It annoys me when you are posting on the forum yet cant come on hamachi :(
Printable View
It annoys me when you are posting on the forum yet cant come on hamachi :(
That's why I'm against giving elites eagles. Just cause one brings a suggestion up doesn't mean one is in favour of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
It's not. You clearly haven't talked to him. It's the words that came out of his mouth. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Why? Who said you need to make the numbers proportionally realistic?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Triple post ftw, he might not admit it, but there was much more to his game than elephants.
Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.
Who are you to speak on his behalf? Do you always do this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Basically. Cavalry are not supposed to come near. The engine fails, once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
You'll need to ask the EB team about that.Quote:
A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.
Except I am going to make the better quality Indians cost less than the towered Africans. Did you read the documentation at all? Oh wait, that's long and boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?
Why the unfortunate and unnecessary inconsistency in having better quality troops cost less?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
You can't speak on his behalf. I'm just saying what he told me about his play. So zip it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
What are you talking about? No one here has said a word, or even implied anything, about Mr Fred's skill. All we're saying is that the elephants are what won him that tournament. It shouldn't be such a controversial thing to say when by his own words he based his whole bloody tactic on those ellies! His army composition was made up of one elephant and 19 units to support it. Of course the elephants were instrumental to his success, and there's no reasonable way to deny that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Precisely. He even wrote on why he made the decisions he did with those beasts of war. Lazy is probably unaware of this, or does not wish to inform himself on the matter, as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
True. I'm against it for the same reasons basically.Quote:
True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it? ~;)
Yeah, the royal guards and elites of the other factions aren't there to inspire people to do crazy stuff. Rather they have a very specialized purpose such as assault, holding strong points, or delivering the KO. It would be worse than taking AP off Getai units.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Yeah. Of course there are Getai units that need AP removed. But basic infantry like falxmen, didn't they get AP back yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Again, from a historical standpoint, it would make no sense. Either way falxmen had to be de-powered. If anybody recalls, we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good; Drapanai were let slide because they were the selling-point of the Getai, as the Getai never won archer wars at the time and thus the Drapanai got slaughtered. Now, the Getai have one of the cheapest and most effective low tier archer units in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Can't really get away with cheap units. You need to reconsider for reasons of gameplay uniqueness as a faction. And you can remove the possibility of restrictions by using pricing in combination of stats, or to spell it out, not over-the-top powerful and/or more expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Bastarnae falxmen arent OP, they have 0 armour and die to arrow fire. This is what balance is. Rock paper scissors. Falxmen beat armour but die to arrows clear advantage and disadvantage, but the problem we have is those advantages and disadvantages arent so clear in other units. and the counter to a unit doesnt do much damage to it . I think your problem is you make changes over historical accuracy rather then gameplay.Quote:
we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good
I thought you stopped playing EB and switched to Rock-Paper-Scissors, as you were suggested to do. I thought wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
I dont know what you meant by that, im still trying to decipher the meaning.
Let me give you some links to help you out with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Learn-English-Picture-Dictionary/dp/0071408223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314580648&sr=8-1
http://www.tolearnenglish.com/
Storm, he means your idea of balance is so simple-minded that you might as well go play Rock Paper Scissors - the most perfectly balanced game there is. Everything in the game has a clear strength and weakness. You can apply the same principle to a lesser extent in Shogun 2 - Spears beat Cav, Cav beat Swords, and Swords beat Spears.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormrage
But the closest thing to a simplified matrix of unit advantages and disadvantages in ancient Western warfare is this:
Heavy Infantry: Can successfully defeat all other unit types in melee, cannot outrun any units.
Heavy Cavalry: Can successfully defeat all unit types except heavy infantry in melee, can outrun all infantry.
Light Infantry: Can successfully defeat all units at range, and outrun heavy infantry, can outrun heavy infantry.
Light Cavalry: Can successfully defeat all unit types except light infantry at range, can outrun any unit.
And even to this simplified system there is a proliferation of exceptions, variations, etc.
