The Absolutely Best Heavy Cavalry in EB...

Is the Sarmatian Bodyguard Cavalry. LOL, forget about Kataphraktoi and the likes: against a silver chevroned HA-Super Heavy Lancer Bodyguard you better run for the hills as quickly as you can before they take you and pray that you can dodge their super arrows right :laugh4:. I'm beginning to love Sarmatia, even though they can be damn hard at some instants.

Here's what a silver chevroned fellow can do:

https://img355.imageshack.us/img355/...dyguardmz0.jpg
https://img360.imageshack.us/img360/615/victoryca8.jpg


I bet these guys can charge head on a full strenght Phalanx and rout them :smash:. For what I've read, it seems the Sarmatian bodyguards are the absolute kings of all Panzers bodyguard cavalry, even better than the Saka guys. I'm staying with them for now.

Yes, the Sauromatae bodyguards are the best in the game. However, their factional units are worse than Saka's (no straight-up cataphracts). Maybe that's because I enable the recruitment of Spatahaura Hadabara in my Saka AAR, because it seemed historical to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Yes, the Sauromatae bodyguards are the best in the game. However, their factional units are worse than Saka's (no straight-up cataphracts). Maybe that's because I enable the recruitment of Spatahaura Hadabara in my Saka AAR, because it seemed historical to me.

---

Who needs Cataphracts, LOL. I think the Sarmatians are the best when they are really needed: early on, during the expansion phase. I cut down on most heavy cavalry I had and relied most on them to fight my battles, with stunning results like this. I'll check my plans, but for now a couple of "lives on the move" generals are the manstay of all my armies.

yeah they are tanks, I love them

A simple fact of EB
Saka and Saurtomaete bodyguards can destroy whole armies. ive played custom battles to prove this. i dont have any pics but these guys are MONSTERS on horseback

Don't forget the Pahlava FMs. The early ones are just as good as the Sauromatae, and the late FMs can withstand any non-AP missile fire you through at it (uber-experienced slingers notwothstanding).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf Blackeyes

A simple fact of EB
Saka and Saurtomaete bodyguards can destroy whole armies. ive played custom battles to prove this. i dont have any pics but these guys are MONSTERS on horseback

---

So true :smash:. In this particular battle they killed like 70% of the enemy losing less than 10 men. I've never ever seen that before in the whole time I played RTW. I'm hoping to get gold chevrons soon, and maybe a weapon upgrade once I conquer the local greek settlements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

So true :smash:. In this particular battle they killed like 70% of the enemy losing less than 10 men. I've never ever seen that before in the whole time I played RTW. I'm hoping to get gold chevrons soon, and maybe a weapon upgrade once I conquer the local greek settlements.

---

Ok imagine this then Saka/Sauromaete bodyguards with Gold chevs gold weap AND gold armor??
:hide:

Quote:

---

Ok imagine this then Saka/Sauromaete bodyguards with Gold chevs gold weap AND gold armor??

---

Alien-powered death rays from the steppes :P.

You gave me a brilliant idea for a Custom Battle! 1 Golden Saka FM vs. 20 Bataroas. Complete massacre.

@ Basileos Ton Elenon...
If someone play as the poor boys (only 12 of them is required in my test) that just been levied (Botroas), and he must fought total gold (3 gold chevrons, gold weap, and gold armour) Saka FM... I think experienced humans can manage to win the day...
:oops:
first, put all the boys in the deep woods, make sure 8 units of them hidden, and made them into an opened box formations, the remaining four should put in each side of the box, and the nearest units will be sacrificed as a bait...

wait until your enemy run toward the nearest bait, run them in the center of the box in the forest

let the poor sacrificed boys fight for their lives for a while, after some times, charged all the boys, who is hide before, towards the saka bodyguards...... nice?:laugh4:

I was rather thinking about being the Saka FM, but thank you for the hint.

Actually in my Sarmatian campaing, my faction leader got 3 gold chevrons, the only way to describe his power I can think of is: Chuck Norris:laugh4:. No, seriously he killed off 3 units of Agryaspides:whip:

Just had a single decisive battle against Hayasdan: killed all their family members, their whole bodyguards and massacred their infantry like cattle while suffering like, less than a 100 casualties. LOL, nothing can stand a good old rain of arrows.

In my battles I generally let my light HA's shoot, then retreat them and proceed to ram the rest of the enemy with my FM's. 100% chance of heroic victory depending on the circumstances.

