The HA are the only ones that i rly need. the rest are uninteresting.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Also , can u make Costobocii Axemen usefull plz? geati don't have any AP now with the Falx changes.
Printable View
The HA are the only ones that i rly need. the rest are uninteresting.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Also , can u make Costobocii Axemen usefull plz? geati don't have any AP now with the Falx changes.
What new unit?
GG2, sooner or later, when you have a firm idea of what cavalry is going to look like, you'll need to talk to me so I can get the DHCS (Determining Heavy Cavalry Status) updated.
EDIT: Mass should be enough to make the charge slightly more devastating than in vanilla EB, but not an awful lot more. Remember, since cavalry may have only no stamina or hardy stamina now, the super heavy ones (which should invariably be non-stamina) would thus be limited to no more decisive charges than you can count on one hand. Also, there is a similar but reversed situation going on with archers in our new EB. In our previous EB, we would see strong archers. Now they are much weaker. We would do best to find a middle ground so as to make archers somewhat useful in picking off units. It would be ideal, for example, if you could situate individual foot archer units around either wing and do damage by shooting into the enemy line. Just my take on it.
Saba is horribly broken.
They lack any form of ranged attack.
http://www.mediafire.com/?abc8785mrlkm0b1
You will notice towards the end that my ethiopian 120 man archers killed a grand total of 5 slingers with all of their ammo...
Sorry I can't join the testing, my mini project too is currently on hold because of RL issues, but I gave a look to the EDU and I have few thoughts, and questions to GG:
1) I saw you ignored my bug reporting in the 2.1 thread, so I'll repost it here: Mada Asabara are bugged, they have 160 delay instead of 0, it's a vanilla-EB typo never fixed.
2) It's ok I cannot convince you about my view on legionarian fighting, but the new spacing value make no sense, IMHO.
We have 2 ancient sources writing on the matter, AFAIK: Polybius and Vegetius.
The first claim legionarii fought as individuals and needed much space to swing their swords: 6 feet (roughly 1.8 mt.), wider than the current formation.
The second, who wrote in the 4 AD IIRC but used ancient sources, says they fought in a much tighter formation: 3 feet (roughly 0.9 mt.), exactly half the polybian value and shorter than the current spacing.
So, why didn't you follow Polybius or Vegetius, but decided for a third, middle value? Is there something I'm missing?
3) Why didn't you use the soldier radius (hidden value after mass) tweak to make hoplites fight more cohesively? Is it just a rumor, proved ineffective in tests?
Thanks and congrats for the release
EDIT: Here's an excellent sum of the individual spacing debate from Adrian Goldsworthy's The Roman army at war
To answer questions:
Aper, I did not ignore you. That was eliminated first thing when I started doing the Eastern units.
Levy archers are definitely getting an accuracy boost, but don't expect high kill rates at a distance of 180 meters, please! This will especially be true of horse archers, expect to need to close in order to achieve good kill rates with your limited 45 arrows.
You guys can now expect the Sweboz in addition to toe other factions in the next update. Expect them to be significantly better than in 2.1.1; for example, the Woithiz Watha will now have warcry, and Dugunthiz will come with 90 men and 20 defense, as well as a javelin attack of 10, high accuracy, and 3 ammo, with 5 shield to boot!
Here is how I imagine archers functioning:
-Levy Archers: Very cheap. Innacuracy means their main utility is aiming at large groups of enemies, not engaging in archery duels.
-Medium Accuracy Archers: Good for targeting units or blobs, and better at archery duels.
-High Accuracy Archers: Superb for targeting and weakening units, excellent accuracy. Should always win archery duels.
The Getai are one of the most versatile factions in the game, this being one of their shortcomings - they are jacks of all trades, masters of none except perhaps skirmishing. I will check them (the Costobocii) out later, for sure.Quote:
Also , can u make Costobocii Axemen usefull plz? geati don't have any AP now with the Falx changes.
Ah, sorry, I did not realized the version I downloaded had still the old asian units. Hurry leads to stupid mistakes...Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Yeah, Greeks, Asians, and Steppe along with Sweboz have not been completed yet.
On a side note, Saba should get an archer unit which is not levy quality. Perhaps make Ethiopians in the same vein as Numidians? After all, Ethiopia was famous for high quality archer units. Arabs were as well, so maybe the Archer-Spears should be more in the middle tier and leave levy job for Sabean Archers?
Arabs weren't famed archers in Hellenstic-era sources I can recall (except mounted on camels), but the bow certainly was one of the main weapons wielded by the Sabaean nobility (not the javelin as far as I can recall), along with spears and fine, slender swords. Sadly I can't create a noble archer unit.
