[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

Because at moderate-close range, even bad archers like Sardinians turn into machine gunners that can kill 7-10 heavy infantry from the back in one volley. Not to mention, sometimes players leave missile units in guard mode and don't notice archers firing while being engaged in melee. Such an archer unit, especially one in loose formation, can kill off the light and even some medium infantry units engaging it before they rout. If lethality were decreased, this problem would be even more prevalent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I'm interested in what you will eventually propose, but at this point, I cannot see a solution to the fact that cavalry would be utterly dominant in a lowered morale and lethality situation. Not to mention missile lethality is always 1. We would have to make archers very inaccurate again as compromise but they would still dominate firing from close quarters.

---

They aren't allowed to fire in close quarters at all. They are allowed to fire near enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheShakAttack

Why is close quarter archers "dominating" a problem?

---

Firing near and "dominating" should go hand in hand and this is fine; fact is you can't make them not dominate; game afaik makes missile units better if they are nearer automatically. Again, close quarters missiles are banned (I forget if the folks who reasoned for this said it was practical, historical, gameplay, or combined or others reasons).

Yeah that was my point. I did not mean firing in melee. I meant firing very very near. If you let a unit get close to you, woe unto you!

We could institute a rule which says after first warning firing in melee = auto loss?

Increasing innacuracy won't change the effectiveness of archers at close range. Robin is right.

I definitely support stricter rules on firing in melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

You are somewhat oversimplifying this problem though. These are the morale numbers that you found made your army immune to fear if you turtled and formed a circle in guard mode. Since no one really does this, things such as compromised flanks or engagment by cavalry can also lower morale a bit more than in the situation you describe. The extra point of morale from 15 to 16 does not make units "unbreakable" it is just enough to counter triple fear if you form a box. That is why realistic in game situations are much more accurate at pointing out just how well the eagle does at supporting men who might otherwise waver and break. Watch a match with Casse involved and tell me those Teceitos and Botroas are only getting +1 morale when they stand in line until only 5-10 are left. It's worth noting that both those units also start with a morale baseline lower than 12.

---

Well whatever, the point is that I've never found eagles to be that worth it against fear so I think fear > eagle. And its not just boxes. With more than 13/14 morale, you can take a charge to the back from decent impact cavalry and not break. I used to use +1 chevron Polybians for this very purpose. I'm not sure unless you give me a video that the instance you are talking about isn't a unit in the middle of a line supported from both sides, with a unit behind it fighting in a low kill rate battle, having gained a chevron from average vet increases due to mostly dead unit.

As for GG2's idea. I think that would be cool but that would be such a pain to balance and would make larger cavalry balls so much better in nothing but to chase down routers. You should tighten formation and lower lethality to compensate for guard mode like I've been saying forever. Then you should increase shield values for formation units and decrease armor and defense (+1 shield -2 armor).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Increasing innacuracy won't change the effectiveness of archers at close range. Robin is right.

I definitely support stricter rules on firing in melee.

---

I won't go any stricter as I've gone as strict as I can without going Draconian. The next step, which I won't take, is to remove a violator from that month's tourney, which is absurd. It's one thing to DQ him from that one game and give the point to the enemy, which is the current setup, and another to remove him from the tournament. How strict is strict enough?

DQs are acceptable, but the current DQ system allows a player to take two games via this exploitative tactic before getting knocked out. This would be one strike, you are out. People who repeatedly violate in a game would receive immediate penalties.

Some degree of leniency would be allowed for newer players, of course.

But what if I can attack archers in such a way that they will point blank shoot me regardless of opponent action? what happens then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

But what if I can attack archers in such a way that they will point blank shoot me regardless of opponent action? what happens then?

---

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Usually firing in melee is not purposeful. A lot of times players (including myself but usually only with skirmishers) will put missile units behind their line in guard mode so they won't wander off if a unit they are targeting moves out of range. However, when these same missile units become engaged, they will continue to fire if in guard mode unless manually ordered to engage. They die faster while shooting in melee as I don't think the defense skill is factored in. However, if they are relatively close to full strength and not facing heavy infantry, they can often massacre the unit that chose to engage them, especially if it is a lighter caetra-style unit.

Agree with Robin above. Firing in melee is most often just an oversight (which can occurs on very high paced battles) when leaving archers in guard mode on.

I only meant auto lose that particular battle, not being booted from the tournament. I proposed first warning since it is something which is likely to happen quite often; which is likely to happen without a player's realisation that it has occurred as opposed to say charging through or turning phalanx when engaged which is much easier to control. So in fact it is slightly more lenient than rules for other infractions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

DQs are acceptable, but the current DQ system allows a player to take two games via this exploitative tactic before getting knocked out. This would be one strike, you are out. People who repeatedly violate in a game would receive immediate penalties.

Some degree of leniency would be allowed for newer players, of course.

---

If this is the concern, you shouldn't worry about that. Just because I didn't put fine print stating I/we have some room to make judgement outside the stated, doesn't mean we can't do so. I mean, I think it's not too hard to distinguish a chronic griefer from an ignorant player.