9 chevrons is a piece of cake with Nomad FMs. That's a real Faction Leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf Blackeyes

A simple fact of EB
Saka and Saurtomaete bodyguards can destroy whole armies. ive played custom battles to prove this. i dont have any pics but these guys are MONSTERS on horseback

---

One must ask is it realistic or historically correct for them to be so powerful.
I mean, Steppe tactics were brilliant, and I suspect that might have more to do with Steppe civilisation cavalry prowess than their units.

Perhaps I'm just too Celto-Greco-Roman biased.

Well given the fact that the fellows in the FM bodyguard are all of aristocratic ascendance, with the best armor, weapons and mounts coupled with the fact that they have been probably shooting a bow and riding steppe ponies before they could even walk or talk means that they are definetely better prepared than the cavalry of settled cultures.

However, in EB their numbers are ahistorically high. That's the RTW engine's fault, though. Maybe shrink bodyguard sizes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Well given the fact that the fellows in the FM bodyguard are all of aristocratic ascendance, with the best armor, weapons and mounts coupled with the fact that they have been probably shooting a bow and riding steppe ponies before they could even walk or talk means that they are definetely better prepared than the cavalry of settled cultures.

---

True, but that does not mean that they should be entirely dominant over settled cavalry powers, melee wise. I acknowledge that the Sarm horse archers in EB are pretty much representative of what they should be, but their melee cavalry shouldn't be what it is.

If I recall Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander, the Scythians weren't particularly successful against Alexander with his excellent Persian and Macedonian cavalry, although there is certainly other factors to consider.

Gamegeek's point is also valid.
There are only so much aristocrats in the world.

Quote:

---

If I recall Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander, the Scythians weren't particularly successful against Alexander with his excellent Persian and Macedonian cavalry, although there is certainly other factors to consider.

---

Nevermind the fact that the Scythians defeated one of Alexander's generals and 30000 troops as stated by EB?

Quote:

---

Gamegeek's point is also valid.
There are only so much aristocrats in the world.

---

Hmmm yes.

Actually I agree that the Nomad FM's seem grotesquely overpowered. Yet in gameplay terms they are often the salvation of Nomadic factions, who are outnumbered and outmatched in everything else by settled cultures except for their cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Nevermind the fact that the Scythians defeated one of Alexander's generals and 30000 troops as stated by EB?

Hmmm yes.

Actually I agree that the Nomad FM's seem grotesquely overpowered. Yet in gameplay terms they are often the salvation of Nomadic factions, who are outnumbered and outmatched in everything else by settled cultures except for their cavalry.

---

Did the 30,000 troops include the Companion cavalry?
No... There were very few occasions where Alexander placed such a command to anyone other than himself. By the time he reached Scythian areas, the Thessalians had also been dismissed....

Nomad FM's are historically correct... what makes them monsters on the horseback is the fact that the Romans in later times call them monsters... monsters are represented as monsters in EB...
:book:

Fewer and weaker FM bodyguards will make the roleplaying horrible... you can't risks your FM to lead a frontal charges because they will very likely to be killed... The monstrous Saka FM is worth their crazy - near suicide - charges... but they can survive easily and win.... quite historical...
but they still can be defeated... only the stupid ai (or historically idiot strategos) let his phalangitai obliterated from the flank and not ordering troops to support them...:laugh4:

Well the AI sucks so id imagine that that would happen from time to time.

I've always wondered why the AI is sooooo stupid, i mean i just had a huge heroic victory as pahlava today, with only my heir with about 60 bodyguards (huge settings) and the seleukids had something like 700 pantodapoi phalangitai wich i intercepted while they were going to persepolis, i made a massacre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh4: :skull:20 casualties on my part and 691 on his, and all because right before a charge the AI "turns off" (for lack of a better term) phalanx mode:laugh4:.
So why is it that the rtw ai is so stupid? i mean the mtw was much smarter but that came out earyier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Nomad FM's are historically correct... what makes them monsters on the horseback is the fact that the Romans in later times call them monsters... monsters are represented as monsters in EB...
:book:

Fewer and weaker FM bodyguards will make the roleplaying horrible... you can't risks your FM to lead a frontal charges because they will very likely to be killed... The monstrous Saka FM is worth their crazy - near suicide - charges... but they can survive easily and win.... quite historical...
but they still can be defeated... only the stupid ai (or historically idiot strategos) let his phalangitai obliterated from the flank and not ordering troops to support them...:laugh4:

---

The Romans called them monsters because they were very much an infantry based army...
Look at who the Romans faced, the composition of their armies and the majority of their opponents.
None of them before the Parthians were true cavalry threats (with the exception of Makedonia perhaps, who used retarded tactics to defeat themselves...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishHitman

The Romans called them monsters because they were very much an infantry based army...
Look at who the Romans faced, the composition of their armies and the majority of their opponents.
None of them before the Parthians were true cavalry threats (with the exception of Makedonia perhaps, who used retarded tactics to defeat themselves...)

