[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

Well, I am lowering mass but increasing charge strength now, as per ASM's suggestion. Perhaps that will work better. We shall see.

You are correct, properly prepared Roman armies were highly successful against the Parthians; for example, against Pacorus, the numerous Roman slingers inflicted heavy damage on the Parthian heavy cavalry, letting the Romans kill Pacorus and rout his army.

I am seeing a potentially similar outcome here in MP battles. Prepared armies of large kingdoms seem like they would be able to much better supply ammunition to their troops than steppe folk, but steppe nobles can expect to have a large number of arrows (one gorytos from a kurgan had hundreds of them!)

Hey steppe folk can get rocks from different regions , due to them migrating alot. I think steppe slingers should fire various colors of stones due to the historical tradition of steppe people having a hobby of picking rocks off the ground.

Oh and the Arabian peninsula had lots of desert pavement so i think suadi slingers should get plus ammo :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

Hey steppe folk can get rocks from different regions , due to them migrating alot. I think steppe slingers should fire various colors of stones due to the historical tradition of steppe people having a hobby of picking rocks off the ground.

Oh and the Arabian peninsula had lots of desert pavement so i think suadi slingers should get plus ammo :p

---

No such thing as steppe slingers Storm :p

I'm very interested to see the changes to the Hellenistic factions. Though I love to play the Eurobarbs in MP, Hellenes always hold a special spot in my heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

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.

---

The idea in my mind is to have either a hardy cav unit or a non-hardy one. Therefore you can expect plenty of non-cataphract cav to have hardy stamina if gg2 takes this approach. So you'll still have options in that regard that you mention, if not as limitless as before.

EDIT: The key here is that what you mention about previous cav should not remain unchecked in these developments. Reason is to not allow one tactic to become the be all and end all of EB Online.

It would be nice to have different types of cav instead of 'good chargers' and crap everything else. 3.0 has already addressed a ton of it but I think you should make the really heavy cataphracts something special, normal stamina and fear inducing. Atleast for the purposes of testing. After all they were used for frontal charges against weakened positions unlike heavy cavalry used for flanking tactics. There should be a difference between the heavily armed hellenistic cavalry covered with mail, shield, and cuirass and the ridiculously half or fully armored Cataphracts of the east. Main idea is to have the really powerful elite Cataphracts be really powerful sledge hammer cavalry to crack a battle line in its weakest spot. I suppose it would be somewhat difficult to balance the half armored Cataphracts though. Those would probably just be really powerful frontal charge but no scary.

Wont make no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

It would be nice to have different types of cav instead of 'good chargers' and crap everything else. 3.0 has already addressed a ton of it but I think you should make the really heavy cataphracts something special, normal stamina and fear inducing. Atleast for the purposes of testing. After all they were used for frontal charges against weakened positions unlike heavy cavalry used for flanking tactics. There should be a difference between the heavily armed hellenistic cavalry covered with mail, shield, and cuirass and the ridiculously half or fully armored Cataphracts of the east. Main idea is to have the really powerful elite Cataphracts be really powerful sledge hammer cavalry to crack a battle line in its weakest spot. I suppose it would be somewhat difficult to balance the half armored Cataphracts though. Those would probably just be really powerful frontal charge but no scary.

---

You have hit the nail on the head, that's why my current stats aim to do. I am fearing, however, that 50 charge plus scary may not be enough in light of lowered horse masses.

Why lower them? Just make them the default ones we were using pre 3.0.

If mass is the same as 3.0, these new catas better cost 5-6000 each. Scary cavalry with 50 charge?:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

If mass is the same as 3.0, these new catas better cost 5-6000 each. Scary cavalry with 50 charge?:dizzy2:

---

Yes robin i told that to gg2 on hamachi but he said that catas are slow and dont have stamina i still think that if they have fear boost that they should have a slightly cost increase

I think the max applicable attack/defense diff is 32. So charge values that high may not make much of a difference :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vega

Yes robin i told that to gg2 on hamachi but he said that catas are slow and dont have stamina i still think that if they have fear boost that they should have a slightly cost increase

---

Current costing of Grivpanvar is about 4200. Do you recall how horribly underpowered catasphracts used to be? They were wrecking balls! And they will still be vulnerable. We will see, they may yet cost more later.

