials making them much less flexible. I feel as if this would add a bit of diversity to Roman armies and make people more willing to field Marian armies which I have never seen in tournament iirc. Also, the Samnite spearmen should be factional for Polybian Romans as they are for Camillan (this is the way campaign represents it), while the Samnite heavy infantry should be made available in the roster once again.

---

I was talking about this with gamegeek2 the other day. Or rather, messaged him about it. One thing you forget is that the Polybian SPQR also needs more mercs. They lack good fire support. So gg2 and I thought of 6 for Polyb/Marian. Now I'm thinking that one extra merc won't cut it.

We could bump factions up to 10 for Rome since they relied extensively on allies and mercenaries. Carthage and Rome should both have high merc/ally counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

No.

They only get a Historical I Win Button after Mohammad.

---

Or when they are EBNOM Nabatu :D (with elite armored cavalry and axe armed agema :D )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

We could bump factions up to 10 for Rome since they relied extensively on allies and mercenaries. Carthage and Rome should both have high merc/ally counts.

---

Munky every word you said is in place :D i think that its true and that increasing mercenary slots for SPQR is good solution, and of course what ACS said fixing Hastati in polybian era as well

Hi all, first congrats for the new Battle System, the EDU really needed some updates and fixes.
My question/proposal: IMHO, it makes little sense that many longsword armed units have an extremely tight formation when all shortswords have an open one... Shouldn't be the opposite?? Why should anyone (I mean people with some cash like Boii warriors or Principes, for example) use a shortsword if not for fighting in closer spaces?? And how can soldurii or milnat use effectively their slashing weapons ammassed like they are?? Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aper

Hi all, first congrats for the new Battle System, the EDU really needed some updates and fixes.
My question/proposal: IMHO, it makes little sense that many longsword armed units have an extremely tight formation when all shortswords have an open one... Shouldn't be the opposite?? Why should anyone (I mean people with some cash like Boii warriors or Principes, for example) use a shortsword if not for fighting in closer spaces?? And how can soldurii or milnat use effectively their slashing weapons ammassed like they are?? Thanks

---

Half the answer is the discipline and training the upper tier units get. What i mean is the more disciplined the unit is , the more trained to fight in enclosed space he is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

Half the answer is the discipline and training the upper tier units get. What i mean is the more disciplined the unit is , the more trained to fight in enclosed space he is

---

Sorry man, but the EB system don't work this way: check the hoplites for example, they get more or less the same values, levy or elite, despite the training. And BTW, why should you pick a weapon excellent in slashing to fight in close order, not using it at full effect? pick a gladius hispaniensins instead, like iberian celts did: still an excellent sword, but more adapt to the job.

EDIT: I think, to be more clear, that a width value less than 1 should be reserved for spears and shortsword only.

About shortswords, I felt bagaudas and their kin utterly useless, so I made them skirmishers, raising attack, ammo and range of the javs and removing the "prec" attribute: a sort of ambusher unit, quite effective if used in the right way... what do you think about that?

Unless you come on Hamachi, play some games, prove your point, your post makes no sense.

In general I agree with robin's idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

There is absolutely no reason for a player to select Marian Roman armies. Why? Well the main infantry contingent will be statistically identical to Imperials but they have no access to factional missile units like Imperials do. In fact, the only unit they have which Imperials do not is the Cohorts Evocata which are basically a redundant unit anyway with little use. Since both Marian and Imperial armies lack decent factional heavy cav (ridiculously crappy and overpriced Praetorians not counting), it is difficult for Marians to field a balanced army with the 5 merc limit. In fact, this sort of explains why many Roman players spam cohorts, simply because if they are taking Post-Marian or Imperial armies, they are somewhat forced to. The factional list for Rome is very small in these time periods.

---

The auxilary cavalry is quite good light cavalry and the preatorian cavalry is not crappy, it's only very expensive.