---

According to EB, the equestric tradition of Makedonia had ceased when the Romans came due to insufficient funding, which led the Makedonians to rely too much on the Phalanx. Also, from what I've heard Perseus fled with the heavy cavalry and let the Phalanx alone instead of charging the Romans (Pydna).

Nice story about heavy cavalry: In my very first battle in which I used Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi, I sent them around the flanks and let them charge at a loosely grouped unit of Thanvare Payahdag. I thought that would be an easy task for them, since most heavy cavalry is well able to combat these light archers on their own. But not the HK. They had battled down the archers to about 85 men (having lost ~15 at that time) when another unit of TP joined the fray, and then Hyrkanian Hillmen, and then Kamboja Asakava, and then a Seleukid General... I had sent Prodromoi for aid, but these were battled down to 10 and then routed (they too couldn't win against a single unit of TP). At this moment I was circling my right cavalry wing around the flanks (Prodromoi, Lonchophoroi and Somatophylakes), which had easily obliterated one unit of TP and one of Mardian Archers. My Katas were down to 35 at that moment. When the right wing reached the fray and routed the Seleukid crap, the HK were down to 9 riders. Later 5 recovered from their wounds.

So is that a story of bravery and proof of the worth of Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi, or is it the opposite, a proof of their inferiority to Hetairoi? What do you think?

Seriously? I fought a unit of Spartans with some HK in a custom battle and was able to kill them all with frontal charges. I only lost 40 men, after healing.

I guess Persian archers are just better though.

@ Centurio

I'd guess it was probably the Hyrcanians that did for your Katas with their AP axes. Looks to me like your Katas were fighting mainly the archers (if I'm guessing correctly, that's the unit they were targeted on), and when the Hyrcs entered the fray, they were almost unopposed, letting them slaughter Katas at will. I'm also betting that the Archers were trying to run away from the Katas (negating the charge bonus). I've had Katas slaughtered by being bogged down myself, and they're too slow to effectively disengage from an enemy too. In fact, that's how I kill Saka FMs, 3 to 1 gangup with an AP unit charging into their backs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desert

Seriously? I fought a unit of Spartans with some HK in a custom battle and was able to kill them all with frontal charges. I only lost 40 men, after healing.

I guess Persian archers are just better though.

---

No need to get sarcastic... I guess I should have pulled them out and charged again, but I'm the "charge and kill these hillbillie archers or die trying cause you're Cataphracts after all" kind of General...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX

@ Centurio

I'd guess it was probably the Hyrcanians that did for your Katas with their AP axes. Looks to me like your Katas were fighting mainly the archers (if I'm guessing correctly, that's the unit they were targeted on), and when the Hyrcs entered the fray, they were almost unopposed, letting them slaughter Katas at will. I'm also betting that the Archers were trying to run away from the Katas (negating the charge bonus). I've had Katas slaughtered by being bogged down myself, and they're too slow to effectively disengage from an enemy too. In fact, that's how I kill Saka FMs, 3 to 1 gangup with an AP unit charging into their backs.

---

Excellent explanation! I think you're absolutely right with that. Thx :2thumbsup:

:inquisitive: I wasn't being sarcastic.

All Steppe family members are absolute gods of the battlefield. I've beaten 12:1 odds with only a family member unit. Take out the light infantry or AP units with arrows and just charge the hell out of everything else. These guys are monsters. I'm starting to love the Saka as I have a massive army of three HAs and 2FMs to take towns that I then garrison with a unit of Suebi's. By the way, why are Suebi's better than Saka foot archers when they cost the same (+2 def I think).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yyrkoon

All Steppe family members are absolute gods of the battlefield. I've beaten 12:1 odds with only a family member unit. Take out the light infantry or AP units with arrows and just charge the hell out of everything else. These guys are monsters. I'm starting to love the Saka as I have a massive army of three HAs and 2FMs to take towns that I then garrison with a unit of Suebi's. By the way, why are Suebi's better than Saka foot archers when they cost the same (+2 def I think).