Now, Nubia was famed for its archers as far back as Ancient Egypt. Again the existing archer unit is an Ethiopian one, but if you want me to stat it as an axe armed, good quality Nubian archer rather than a club armed Ethiopian one, I could do that.
Yea that woould be good. Previously, a big advantage Saba had was the ability to spam alot of archers. That is useless now and you are basically forced to use eles which the opponent can expect and bring a simple 810 levy unit to counter them.
Why does the Saba faction need to be on par with the other factions?
It doesn't need to be, but it should at least be playable. Saba without decent archers is basically asking to be javelined to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Also, I feel as if 36k still works for this new edu. We havn't gotten half of the factions yet so I will reserve judgement on that, but at 36k, good quality armies are still a possibility for western factions.
Making Saba playable is almost a lost cause, IMO. If people wanted to play as an Arab faction, we could create one using the Eleutheroi - the Nabatu. Several units could act as effective stand ins for historical Nabatean units - the Sacred Band Cavalry as Agema troops, for example. Their actual army would be a mix of Hellenistic troops and tribal Arabs.
Saba has already been played as (see misterfred) very succesfully. What you have done is nerf them into oblivion
From a theoretical standpoint, we shouldn't be making any exceptions when it comes to the inherent properties of elements such as certain kinds of weaponry and armor that appear cross-factionally. That said, we make exceptions all the time in terms of stamina and morale, and other factors such as eagles and fear factors. These are usually either binaries (either enabled or disabled) or sliders that have incremental values (such as with stamina). So, we could work on Saba, sure. We could possibly give them all the stamina in the world, and all the eagles and the scary factors. But would we then be satisfied with ourselves? Tough one my friends.
I am afraid you misrepresent here, my friend. Saba were rendered unplayable by the increase in utility of skirmisher units, a change that has been almost universally lauded if I understand correctly.Quote:
Saba has already been played as (see misterfred) very succesfully. What you have done is nerf them into oblivion
Lazy, were you around in the old EB environment? Before these new EDUs, armies were far, far more formulaic. Here was a basic prototype, of sorts:
X Heavy Cavalry
8 Phalanxes
X Thracian Peltasts/Keltohellenikoi
X Heavy Archers
Variation was extremely limited by the fact that all utility roles could be played by one unit, the Thracian Peltast, and all missile roles by the Cretan Archers. This was particularly exascerbated by the limitations placed on missiles, the small size of missile units, etc.
Now certainly the improvement in the missile department hasn't been great to date, but in the cavalry department things have gotten dramatically better. Not only do we have general units as a key unit in any player's arsenal, javelin cavalry are an important part of a well-rounded and effective cavalry force. Also, the cavalry battle and missile battle don't dominate the conclusion of the line fight anymore (the winner of the missiels would shoot the opposing cavalry, win that fight and immediately turn to charge the enemy in the rear and carry the day). A good Alexandrian fight for sure, but lacking in the numerous tools in an Alexandrian army.
I seek to have the Hellenes in the foreground as much as they used to be, but this may be due to the new crop of players favoring the western factions. But this likely has something to do with the strengthening of the hitherto unused cavalry form - the javelin cavalry - and the increased sturdiness of heavy infantry - both weapon systems of good use against cavalry, one due to its ability to inflict significant casualties at close range and engage subsequently (with buffed secondary weapons), one due to its improved ability to hold its ground. Light skirmishers have risen in importance as well.
A promising statement, to be sure, an indication that we are moving in the right direction and not just using a very few unit types, though his statement about heavy infantry is not 100% accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antisocialmunky
One thing to note is that barbarians will no longer have a monopoly on scaries after the next update - cataphracts will scare just as much, a welcome counterbalance to their relative underpowering in light of the advent of powerful kopis-armed Aspidophoroi becoming an integral part of Hellenic armies.
Also, I am looking for players to experiment with steppe armies composed exclusively of mounted units. This will probably bring up dilemmas of whether to bring more 70 or 60 man HA units or a better core of heavy cavalry, but I look forward to that discussion. Also, the new phalanxes will be ready tomorrow, but not the full Hellenic roster to go with, unless I can get a lot of work done on the train.
Well people eventually started using light infantry in 2009/2010 tournaments to run with their cav. However it never really was that good because you could take a heavy infantry which would both beat the light infantry and not get scared to death. Ideally, you need light infantry with AP or high lethality or something. Something like the old Thracians or Agrianians. Its actually really difficult to differentiate between infantry that are REALLY good in loose order and infantry that are REALLY good in formation... which is disappointing.