Quote:

---

Therefore, my proposal is that Marian Roman armies be given an additional 3 merc limit, up to 8. Historically, Rome relied a lot on auxiliaries which are personified in Imperial armies through the two spear units. However, Marian armies have no such unit while also lacking factional missiles, but still have the same merc limit as Imperials making them much less flexible. I feel as if this would add a bit of diversity to Roman armies and make people more willing to field Marian armies which I have never seen in tournament iirc. Also, the Samnite spearmen should be factional for Polybian Romans as they are for Camillan (this is the way campaign represents it)

---

I agree to increase the merc limit for marian armies but I'm not sure with the samnites for the Polybian Romans. After the Hannibal incident the Romans no longer believed in their italian allies and did not use them as allies to the same extent as before. It would make sense to get rid of all italian units in the Polybian Factional units roster and increase their merc limit, too. If you only add the merc units of the camillian era there is no reason to use camillian at all.

Quote:

---

while the Samnite heavy infantry should be made available in the roster once again.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Or rather, messaged him about it. One thing you forget is that the Polybian SPQR also needs more mercs. They lack good fire support. So gg2 and I thought of 6 for Polyb/Marian. Now I'm thinking that one extra merc won't cut it.

---

I cant's see the reasoning here, other factions lack "good fire support" too and we would not give them more merc becaue of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

We could bump factions up to 10 for Rome since they relied extensively on allies and mercenaries. Carthage and Rome should both have high merc/ally counts.

---

I cannot agree for Camillian and Polybian era. At least for Camillian most of the allies are already part of the factional unit list. If we bump up the the mercenary limit up to 10, we need to get rid of the italian units in the factional units list.

Italians could potentially be made 'mercs' if you think about it. Right?

And Aper, Romans used shortswords and they gave themselves more room to fight than is represented in the game. I think the EB team ended up balancing many factors, including the one of spacing, in order to make units perform how they wished. That being said, I don't know if other shortsword folk fought in such large per capita square footage as the Romans, but it shouldn't be much more or less than folk with other swords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Unless you come on Hamachi, play some games, prove your point, your post makes no sense.

---

What's to prove? That the winner is right? your post make no sense.
I was proposing a new way to balance swords, making shortswordmen like Dunaminaca or Legionarii for example specialized in close order, tight fighting, while giving some longswordmen like milhnat or Arjos a little more relaxed formation, because their longswords makes them very efficient killers but should reguire a little more space between men in the battleline; most longswordmen like neitos are fine, it's the odd "longsword-wall" of massilian, hypaspistai, milhnat, soldurii, arjos and rycalawre that bothers me, because I think it's not very realistic. Isn't this a valid motivation for a proposal? :inquisitive:

I have modified my EDU, partially inspired by the great "Guard mode guide" from SFraser, simply reducing a bit the spacing of shortswordmen line holders (not touched light infantry) and giving them a little soldier radius reduction (that hidden value after mass) to make them fight more cohesively; OTOH I augmented the vanilla 0.85 formation width value of some longswordmen to 1: nothing spectacular, but should make the difference for a smart player...I'm currently testing the whole thing in custom battles.

Sorry if I bothered you, I thought this stuff could be food for thought... :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

And Aper, Romans used shortswords and they gave themselves more room to fight than is represented in the game. I think the EB team ended up balancing many factors, including the one of spacing, in order to make units perform how they wished. That being said, I don't know if other shortsword folk fought in such large per capita square footage as the Romans, but it shouldn't be much more or less than folk with other swords.

---

I didn't see your post :)
Well, AFAIK the issue of Legionarii spacing has never been really resolved, because the discussion is based the interpretation of a little ambiguous written source... but their equipment suggest a pendant for a very close combat in quite tight formations, because to take advantage of a gladius over a longer weapon you need to be very close to the enemy, and if you do that without comrades guarding your flanks, you are dead. I remember too of gladiatori instructors teaching the troops how to fight better in some dire situations... well, most gladiators used extremely short weapons in extremely close combat, so...
However, the point is not about the actual spacing of soldiers, that's quite irrelevant if taken out of its contest, but about how to achieve that elusive goal that is formation fighting fort shortswordmen line-holders, I mean that kind of organized combat that is stronger than the simple sum of the individual strenghts.

You did not bother me, if I might rephrase, come online so we can test stuff what you say. And all the units you mentioned work better when not in guard mode, and beside Milnaht, use their spears and not their swords. Thing is, if you bugger up formations of these units just on the basis of crappy guard mode you just get the regular longsword assault troop, they loose their uniqueness as ultra heavy line holders.