---

Subeshi archers do have a higher defense than the Saka foot archers, but they lack the range of Saka foot archers (209) The Subeshi's range is in line with most of the other good steppe foot archers(198), such as Scythian, Mardian, Persian Heavy, and Sauromatae. So the Subeshi archers are just good steppe foot archers with a bit more durability in melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

According to EB, the equestric tradition of Makedonia had ceased when the Romans came due to insufficient funding, which led the Makedonians to rely too much on the Phalanx. Also, from what I've heard Perseus fled with the heavy cavalry and let the Phalanx alone instead of charging the Romans (Pydna).

---

That's what I was talking about by retarded tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yyrkoon

These guys are monsters. I'm starting to love the Saka as I have a massive army of three HAs and 2FMs to take towns that I then garrison with a unit of Suebi's.

---

I lost all my troops in my early expansion as Saka, since then I've relied exclusively on my stack of six Saka FMs. That one stack has completely steamrolled Pahlava and is about to turn on Baktria. They are all at three gold chevrons experience and magically regenerate between battles. Joy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basileos ton Ellenon

Is the Sarmatian Bodyguard Cavalry. LOL, forget about Kataphraktoi and the likes: against a silver chevroned HA-Super Heavy Lancer Bodyguard you better run for the hills as quickly as you can before they take you and pray that you can dodge their super arrows right :laugh4:. I'm beginning to love Sarmatia, even though they can be damn hard at some instants.

Here's what a silver chevroned fellow can do:

https://img355.imageshack.us/img355/...dyguardmz0.jpg
https://img360.imageshack.us/img360/615/victoryca8.jpg


I bet these guys can charge head on a full strenght Phalanx and rout them :smash:. For what I've read, it seems the Sarmatian bodyguards are the absolute kings of all Panzers bodyguard cavalry, even better than the Saka guys. I'm staying with them for now.

---

The Late Armenian Bodyguard Cavalry is better. The charge value is 47 compared to the Sarmatian Bodyguard, it has a Mace for a secondary weapon (which means death to armored units), and I think it is better armored.

In fact, Ill say that the Late Armenian Bodyguard even has a little bit of an edge over the Late Parthian Bodyguard, because of the AP secondary weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

The Late Armenian Bodyguard Cavalry is better. The charge value is 47 compared to the Sarmatian Bodyguard, it has a Mace for a secondary weapon (which means death to armored units), and I think it is better armored.

In fact, Ill say that the Late Armenian Bodyguard even has a little bit of an edge over the Late Parthian Bodyguard, because of the AP secondary weapon.

---

Well, when it comes to secondary weapon...


Saka Supercat has an AP Pick-axe for a secondary. I think same lethality as the Armenian Mace.
Parthian Supercat has a high lethality longsword for a secondary.
Armenian supercat has an AP Mace.
I think Baktrian Supercat has an AP Kopis, but the Kopis has a lower lethality than a mace right? Well the Baktrian one has the highest armor of all 4 Super-Cats, so I guess it's fair.

An AP weapon is about the same tier as a longsword, but against other catas the AP effect can really turn the tide.

But really, Supercats>EVERYTHING, even Phalanxes(not headon though...)
Horse-Archer Katas>Entire armies.

Now if only we could have three weapons on a unit, a single Baktrian unit could destroy the entire nation of Madagascar

Also, heres a Super-Katraphraktoi

http://www.katurday.com/wp-content/u...m_supercat.jpg

hum..... sounds like world of B.S to me fellas.

"triple gold chevrons".... "armor and attack upgrade, tons of command traits and whatnot". BAH! :whip: Unless you are playing VH/VH, your just exploiting the dumb AI.

When I play anything bellow VH battle difficulty:

I don't use FM with gold chevrons, once they start getting silver chev I think its time to send the FM to chill in a nice and easy town and make babies with the local women.

As for regular units, I don't retrain anybody with silver chevrons, nor do I let them get gain more, I dilute them down by joining them and rejoining them with similar units.

the nomad Fm are indeed beasts.

Also, don't forget pahlava's Fm , early and late version. And elite late cataphracts. Pictures related



https://img242.imageshack.us/img242/...3475sc7.th.jpg


https://img242.imageshack.us/img242/...1590gm0.th.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

The Late Armenian Bodyguard Cavalry is better. The charge value is 47 compared to the Sarmatian Bodyguard, it has a Mace for a secondary weapon (which means death to armored units), and I think it is better armored.