Right then, please go play Starcraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormrage
Do remind me, then, how a man with no shirt and a weapon that costs less than a sword would become expensive at all? Pricing is based on manpower availability and equipment only, nothing else. The Getai had plenty of falx-armed infantry so I can't increase the price. Were I to make the falx pierce armor, it's only logical to extend that to all units equipped with similar two-handed weapons, but the Rhomphaiaphoroi are at an excellent power level that I don't want to modify.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
The only thing I could consider would be to artificially boost the armor stat of the Drapanai, but I have done this already, by increasing it to 2 with the excuse that their leather caps afford them some protection, which seemed to be the EB team's reasoning as well. But that's it.
Starcraft is nice, its actually a very well balanced game.
As I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
I understand. But I feel that there still remains a sense of a lack of closure on the issue of the falx since the AP removal amongst players (upon reading the forum posts, Hamachi chat, and intuition).Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
BroodWar is balanced enough, but there are still issues with some maps and with particular factions' unit matchups. "Balance" in the second one makes me go :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
I was referring to the second one.
Take it up in the talk-about-anything section of the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
hahaah storm we got you, you said that archers cant kill no one in this game and that they are uselesQuote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
If this game is historical then there should not be totaly balance between factions right? Icreasing, decreasing lowing unit number lethalty mass and other stuff dont make game balanced, if gg2 just dont look at other faction, while editing one faction, for example there are no help for sweboz if you editing sweboz and you look at how will now they be vs rome you are wrong, just folow history, i know that you are good history students or whatever, nevermind gg2 space between pedites extraordinari is big very big i think that it should be fixed bcz they cost is not smal, sorry for double post :DDD
Learn to type ffs
Hehe, way to fix space between PE until GG2 fixes this? Put them in testudo (lol it looks funny) during deployment and then take them out again. Volia! Closer spacing!
I did read the documentation but that was about a month ago so I forgot this part.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
This discussion is getting too heated. Everybody mind the tone, please.
What are you talking about? We dont do heated discussions, atleast not here :P
UPDATE: Pontos, Hayasdan, Sauromatae, Pahlava, and Sweboz added. Goidilic and Galatian units also added.
Hooray. Now for Hellenistic factions...
In defence of restoring AP to Falxmen
I have read the reasoning behind why falxmen have had their AP removed. I completely disagree with these reasons. 2 points have been raised. 1) a falx is not, in fact, armor piercing and 2) it makes falxmen overpowered.
So the points are historic/fact and game-balance based.
I disagree with point 1 because the falx was a very powerful offensive weapon, and the only weapon (in history) that forced the roman army to change armor during campaign. They had to do this to adapt to the devastating cutting force produced by the falx. Though hardly the most reliable of sources, if u look at the wikipedia entry for falx, u will note how devastating it was vs armor, even relatively high quality armor such as Lorica Segmentata. Secondly, i do not understand how a kopis/falcatta (used by various infantry such as Iberian assault, pedites extr.) can be AP, but a falx cannot. it is inconsistent. If u want to give AP only for blunt force weapons, then kopis/falcatta based fighters should also have AP removed.
Regarding the second point, regarding falxmen beingoverpowered.... I cannot comment on how they were being used and how effective they were previously as I have only been playing for a few days. however, you will note that falxmen are very easy to kill- no armor, no sheilds, easily taken down with arrows. They are a specialised unit that can be taken down very easily and cheaply in a specific manner.
Now, regarding how to proceed in a manner which addresses both history and balance...a properly made falx (note, NOT a sica) is likely to have been an expensive weapon, maybe u can increase cost to counter this. or delete falxmen altogether and instead, make Rhomphaiaphoroi AP
The alternative suggestion i have, is to decrease their defense skill significantly. this is because (and i shudder to quote wikipedia)....... "The blade was sharpened only on the inside, and was reputed to be devastatingly effective. However, it left its user vulnerable because, being a two-handed weapon, the warrior could not also make use of a shield. It may be imagined that the length of the two-handed falx allowed it to be wielded with great force, the point piercing helmets and the blade splitting shields - it was said to be capable of splitting a shield in two at a single blow" Decreasing defense skill would address this factual point....they are crazy offense units, but will get killed very quickly, even in melee.
So in conclusion, u are factually incorrect re: the falx as a weapon, and the balance question CAN be addressed in different ways which is consistent with history. The falxmen is a highly charismatic unit, due to its previous (at least in original EDU) status as a papercannon. Now its all paper no cannon. This is most unfortunate.
