[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

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.

---

Calm down buddy. I think what everyone is saying/thinks is that there needs to be some sort of a balance between the two. My only problem is that where this “line in the sand” is has not been made very clear. Historically, the legions were incredibly powerful and good at what they do. So were the elite successor phalanxes, catas, and horse archers. But if you represent they in a purely historical mindset, then the game becomes boring and loses its diversity. You have to have some balance between gameplay and history.

@Wolf

I guess I misremembered them. In Vanilla they were extremely good melee shock infantry that happened to have arrows. However as they are modelled, they should probably just be medium quality archers, cost ~1200, have no armor, and be good in melee.

@Stormrage

Well, he's talking about adding AP on to the current stats would be imbalanced and unrealistic so while you could model it with AP or without and still have an accurate representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

@Wolf

I guess I misremembered them. In Vanilla they were extremely good melee shock infantry that happened to have arrows. However as they are modelled, they should probably just be medium quality archers, cost ~1200, have no armor, and be good in melee.

---

Lol, i wrote a rather large post as to why they should not be medium quality (in terms of missile attack/range/accuracy). Keep their armor low, that's no prob though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheShakAttack

Lol, i wrote a rather large post as to why they should not be medium quality (in terms of missile attack/range/accuracy). Keep their armor low, that's no prob though.

---

The problem is that same as persian's: not every single indian archer would be a bow master or be equiped with a steel longbow and you only have one unit to represent both levys and elites.... But I agree that they should be at least of good quality, and excelent for their price.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, that would be another way to represent them, thats a choice that needs to be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LusitanianWolf

The problem is that same as persian's: not every single indian archer would be a bow master or be equiped with a steel longbow and you only have one unit to represent both levys and elites.... But I agree that they should be at least of good quality, and excelent for their price.

---

Only thing I was saying is that they should have bow stats at same level as good quality composite bows. Not that the unit should be bow masters, or the best in the game, or anything like that. Re: the rest, i agree. good quality, excellent for price.

The real problem is there is no way to change weapon damage since they are all 1 lethality 1 HP of damage. So the only metric you can change is accuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

The real problem is there is no way to change weapon damage since they are all 1 lethality 1 HP of damage. So the only metric you can change is accuracy.

---

Learn something new every day :) Thanks for that. Well, in that event, I remember GG2 classified bows into different categories, my argument was bamboo longbowmen should be in same category as a good composite bowmen.

I guess you need to basically have accuracy stuff for all combinations of skill + weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LusitanianWolf

Indian archers in vanilla were OP in vanilla because they could kick the ass out even of catas!

---

1)They die like flies before they reach the enemy lines.

2)Catas are not meant to fight in melee, they are hit and break hammer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

1)They die like flies before they reach the enemy lines.

2)Catas are not meant to fight in melee, they are hit and break hammer.

---

1 They are not mean to reach the enemy lines but to be in the back as archers and help in melee as needed.

2 Your right but I said catas as I would say anything else. It was fun for the first times to get heavy cavalry butchered by archers but I dont think that's their purpose. If it was me I would give them high attack, nice lettality but low discipline, morale and defense so they can be effective in some short fights but defeated when encountering disciplined enemies. Its completely exasperating, when playing as sweboz to defeat enemy phalanx only to get butchered by archers in melee, belive me ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LusitanianWolf

1 They are not mean to reach the enemy lines but to be in the back as archers and help in melee as needed.

2 Your right but I said catas as I would say anything else. It was fun for the first times to get heavy cavalry butchered by archers but I dont think that's their purpose. If it was me I would give them high attack, nice lettality but low discipline, morale and defense so they can be effective in some short fights but defeated when encountering disciplined enemies. Its completely exasperating, when playing as sweboz to defeat enemy phalanx only to get butchered by archers in melee, belive me ;)

---

Well they were absolutely ridiculous and like pandas, they were melee infantry first before their actual function of being archers or phalanx in the panda case.

luso u were saying indian longbowmen are OP, i am saying no they arent becuase they die to arrows before they can even touch any of your units. By saying this i am proving they werent OP , OP is when a unit is so good that nothing can counter it.

They have like 3 armour, if u dont bring archers to kill them thats your problem. as i said.

Quote:

---

Indian archers in vanilla were OP in vanilla because they could kick the ass out even of catas!

---

1)They die like flies before they reach the enemy lines. I said this to refute your claims , that indian longbowmen were OP.

2)Catas are not meant to fight in melee, they are hit and break hammer. i said this to show you that a smart person wouldnt leave his cataphracts fighting in melee he would pull them back thus , if u leave your catas fighting in melee against AP units ofocurse they will "kick the ass" out of them.