Come hamachi. I want to ask you something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Current costing of Grivpanvar is about 4200. Do you recall how horribly underpowered catasphracts used to be? They were wrecking balls! And they will still be vulnerable. We will see, they may yet cost more later.

---

Have we been playing the same game? Everyone who plays Baktria or AS almost always takes 2-3 cataphracts and those are Greek factions have various other options for light/medium cavalry as well as high quality infantry if you'd prefer to spend money there. And you can ask Lazy O about how effective Grivpanvar can be in v2.1.1. We fought a few battles when I was debating taking Pahlava for August.

You do recall that cataphracts now must contend with more 100 man heavy infantry units, enlarged light cavalry units of 60 men and 90 man slingers, right? And that the archers won't protect them as well anymore? I will run a quick test but the five factions are ready to go should you ask for them.

I'm going to have to agree with ASM on this one. We'll need to increase mass from vanilla EB slightly, since we cannot entirely rely on one factor, such as increasing charge by a ridiculous amount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I think the max applicable attack/defense diff is 32. So charge values that high may not make much of a difference :p

---

OK, so the full charge strength is maxed against units with 24 defense, or spear units with 16 defense; but remember apparently maximum values of attack and defense can go over 63 so I do not trust this maximum as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

OK, so the full charge strength is maxed against units with 24 defense, or spear units with 16 defense; but remember apparently maximum values of attack and defense can go over 63 so I do not trust this maximum as well.

---

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure we can balance the situation without going over what the proposed maximums are.

I've noticed that lower accuracy slingers have much better accuracy than lower accuracy archers. This may have something to do with the projectile angle being lower.

Its just something I heard in the mod forum. There is a limit of 32 between attack and defense differences. We can try really high stuff, it probably won't matter THAT much since you'd be flattening low defense infantry anyway.

Guys want to show you a replay how bringing roman cavarly vs steppe is useles this dacian ha are amazing 61 men with good charge and bloddy mis atack are so strong, we even didnt start battle i lost half of my army well gg2 watch this replay and you choose what should be changed :DDD http://www.mediafire.com/?o23c8dhuj4jj336

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vega

Guys want to show you a replay how bringing roman cavarly vs steppe is useles this dacian ha are amazing 61 men with good charge and bloddy mis atack are so strong, we even didnt start battle i lost half of my army well gg2 watch this replay and you choose what should be changed :DDD http://www.mediafire.com/?o23c8dhuj4jj336

---

Roman cavalry's supposed to be superior to steppe cavalry? I hadn't heard that one before. :2thumbsup:

I must say Vega that is quite unusual, the Roman cavalry appear to be missing their 9000 power levels.

Guys i dont understand why you are angry then when i use infratry spam and not choosing cav, next time if i spam spearmen and cohorts dont be angry please, i just say that cav is useles vs 7 ha with 61 men which have so much ammo and bloddy misile atack :(

Vega, what do you expect will happen if someone takes 7 Horse Archers regardless of the opposing teams faction? You are not talking Rome specific.

The solution to horse archers is foot archers. They are more accurate and have more men, they only have less ammo, but each shot flies more true. A foot archer also costs a little bit more than half as much per man. This advantage is especially pronounced by the lack of Cantabrian circle for HA, if I forgot to remove it from any HA unit please tell me.