Wtf is DQ

Disqualified. Now who doesn't know acronyms? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Because at moderate-close range, even bad archers like Sardinians turn into machine gunners that can kill 7-10 heavy infantry from the back in one volley. Not to mention, sometimes players leave missile units in guard mode and don't notice archers firing while being engaged in melee. Such an archer unit, especially one in loose formation, can kill off the light and even some medium infantry units engaging it before they rout. If lethality were decreased, this problem would be even more prevalent.

---

Didnt i tell you give archers poor morale, but who listens to stormrage gg does whatever he wants.
GG dont be stubborn give archers poor morale so when infantry or cav charge them they run and not start firing like nothing is happening.

you wouldnt have to disqualify people if you just lowered archer morale and solved the problem , thus stopping it from even happening in the first place.

12 morale is NOT poor morale gg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

DQs are acceptable, but the current DQ system allows a player to take two games via this exploitative tactic before getting knocked out. This would be one strike, you are out. People who repeatedly violate in a game would receive immediate penalties.

Some degree of leniency would be allowed for newer players, of course.

---

There would be no need for such rules if there was proper gameplay mechanics, which is what your incharge of. You know things like archers running when charged with cav maybe ? You know the rock paper scissors everyone hates. Archer kills light, cavalry routs archer, spearmen kill cav. If we Had those basic things there wouldnt be such a problem as archers firing in melee.

12 morale for archers ? and you didnt expect this . I told you about htis months ago. I said 2 cavalry units charged 3 loos formation archer units that were FAR away from the main line, Geuss what they became Shaken. I wanted to rout those archers with my cav then go aggressively to the rear of my opponent. but do such strategies work in EB?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Wtf is DQ

---

Dairy Queen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

12 morale for archers ? and you didnt expect this . I told you about htis months ago. I said 2 cavalry units charged 3 loos formation archer units that were FAR away from the main line, Geuss what they became Shaken. I wanted to rout those archers with my cav then go aggressively to the rear of my opponent. but do such strategies work in EB?

---

Yes. If you attack one archer unit with two cav, go over to the next one and so on, you rout them as far as If they are not elite or have spears (you don't need heavy chargers by the way). For elite archers it depends and that's fine. Sure there are some things to prevent it: Running away, packing two units together... here comes melee cav in handy because they rout them some seconds later than.



By the way it's a problem of skirmishers and some infantry too, if you have FAW on and guard mode. They should obviously not rout on first impact.

what you said doesnt happen in the game,

and no archers obvoiusly should rout on impact and it doesnt require me running my cav through them to rout them.

My aurgument still stands, but nice try though.

Whats your problem with giving archers lower morale. IF you dont you will still have firing in melee.

Quote:

---

here comes melee cav in handy because they rout them some seconds later than.

---

im telling you a head on charge by 2 cavalry didnt rout them, you want me to beleive melee cav rout them in seconds ? IF a heavy cav charge made them shaken how do u expect fighting in melee with them to rout them in seconds.

Dont give me theoritcal scenarios where you THINK this will happen, Im speaking with experience something ive seen in game.

There are cases when eagles or generals are present some archers will not rout and steamroll cavalry.

Storm, if you're debating in this tone I don't care anymore what you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

There are cases when eagles or generals are present some archers will not rout and steamroll cavalry.

---

Quote:

---

I said 2 cavalry units charged 3 loos formation archer units that were FAR away from the main line, Geuss what they became Shaken.

---

then we have a problem, cuz the archers i charged werent anywhere near an eagle or a general.

I hate to say this but Storm, we have to ignore you and move on. The fact is, the issue you're bringing up calling for lowering the morale of archers (and the like) has already been addressed, albeit a while back. I'm sorry you haven't been following the news, but it's true. Now we'd like to take care of some more pressing (and real) issues. Thanks for your concern nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kival

Storm, if you're debating in this tone I don't care anymore what you think.

---

People dont respond when i debate "Nicely" remember the essays i used to right about things like this ? Trying something that might catch peoples attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

I hate to say this but Storm, we have to ignore you and move on. The fact is, the issue you're bringing up calling for lowering the morale of archers (and the like) has already been addressed, albeit a while back. I'm sorry you haven't been following the news, but it's true. Now we'd like to take care of some more pressing (and real) issues. Thanks for your concern nonetheless.

---

Has been Addressed ? Saying We wont do it , is not addressing an issue.

Sorry storm we have adressed this issue on countless times blah blah blah, thats a lame excuse.

Take care of pressing issues ? The last issue you were disccusing was THIS. I dont know where u got that speech from but its a very technical way of saying , We dont have an answer for you so were going to tell you We already answered this,and who knows no one is going to go back and look at 30 pages.

Thats low

Why dont you talk sense instead of bringing up the were sorry your we must ignore you know becuase we dont have an aurgument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

People dont respond when i debate "Nicely" remember the essays i used to right about things like this ? Trying something that might catch peoples attention.