In fact, Ill say that the Late Armenian Bodyguard even has a little bit of an edge over the Late Parthian Bodyguard, because of the AP secondary weapon.

---

?!

I thought the Late Parthian Bodyguard did have the AP-attribute. I mean, they... Should...? Shouldn't they?

What the fuck, this means that even the slightly inferior mace-armed Parthian cataphracts will kick the living shit out of them :wall::wall::wall:

This means that in melee between other heavily-armed and armoured cavalry the Grivpanvar and the late Parthian bodyguard will be better off poking with a kontos than switching to swords. It's laughable. They should have the AP-attribute, especially in regards to four excavated swords from Rashi and Norouz Mahalleh currently stored in the National Museum of Iran (A photograph from such a sword is also prevalent in the illustrated publication of "Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period." by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani (A brochure with a photograph: Here).

A sword like that will no doubt fuck up a man just as much as a Khukri/Kopis, especially in the hands of shock cavalry. If the Hetairoi Kataphraktoi has the AP-attribute, so should the Grivpanvar and Late Parthian Bodyguards.

Thanks for the heads-up. I had no idea of this.

Parthian Late bodyguard of course have the AP attribute.... Wait, I have doubts now.. according to the RV, they don't have it for their longswords. Pure scandal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

?!

I thought the Late Parthian Bodyguard did have the AP-attribute. I mean, they... Should...? Shouldn't they?

What the fuck, this means that even the slightly inferior mace-armed Parthian cataphracts will kick the living shit out of them :wall::wall::wall:

This means that in melee between other heavily-armed and armoured cavalry the Grivpanvar and the late Parthian bodyguard will be better off poking with a kontos than switching to swords. It's laughable. They should have the AP-attribute, especially in regards to four excavated swords from Rashi and Norouz Mahalleh currently stored in the National Museum of Iran (A photograph from such a sword is also prevalent in the illustrated publication of "Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Period." by Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani (A brochure with a photograph: Here).

A sword like that will no doubt fuck up a man just as much as a Khukri/Kopis, especially in the hands of shock cavalry. If the Hetairoi Kataphraktoi has the AP-attribute, so should the Grivpanvar and Late Parthian Bodyguards.

Thanks for the heads-up. I had no idea of this.

---

Yes I agree they should have an AP secondary weapon. The high leathality longsword is fine, but we have to remember, that these heavily armored Cataphracts are battling the best of other factions (which means highly armored foes) therefore they should be armed with an AP secondary weapon. (Also it is historical :beam:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

I don't use FM with gold chevrons, once they start getting silver chev I think its time to send the FM to chill in a nice and easy town and make babies with the local women.

As for regular units, I don't retrain anybody with silver chevrons, nor do I let them get gain more, I dilute them down by joining them and rejoining them with similar units.

---

I don't have any other troops to use, I blitzed like crazy, lost everything except my FMs.

Try stopping those Saka FMs from getting gold XP! They kill so many they get there in three or four battles..

Like you, I don't retrain my troops, I only merge them with fresh recruits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

I don't have any other troops to use, I blitzed like crazy, lost everything except my FMs.

Try stopping those Saka FMs from getting gold XP! They kill so many they get there in three or four battles..

Like you, I don't retrain my troops, I only merge them with fresh recruits.

---

Only thing I've ever found able to counter Kat-Archers (besides more Kat-Archers) is massive numbers. I mean MASSIVE. Huge, even.

Although I'm tempted to try a new strategy - Regular HA's with good, swift shock cavalry backup, with a 2-1 ratio in numbers. That is, 1 HA plus 1 Shock Cav for every 1 Kat-Archer. I figure the HA's could engage and confuse the Kat-Archer while the shock cav engages and withdraws, with HA's firing to cover their retreat. It would require a lot of microing, but I think it might be doable. If it is, it would be cheaper than a single Kat-Archer, too.

@TPC: don't worry-all you need to do is just got to the sp, and mp file backup, take the EDU, and look up steppe_grivpanvar (or grivapanvar, 3rd entry), look up its sec_weapon_attr, change "no" to "ap" ==> voila!:beam:

Death in the shape of a panzer cataphract...

TPC why should they Parthian late FM have AP just because they have a long sword????