Now moving on, i think They should get AP back with the lethality and the attack and everyhting they had. Becuase they were not unbalanced or OP to begin with, they did not need balance between historical accuracy and gameplay becuase they were balanced from the start.
There things are 3 armour no sheild- i dare anyone to tell me they are OP or Unbalanced. 3 armour with no sheild is now OP too you, but a 10 armour archer is not OP, heck you even want to give them +1 sheild. now we got 10 armour 3 sheild archers we got 10 armour 1 sheild, 7 armour 1 sheild. but when u here there is a 3 armour no sheild archer with an AP attack u go crazy. When i was saka i had a hard time just keeping these guys alive. i rememeber they were so fragile i used to keep them by the red border line so vega's 10 armour imperial archers wouldnt make them shish kebab. that is what has now become OP ?

Yeah in no way were Indian Archers OP. By taking them, you are virtually ceding the missile duel to your enemy who can then content himself with using cheaper archers to pick them off rather easily. Their rather low morale also meant that they would break if charged by cavalry or after losing a decent percentage of their unit. I'm not sure what they will be priced at for 3.0 but earlier edus had their price around 1100 which is pricy for unarmored archers. Even if their sole purpose was to act as a falxman type unit, they are disadvantaged in that you cannot recruit more missile units to stop your foe from shooting up your unarmored flankers, and they have significantly lower morale.

Indian longbowmen:

stat_pri_armour 3, 11, 0, flesh (armour,defense skill,sheild)

This is the OP unbalanced unit your all afraid of.

, on the matter of falxmen give them AP back and lower attack or lethality.
stat_pri_armour 12, 12, 1, metal , wow look at that high armour low sheild , hmmm maybe we should use some AP slingers. hmm i think your right.

What happened to your common sense you forgot simple Rock paper scissors.

Indian longbow men light armour no sheild -- shish kebab them with archers.

Rompharoi high armour low sheild (1) -- Swiss sheese them with slingers.

Stormy's Archer/slinger rants are starting to make sense now huh .

Well GG said archers and slingers are fine as is . So you have no problem giving AP back to indians and Rhomphs .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Well they were absolutely ridiculous and like pandas, they were melee infantry first before their actual function of being archers or phalanx in the panda case.

---

They are only ridiculous if u were ridiculous enough to let them live past the missile phase.

Quote:

---

The real problem is there is no way to change weapon damage since they are all 1 lethality 1 HP of damage. So the only metric you can change is accuracy.

---

Increase range and missile attack ?

"The Hindus tribes west of the Indus are famed for their use of massive longbows made from cane and strung with tough silken bowstrings. These bows allow them to launch arrows at a tremendous range" - www.europabarbarorum.com. 170 is not a tremendous range i hope its fixed in 3.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

luso u were saying indian longbowmen are OP, i am saying no they arent becuase they die to arrows before they can even touch any of your units. By saying this i am proving they werent OP , OP is when a unit is so good that nothing can counter it.

They have like 3 armour, if u dont bring archers to kill them thats your problem. as i said.

---

Well, I play most with Lusos who only get slingers and Sweboz who (before v3) only had crappy archers and lack of armoured manpower so you had to spare them since you need the slots for infantry and zerg rush If you wanted to have any chance agaisnt civ factions. But I agree that units like Cretans or Roman are even worst to fight agaisnt. Is just that, at least on my oppinion indian archers should be good archers with decent melee skill, not shock infantry that happens to have bows. But I gess this is just my oppinion and I respect yours.

Quote:

---

2)Catas are not meant to fight in melee, they are hit and break hammer. i said this to show you that a smart person wouldnt leave his cataphracts fighting in melee he would pull them back thus , if u leave your catas fighting in melee against AP units ofocurse they will "kick the ass" out of them.

---

Again, I was meaning heavy cavalry at general, not only catas. They should be able to kill engaged heavy cavalry but not to survive a charge and after defeat it singlehanded at melee. I may be remembering wrong but I think they did this in old EDUs.

Slingers are great against archers. They cost less and make them waste all their arrows.:2thumbsup: This was the important fact I learned playing mainly Lusos over the past month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Yeah in no way were Indian Archers OP. By taking them, you are virtually ceding the missile duel to your enemy who can then content himself with using cheaper archers to pick them off rather easily. Their rather low morale also meant that they would break if charged by cavalry or after losing a decent percentage of their unit. I'm not sure what they will be priced at for 3.0 but earlier edus had their price around 1100 which is pricy for unarmored archers. Even if their sole purpose was to act as a falxman type unit, they are disadvantaged in that you cannot recruit more missile units to stop your foe from shooting up your unarmored flankers, and they have significantly lower morale.

---

With no restrictions on missiles, the inability to bring more missiles is not a problem anymore.

Quote:

---

Again, I was meaning heavy cavalry at general, not only catas. They should be able to kill engaged heavy cavalry but not to survive a charge and after defeat it singlehanded at melee. I may be remembering wrong but I think they did this in old EDUs.

---

they have 9 morale, 3 armour no sheild, u expect them to surivive a cata charge? remeber cata charge is AP so that will cuthte 3 armour into 1.5 armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

With no restrictions on missiles, the inability to bring more missiles is not a problem anymore.

---

factions that have ap have the crappiest archers in the game, excuse the language, i feel it best describes things nowadays. Those factions are Baktria and Saka. Further more If a player brings say 10 archers 5 indiands and 5 others to protect them. Do you think he will win?
1) he will have significantly lower infantry then his enemy . If he uses the 10 slots for infantry he will have no cavalry.
2)if he brings cavalry he will have even fewer slots for infantry.
So i think no sane mind would do this.

I must admit it was a very clever argument, that never crossed my mind.

They were pretty different with +1 chevron. If you could avoid having them completely shot up, they kicked some major butt. But yeah, you basically ceded missile superiority though 5 Cata, 5 Light Cav, 10 Indian archer steppe army was always pretty amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

2)Catas are not meant to fight in melee, they are hit and break hammer.

---

Who told you this lie?

Its basic knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

Its basic knowledge.

---

No. It's not "basic knowledge". I don't work with "basic knowledge" here, sorry.

About everytime cataphracts have gotten into prolonged melee with infantry, its gone not very well. Aurelian, during the last major battle against the Alamanni charged a mix formation of horse and infantry with his Cataphracts and heavy horse which was repulsed with relatively high casualties as the horses were killed from beneath the cataphracts. They then routed and crashed into his right flank which only managed to be reformed due to the discipline of his troops.

Additionally the Sassanids never really managed to successfully invade against Romans because the Romans were reliably able to defeat heavy horse (unless you are a fat rich guy) and the Romans were only usually defeated on campaign by the inability to hold Armenia and Mesopotamia because they had to spread themselves so thin in the cases of Anthony and Trajan.

Funny enough Aurelian made the members of the cataphract units that did not rally back to him dress up as women after he won the battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

About everytime cataphracts have gotten into prolonged melee with infantry, its gone not very well. Aurelian, during the last major battle against the Alamanni charged a mix formation of horse and infantry with his Cataphracts and heavy horse which was repulsed with relatively high casualties as the horses were killed from beneath the cataphracts. They then routed and crashed into his right flank which only managed to be reformed due to the discipline of his troops.

Funny enough Aurelian made the members of the cataphract units that did not rally back to him dress up as women after he won the battle.

---

This is correct. Cataphracts seem to have been resisted by prepared infantry very well, as they are now. Infantry being flanked or hit in the rear are not prepared.

They do however seem to have crushed other cavalry most of the time assuming the other cavalry were unsupported, such as at Panion and at Magnesia, where the Seleucid cataphract charge broke the Roman left, but then pursued the Romans back to their camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Additionally the Sassanids never really managed to successfully invade against Romans because the Romans were reliably able to defeat heavy horse (unless you are a fat rich guy) and the Romans were only usually defeated on campaign by the inability to hold Armenia and Mesopotamia because they had to spread themselves so thin in the cases of Anthony and Trajan.

---

Correction: the Parthians did not succeed at invading against romans. The Sasssanids, on the other hand, conquered large swaths of territory, at one point overrunning the entire Levant, Egypt, and much of Anatolia.

That's because Khosrau I reformed the cavalry into lighter heavy lancer/horse archer hybrids and deemphasized the cataphracts.

Also I want one of what the Sassanid Knight is shooting: http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-conte...century-AD.jpg

http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/news/nab...ent-world-war/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

That's because Khosrau I reformed the cavalry into light heavy lancer/horse archer hybrids and deemphasized the cataphracts.

---

Correct; later Sassanid armies were optimized for campaigning. He probably drew more of the Dhiqans into service to do so. Regardless, EBO armies seem to not greatly emphasize cataphracts as the main shock too, either, with plenty of hybrids employed where possible, and supporting lighter cavalry in wide use; at least that's the direction things seem to be heading in, especially with Hayasdan and Parthia, and I have little doubt that once I wrap up the Seleucids they will be greatly using the Medians as well.

re: indian longbows: they're definitely NOT on par with good quality reflex composites. for example, a good (not exceptional) quality turkish or mongol composite bow (of course, those 2 are probably the pinnacle of composite bows) had greater range and power than your average english longbow (which is clearly superior to a cane longbow). i really don't see how or why would a cane longbow be better in any way (other than cheapness and ease of use) than a reflex composite bow from the steppe. and i don't see how the fact that the bow was a well respected weapon in indian society factors in. the japanese also revered the bow and used longbows, yet their bows pale in comparison to pretty much every composite bow out there. it's also worth noting that a steel self bow is worse than an equivalent wood self bow because of the properties of the material (less of the "spring" force is transferred via steel) and were probably a social symbol or whatever more than anything else (the main (only?) advantage is that the steel bow requires waaaaay less maintenance and were more "resistant" to weather changes. although it's waaaaaay more dangerous when it breaks). another thing worth noting in the longbow vs composite is the arrows. in EB's timeframe the vast majority of steppe arrowheads were of bone (bronze became dominant only very late in the EB period, if not even later) and while i have no sources on what the indian used for arrowheads, i wouldn't have trouble believing that most of their arrows would have iron/steel tips due to the advanced metallurgy that was a prominent feature of the area for quite a long time. and it's reasonable to assume that the longbow arrows were heavier (although considerably slower), just like their english "counterparts". btw i completely agree that the indian longbowmen should be significantly cheaper (besides the sword, i don't see anything that would justify such a hight price)

re: falxes: from a purely realism/historical standpoint it makes no sense to have them be AP since the forward-curving tip was the only thing capable of doing that (and very likely the main reason why the romans reinforced the helmets). unfortunately, the very simplistic nature of the TW engines doesn't lend itself well to recreate the dynamics of combat (especially the overly simplistic AP thing. let's face it, the falx would be next-to completely ineffective against something like the Dosidataskeli or the Grivpanvar... and giving it the AP would make them overly effective against such units. which is very unrealistic but perhaps a necessary "sacrifice"?) so i wouldn't have much objections against the falx getting the AP because, let's face it, there's only a handful of units in the EB roster that have adequate limb protection against the weapon (although those same units would suffer the most vs the falx due to the bollocks RTW implementation of AP).
another thing to consider: if the falx really was such a fearsome weapon, why did it "die" with the dacians (assuming that later polearms weren't inspired by the falxe)? why didn't the romans use it (considering they were wont to adapt and use tech that was "better")?

btw, the AP attribute does not take 1/2 of the armour in consideration. it actually adds (armour-1)/2 to the attack. just sayin...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

This is correct. Cataphracts seem to have been resisted by prepared infantry very well, as they are now. Infantry being flanked or hit in the rear are not prepared.

They do however seem to have crushed other cavalry most of the time assuming the other cavalry were unsupported, such as at Panion and at Magnesia, where the Seleucid cataphract charge broke the Roman left, but then pursued the Romans back to their camp.

---

I was informed that there is at least one cavalry unit from the "West" that defeats cataphracts: Sacred Band of Carthage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

EBO armies seem to not greatly emphasize cataphracts as the main shock too, either, with plenty of hybrids employed where possible, and supporting lighter cavalry in wide use; at least that's the direction things seem to be heading in, especially with Hayasdan and Parthia, and I have little doubt that once I wrap up the Seleucids they will be greatly using the Medians as well.

---

RTW unfortunately takes the "shock" out of "shock cavalry" when it comes to medium and light cavalry. They are instead, at the moment, best used to add bulk in the melee in cav vs cav.

While it wasn't a cavalry tactic, there was an infantry tactic that was basically creating an infantry wedge with the heavily armored elite troops on the outside and less armored infantry on the inside to increase mass.

Lanceari and ambakaro epones are the other "western" cavalry which beat cataphracts.

And vartan, why does the site say SAC archer limit is 8?

Not quite the right place to ask that.

There is no other place to ask that. Since he is offline and I will be going to sleep soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

There is no other place to ask that. Since he is offline and I will be going to sleep soon.

---

This forum does have private as well as profile messages, you know. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Lanceari and ambakaro epones are the other "western" cavalry which beat cataphracts.

---

There you go, more odd cases that continue to baffle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

And vartan, why does the site say SAC archer limit is 8?

---

Why not? It's the (now legacy) ruleset. Do you have a problem with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

There is no other place to ask that. Since he is offline and I will be going to sleep soon.

---

You would do well to contain your...whatever the word is to describe your behavior...inside our Hamachi chatrooms. It's more than plenty there. Don't bring it here if you can prevent it (and you certainly can).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

This forum does have private as well as profile messages, you know. ~;)

---

Thank you!

It was bumped to 10 in june, why has it been reverted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

It was bumped to 10 in june, why has it been reverted?

---

June was the first tournament this year. It was also the debut of EBO MP EDU Series 2. This is why certain rules were altered. July saw the use of 2.1, and enter 2.1.1 in August. Rules were changed more than a few times in order to complement the EDU changes. Regardless, it is all irrelevant now as Series 2, like Series 1, is now obsolete. Thanks for asking though.

Why. Sauro still get 10, why not the others?

Random question, how is the density stuff working out? I have some ideas that could make infantry infantry charges actually work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Why. Sauro still get 10, why not the others?

---

The reason why the Sauros got 10 was because at the time they didn't have any non-archer cav, and that put them at max 8 cav (which would also have meant no foot archers). As this has changed and they have Scythian Nobles now, they should no longer receive this special rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Why. Sauro still get 10, why not the others?

---

Sauros do not get ten. They get anything they want now. Stop asking questions that are completely irrelevant. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Random question, how is the density stuff working out? I have some ideas that could make infantry infantry charges actually work.

---

GG2 hasn't informed me about any work on density. What are you offering? And do we really want infantry charges to work? I know I wouldn't, because as it is, cavalry charges are messed up half the time with lances not lowered. Would you want that with infantry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

The reason why the Sauros got 10 was because at the time they didn't have any non-archer cav, and that put them at max 8 cav (which would also have meant no foot archers). As this has changed and they have Scythian Nobles now, they should no longer receive this special rule.

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Sauros do not get ten. They get anything they want now. Stop asking questions that are completely irrelevant. Thank you.

GG2 hasn't informed me about any work on density. What are you offering? And do we really want infantry charges to work? I know I wouldn't, because as it is, cavalry charges are messed up half the time with lances not lowered. Would you want that with infantry?

Thank you.

---

Cavalry only don't lower their lances if you don't position them properly before the charge. Its all about understanding the quirks of the engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Cavalry only don't lower their lances if you don't position them properly before the charge. Its all about understanding the quirks of the engine.

---

Clearly. But I'd like to fight for players who can't exploit the engine as much as some other players can. What I mean is something like this. If one of my cavalry if fighting one of yours, and you have one on standby nearby, one thing you can do to take advantage is to withdraw your fighting cavalry and charge with your standby. What this does is it makes my cavalry automatically pursue your fleeing cavalry and get charged like a car accident in which one car hits the side of another. What's more, even if I told my cavalry to attack the incoming cavalry, it would be highly unlikely for my cavalry to couch their lances due to the proximity of your charging cavalry. A similar case would arise with infantry if they work anything like cavalry do. By this I mean if they have to be executed at a certain distance, in a certain way, then there could be opened a whole can of worms, Pandora's Box, if you will, since there would be a whole chunk of online gaming technique which would be solely devoted to exploiting these (highly unfortunate) nuances of the engine in order to win.

EDIT: I really hope that makes sense. Let me know if I am mistaken in my reasoning. It's just what comes to mind when I think about this, and I've thought about this plenty and have been slightly disappointed that it's never been at the forefront of our decision making, with the EDU taking the lead role in that regard.

Weird engine bugs make professional starcraft the best game ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Weird engine bugs make professional starcraft the best game ever.

---

That's not really an engine bug. Cavalry can't suddenly change direction and absorb an incoming prepared charge. It's really just simple preparation. It is unfortunate that newer players have to learn these things by getting burned, but it happened (will happen) to us all. That's why we play so many practice matches.

Also, you can put your cavalry on guard mode if you don't want them to chase. Similarly, the cavalry battle is generally what most players micro and so if you see your opponent pull his cavalry back or see another unit charging in, pull your cavalry back as well.

Actually I'd really like infantry charges to work. Please, offer your proposal!

I will not be available to chat except on Facebook until Monday, or even Tuesday, due to a hard drive failure.

Lazy is slightly misrepresenting: we found that the Pahlavan Zrehbaran and their identical armenian counterparts crush lanceari if they get one charge, and that the same is almost certainly true in the case of the Epones, which we did not test. The Sacred Band were about 50-50 with the cataphracts, but doubtless the cataphracts are more devastating to infantry.

Can you catch me online?

Also, can you increase drapnai to 120? They aren't very effective yet except making your cav hard to engage.

Also, did you apply factional price discounts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Can you catch me online?

Also, can you increase drapnai to 120? They aren't very effective yet except making your cav hard to engage.

Also, did you apply factional price discounts?

---

Yeah. Post-Marian romans don't have any though.

Regarding the rules; I dont get it, did the SAC rules get outdated or what?.

And cavalry charge distances, does not matter if you set it to half the map, you still need to know the quirks of the engine for it to work, you cannot avoid that.

@GG2; Yes but, the cataphracts also have 6 other cav for company so I guess our tests are irrelevant :D

1)Bosphoran archers have the same Defense skill as pontic heavy infantry. Since when did an archer get any sort of melee defense practice. Maybe he had karate lessons on the side. Archers should have beween 2-5 defense skill

2)infantry such as Drapanai have more charge Distance then Cavalry, Drapanai have 40 Cavalry are at 30. The increase of Cavalry Charge Distance would cause lances to lower earlier thus impale any men beween the cavalry and its target . thus the charge wont get messed up by fleeing archers or a tiny group of men who the cata happened to touch before lowering lance, thus messes up the formation.

3) I see Cataphracts have recieved +1 Sheild and Slingers as well as archers have recieved significant accuracy Decreases. That Is nerfing the use of slingers on cataphracts 2 fold one by lowering accuracy another by adding shield. I'm not a history fan boy but did Cataphracts historically have shields ? hmmm nice to know its not pick and choose which histroical fact to apply and which to disregard.

2.) No, that has no effect on combat whatsoever, the only thing important for charges is the way they are facing, if you about turn and then charge chances are they will never lower their lances.

yes or no question:

lazyo when u target a unit to chagre with your cavalry and your cavalry are positioned perfectly u charge, in beween u and the target there is a unit of archers in loose formation, before your cav lowers lances they hit the loose archers what will happen. If the lanes werent raised they will break formation and engage the archers, If the charge distance is big enough that they lower lanes before touching the archers they will stampede the archers and charge the target.

I urge you to edit the charge distance of the Griv in the EDu to 50, then go to custom battle and test the distance for your self, then test 30 charge distance. I tested it and distance at 30 is too close and may result in them lowering lances too late.

I dont know, my cavalry respect and fear me enough to know that they will most probably die like flies if they engage the archers... ;D


PRESS GUARD MODE IF THERE IS SOMETHING IN BETWEEN

Or the better option would be to scale Cavalry Charge distances to 40-50. I tested it and its Epic.



Edit: GG can you give the Saba Faction All rome units. It would be fun to have some Rome vs. Rome battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Regarding the rules; I dont get it, did the SAC rules get outdated or what?.

---

Don't look at the God-forsaken rules page. It's none of your business anymore. It does not concern you. It's there for reasons that pertain to me mainly regarding how I'm going to archive that and a bunch of stuff which is now obsolete. Stop bringing this up because "SAC rules" no longer exist. Get it. Got it? Good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

1)Bosphoran archers have the same Defense skill as pontic heavy infantry. Since when did an archer get any sort of melee defense practice. Maybe he had karate lessons on the side. Archers should have beween 2-5 defense skill

---

Haven't you seen the cost on the Bosphorans? It's no wonder they're so powerful.

Quote:

---

2)infantry such as Drapanai have more charge Distance then Cavalry, Drapanai have 40 Cavalry are at 30. The increase of Cavalry Charge Distance would cause lances to lower earlier thus impale any men beween the cavalry and its target . thus the charge wont get messed up by fleeing archers or a tiny group of men who the cata happened to touch before lowering lance, thus messes up the formation.

---

That's no excuse. The person is playing smart by counter-charging. Besides, you can completely avoid this by walking instead of running your cavalry, if you really insist (even though the problem isn't really as you describe it since yours is an exaggeration).

Quote:

---

3) I see Cataphracts have recieved +1 Sheild and Slingers as well as archers have recieved significant accuracy Decreases. That Is nerfing the use of slingers on cataphracts 2 fold one by lowering accuracy another by adding shield. I'm not a history fan boy but did Cataphracts historically have shields ? hmmm nice to know its not pick and choose which histroical fact to apply and which to disregard.

---

It's pretty clear you don't know precisely why missile accuracy was modified and cataphracts given an artificial shield point. That's fine. If it's in the documentation, you'll read all about it. If gamegeek2 has mentioned it (which he has), you'll read about it. If you're lucky, somebody will tell you about it. I'll let you figure it out since I'd like to tease you. It's a puzzle but an easy one. Just think about why someone would make those changes ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

yes or no question:

lazyo when u target a unit to chagre with your cavalry and your cavalry are positioned perfectly u charge, in beween u and the target there is a unit of archers in loose formation, before your cav lowers lances they hit the loose archers what will happen. If the lanes werent raised they will break formation and engage the archers, If the charge distance is big enough that they lower lanes before touching the archers they will stampede the archers and charge the target.

---

You don't charge a unit in front of which are a bunch of loose archers. That is retarded (literally), at least in our game, precisely because of the engagement mechanics. Your charge will become discoordinated and a real mess. Instead find a better charge to commit to, gg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

Or the better option would be to scale Cavalry Charge distances to 40-50. I tested it and its Epic.

Edit: GG can you give the Saba Faction All rome units. It would be fun to have some Rome vs. Rome battles.

---

It's not epic. It's stupid. Most lances don't even couch as it is. 50 would just ruin it for everybody. And giving Saba factional SPQR should only allow the opponent to pick factional SPQR (no mercs), but that's probably the smartest thing you've said for a long, long time. Well done.

The only problem with stormrage's suggestion is that it would require a massive amount of editing to desr_model_battle so that Saba would have the necessary skins.

If we are to have any rules, Lazy, they would be these:

-Merc unit limit dependent on faction; some would get more than others (Rome, for example).
-Fair play rules
-Unit limitation based on costs, which you have proposed and I want you to outline in a post, because I think it is an excellent idea. It would prevent spamming of units like Lanceari, Cataphracts, and Scythian Nobles, and impose some fair historical limits, while allowing people plenty of options in army composition in terms of the numbers of missile troops, etc. they can bring.

I think it went something like this, though I forgot exact limits.

No limit for under (price)1000

Max 8 same of 1000-1500

Max 6 Same of 1000-2000

Max 4 same of 2000-2500

Max 2 same of 2500+

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

I think it went something like this, though I forgot exact limits.

No limit for under (price)1000

Max 8 same of 1000-1500

Max 6 Same of 1000-2000

Max 4 same of 2000-2500

Max 2 same of 2500+

---

This rule hurts the Arverni too much. The only advantage they have over Aedui is having a solid line composed of Arjos (which are phenomenal line troops) which cost 2000+. If we limit them to 4, that is not enough to compose a line of.

Make them cheaper :P

Your going about this the wrong way. You have to get the pricing of units just right so that the spammage of elite units would make the player lose money for other parts of his army. The Stats should also be just right that even if he spammed elites he would have the Rock but, the other army might have the Paper and cut the elites to bits. Get what i mean.

The EDu should be rightly Statted and perfectly priced, If that happens then the smart player will know it is not in his faovr to spam just cavalry or just infantry for example, becuase he will then have only 1 of 3. While the army which is baalnced in other words has all 3 rock paper and scissory will beat his rock spam or scissors spam.

You can just ignore all my advice and continue doing whatever your doing ofcourse .

Vartan, when lances are "couched" at 30 charge distance, this distance is so close that it will lead to cav sometimes not couching in time, this is your problem. Just listen to strormage again like u did with the 60 man elites, and give cav 50 charge distance.

Why are you people so stubborn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormrage

Your going about this the wrong way. You have to get the pricing of units just right so that the spammage of elite units would make the player lose money for other parts of his army. The Stats should also be just right that even if he spammed elites he would have the Rock but, the other army might have the Paper and cut the elites to bits. Get what i mean.

---

Yes, you want to play rock, paper, scissors. We get it, but you won't. My advice to you is to get a friend: as long as neither of you is a thief, then you should already have all that you need, and you can stop buggering us about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

Vartan, when lances are "couched" at 30 charge distance, this distance is so close that it will lead to cav sometimes not couching in time, this is your problem. Just listen to strormage again like u did with the 60 man elites, and give cav 50 charge distance.

---

It favors fast, light lancers too much. Heavy cavalry have it hard as is.

And I don't see why I can't bring 6 Grivpanvar if I want to in a tournament. It's my loss.

Quote:

---

Why are you people so stubborn.

---

---

To be very clear charge distance effects when cav lower their lances, i am asking that instead of having cav lower lances at the last minute they should lower lances earlier.
Instead of 30 charge distance , we increase it to 40-50. (according to cav type).

i hope im being clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

---

To be very clear charge distance effects when cav lower their lances, i am asking that instead of having cav lower lances at the last minute they should lower lances earlier.
Instead of 30 charge distance , we increase it to 40-50. (according to cav type).

i hope im being clear.

---

Don't you understand that it means I'm going to have to move my exhausted heavy cavalry even farther away from the enemy before I can charge properly again? Major ruin for the already difficult maneuvering with the heavy cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

This rule hurts the Arverni too much. The only advantage they have over Aedui is having a solid line composed of Arjos (which are phenomenal line troops) which cost 2000+. If we limit them to 4, that is not enough to compose a line of.