Well, there's no LS in EB so if that's your metric, then it doesn't need AP because it'll never encounter the super awesome shiny LS.
It seems like the current system is only accounting blunt force trama but GG2 can probably explain better.
Fair point. I forgot to take that into consideration. Regardless, a falx was still equal to, if not more, a kopis in terms of cutting through armor.
This is pretty good IMHO. Very well reasoned. The most important part (for me, at least) was the fact that one could kill falxmen so easily in such a specific manner. If that is to remain the case (as it probably should) then from a game design standpoint we would do very well to give it an awfully strong polar opposite, namely the AP you argue for in this post. Thanks Shak.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
Do recall that the romans placed more armor on themselves to defend against the falx.
As opposed to what? Growing thicker skin? No matter how good a weapon is at it, more armour will always be more difficult to cut through than less. The fact that they felt that what they already had was not enough to protect them speaks more for AP than it does against it.
Aww, I wanted to post something quite similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
I agree with TCV. In effect, you are saying that more armor would not be helpful against the little clubs that the Illyrian Pirates use, since clearly, more armor cannot help you against the game's AP weapons.
As to why the Romans added more armor to defend against falxes, I feel it may actually have to do with protecting against blows which had already been blocked by the scutum. Because the blade of a falx curves inwards, it is entirely possible that blows which were caught on the end of a Roman shield would end up causing damage anyway by means of the sharp point of the blade reaching around behind the shield and cutting into the shield arm, neck, shoulder or any other area that the legionary thought he could protect by bringing his shield up to defend. A clean shot with a falx onto someones forearm would likely not be stopped by a bracer anyway. Even if the metal was thick enough to resist the blow, which is doubtful, chances are the blade would simply run down towards the hand and lop that off, or up to the elbow. Glancing blows can't count in this discussion since a glancing blow with an axe or kopis is easily brushed aside as well by a small amount of armor as well. So I feel that this is the reason why more armor was added. Plenty of other weapons the Romans faced were capable of lopping off limbs and yet they did not add more armor. However, the scutum did not defend completely against the curving blade of the falx and this may very well be why the additional armor was needed.
As far as i read , RomeTW engine considers an AP attack as an attack that negates 50 % of the Armour of an unit , not all( dunno about shields too).Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Example : a unit with 10 armour 4 shield and 10 defence skill will have 24 total defence. Against an AP attack he will have only 19 defence.
Thus AP is affected by the ammount of extra armour , but it far from ignores it.
IMHO using the no AP/high attack/high lethality/hardy system for falxes leads to a weapon very efficient against lightly armoured units but very inneficient against heavily armoured ones.
Thus what am i bringing them in battle for? to kill skirmishers and archers which they are vulnerable to?
But if you use the AP/medium attack/high lethality the unit gets better cost effectiveness against highly armoured/low skill units seeing how armour tends to be expensive in EB.
Also it makes them brutally effective against other units who rely on AP , especially kopis/falcatae.
The Romans IIRC reinforced their helmets, ditched the LS, and added padding. They also added segmented sleeves so they wouldn't lose as many arms as well as greaves because having legs is a useful thing.
But as Burebista said, they were actually quite vulnerable before to cheap celtic swordsmen and other things.
I agree completely. The falx neccesitated the response of adding addition armor during Dacian Conflict. Other weapons the roman army had encountered previously were not as noted for their AP capacity. To the extent that greaves and forearm guards were not part of stardard equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I also agree with Robin that part of the reason for greaves and forearmguards (technical name escapes me) is likey to have been due to the curved nature of the falx which might have been able to (in a sense) “reach around” a scutum due to a falx's curved nature. However, this is not the point I will focus on right now.
A key fact is that the helmet needed to be reinforced. Therefore, one might safely assume that the previous helmet in use was not sufficiently strong. Further, Roman Armor was noted to be of very high quality.
In EBO, we play against “standard” armor, not the “reinforced” armor Trajan’s army was forced to adpot. The falx was clearly very effective against the “standard” armor of Trajan’s troops and therefore it should be reflected in game.
One might try to argue that adding more armor and/or reinforcing it stopped the AP quality of the falx (the fact that it could pierce “standard” armor does not matter) and therefore the falx should not be AP. In which event it is hard to see why an axe or a kopis is AP. Im sure you can reinforce armor to decrease effectiveness of those weapons as well. Further, as far as I know, Rome encountered many armies who used the kopis/falcatta and axe, but nowhere near the same fear is expressed with regard to these weapons as is with the falx (though it may be that this is because Trajan wished for this to happen for publicity reasons).