I didn't save the battles we had last night, but Vega's Romans outdid my Sweboz (despite many units having a shield stat of 6, roman pila and arrows are still devastating) and my superior Hai cavalry forced overran his Pontic force, despite a decided inferiority in foot archers. I feel the story of the battle exhibits some interesting points, so here goes:

My army:

1 Hai BG
2 Armenian Cataphracts
1 Armenian Medium Cav
1 Nizakahar Ayrudzi (JavCav)
2 Steppe Riders
2 Syrian Archers
1 Eastern Slingers
5 Panda Phalanxes
4 Georgian Infantry
1 Armenian Noble Infantry

Vega's Army (IIRC)

1 Early Pontos BG
2 Scythian Heavy Cavalry
2 Steppe Riders
3 Bosporan Archers
5-6 Panda Phalanxes
6-7 Mix of Kuarothoroi and Pontic Thorakitai

My troops were deployed in a manner to maximize flexibility in infantry, while to overwhelm with cavalry. I placed the phalanx in the center with the general behind, with the Georgians directly next to the general, and the Georgians next to the general, with the elite infantry and slingers behind those; the archers were in loose formation in front. To the direct left of my formation, I placed my skirmisher cavalry, with the cataphracts behind these, and the medium cavalry behind those. Vega deployed his 6 heavy infantry units on the sides of his center phalanxes (3 on each side) and had 2 of his archers in front of the phalanx, with one behind as a reserve; one of his Scythian units were placed on each side of the infantry line. Both of us deployed our horse archers on either wing, far from the main line. His position was better suited to go into action quickly, and his reserve archer unit, I feared, would do much to counteract my preponderance in cavalry.

The battle opened with the traditional archer duel. Our steppe horse archers engaged on the flanks, each inflicting approximately 30% casualties on each other before retiring and commencing other work, which shall be detailed later. His 2 Bosporans that he sent to the front easily outdid my Syrians (spending 2100 on an archer unit pays off) in quality, so I had my archers switch to shoot at his phalanx; they inflicted about 40-50 casualties on his phalangites, but my engaged archers suffered approximately 70% casualties, while his suffered only 12%, meaning he had those Bosporans left over to serve as medium infantrymen.

Following this, he began an advance with his line of infantry, but I refused to retreat my archers, keeping them far in front of my line to get good shots at his phalanxes. Seeing this, Vega deployed a Scythian unit to wipe up my archers, and I brought my slingers and one of my horse archers to fire on his Scythians as I retreated my archers. He pulled back his scythian cavalry, which took volleys in the rear, neglecting their large shield stat. He then brought his horse archers and reserve archer unit to shoot my slingers, which they did, but I concentrated fire on his Scythians with my limited resources (I turned my horse archers to shoot his) and dealt them about 10 casualties, or 20% of their strength.

The phalanx lines then clashed, and my Georgians fired volleys of javelins into his phalanxes, inflicting an unknown number of casualties. They then took flanking positions so that my line looked like this /-----\. To hold the crucial left flank, where my cavalry were to make their decisive charge, I placed my elite noble infantry. His weakened Scythians went on a ride around my army to assault the rear, while my cataphracts charged and quickly overran his one unit of Scythians on the left, while the javelin cavalry peppered the flank of his assaulting heavy infantry. The two cataphracts and one Medium cavalry immediately turned against his flank, without bothering to do a full lance charge; the inferior quality Pontic troops routed, while the two units of sturdy Galatians held.

I retreated my cataphracts and mediums, and had my Javelin cavalry empty their saddlebags with spears in the backs of the Galatians, before I sent my medium cavalry after them again; they and the left flank infantry ground up the Galatians. The cataphracts mopped up some of the Bosporan archers that he used to reinforce the line (after this they were tired and I commited them to no further action), and the phalanxes murdered each other, with all of my phalanxes suffering more than 50% casualties, and his routing. That little bit of archer and javelin fire had paid off with a victory in the center. His Scythians reached the back of my line and charged the rear of the phalanx, but this was irrelevant as almost 50% of the phalangites were dead already. His preponderance of infantry on my right (his left) meant that he was winning there, but my general got in one charge on his flank there, and the command bonus helped my troops hang on long enough for me to win the center and left. Seeing the hopelessness of his position, Vega admitted defeat.