I mean, I suppose high attacking/formation density ratios are the only way but that doesn't really work all that well in this situation. Maybe a skew towards defense against armor and really good stamina while formation infantry get a slight shield bonus, armor, and less defense?
I mean, if you are in formation, and attacking forward, the shield bonus would give you advantage but you would have less defense skill from other directions. If you are lightly armed, you can actually fight better because you aren't weighed down but so much armor.
Additionally a low formation ratio and density for the light infantry and higher formation ratio and density for line infantry would make it so line infantry push hard.
This whole page is filled with techno talk.
All light cavalry that ive seen be brought against me in the game is invulnerable to arrows. What cav r u talking about ? The Only cav that die to arrows are levy cavalry. such as numidian javelin cav. I think EB will be unbalanced forever.Quote:
Also, the cavalry battle and missile battle don't dominate the conclusion of the line fight anymore (the winner of the missiels would shoot the opposing cavalry, win that fight and immediately turn to charge the enemy in the rear and carry the day).
Storm, go play rocks, paper, scissors. I think that is the game you are looking for. :clown:
I still don't think Cataphracts should get fear. But I guess we will play test it and see how that goes.
And as far as using light units to run with cavalry, I know me and Lazy do this pretty regularly. Not the lightest units usually, but generally a unit with either fast moving, very good stamina, or preferably both. Spears are also a plus. Scutarii, Gestikapoinon and Alpine Phalanx are perfect examples of units that fit this role perfectly though almost any unit that moves relatively quickly will work. They don't need to win against enemy infantry that moves to support, they just need to help win the cav battle so your cavalry can give them a hand afterwards.
I just hope people will stop running their cav through my men when ive got them fully surrounded.
can infantry run speeds get increased ?
and yes rock paper scissors would be nice.
For cavalry, would it be possible to just increase charge and not deal with mass as much? That would prevent cavalry running through as easily.
Its very rare that cavalry gets completely surrounded by enemies. On three sides perhaps, but there is almost always a gap for them to exploit.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
Yes GG2, I started Multiplayer RTW in the time of 1 Cata 4 prodromoi 5 cretans 8 phalanx and thracian Peltasts.
@Robin, actually the best unit for doing that is the iberian velite. Though that has become outdated and im mostly using the 3 heavy cav as the only cav now. This is not vanilla where my javelin cav can tear apart enemy archers and actually do some damage.
Well at 40k you should be taking only heavy cavalry since it is easily affordable. That is why I don't see much reason to increase the mnai limit from 36k.
Exactly my point. 40k and carthage/saka/pahlav + some others get unbeatable with their heavy cav .
@robin, well once i trapped cav by having my cav pinning them in front and a infantry unit charging from the back. like a sandwich, another time the enemy cav was fighitng the back of my main line i brought 2 infantry from behind and made a trainagle, then they moved through my infantry and attacked the back of my line again.
Lets make a clear rule on cav movements please. Vartan ?
No need for rules, if you have a brain you can kill enemy cav before they get out, no need to make rules to cover up peoples sloppiness. Which is exactly what I think of these "fair play" rules.
Well, to tell you a few things about the upcoming update:
1. Elite units got a slight cost increase, mainly to counteract the fact that they get their stamina boost for free.
2. I am making the distinction between light and heavy troops in mass more pronounced
3. I am increasing cav charge values and lowering horse mass values.
4. The distinction between the Pahlava and the Sauromatae horse archers has become far more significant, and I have used historical data in my reasoning, primarily from this for the Sauromatae and from various sources regarding the size of Parthian armies, and accounts of their effectiveness, such as at the Battle of Carrhae.
The Parthian Army in Contrast With the Sarmatians, in the Context of EB Unit Stats
Typical encounters between the Roman Republic and Parthians seem to show that the Romans typically outnumbered them by between 3:1 and 3:2; ratios echoed later when the full strength of the Empire was brought against the more powerful Sassanids, who probably also put their full strength into play when the fought the Romans. This provides a guiding line for what the comparative sizes of fully mounted Parthian and infantry heavy Roman armies should be in combat. Smaller Parthian or Sassanid armies were able to achieve decisive victories over larger Roman ones by skilled archery (especially when additional supplies of arrows were available to the horse-archers) and judicious use of the heavy cavalry core, the cataphracts, which formed about 10% of their armies.