Actually, I would imagine that the helmet reinforcements were more due to the fact that the falx defeats energy redirection due to its tendency to 'hook' so you could probably jack up a helmet quite a bit through blunt force. Also note that they were strengthening the helmet with a simple brace rather than making it thicker and they added armor only to unarmored bits so it would counter the falx. So my feeling is that it was very good at getting a 'bite' and piercing tearing.
Kopis/Falcatta are swords that have heavy tips made to transfer impact and cut. Likewise, axes are smashing weapons with a blade unless you're referring to one of those Eastern dagger axes which are basically made for piercing..
You can't have a Roman have more armour against the falx and less against other units. And the Romans putting on more armour doesn't prove the non-AP-ness of the falx.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
So... you put on armor on places that are not armored to defend from stuff that can easily defeat armor?
Obviously yes...if that's the best you can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
If that is indeed why they did it (I am not an expert), then logic follows that if maces are AP, falx, though its ability to generate blunt force to the head, is also AP? (not that this is the thrust of my entire argument).Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
ASM and I are, if I understand correctly, pointing out the flaw in your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
Adding armor to the arm does nothing against a mace because a heavy mace will break your arm regardless of what you are wearing. Same with a war-hammer or pole-axe. By its design the falx is excellent for attacking where armor can't be found, namely at the neck and arms. So rather you attack where the armor is not, rather than blow through it. This is the only way in which I see the falx getting AP, in its ability to hit where the armor isn't, but other weapons were doing that too; most slashing weapons were used to cut off limbs (typically unarmored), as slashing at the chest is simply less efficient than stabbing there. They were simply less good at it because you had far less control than you did with a falx. Thus we have falxes with higher attack, but which get worse as armor gets better, just like every other weapon.
I remain unconvinced by your argument. I have to emphasise, I am not a weapons expert, and you may well be right. However, the fact is, everything i have read about the falx (including the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) indicates it was a weapon which could cut into shields and armor (see quote above). If anyone could direct me to a source which backsup your argument, I will be much obliged. I might be laboring under a popular misconception.
Out of curiosity, why does Bastarnae retain AP while drapanai dont if you are advancing the historical/fact based argument that the falx was not AP?
PS. here are some futher links from very superficial research (google). Unfortunately only game sites feel the need to discuss the falx, lol.
http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=9989
"In combat the Dacians fielded a ferocious weapon of such brutality that the Romans were forced to issue extra armor to their troops to counter it. This was of course the legendary Dacian falx. Bearing an obvious resemblance to the earlier Thracian weapon, the falx was of similar construction: a two-handed sword with a down-sloping curved iron blade. Again, roughly 3-feet long, the falx featured a heavier blade than the rhomphaia, along with a sturdier haft. In combat the Dacians would swing the weapon with such power that it was able to cut through Roman shields and wound the man behind. Decapitations and amputations occurred with such astounding regularity that the Romans made subtle modifications to the standard legionnaire’s equipment. Helmets and shields were reinforced, while soldiers were issued greaves and manica to give them greater protection when facing the falxmen. Thanks in part to the devastating power of the falx the Roman Imperial Italic line of helmets came into production. "
http://rtw.heavengames.com/history/g...Truth_Fantasy/
"It was one of the few weapons encountered by the Romans which caused them to modify their current equipment. Upon facing falxmen for the first time, the Romans were terrified to see the weapon slice through helmets, or chop off arms with a single blow. The next time the Romans went on the warpath, they had bronze crosses reinforcing their helmets, and metal plates covering their shoulders and lower legs."
The falx had its AP removed so as to underpower the units that use it. Any falx-wielding units that still have AP simply mean there are inconsistencies in the EDU and that gg2 has yet to remove AP from those units. It's simply a move that was taken to underpower them. I could argue that AP be removed from maces and axes, especially axes. But when we look at non-blade weaponry, we see why AP is necessary. The falx is a blade, and this is one of the biggest obstacles in understanding it as AP-worthy, but if you consider how devastating the falx was, it doesn't matter if it didn't cut through armor, it still deserves AP as a way of representing its devastating nature as a weapon of war.
TL;DR Falx translated into RTW terms should be AP. The EB team, though not flawless, had this point right the first time around.
Vartan that's awfully low of you to misrepresent like that. But as I said it is under the microscope.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
For all the confused out there, this was all a farce. Excuse this charade. We are truly working on the falx and have in the works a proposition that is going to be tested that, theoretically at least, looks quite promising as an alternative that will bring back AP for the falx while maintaining a desired level of balance. Thanks.
Trolls live in bridges and not under caves...
I think high lethality will serve it fine. It was a little OP against Romans back in Vanilla anyway.
Since were on the subject, i move we give back AP to Thracian peltestai and Indian Longbowmen. you could gice thracians peltatsts a cost boost like maybe 1800 and return AP to them , afterall werent you the ones always ranting on about historical accuracy, whenever something is suggested, " oh no htats not historicaly asccurate" . Moreover, Indian Longbowmen die like flies to anything that can shoot, get one persian archer it'll rip'em apart, so whhy take AP from them they arent overpowered, if u allow them to engage then thats your mistake.
Note: Why do bosphoran archers and other proffesional archers, only have 5 attack. I think you will agree most EB units alot have armour, AND EVEN the light units have armour. Why only 5, what do u want them to do shoot birds. i suggest +2 archer attack to all archers. heres the thing We have greatly Decreased accuracy of archers, I see no reason why we ccant increase their damage to balance the high decrease in accuracy.
OK. I think it's a stretch giving the AP to the two-handed falx, so I'm inclined to say that it's a definite no to restoring AP to one of the most insanely overpowered units of vanilla EB, the Thracian Peltast. Not only did it was the peltast actually superior as an armor-piercing infantryman than Celtic Axemen - without a barbarian bonus to melee combat, he was also better armored and a better skirmisher. It was absurd and, from what I can tell, there was almost universal approval to its removal.
A cane longbow simply doesn't stack up to a composite bow in terms of range and power, and we don't have a levy indian archer unit anyways. Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.
Stormrage, you've exhausted your credibility capital on the issue of archers. The system of how better quality archers achieve better shooting results has, I believe, been explained perfectly adequately. In fact, the new higher quality archers have a much more pronounced advantage over lower quality archers in doing damage, per man, but they have less men to do it with now. Their advantage is significantly more pronounced at longer range, and their armor reinforces this edge significantly.
Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.
As far as archer attack, I think gamegeek is using the draw strength of various bow types in attack ratings, possibly factoring in arrow types as well. It is the accuracy that really matters though. If you hand a bow to a professional archer and someone off the streets who is relatively strong, there is little difference in the amount of damage the arrow would do if both hit their target. However, the professional will hit his target far more often so in this sense the accuracy changes make a lot of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Thracian Peltasts should not get ap back. They use their blade single handed which wouldn't generate so much force and the blade is rather thin. However, weapons like the Indian sword wielded by the archers and the weapons of the Kluddargos and Lugii should get AP back instead. These are large, heavy weapons. Even though they do not have sweet spots like a mace or axe, the relative weight of the entire weapon along with it's two handed nature mean that a lot of force will be generated swinging one of these. I tend to think that two handed swords of this time frame were more crushing weapons than cutting weapons anyway. And obviously I feel that falxes should get AP back.
I would also appreciate your opinion gamegeek, on my idea of why more armor may have been added to counter the falx, since it seems to have been lost in the discussion.
You could just make them more plentiful or something. You could just make them some sort of interesting 240 sized levy archer/machette unit. I mean, you have cheap plentiful parts and a lot of people able to use bows so it would make sense.
I always thought they had one of these: http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=1036
You could just stat it as a swinging sword with defense decrease since its not really made for parry/not dying.
Please talk in large scale. And an Indian sword has a MUCH larger blade than that.
Good photo of Indian longbow sword, even compares it to celtic longsword. Its probably designed as a two handed weapon as it looks rather top heavy for a one handed blade.