---

Chevroned Bataroas are excellent; 1800 for 100 11-attack long-swordsmen with a big shield, 21 defense, 13 morale. Also would you expect historical Arverni to compose their entire line of nobility? And do recall you have Neitos as well.

Frankly I see too many mailed troops in Celtic armies, with cheap Iaosatae making up for expensive infantry.

There is no "all three" stormrage. There are at least six different basic troop types in EB: Infantry Skirmishers, Missile Inf, Melee/Heavy Inf, Horse Archers, JavCav, and Lancers/Heavy Cav. Try playing rock-paper-scissors with that.

Hi guys. Many have asked why Bosphorans are the best archers. gamegeek2 is who I went to and this is the response he gave, which I believe perfectly answers the question:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Of course they cost more than cretans, they have better armor and better weapons, but equal bow skill (bosporans use lighter arrows though) and tier. They defeat all other archers easily.

---

EDIT: Storm check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-pa...s-lizard-Spock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Chevroned Bataroas are excellent; 1800 for 100 11-attack long-swordsmen with a big shield, 21 defense, 13 morale. Also would you expect historical Arverni to compose their entire line of nobility? And do recall you have Neitos as well.

Frankly I see too many mailed troops in Celtic armies, with cheap Iaosatae making up for expensive infantry.

---

I'm not arguing for both Aedui and Arverni, I'm arguing solely for Arverni. The only difference between the two is Arjos/Carnutes with Carnutes obviously being the more useful unit. If we are limited in the use of Arjos, it makes little sense to pick them as the Aedui will simply be superior with the druidic chants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I'm not arguing for both Aedui and Arverni, I'm arguing solely for Arverni. The only difference between the two is Arjos/Carnutes with Carnutes obviously being the more useful unit. If we are limited in the use of Arjos, it makes little sense to pick them as the Aedui will simply be superior with the druidic chants.

---

I would counter with the following: As Arverni you get 4 more mailed line infantry. Carnutes are more expensive and less effective as general-purpose troopers, thus only one or two are usually brought. Thus out of their unique advantage, the Arverni received 4 troops, while the Aedui received one or two.

Well, pedites have no become just another generic AP infantry and now Hoplites are so ridiculous in charging, that it is hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

I would counter with the following: As Arverni you get 4 more mailed line infantry. Carnutes are more expensive and less effective as general-purpose troopers, thus only one or two are usually brought. Thus out of their unique advantage, the Arverni received 4 troops, while the Aedui received one or two.

---

Good point, I didn't think about the limit being applied to Neitos as well. Duh.

Camillian Triari are now officially the best unit Rome has.

Yeah but I mentioned the good stamina for them and not Polybian Triarii and he said that was a mistake. He may have meant for the Polybians to have good stamina and not the Camillans who are more heavily armored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Yeah but I mentioned the good stamina for them and not Polybian Triarii and he said that was a mistake. He may have meant for the Polybians to have good stamina and not the Camillans who are more heavily armored.

---

Both should have good stamina. And those Camillan triarii need to have their cost reduction remove, fo sho, while the Polybians may well keep it.

Wait, they are ridiculous at charging? Hmm that giant, heavy shield they have might make some sense out of that, but please describe this "ridiculous charge" you speak of.

If you find a corner or an unguarded 'seam' between units, you can order your Hoplites to attack it and then it'll expand and wedge it open. If you stack hoplites on top of each other then they can basically punch a hole through a weakly guarded section of enemy line. You could always do that but since you made the pedites have a not stupid formation, the best unit to pull off the trick with are Massilians and camillian Triari... For Rome anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

If you find a corner or an unguarded 'seam' between units, you can order your Hoplites to attack it and then it'll expand and wedge it open. If you stack hoplites on top of each other then they can basically punch a hole through a weakly guarded section of enemy line. You could always do that but since you made the pedites have a not stupid formation, the best unit to pull off the trick with are Massilians and camillian Triari... For Rome anyway.

---

How many times do I have to say this, the Massilians' stats aren't done yet!

Anyways it's about time someone put hoplites to good use. Then again, it's you ASM...what can I expect!

GG2/Vartan Please put the rules we are supposed to be using on the first post .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

GG2/Vartan Please put the rules we are supposed to be using on the first post .

---

Just came back from exam. This is gg2's thread so he'll take care of that. I'll fix the site you can clearly tell what we're doing at the moment, where we're at with 3.0.