---

Again Storm, thank you for your concern. I wish I had the exact thread-post link to provide you with, but this issue of archer morale was already addressed with an earlier nerf. Unless gg2 has buffed them back w/o consulting me, I have no reason to believe there has been a reverting to higher morale values.

EDIT: Storm the tone you're using is no way to talk to someone when you have a serious concern. Either act like you are genuinely concerned and have suggestions/questions/whatnot, or just refrain from saying anything altogether. The truth is, this isn't about anything condescending, or avoiding any issues. What I'm telling you is we nerfed archer morale a while back; where in the world have you been???

HAHAHAHA Earlier Nerf ?

you mean gg's -0.1 morale nerf ? You actually fell for that. Yes i know about the "nerf" and it looks like it didnt work becuase archers are still standing in the face of infantry according to you.

your tone is just as harsh as mine.

Quote:

---

Dont give me theoritcal scenarios where you THINK this will happen, Im speaking with experience something ive seen in game.

---

if i said it in your tone it would be this

Im sorry kival but your aurgument is illogical and is based on theories and they have no weight in this aurgument. I am consulting you with experience, and if you dont mind i must ignore you now and talk to more important people.

Isnt that the tone you were using with me ?

Quote:

---

I hate to say this but Storm, we have to ignore you and move on. The fact is, the issue you're bringing up calling for lowering the morale of archers (and the like) has already been addressed, albeit a while back. I'm sorry you haven't been following the news, but it's true. Now we'd like to take care of some more pressing (and real) issues. Thanks for your concern nonetheless.

---

the only difference is your tone is hidden under technical jargon.

Quote:

---

Either act like you are genuinely concerned and have suggestions/questions/whatnot

---

I can act genuinely concerned. I beleive i have fullfiled the requiremnts you have stated above by means of my statement where i specifically provided a suggestion to lower archer morale. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up on our aurgument , but i am an intellectual man i will forgive you.

Thank you for your concern.

So basically, here's what's happening.

1) You are refusing to cooperate. Good. Let's see how far that takes you.
2) You claim archers don't rout upon impact. Okay.
3) I've played post-nerf. They rout upon impact.

Conclusion: I can't help you. I'll be glad if anyone can, but I highly doubt it to be frank.

They dont rout if its the crappiest of melee cav and there is a general nearby if that even matters.

Storm, your tone is not doing you any favors and demeaning Kival and Arjos is not acceptable. Further, I have to say archers do rout upon a good cav charge. There are 2-3 things you have to keep in mind though.

1) Which archer are you charging? Bosphorans are notorious for not routing, but, given that you pay 2.1k for them, I'd say that's okay.
2) What cav are you using? If you're going to use light skirmisher cav not specialised for charging, obv u will get worse results.
3) Did you charge properly? Did they lower lances?
4) Are there any moral buffs in the vicinity?

The game is not as simple as you touch the archers and they rout. That would be ludicrous.

If you feel strongly about this, please provide an example like a youtube video or even a replay. People who play much more often than you do are saying that archers rout upon charge, and that they are happy with the way things work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

So basically, here's what's happening.

1) You are refusing to cooperate. Good. Let's see how far that takes you.
2) You claim archers don't rout upon impact. Okay.
3) I've played post-nerf. They rout upon impact.

Conclusion: I can't help you. I'll be glad if anyone can, but I highly doubt it to be frank.

---

I am afraid to say Vartan, that you have misunderstood (twisted) my words. It is a very clever tactic to bullet point my arguments, but i am afraid you have not fairly shown my veiw in your bullet points.

May i ask when, nay where did i declare my incooperation . It is the opposite the very fact that i am still writing on this forum is a testimony to the fact that i care very much about the game. Why would i waste my time giving suggestions if this is not the case. That is for the first bullet point.

Now as for the second, yes that is my claim and it is a claim backed up by experience.

For the third i conclude by saying, both you and I have played Post-nerf . I must say i believe i have played a little more but that is not the point. again both you and i have played post-nerf, So i think this argument is invalid "3) I've played post-nerf. They rout upon impact." . With your permission i may just as easily make my own set of bullet points and state the exact same thing. I have played post-nerf, Archers dont rout on impact. Some might say ive played more then you even.

Maybe if you could give more founded arguments, i may take you more seriously. Im sorry for my rudeness but such aurguments are ,dare i say it, laughable.

"3) I've played post-nerf. They rout upon impact."

I thank you for your effort in responding i pray we arrive to an understanding in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheShakAttack

Storm, your tone is not doing you any favors and demeaning Kival and Arjos is not acceptable.

---

Quote:

---

I hate to say this but Storm, we have to ignore you and move on. The fact is, the issue you're bringing up calling for lowering the morale of archers (and the like) has already been addressed, albeit a while back. I'm sorry you haven't been following the news, but it's true. Now we'd like to take care of some more pressing (and real) issues. Thanks for your concern nonetheless.

---

Is he not demeaning me ?