Quote:

---

because to take advantage of a gladius over a longer weapon you need to be very close to the enemy, and if you do that without comrades guarding your flanks, you are dead

---

Legionaries carry an enormous shield for this precise purpose (and to stop arrows, etc. of course)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aper

it's the odd "longsword-wall" of massilian, hypaspistai, milhnat, soldurii, arjos and rycalawre that bothers me, because I think it's not very realistic. Isn't this a valid motivation for a proposal? :inquisitive:

---

you have to remember that most of the units you mentioned (actually, all except for the milnaht) should use the spear as their primary, but they can't because of engine limitations (iirc, that particular spear animation (overhand?) cannot have a secondary weapon, so they switched them up). btw, to the power(s) that be: is there any way to switch the animation/skeleton/whatever for the aforementioned units (and others with the same problem like the various agemas etc..) with the one used by the Tikpanah so that they have spear as their primary and they can finally take a charge head on like they're supposed to? (i'd even take a "yes it's possible, here's a link, but we won't implement this in EBO" type of answer ;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

You did not bother me, if I might rephrase, come online so we can test stuff what you say. And all the units you mentioned work better when not in guard mode, and beside Milnaht, use their spears and not their swords. Thing is, if you bugger up formations of these units just on the basis of crappy guard mode you just get the regular longsword assault troop, they loose their uniqueness as ultra heavy line holders.

---

It's not something we can test until we decide to change the EDU: thing is, I wanted to know if my reasoning and modifications seemed reasonable to you, before doing that.

About weapons, the problem is that I think units with 2 melee weapons don't work very well, they are known to be buggy: I wrote in another thread "longsword/spear works wonder... to frustrate you: making a unit that receive charges with swords and fights in melee with spears accomplish what? That the unit get slaughtered by cavalry charges and switches to low lethality spears when it's time to do the real kill" so removing the spears and make them pure swordsmen maybe it's not that bad, their high attack and high lethality longsword should perform well vs. cavalry too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Legionaries carry an enormous shield for this precise purpose (and to stop arrows, etc. of course)

---

your shield will protect you from the enemy in front of you, not from his comrades on the flanks: you need to be well covered by your friends to attack with a short weapon a line of enemies and not be hit by flank attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raest

you have to remember that most of the units you mentioned (actually, all except for the milnaht) should use the spear as their primary, but they can't because of engine limitations (iirc, that particular spear animation (overhand?) cannot have a secondary weapon, so they switched them up). btw, to the power(s) that be: is there any way to switch the animation/skeleton/whatever for the aforementioned units (and others with the same problem like the various agemas etc..) with the one used by the Tikpanah so that they have spear as their primary and they can finally take a charge head on like they're supposed to? (i'd even take a "yes it's possible, here's a link, but we won't implement this in EBO" type of answer ;))

---

not through the EDU, and it will be probably a real PITA even with the right tools...

Just how far away from each other do you think the legionaries are from each other as is? Here's a picture:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img148.imageshack.us/img148/...1023201087.jpg

This is not too loose an order to not be able to protect yourself well, not the least with those shields.

Thanks for the visual TCV. That's why they need to be spaced apart further. This may solve some of the problems with the guard feature of RTW being improper at times (units not tiring quickly enough, having strange bonuses to their defense).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Just how far away from each other do you think the legionaries are from each other as is? Here's a picture:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img148.imageshack.us/img148/...1023201087.jpg

This is not too loose an order to not be able to protect yourself well, not the least with those shields.

---

Sorry but you are missing the point. I never stated anything like that: I was writing about the relative formation values of different armed line-holders, that make apparently not much sense, to me at least. Visually, no in-game heavy infantry seems much different in spacing from the others. But we know the slightly tighter formation of some units like hoplitai, that you can see only in stats, makes some difference on the outcomes; the same can be said about soldier radius tweaks: it's a fine balance, not something immediately evident, and more interesting because of that.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Thanks for the visual TCV. That's why they need to be spaced apart further. This may solve some of the problems with the guard feature of RTW being improper at times (units not tiring quickly enough, having strange bonuses to their defense).

---

I don't exactly know what you mean with "improper", but high mass, highly trained units should behave exactly like that in guard mode IMHO: they tire slowly because the enemy cannot push them and forcing them to move, so the only soldiers consuming stamina are the ones in the first row that are actually fighting; they do not die because they present a very ordered and solid first line, never giving the enemy a chance to land a side attack.