Attachment 2238
I disagree. Indian archery had a very long and historic tradition, much like the cultures that surrounded it. They can be roughly divided into two types of units, the common/levy type of soldiers that used bamboo longbows which used traditional arrows and when against cavalry/elephants, used iron arrows to increase piercing ability. The nobility used steel bows and steel head arrows ( to give arrows AP ability to be used more effectively against armoured elephants and cavalry).Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
The bamboo longbow was a very large weapon, longer than the person wielding it, and it was anchored on the ground using the toes of the foot. An average composite bow only offers a significant advantage against longbows/longbows in that they are compact and therefore well suited for mounted archery. For most practical (i.e. flight archery excluded) non-mounted archery purposes, composite construction offers no advantage. The English Longbow, though of superior construction to bamboo longbow, was not terribly dissimilar in concept, and demonstrates this principle. A composite bow was in fact, very expensive whereas the bamboo longbow was very cheap. So this should be addressed. Only the most expensive/well-made composite bows offered any considerable advantage when compared to longbows (for non-mounted purposes). These very well made composite bows would usually only be found in the hands of elites of steppe, west and central asia and further east (India, china, etc). The composite bows used by Cretans are unlikely to have been a match (esp in the EB time period). Bosphorans, I do not honestly know..it's likely given their location (though I'm not sure they would have had the high quality composite bows that offer adv over longbow/longbows).
On a side note, I think the prowess of Cretan archers has been overemphasised/powered in the game (and inconsistent with history), but that discussion is for another time.
I know the Indian Longbow unit is not finished so I cant comment on how they are right now. However, if you consider the Indian longbow unit respresnts the “common soldier/levy”, it should be very cheap and just as powerful as a elite composite bow user apart from perhaps persian heavy and bosphoran (who would have access to supeiror composite bow). If you consider it represents the nobility, then it should be one of the most expensive and best archer units in the game to reflect metal construction, certainly better than Cretans (though I do not think this is your intention so I will not discuss it further).
Heres a quote to end my discussion
“The Indian longbow was reputedly a powerful weapon capable of great range and penetration and provided an effective counter to invading horse archers. Iron shafts were used against armored elephants and fire arrows were also part of the bowmen's arsenal. India historically has had a prominent reputation for its steel weapons. One of these was the steel bow. Due to its high tensility, the steel bow was capable of long range and penetration of exceptionally thick armor. These were less common weapons than the bamboo design and found in the hands of noblemen rather than in the ranks.”
Agree with Robin’s post. The region had access to one of the best ironworks during that time period so it is entirely possible that they would have cheaply constructed something similar to what Robin has suggested. Plus, they look awfully big in the game, I don't know where you got "that small sword" from.Quote:
Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.
Also, it’d be interesting to hear what your rationale is for giving AP to axe, mace, kopis/falcatta.
Didn’t know that. So I am guessing that the only adv the Bosphoran would have over the levy unit using the same bow when firing at a Roman Legionary is that more of their arrows would hit the target when shooting from a distance?Quote:
Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.
Yes your right a proffesional archer wil hit his target more often then a levy archer, but my point is most eb units have armour around 10 even "light units" have armour, so even if the archer hits his target the armour of the "light" unit will stop it. not to mention all light units have sheilds 3 to 5. an increase in arrow attack will insure that when a light unit is hit he will die and his armour wont stop the bullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Another note: I think sword attack is too low. Lets take a common sowrd, for example we have a sword thats 11 attack. consider the enemy unit most unit have 8- 10 armour, + sheild + the defense skill. So add all those defense aspects then look at the attack value of a sword. It shows that the units are dying way way way too slowly.
Message to GG: If u want to have a light unit, here is what u can do u can give the light unit something like 4-5 armour, then give him 20-25 defense skill. that way you get a light unit archers can kill, but at the same time a light unit which doesnt die too fast in melee, thats my advice.
GG i found a problem, its either a stat error or a category error. Unit (Taxilan Agema )
category cavalry
class light
stat_pri_armour 12, 13, 2, leather (armour/defense skill/sheild)
EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Bah, I'm eager to finish this work and get back to EB MP, the new EDU looks promissing!!!!
Another problem we have is, the light units which are accually stated as having light armour are given a huge sheild to block arrows.
example : Ridanz
stat_pri_armour 2, 12, 5, flesh . Cool theyve got light armour i finally found a unit i can kill with archers, thank you. oh wait, 5 sheild WTF!!!
I think GG is a big archer hater. Even the light units which should die to archer fire are given a big sheild to hide behind. GG its like your mocking us .