The Casse Kluddargos (Casse Sword Masters) and Kludda Lugiae (Lugian Swordsmen) have big two hand swords and they DON'T have AP. They do however have a really high lethality.

I think the issue here is game engine limits, I am sure the Parthian Katas carried additional side arms. (just like the Thureophoroi only have javenlings and spears, but they also carried swords)

As for the Greek Katas, they rollout with a falcata type sword, which is AP, but has a really low lethality.

Because as weird as it might sound this appears to be the case. I recently play-tested a custom-game with the Late Parthian Bodyguards, and the Bactrian Bodyguard. Of course, given the AI's inability to switch to secondary weaponry, I expected to win.

I didn't. I lost against the Hetairoi Kataphraktoi, using swords, while they were still using lances. They massacred me. They would butcher me totally, while all the swords would earn me was maybe two, three or at most four kills. This included the fact that I was the one charging the formation. I mean let that soak in for a moment, they massacre me with lances while I get to barely scratch them with a sword.That is a very serious problem, which is very tied to mechanics. This is also why a lower-grade Parthian cataphract such as the mace-bearers also will win in any fight against the Grivpanvar, when in the player's hands. Try it yourself. I tried this against the Armenian and Sacae bodyguards too (Losing each battle too), and switched roles even by playing them. Their secondary weapons work like they should. A unit like this would clearly appear to be unintentionally under-powered, without any chance of winning through tactical mastery. Of course unless we let the tug with lances looking like complete idiots :smash:

In fact, it has little to nothing to do with the swords that these units should be effective against armour, even though there are arguments for such a proposition (Such as if a rather short-lengthed Kopis can affect armour, why not a gigantic sword with a superior reach?). They carried around maces and axes as well, and due to game-engine limitations we must settle for two weapons. That is not exactly what hallmarks a unit-type known for its striking power. The problem is that with such high armour ratings, side-arms without the AP attribute increasingly become worthless, which translates into stupidity. All of the game's five high-end cataphracts should be comparably strong. This means that if the player has the advantage he should even be able to use Late Saka Bodyguard against Hetairoi Kataphraktoi and emerge victorious. Turn this around, and it's equally true.

I do have an alternative suggestion which may sound less baffling, but potentially make even less sense. Because the Grivpanvar champions already are the game's only recruitable high-end cataphract, with a fixed figure of men, they can do without AP-attribute because the Pahlavân already sit on what is arguably the strongest asset in the game. The Late Parthian Bodyguard though needs this. Of course taking lethality into account (Kopis has a normal value of 0.11, while the arming sword has a whopping value of 0.225), it might need to be adjusted accordingly though still taking into account the weapon's characteristics (A range of between 0.17 - 0.2 would appear suitable especially considering the weapon's reach and given tactical flexibility). I think it's no more than a fair proposal until something more elaborate can be devised for the cataphracts in EB2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cbvani

Only thing I've ever found able to counter Kat-Archers (besides more Kat-Archers) is massive numbers. I mean MASSIVE. Huge, even.

---

Does anyone else have the feeling that Kat-Archers overemphasize the "Kat" a bit? I have made the experience that they generally don't waste much time shooting but charging head on instead alongside the "real" Cataphracts...

Why are FMs so disproportionately strong? I understand them being better than regular cavalry, but maybe some balancing needs to be done when they can get kill ratios like 70 or 100 or more to 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

Why are FMs so disproportionately strong? I understand them being better than regular cavalry, but maybe some balancing needs to be done when they can get kill ratios like 70 or 100 or more to 1.

---

IIRC, one parthian= 3 romans...at least so i was told.

logically, 50 grivapanvar can massacre 150 men with ease (i.e, without losing more than a man or two), so imagine a guard cataphract:book: .bear in mind, the parthians evidently struggled versus eastern kingdoms, so logically they are also equivalent in strength.

does that explain it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

Why are FMs so disproportionately strong? I understand them being better than regular cavalry, but maybe some balancing needs to be done when they can get kill ratios like 70 or 100 or more to 1.

---

A very powerful tool in the hands of a crafty player? What chance does the poor AI stand?

Really, you can accomplish similar devastating effects with other units (non-fm) as well; only you don't get that massive bonus from having a highly trained, extra-hit-points, experienced general. Who happens to be nearly always in the front, and hence: where most of the action happens?

It's more like: there is a general ergo there is a very strong officer. The individual bodyguards go down about as easily as any other soldiers of their class/type, but the generals don't.