What does this battle prove? First of all, it disproves the statement by Antisocialmunky that a superior quantity of heavy infantry counters a well-supported cavalry force. My cavalry, all concentrated on my left flank (except the horse archers), overran his flank within two minutes in hammer-and-anvil style, while my right flank held off long enough to make my victory complete.

Second of all, phalanxes kill each other too fast, especially as Panda Phalanxes have only 15 defense. To mitigate this, I am removing light_spear from the attributes of all phalanx units (except the Germanic Pikemen unit), which should not affect combat against other infantry as other infantry must move to close quarters to engage enemies anyway. However, the resulting loss of the -4 defense penalty should prolong phalanx combat by an estimated 50%. It will also mean that the pikemen do not resist cavalry charges from the front as well, but I don't expect anyone to charge cavalry right at a phalanx from the front even then, and if that becomes a viable tactic, it can easily be added to the list of fairplay violations.

Third of all, Hai infantry seems to hold the line effectively enough to allow the cavalry to win important battles, especially when an elite infantry unit or a general is present to reinforce and/or inspire. The new Pontic Thorakitai are an important asset to Pontic players, with 90 men and short swords to defeat opposing spearmen, and the defense stats of Thureophoroi.

Fourth, the battle demonstrated what I feel is a key principle, that Vega recognized after the battle; inferior archers ought not to be put to use by shooting the enemy archers, but by absorbing arrows and firing at other targets, so your other troops may be victorious. For example, they weakened the Scythian cavalry slightly, and they dealt some damage to the phalangites, enough to win me a victory in the push of pike; the Bosporan archers did little but shoot my missile troops and engage in close combat, in which they are useful support troops but far from the infantry of choice; they barely increased the strength of his force in the decisive melee clash (he reinforced his line rather than using them as flankers), while my archers, for less cost, dealt more important damage in the center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Third of all, Hai infantry seems to hold the line effectively enough to allow the cavalry to win important battles, especially when an elite infantry unit or a general is present to reinforce and/or inspire. The new Pontic Thorakitai are an important asset to Pontic players, with 90 men and short swords to defeat opposing spearmen, and the defense stats of Thureophoroi.

---

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

Quote:

---

Fourth, the battle demonstrated what I feel is a key principle, that Vega recognized after the battle; inferior archers ought not to be put to use by shooting the enemy archers, but by absorbing arrows and firing at other targets, so your other troops may be victorious. For example, they weakened the Scythian cavalry slightly, and they dealt some damage to the phalangites, enough to win me a victory in the push of pike; the Bosporan archers did little but shoot my missile troops and engage in close combat, in which they are useful support troops but far from the infantry of choice; they barely increased the strength of his force in the decisive melee clash (he reinforced his line rather than using them as flankers), while my archers, for less cost, dealt more important damage in the center.

---

Reading this gives me the impression that I would like to be on the side with inferior archers, not superior archers. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

---

Lets not go crazy with those eagles now; it's enough that everyone's got at least one now. Giving it to more would remove the incentive to bring general units, and (I feel like I'm being a broken record on this) will serve to weaken the Casse further. Their particular fighting style would no longer be showcased in low morale units following their heroes into battle either; it would just be something everyone had, but with worse everything. It's definitely enough just to have them fight very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Lets not go crazy with those eagles now; it's enough that everyone's got at least one now. Giving it to more would remove the incentive to bring general units, and (I feel like I'm being a broken record on this) will serve to weaken the Casse further. Their particular fighting style would no longer be showcased in low morale units following their heroes into battle either; it would just be something everyone had, but with worse everything. It's definitely enough just to have them fight very well.

---

That's pretty much the case with Saba...you think Saba deserves compromise, too? I don't. But that's just my thought. There's nothing wrong with making all factions of the game work for the sake of having them work. :yes:

Saba get elephants. There is no unit in the Casse roster that can win a battle like elephants can.

That said, elephants should get a minor boost to hp if they havn't already. Maybe +1. Makes little sense that ellies get only one more hp than gaesatae.