[QUOTE=LusitanianWolf;2053367961]EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit./QUOTE]
Historical battles lasted for hours, We cant spend hours on a single battle. This is wwhat historical accuracy has driven you too , oh people. You are now willing to make kill rates so slow to match the kill rates of real life. well you have to remmeber something, its a game not real life.
[QUOTE=-Stormrage-;2053367967]I'm not talking about the speed of killing but the number of people that would be killed... Alexander the Great in Guadamela was fighting a huge number of archers and peltasts and his infantry casualities are said to be 100-500 (acourding to wiki at least).Quote:
Originally Posted by LusitanianWolf
@Shak, I love yah man.
Till now ALL of your 11 posts have been posts of good reasoning, historical facts , and supported by resourses and jquotes. Best of all your supporting some ideas i agree with, and are putting them forth in a good case.
that thing should cut the naked in half.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
[QUOTE=LusitanianWolf;2053367970]That is correct. Historically, archers were not terribly effective against armies that were well prepared for to receive fire from arrows. It's very easy to hide under shield or some sort of cover. Most archers were skirmishers and meant more to annoy, harass, distract, lower morale etc than deliver serious casualties. The psychological threat of being hit/maimed by a constant volley of arrows, seeing a few guys being hit around you, and the annoyance at not being able to retaliate was the desired effect. The only exception would be when the archers were well positioned and the units couldn't really turn around to face fire and duck under shields. Even in the battle of Carrhae, the HAs most useful purpose was to sap morale and continously harass the legions. They did not inflict tremendous casualties (in comparison to how long they were shooting/harassing for and the great shooting position they would have i.e. raised, and from flanks).Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
The logical exception of course would be units that were not prepared (didn't bring a sheild, or have decent armor)- this would have been more mobs than real armies. In EBO we play pitched battles, and in situations like this, it is hard to imagine that a unit would not even bring a shield or some sort of cover.
The exception of course are elite archers who functioned more as snipers than mass volley archers (think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer). Unfortunately EB does not seem to have represented them very well. These elites had the ability to shoot incredibly accurately from long ranges. Of course, they would have to be very, very expensive and small in numbers...
Unless it hits the "naked's" two spherical objects contained in a sac close to the pelvic region. In which case the sword should disintegrate and explode. Instantly killing the indian longbowmen and half his army while naked stands back and laughs.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
HAHA lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
xDQuote:
Unless it hits the "naked's" two spherical objects contained in a sac close to the pelvic region. In which case it should disintegrate and explode. Instantly killing the indian longbowmen and half the army.
HE REMOVED AP FROM ORCA
stat_pri 13, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.225
stat_pri_attr no
What the hell you thinking!!!!
Orca??? orca!?!?!!?!? those are ELITES.
NOTE: Cav charge distances are now 30. Archer charge distances are 30. infantry charge distance is 30.
Ok,cavalry should have a longer charge distance then infantry, especailly long lance weilding cavalry becuase: the cav charge especially the heavy cataphract charge should not stop for anything when u increase charge distance the cataphract will lower lance a longer way back thus any unit in between the cataphract and the target does not distrupt the charge. this is what will happen. the cataphracts will lower lanes charge to their target any levy unit any loose formation unit will get impaled and the cata will continue forward to the target. another situation, consider there is a blob of infantry . if targeta unit and it happens to be fighting on the opposite side of the blob, the cata will not lower lances it will run into the blob lances raised, if charge distance is increased they were lower lances way before and impale any poor unlucky guy between the cata and its target.
Cav charge should be between 40 and 50.
[QUOTE=TheShakAttack;2053367981]Exactly. But these elites would probably not be gathered in a single unit but acting as officers/champions spread around the army to inspire other archers or as general's personal retinue and they impact on battle would be too low to represent in RTW (unless some managed to kill the enemy general or hunt some Mumakills :laugh4:)Quote:
Originally Posted by LusitanianWolf
Storm, why don't you play as Getai and take 5 Elite Archers. Those guys tear stuff to shreds. I can't see any basis in your complaints otherwise. If you want strong archers you should not be playing a mod from this time period when infantry was the predominant force on the battlefield.
Oh and orca never had AP Storm. He's made them stronger by giving them a 0.225 longsword. These are now, imo, one of the best infantry units in game. Do not complain about them.