In contrast, the various Sarmatian peoples, confederacies, etc. seem to have been able to put very large hosts of horsemen into the field, but later on they seemed to have concentrated into a more professionalized, higher quality force, especially after the adoption of the kontos as an important weapon. For example, Strabo says that one of the two divisions of the Aorsi was able to muster 200,000 horsemen; likely an exageration, but a Chinese source describing the Yancai (Alans), who were located nearby, were able to put 100,000 horsemen into the field. Clearly their numbers were impressive at this early stage.
The records of the early Sarmatians in combat are not impressive. The Siracae, for example, were a small nation, but their king Ariapharnes mustered a large number of horsemen to take part in the battle of the Thates river. In this battle, his horsemen were apparently easily dispersed by the charge of the 'picked Scythian horse' of the opponent. Strabo provides an account of Sarmatians opposing an expeditionary force sent by Mithridates VI, in which a Roxolanic and Scythian force of 50,000 was defeated by a Diophantes (the Pontic commander) and his 6,000 troops; likely these included some heavy Bosporan archers, and definitely contained a phalanx. Strabo describes the equipment of the Roxolani as raw-hide armor, wicker shields, bows, and spears for close combat; in other words, the 'Aorsi Riders' unit.
Later sources from the 1st century AD describe the unstoppable nature of the charge of the Sarmatian horsemen, when executed properly. The lancers apparently wore varying amounts of armor, from fine and heavy scale to light scale or leather (which enabled the heavy legionaries to easily defeat fallen Sarmatian horsemen). Yet they were prudent enough to use feigned retreats and traditional steppe tactics when opposed by sturdy infantry wielding long spears. The importance of bows declined over time, and the number of arrows in graves did as well; but the archery of the Sarmatians seems to not have been as impressive or devastating as that of the Parthians, as suggested by their apparently poor performance before the first century AD.
--- TRANSLATION IN GAME ---
-Parthian horse archers have very large amounts of ammunition (50) and good archer skills. However, their numbers are equal to those of other light cavalry.
-Scythian horse archers come in smaller units than Sarmatians and have less ammo than Parthians, but thus end up as cheaper than either one.
-Sarmatian horse archers and riders have larger unit sizes and are cheaper than their Parthian counterparts, but suffer from lower accuracy and less ammunition.
-Early Sarmatian nobles also come in greater numbers than their later counterparts, but again, are less impressive
-Sarmatian kontos lancers are no cataphracts but have a devastating charge, better than their Parthian counterparts. I may yet make it better, but their high stamina lets them repeat their charges - do we want to change this?
East may win on high money, but they lose on low money. Expect heavy losses on 36k. I would find it hard to balance these. The fact is that well-used steppe is invariably stronger than corresponding civ, and since there will be no such distinction upon the final release of 3.0 for "official" tournament use next year (spoiler?), you'll have some clearly advantageous options at your disposal. And now that there won't be a distinction, there's no way to enforce a discrimination between steppe and civ, telling one not to battle the other. More situations will be possible than before, and we'll have to live with it and see where it leads us.
Storm, fair play allows you to retreat your horse no matter what (with the exception of running into pikes). This is indicated on the website. Lazy, we have fair play for many a good reason. I don't need to point this out, since you should by now know this well enough.
That's unfortunate, but like you say, they aren't cataphracts. If only there was a way to make their subsequent charges less devastating than the previous one...Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
I don't think the Parthians were very successful against the Romans. A quick scan of the Roman-Parthian Wars reveals that besides Carrhae, the Parthians really only defeated one other Roman army in the field and this was much later than our timeframe. Considering the logistical difficulties that the Romans would have in bringing a fight to the Parthians while comparing the relatively shorter distances from Ctesiphon to Syria and the Parthians' inability to hold Syrian territory, I feel as if Rome fared significantly better off in their wars than the Parthians did.
The Sassanids are a different story entirely. They were much better equipped to handle the Romans and came about at a time when Rome may be considered on the downswing.
The only way to do this is by lowering stamina. However, there is no medium speed between full gallop and walking for cavalry and so we are forced to run cavalry all over the place if they are needed as deterrents or chase off skirmishers etc. This is why I feel as if cavalry was fine in previous versions. The increased mass makes the initial charge more effective now but lower stamina and animation speed limits the usefulness of cavalry in other tasks. For example, in this version, I will just keep a spear unit behind my lines to deter enemy cav attacks if I lose the cavalry battle or refuse one. A good stamina, quick spear unit can run parallel to my lines and stop slower and quickly tiring enemy cav from turning and smacking into my back. Previous to this version, that spear unit would have quickly been outrun and I would have needed two or three units behind the lines if I wanted to protect against cav.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan