Why do certain players think that some factions are underpowered?

Hello,

having seen at least two or three threads having the title "Why is faction XYZ underpowered", I wonder why certain EB-players come to that conclusion. Well, I've read enough posts or AARs from people playing with the complete range of factions and I've noticed that most players get better along with certain factions than with others (I for example like to play with some of the Hellenic/Eastern Hellenic/Eastern factions. I get along with them, though I'm still far away from being a "Good Tactician/Leader of Men" etc.).

Well, back to topic: I cannot agree with those hypothesis(ae ?). Why do certain players conquer half of the map with those underpowered factions? Are they cheating? Or are they just using their economics/troops/diplomacy in a better way than others?

No offence, but I was just wondering why ...

Yours,
Treverer

I think those threads are just the result of a particular battle that the player has lost with a faction with which he thought he must always win.

In fact there are no underpowered or overpowered factions. Everyone of them has low end militias, that will be cut to pieces most of the times, and high end elites, that can win against anybody. Some units' stats are debatable when the AI starts spamming them, for example the naked fanatics, that can even make the early Celts invincible, provided half of the army is composed of them.

For one or more of the following reasons:

1. They play on low difficulty levels.
2. They are very good players.
3. They cheat.

When I just started EB, I loved playing as Rome and kicking everyone's behind. I've come to enjoy the more challenging factions though (Makedonia, KH, Nomads) on VH/H. When you defeat the grand army of Pyrrhus as Makedon with an army consisting of mainly militia and light troops, and only a small core of heavy cavalry and veteran pezhetairoi, on a challenging level, then it means something. When you rout the host of Antigonus and his heir with a rag-tag band of old-school hoplites and skirmishers, the feeling is far better than that of crushing a weaker opponent. To fight when you are on the brink of disaster and have (according to computer) an impossibly thin chance of victory, and yet prevail, that is what I find thrilling.

So yeah I like the "underpowered" factions.

Quote:

---

Well, back to topic: I cannot agree with those hypothesis(ae ?). Why do certain players conquer half of the map with those underpowered faction? Are they cheating? Or are they just using their economics/troops/diplomacy in a better way than others?

---

To be honest, the player is overpowered as a faction leader, compared to the AI. The battle AI in particular is very poor, I've had battles where it seemed to just mill around ineffectually while my archers emptied their quivers, even the AI's missile troops kept marching about without even returning fire. And when I did charge in for the kill, the AI soldiers were tired from having marched about without purpose. Formation mods seem to help avert this kind of behaviour, but the AI is stupid and hardcoded.

So really, any experienced player, provided he can survive at the start of the game, will be able to conquer half the map. It's the beginning which can be hard, and that's where factions matter. But no-one has made an AAR where they were killed within the first ten turns...

They make such assertions through flippancy. They perhaps fail to read the FAQ, fail to read about the game, consider themselves good at vanilla, and ignore the challenge ratings factions have. They boot up the Parthians or whatever else, expecting to steamroll, but they start in a bewildering amount of debt in what is a very tough position. Everything is more expensive, and they declare it impossible. I remember once in vanilla I tried Dacia and gave up because I thought it was too hard. I remind myself of that whenever I need a RTW-related laugh, as I now shoulder much more difficult circumstance and much bigger debts with ease. I play on H/M: VH is just cheap, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

To fight when you are on the brink of disaster and have (according to computer) an impossibly thin chance of victory, and yet prevail, that is what I find thrilling.

---

Yep, won a battle at Taras with each one levy hoplite, hoplite (both no upgrade, no chevrons), archer & slinger unit (both upgrade and one chevron) against ... ehm, hmmm, ... three Romans: two Reserve Skirmishers (they weren't my problem at all) and one Triarii (having 2 or 3 chevrons & amour upgrade). Well, my loses were beyond good and evil, but in the end the Triarii routed. Yes! :birthday2:

And now: :focus:

well i suppose its how the player views a unit when they finally get their hands on em. i personally used to think celtic slingers were the shiz, but when it came to actually using them, the effect left much to be desired. it all depends on what you expect, and the results you get.

They fail at life .

Well what Long Lost Caesar posted is a prime example: dissapointment. He was dissapointed about the Iosatae; I on the other hand think they are the single best slinger unit of the entire game. I find the Balearic slingers to be dissapointing - I guess someone else thinks them to be the very best.

I think most cavalry is underpowered, but I don't complain about it, because it's just how the game is constructed, that the cavalry never keeps marching through a unit while cutting it down like in reality.

I only complain of overpowered factions. I know one, but its lobby is very strong.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well what Long Lost Caesar posted is a prime example: dissapointment. He was dissapointed about the Iosatae; I on the other hand think they are the single best slinger unit of the entire game. I find the Balearic slingers to be dissapointing - I guess someone else thinks them to be the very best.

---

Not enough ammo for the dough they cost IMHO. Remember though lads, this type of thing can always be edited!

On the other hand they eat enemy cavalry alive (including most medium cavalry and generals), and they can make very, very short work of Gaesatae indeed. :wink:

IMO Iaosatae are too expensive. Lowly accensi are better compared to the cost, unless you really need to cram the best possible army into the limit for a stack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

On the other hand they eat enemy cavalry alive (including most medium cavalry and generals), and they can make very, very short work of Gaesatae indeed. :wink:

---

Gaesatae don't have much armor. You're better off using archers against them.

Well some factions are underpowered at the beginning, but a truly skilled EB player can turn any country into a high powered killing machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Gaesatae don't have much armor. You're better off using archers against them.