Storm, go play either ETW , NTW, or RoP. Heck, even vanilla is getting infantry based these days.
I am quoting Shaks post again becuase of haters who have completely ignored it. But I really dont get what all the fuss is about, just learn to get 5 archers to the flanks. Auto win. LEARN TO PLAYQuote:
Originally Posted by TheShakAttack
Regarding Falxes and cia... Historically they were very effective agaisnt armour, sure, even more than falcatas, kopis and some axes... But here were not talking if they were or not, the question is how is the best way to represent them ingame and if they should have the AP attribute that halves enemy armour. Since it was a weapon so deadly they should have high attack and high lettality... So, what happens if you also had them AP? They'll probably become unrealisticly OP... So there is 3 points you need to manage: attack, letality and AP. Falcatas, axes and kopis, in the other way were also effective agaisnt armour (I've heard romans doubled their shields width because of iberian mercenairs falcatas during 1st punic war) but not so letal, so they should have lower attack and lettality and will need AP to still be effective. But with or without AP falxes can still be as very deadly (high attack and letallity). Not saing that that they should'nt have the attribute or that they are ballanced ingame, just that you can still represent their effectivness without the game attribute AP.
And about indians, In EBII preview archers are said to be part of the warrior class and have a very proud tradition, so they should be very good archers. The problem is that on EB1 you only have one archer unit to represent both levy and elites so you have to make either a choice or a ballance.. I expect in EBII to these nice steel bows to be represented by chariot crews or perhaps a new, shinny unit :2thumbsup: And that swords are nasty but they were clearly OP in vannilla so its the same as falxes..
OP ? if something is good at what it is supposed to do it is not OP. And i thought u ugys were all about Historical accuracy well the falx was historically good at doing what it does "OP" as u call it. everytime i suggest somehting someone tells me "oh no sotrmrage but that is not historically accurate we dont care if its good for gameplay its not historical" . you guys are all . History is NUMBER 1 historocal accuracy is NUMBER 1. Why are you now hiding behind the banner of "for gameplay puposes" . EB isnt about fair gameplay its about historical accuracy, according to you.
Eb is about both, its about making a game as historically accurate, ballanced and fun to play as is possible with the RTW engine. So you have to find a compromise. If you want to play a game that drop the historicaly accurate part, why dont you go play another mod, there's lot of good ones? I was saying that falxes being historically good agaisnt armour doesnt mean that you can't ballance them without the game attribute AP. That, for the sake of gameplay, game AP isnt the same as historicaly AP. Unless you want to decrase falx letallity? Indian archers in vanilla were OP in vanilla because they could kick the ass out even of catas!Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Quote:
Originally Posted by LusitanianWolf
Good post. This stat based explanation is a good explanation, though this is not the reasoning that was provided when explaining why falx is not AP. Gamegeek2 focused more on the actual ability of the falx to cut through armor. He did not forward the stat based explanation. I have 3 points in response to your post if indeed this is the reason why AP was taken away.
1) Keep falx as “low attack + AP” to make them anti-armor personnel. There are other ways to take down lightly armoured infantry. Making falx less effective against them, whilst very unrealistic, would be an acceptable sacrifice in my opinion. I get the feeling most ppl used them v heavy armor anyways. They won’t miss the effectiveness v light armor.
2) Taking away AP from falx, as I understand it, makes them less effective against highly armoured units. Even if u substitute high attack/lethality, it is unlikely to cover it unless you make them grossly overpowered.
3) Lastly, if falcattas remain AP, why not falx was my question. Surely falcattas would also be just as good v unarmored opponents. Deal with falx same way (if not more AP) as falcattas have been dealt with.
Re: Indians, you are very right they had a very proud tradition. In fact, in Hinduism, historically, the highest caste (or “group”) of people were Kryhstias (warrior caste); even more interestingly, a significant portion of Hindu mythology focuses on archery, and the main weapon of many of the primary gods is the bow (which might give some idea of how important they considered archery). If the Indian Longbow unit is to be representative of the region as a whole, it should be one of the more powerful (in terms of attack and accuracy; not necessarily armor), and yet cheap, units in the game for reasons I discussed in my earlier post (low cost weapon, highly populous region, rich tradition etc.)