However I'll run some tests with shortsword units to collect some evidence that the stuff I'm saying works with shortswords too, not only for hoplitai.

Guard mode isn't that bad anymore now that units don't usually get very close to exhausted until the game is already won. You might want to edit front/back ranks to be closer because otherwise the whole unit may tire with only a few units fighting. If you make units closer front/back but loser side-to-side then they are less prone to do silly things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Guard mode isn't that bad anymore now that units don't usually get very close to exhausted until the game is already won. You might want to edit front/back ranks to be closer because otherwise the whole unit may tire with only a few units fighting. If you make units closer front/back but loser side-to-side then they are less prone to do silly things.

---

Units get tired just as quickly if not faster. What game are you talking about? As a general statement, I agree with your spacing idea, if in fact it ties in to how fatigue works in this silly game of ours.

GG2 gave almost every line unit 'good stamina' instead of just barbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

GG2 gave almost every line unit 'good stamina' instead of just barbs.

---

Why do you keep insisting this? Thorakitai and Neitos are two and I can't think of any others that received a bonus. Please give specific examples.

gamegeek2 almost always tells me all the changes he's doing, so I would have known if the majority of units got boosts in stamina. By the way, that's actually impossible since the majority of units in original EB were already hardy. What happened was this was changed. Now we have vanilla Rome stamina units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Why do you keep insisting this? Thorakitai and Neitos are two and I can't think of any others that received a bonus. Please give specific examples.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

gamegeek2 almost always tells me all the changes he's doing, so I would have known if the majority of units got boosts in stamina.

---

Germanic units:
"-All unarmored infantry given "very_hardy" attribute"

Celtic units:
"-Caledonian nobles made very_hardy"
"-Many light units given very_hardy"
"-Carnute Cingetos (...) given very_hardy"
"-Neitos and Arjos given "hardy""
"-Goidilic cavalry given very_hardy"
"-Eiras given very_hardy"

Dacian units
"-Ktistai given (...) very_hardy"
"-Getikoi Stratiotai (...) given very_hardy"

Eastern unit changes
"-Many light units given "very_hardy""

Greek unit changes
"-Hippeis Thessalikoi given very_hardy"
"-Iphikratous Hoplitai given very_hardy"
"-Pheraspidai given very_hardy"
"... Cretan archers (...) given very_hardy"

Hellenistic unit changes
"-Iudaioi Taxeis made very_hardy"
"-Tarantinoi given (...) very_hardy"
"-Agema Hippeon Hellenikon given very_hardy"
"-Aspidophoroi (...) given very_hardy"


... really, I can go on, but I prefer not to. These are all quotes from GG2's documentation. Granted it's not from the latest version, but he hasn't undone this AFAIK.

He upped the stamina on vanilla Thuerophoroi (previously only the merc ones had it) and basically all the veteran units have some form of stamina IIRC. Atleast it feels that way. It used to be almost no higher-level infantry had stamina so things like Neitos and other units will beat Hoplites in guard mode now where they wouldn't before (hoplites ftw). Some combo of that and increased kill rates on some weapons really make guard-mode not that important anymore.

Your veteran and elite units can actually function like assault infantry without going tired immediately which is really nice :)

Ah I see. Granted most of the units receiving stamina boosts are cavalry, elites and light units, though the point is taken. Theurophoroi always had good stamina though, both factional and mercenary variants. In my Aedui campaign, I'm invading Egypt with armies of Theuros and Samnites I shipped over from Italy. Gotta restore balance in the East. :p

If you asked me, the following would happen:

Among infantry, there would be no units without hardy. Most units would be hardy. A select few would be very hardy.
Among cavalry, there would be no units with very hardy. Most would be without hardy. A select few would be hardy.

Why? I find it better this way. Reduce the emphasis on cavalry, and don't make it so that the average unit is exhausted before you can spell your grandmother's name.

Yea reduce the importance of cavalry, make the game even more slow, infantry spams for the win.

Booooooo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Yea reduce the importance of cavalry, make the game even more slow, infantry spams for the win.

Booooooo

---

You forgot some factions don't use Cav , such as Gauls /Sweboz/Getai . We use Anti-cav :))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Yea reduce the importance of cavalry, make the game even more slow, infantry spams for the win.