---

archers and slingers have the same attack value (barring the elite ones and composite bows and whatnot), and slingers have longer range, so archers really aren't better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

archers and slingers have the same attack value (barring the elite ones and composite bows and whatnot), and slingers have longer range, so archers really aren't better

---

Comparing iaosatae (Celtic slingers) to sotaroas (Celtic archers), the archers have 3 attack while the slingers have 2 attack. You do lose some range and ammo, but since the archers cost far, far less (about half as much IIRC, the unit cards unfortunately aren't updated with the price in 1.0) they give more dead naked dudes per mnai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Comparing iaosatae (Celtic slingers) to sotaroas (Celtic archers), the archers have 3 attack while the slingers have 2 attack. You do lose some range and ammo, but since the archers cost far, far less (about half as much IIRC, the unit cards unfortunately aren't updated with the price in 1.0) they give more dead naked dudes per mnai.

---

I haven't calculated any cost-effectiveness or anything like that but slingers always seem to kill significantly more for me, no matter what the target :shrug:

.
Archers can shoot fire arrows, which are good for Casse General BBQ. :chef:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Gaesatae don't have much armor. You're better off using archers against them.

---

They have 5 armour, what makes them one of the best armoured units in the early Celtic army. Against them you need AP missles to achieve a visible effect (slingers, pila)

Agreed.. on Gaesatae example we can all see that some factions are 'very well balanced'..
And I just won't start with command atribute that is efective and in motion for 'some' faction with a strong loby in EB team:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

Agreed.. on Gaesatae example we can all see that some factions are 'very well balanced'..
And I just won't start with command atribute that is efective and in motion for 'some' faction with a strong loby in EB team:thumbsdown:

---

blah blah blah if you have so much problems with the comand attribute why don't you just remove it from your game ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

'blah blah blah ...'

---

Very nice.. :whip:
Still I won't take it personal, my 'command' 'blah blah' is only here because I would like to see EB 1 even better :book:

Still.. No, I will not remove my 'command' atribute from some Celt units, because I respect the first intention of making them unique:bow:

But, after EB 1.1 I will just add that atribute to some other faction units:yes:

...by the way.... :coffeenews:
can you *bump* some dates? like before or after new year.. I understand it it is an 'embargo' issue :shame:

be well my EB friend :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

They have 5 armour, what makes them one of the best armoured units in the early Celtic army. Against them you need AP missles to achieve a visible effect (slingers, pila)

---

Dude, 5 armor is nothing compared to the armor of the Romani or Lusotannan. AP will only make a difference of 2.5 attack (assuming you fire from a direction the shield doesn't cover), which is far from enough to make up for the loss of attack and the far higher cost of the slingers. At least for the Celtic slingers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Dude, 5 armor is nothing compared to the armor of the Romani or Lusotannan.

---

Neither Romans nor Lusotannians fight for the Arverni or Aedui. Compare the Gaesatae with the rest of their "Freemen" units and you will see that they are really a heavy unit for these factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

Neither Romans nor Lusotannians fight for the Arverni or Aedui. Compare the Gaesatae with the rest of their "Freemen" units and you will see that they are really a heavy unit for these factions.

---

I'm comparing to their near-neighbors, since those are among the factions they are likely to end up fighting. And when it comes to choosing between an extra 1.5 attack or nearly twice as many missile troops (for the same price), I know what I would choose. The slingers are better suited to fighting the Romans than to fighting their fellow Celts, where archers will usually be more cost-effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

I'm comparing to their near-neighbors, since those are among the factions they are likely to end up fighting. And when it comes to choosing between an extra 1.5 attack or nearly twice as many missile troops (for the same price), I know what I would choose.

---

That is a complete different question, what depends on a lot of other factors that can not be generalized (financial situation, compostion of the army, the enemy, the kind of combat, most likely terrain etcpp.) I was talking of individual units.

Quote:

---

The slingers are better suited to fighting the Romans than to fighting their fellow Celts, where archers will usually be more cost-effective.

---

When the fellow Celts attack you with 6 or 7 units of Gaesatae, you'll be happy when you had decided for slingers instead of archers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

That is a complete different question, what depends on a lot of other factors that can not be generalized (financial situation, compostion of the army, the enemy, the kind of combat, most likely terrain etcpp.) I was talking of individual units.



When the fellow Celts attack you with 6 or 7 units of Gaesatae, you'll be happy when you had decided for slingers instead of archers.

---

I don't know, I was happy when I invaded Gaul (in my Roman campaign) with 2 armies with 4 sotaroas each instead of 2 iaosatae each, which carries more or less the same cost.

It is the cost that mainly dictates what troops you can field (out of those you have access to), so cost-efficiency is quite important IMHO.

So in many ways it makes more sense to compare 2 units of sotaroas to 1 unit of iaosatae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

It is the cost that mainly dictates what troops you can field (out of those you have access to), so cost-efficiency is quite important IMHO.

---

That depends very much of the situation.

When you have the money to either field for example two units of Phalangitai Deuteroi or one unit of Argyraspides you should always decide for the cheaper, weaker units because two of them will certainly beat one elite unit of the same type. That can be when you are short of money/income per turn or need to field more than one main stack at a time.

When you have enough money or, due to the strategic situation, can limited yourself to one main army, the 20-slots limit becomes more important. In this situation you should always take the better unit, even if the cost-efficinecy isn't as good because of the much higher price with only slightly better stats.

Personally I'm waiting for the "Eleutheroi overpowered?" thread.