Does that then make all the other ele factions which are already top contenders overpowered?
Printable View
Does that then make all the other ele factions which are already top contenders overpowered?
It's more of how you use the archers you have. If you have one archer instead of one line unit, and use that archer to badly damage the enemy cav, then you win the cav fight and can rout the line. But if you have five archers and the enemy has four identical ones, well then they cancel each other out much more, and the enemy has more line units to help break through.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Probably. That is why we should keep money at 36k. If anything, 34k would be even better as it would make the lighter units more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
It depends on the faction since defensive infantry are quite hard to definitively kill. Having an additional identical archer is actually quite useful if the enemy is packing expensive cav because it by itself makes it hard to use cavalry since it will have extra ammo to spend and will be able to swing cav engagements your way... which will make it much easier to win a cav fight and mass rout the battle line. Also good in no cav at all cases because then it can break away and prevent flanking because it can shoot flankers or doods chasing your cav in the back.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Elephants cannot win you a battle and a re a liablity. Simply too many faction have charger cavalry, heck even prodromoi can kill elephants, so can a lowly akontisai unit.
Problem is elephants still cost too much. A unit of elephants shouldn't cost too much more than a unit of cataphracts considering there are more ways to counter them than catas. Maybe 6500 for a unit of elephants?
Btw, this is based solely on balance, not on historical accuracy.
I completely agree with you. I've agreed with you since even before you were playing EBO. We've yet to see the cheap elephant. But it does say a lot that expensive elephants have still won battles. Looking forward to 1.5x cata-cost elephants though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Huh? In vanilla EB, Casse gets low morale but so many eagles to showcase their different fighting style of having heroes lead the tribes into war. When you gave general units eagles, you decreased this point, and if you start giving them left, right and centre, you remove this distinguishment altogether. However, it's even worse, because you're only removing the good part of this distinguishment (the eagles), but keeping the bad part of it (low morale for non-heroic units).Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
In other words, my argument is not simply "doing this would make Casse irrelevant", which is pretty much true, but also that it would remove a historical point from the Casse faction. In other words, if we agreed that not giving elites an eagle would be a compromise, then all we'd have to agree with would be that either way would be a compromise. If that's the case, then I'd go with the compromise that I see as more important, both from a historical as well as a gameplay perspective. I would compromise in the way that kept Casse floating... but I genuinely don't think that it's really a compromise.
Nonsense. Elephants is what won Mr Fred's tournament as Saba.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
I too agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Did anyone try charging Prodromoi or any charger cav into elephants last year ? I think not, people werent that brave last year, and saying elephants won him the tournament is over simplifying it.
Ideally we would have armies with four elephants on large, eight on huge.
It annoys me when you are posting on the forum yet cant come on hamachi :(
That's why I'm against giving elites eagles. Just cause one brings a suggestion up doesn't mean one is in favour of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
It's not. You clearly haven't talked to him. It's the words that came out of his mouth. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Why? Who said you need to make the numbers proportionally realistic?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Triple post ftw, he might not admit it, but there was much more to his game than elephants.
Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.
Who are you to speak on his behalf? Do you always do this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
Basically. Cavalry are not supposed to come near. The engine fails, once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
You'll need to ask the EB team about that.Quote:
A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.
Except I am going to make the better quality Indians cost less than the towered Africans. Did you read the documentation at all? Oh wait, that's long and boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?
Why the unfortunate and unnecessary inconsistency in having better quality troops cost less?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
You can't speak on his behalf. I'm just saying what he told me about his play. So zip it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
What are you talking about? No one here has said a word, or even implied anything, about Mr Fred's skill. All we're saying is that the elephants are what won him that tournament. It shouldn't be such a controversial thing to say when by his own words he based his whole bloody tactic on those ellies! His army composition was made up of one elephant and 19 units to support it. Of course the elephants were instrumental to his success, and there's no reasonable way to deny that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy O
True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Precisely. He even wrote on why he made the decisions he did with those beasts of war. Lazy is probably unaware of this, or does not wish to inform himself on the matter, as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
True. I'm against it for the same reasons basically.Quote:
True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it? ~;)
Yeah, the royal guards and elites of the other factions aren't there to inspire people to do crazy stuff. Rather they have a very specialized purpose such as assault, holding strong points, or delivering the KO. It would be worse than taking AP off Getai units.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Yeah. Of course there are Getai units that need AP removed. But basic infantry like falxmen, didn't they get AP back yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Again, from a historical standpoint, it would make no sense. Either way falxmen had to be de-powered. If anybody recalls, we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good; Drapanai were let slide because they were the selling-point of the Getai, as the Getai never won archer wars at the time and thus the Drapanai got slaughtered. Now, the Getai have one of the cheapest and most effective low tier archer units in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Can't really get away with cheap units. You need to reconsider for reasons of gameplay uniqueness as a faction. And you can remove the possibility of restrictions by using pricing in combination of stats, or to spell it out, not over-the-top powerful and/or more expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Bastarnae falxmen arent OP, they have 0 armour and die to arrow fire. This is what balance is. Rock paper scissors. Falxmen beat armour but die to arrows clear advantage and disadvantage, but the problem we have is those advantages and disadvantages arent so clear in other units. and the counter to a unit doesnt do much damage to it . I think your problem is you make changes over historical accuracy rather then gameplay.Quote:
we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good
I thought you stopped playing EB and switched to Rock-Paper-Scissors, as you were suggested to do. I thought wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
I dont know what you meant by that, im still trying to decipher the meaning.
Let me give you some links to help you out with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Stormrage-
http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Learn-English-Picture-Dictionary/dp/0071408223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314580648&sr=8-1
http://www.tolearnenglish.com/
Storm, he means your idea of balance is so simple-minded that you might as well go play Rock Paper Scissors - the most perfectly balanced game there is. Everything in the game has a clear strength and weakness. You can apply the same principle to a lesser extent in Shogun 2 - Spears beat Cav, Cav beat Swords, and Swords beat Spears.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormrage
But the closest thing to a simplified matrix of unit advantages and disadvantages in ancient Western warfare is this:
Heavy Infantry: Can successfully defeat all other unit types in melee, cannot outrun any units.
Heavy Cavalry: Can successfully defeat all unit types except heavy infantry in melee, can outrun all infantry.
Light Infantry: Can successfully defeat all units at range, and outrun heavy infantry, can outrun heavy infantry.
Light Cavalry: Can successfully defeat all unit types except light infantry at range, can outrun any unit.
And even to this simplified system there is a proliferation of exceptions, variations, etc.
Right then, please go play Starcraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormrage
Do remind me, then, how a man with no shirt and a weapon that costs less than a sword would become expensive at all? Pricing is based on manpower availability and equipment only, nothing else. The Getai had plenty of falx-armed infantry so I can't increase the price. Were I to make the falx pierce armor, it's only logical to extend that to all units equipped with similar two-handed weapons, but the Rhomphaiaphoroi are at an excellent power level that I don't want to modify.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
The only thing I could consider would be to artificially boost the armor stat of the Drapanai, but I have done this already, by increasing it to 2 with the excuse that their leather caps afford them some protection, which seemed to be the EB team's reasoning as well. But that's it.
Starcraft is nice, its actually a very well balanced game.