Booooooo

---

You play too much vanilla. See below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

You forgot some factions don't use Cav , such as Gauls /Sweboz/Getai . We use Anti-cav :))

---

Don't mind Lazy O, he can be slow sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

You forgot some factions don't use Cav , such as Gauls /Sweboz/Getai . We use Anti-cav :))

---

I think Getai should use cavalry to reach their full potential. Thracian Mediums for example are gamechangers.

You are the ones who are slow. Turtles... Bahhh

The anti-cav is only due to barbs zerging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

The anti-cav is only due to barbs zerging.

---

What should barbs do? Take their missiles to the body and like it? :P
I don't think Sotoroas have much of a chance against Bosphorans, Cretans, or even Persian or steppe archers. Charging is the only way, and honestly, much more exhilarating than lazily trading missile fire until both sides run out of ammo.

Hi, I have made few (because my brother chase away me from the PC were I have installed EB) tests 1 camillan hastati vs. 1 golberi curoas in custom battles.

I gave to the hastati a slight boost to mass (1.15 -> 1.2), a consistent reduction of soldier radius (0.4 -> 0.3) and formation width (1 -> 0.85), and better training (trained -> highly_trained): I improved them more then I feel right to better see the effects of the changes.
Also, I removed AP from the javs and doubled their attack (4 -> 8), because, AFAIK, pila were designed to pierce shields, not armors, and the only way to simulate this is to give them an high attack value.

I fought with my men on 3 ranks instead of normal 4 to avoid being flanked and truly test the frontal resilience on my formation, with guard mode and fire at will on; I did not attack, nor manoeuvre, apart from adjusting my front to be always parallel to the enemy line.

First results show that modified hastati are significally stronger than vanilla ones, because the celts find much more difficult to isolate single legionari: I noticed my first line remains solid and well ordered for the whole duration of the battle, something did not happened before.

However, I have to verify the impact of improved javs on the overall effectivness of my unit, and run much more tests to see a clearer pattern in the evolution of the battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I think Getai should use cavalry to reach their full potential. Thracian Mediums for example are gamechangers.

---

Yeah , that is my best bet for charging cavalry , best can opener i really have tbh . But they won't win me any cavalry fights so it's not worth the effort. I can better invest in some skirmishing cav which are golden for their price.

As for the Getai's full potential , H Cav is only good if the enemy is pinned down , which i cannot do with the Getai (can't complain rly , i actually enjoy these kinds of mindgames which you are forced to do with the Getai) .

Getai actually have pretty good pinners but I'll leave that up to you to play around with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

Yeah , that is my best bet for charging cavalry , best can opener i really have tbh . But they won't win me any cavalry fights so it's not worth the effort.

---

They are actually suprisingly good in melee vs other cavalry. I also agree with Robin, Getai allows for pinning tactics, they are just better for other ones.

@Aper; In battle situation that Hastati is most likely to rout. And there is no way in hell that any smart player would attack guard mode units from the front unless they are elites and the guard mode unit is something like Gaeros.

I actually do not understand why you would want to mess with the Hastati, at least they are balanced now and not horribly OP like last year .

He is just testing on them Lazy.

If he has time he can test things which can be more helpful :P Like EDU 3.0

Yes, I used camillan hastati just because I wanted shortswordmen rather weak and poor equipped, to magnify the effects of my changes; and because I wanted to fight against gallic longswordmen, so I have to pick an unarmored opponent for the sake of fair play.

And even if I'd like to test 3.0, maybe I'm not the best person, having never played online so far... and it's a different kind of effort than testing a very limited modification regarding not many units... I fear I don't have that kind of time, sorry!

EDIT: I forgot to say I had such a passive behaviour, guard mode on, because I was mostly interested in seeing how better my men could keep their formation under enemy pressure. In the next tests I'll be more aggressive.:viking:

Burebista, try Getai steppe before underestimating their cavalry usage abilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aper

And even if I'd like to test 3.0, maybe I'm not the best person, having never played online so far... and it's a different kind of effort than testing a very limited modification regarding not many units... I fear I don't have that kind of time, sorry!

---

If you have time to do what you already are, you have time to do this as well. Whether you should isn't the question. Whether you wish to is the question, one only you can answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

If you have time to do what you already are, you have time to do this as well. Whether you should isn't the question. Whether you wish to is the question, one only you can answer.

---

If you put it like that... give me the file and I'll do my best! But I expect many advices, because I'm totally new to this kind of work, and I have to know exactly what kind of goals you had in mind putting together this new version...

Why the hell do those Heavy hoplite phalanx dudes have No Stamina.

Note: Chevroned Thessalian heavy cav is Awesome. have you ever tried it. I played a game where i got 600 kills and 200 were from the chevroned thessalians.i should have got a couple more of those thessalians 2 more and that would equal 600 kills alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aper

If you put it like that... give me the file and I'll do my best! But I expect many advices, because I'm totally new to this kind of work, and I have to know exactly what kind of goals you had in mind putting together this new version...

---

Haha. The file's not ready! And testing is preferably with humans. This is MP after all. Hence we use the EB Online network to test. Usually it's gamegeek2 and when he is online he will try to test with anyone else who is online and willing to test with him. Nothing overly systematic when it comes to the testing, but in-game you will likely end up in several battles with a diverse amount of units fighting individual skirmishes and taking notes on how these skirmishes progress, and so on. Nothing as formal as this but still extensive enough so as to gather some sort of idea of what's going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

Why the hell do those Heavy hoplite phalanx dudes have No Stamina.

Note: Chevroned Thessalian heavy cav is Awesome. have you ever tried it. I played a game where i got 600 kills and 200 were from the chevroned thessalians.i should have got a couple more of those thessalians 2 more and that would equal 600 kills alone.

---

I'm starting to like this guy! lol, stormie! Send me some dates!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Getai actually have pretty good pinners but I'll leave that up to you to play around with.

---

I hope you don't refer to the Komatai Thorakitai . They are awful , despite their stats , getting chewed through by cheaper units.

Anyway , with the Getai , what i feel is that they don't excel in cavalry and they don't excel in Infantry , but the army they field is great for helping one another and harrasing the hell out of an opponent.

Thank god for the celtic mercs.

I am curious though to hear from TCV . He announced to play with the Getai and am wondering what his oppininon will be after a few games.

TCV Has played with the Getai. We did some 2v2s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

I hope you don't refer to the Komatai Thorakitai . They are awful , despite their stats , getting chewed through by cheaper units.

Anyway , with the Getai , what i feel is that they don't excel in cavalry and they don't excel in Infantry , but the army they field is great for helping one another and harrasing the hell out of an opponent.

Thank god for the celtic mercs.

I am curious though to hear from TCV . He announced to play with the Getai and am wondering what his oppininon will be after a few games.

---

Are you referring to the Stratiotai? They are not so good outside guard mode, but in it they do an amazing job of holding, tho this can be said of many units. Getai pinners are mostly guard mode pinners but there is nothing wrong with that. You will often win the missile duel so your opponent will have to move against you allowing you to accept their charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Are you referring to the Stratiotai? They are not so good outside guard mode, but in it they do an amazing job of holding, tho this can be said of many units. Getai pinners are mostly guard mode pinners but there is nothing wrong with that. You will often win the missile duel so your opponent will have to move against you allowing you to accept their charge.

---

I can hardly call them "amazing" . They are designed as a versatile unit , being able to complement the lighter forces of a getai army , but they fail to do so as they suck in woods , don't move fast and can't win a fight by themselves.

A static Getai army is a dead army, ever since the "no AP for Falx " change. Just my oppinion.

Yeah, the Falxes were grotesquely powerful in vanilla and I think they should be better than they are now. The celtic long swords were used as heavy/slashing/bashing type things while falxes are basically polearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Are you referring to the Stratiotai? They are not so good outside guard mode, but in it they do an amazing job of holding, tho this can be said of many units. Getai pinners are mostly guard mode pinners but there is nothing wrong with that. You will often win the missile duel so your opponent will have to move against you allowing you to accept their charge.

---

I can't agree with that last point at all. Komatai Toxotai is the only sensible archers you have, but still they will lose against anyone who brings any non-crappy archers. The elite ones cost 1.6k, more than Bosphorans, and will still lose to any decent archers in a ranged fight. In fact, the only one in this tournament who can't bring archers that would shred any archer I could bring is you, Robin, and that's because you can't bring any archers at all. ~;p