In truth it is the generals that are the best units in EB. However there always only 1 of them making their awesomness limited to how many pitiful infantry they can get their hands on. 1 general = 25 infantry.
But still it is far easier to actually kill them than you think. I have done so with one javelin volley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

Why are FMs so disproportionately strong? I understand them being better than regular cavalry, but maybe some balancing needs to be done when they can get kill ratios like 70 or 100 or more to 1.

---

This is of course a very loaded question, so I will only answer what appears to be boldfaced in the quote.

We were planning a rather extensive stat-revamp which unfortunately was put on ice. It's a pity, because the concept in itself was absolutely fantastic, but due to circumstances that just simply were out of our hands, it just didn't materialize as intended.

Now, my own answer to the question is that, if there are any truly elite d'elite troops, a unit meant for the role of a spearhead, literally aching for that role in either leading a decisive charge to absolute glory or fight to the death to protect their masters, either by aiding him at the breach, or helping him escape from the fray if he is found in trouble... These guys are not just cream of the crop, they were made for this. A fine early example of this chivalric, selfless behaviour is found in Oxathres, the brother of Darius III Codomannus, who ushered his dying horse to block a lance-charge from Alexander III The Great, a motif which has been immortalized in the Alexander Mosaic. No guts, no glory.

To offset their martial ardour, high armour and proficiency and ownership of cutting edge contemporary weapon's technology, each high noble gets roughly around twenty of these guys, as opposed to recruits who are fixed to a given figure. So more than often, the size of this squadron is likely to be smaller than that of a recruited or levied contingent.

In other words, I don't think they are that over-powered at all. Of course, traits will also decide how strong such a unit truly is. A bodyguard contingent revolves entirely upon the existence of a master to bodyguard. Once family members proper kick the bucket, the retinue will disband. So really, if the family member dies on impact, the unit itself is forfeit.

Maybe if the FM bodyguard limit was less than 124...

in relation to the Persian Cataphract post, i say that personally, i loved the 0.225Leth swords of the grinpanvar, it terms of EBism, is like to have some gallic neitos on a cataphract, that means that they kill a lot faster, i always loved that but i must say i never tryed to compare them to other cataphracts, so i dont know.
Just discussing in term of game experience, i must say that when you play is somewhat nice to have for example one unit of standard Zradha Pahlavans "Mace" kata, and you think that they have the nice AP bonus, and then you think your general has the nice 0.225 long sword, i dont know, but it gave me some nice feeling of powerness.
in terms of EB infantry, is like having in the same faction a unit of Neitos and a unit of iberian assault Infantry or pedites extraordinari.

Regarding the Cataphract vs Cataphract question, have you tryed primary weapon vs primary weapon who wins?

anyway just for the reason i sayd above i wouldnt give the late bodyguards the AP, cause for variation, i love to have a 0.225 cataphract near the Mace cata, as i sayd the mix give you this strange feeling of power. But if the 0.225 Cata loose with others AP Cataphracts that is not correct, so in substance i dont know, peraphs 0.175 or 0.200 AP is a good choice, but then the EB system of "0.225" vs "AP" vs "common weapons" would be a bit screwed... dilemma.

or the 0.175/0.200 AP sword could add a new element to the "System" so we would have:

0.175 or 0.200 + AP ==> sort of a bastardized mix (swords+maces simulated on the same elite unit)
0.225==>slashing sword (the kind of swords that have the Brihentin for example)
AP ==>Mace and other heavy short swords
0.13 ==>other common swords

Yes, very true and correct, thus why I suggested that only the Late Parthian Bodyguards get the added AP-feature. In any case, leaving them as they are currently without the AP-feature makes them totally worthless once they are committed in melee combat in the player's hands against other bodyguards. I have a zero-tolerance policy for such cases. Because the Grivpanvar are recruits, the Pahlavân already sit on a gigantic asset, and for that I am willing to make an exception.

However, if my personal point-of-view should account for anything, my belief is that all high-grade long-swords exceeding a full metric unit in length, presumably of wootz-steel technology (Parthian arms and armour are peculiarly referenced to as that of "Margianian steel", which might either be a Roman exaggeration for high-grade iron, or of actual steel; it can only be conjectured), should be effective against armour. Little if anything armour-wise will stand against mounted troops armed with heavy swords, with or without stirrups.

There is even evidence of Iranic-style swords being used like spears in cases of lunging with a sword in some Sassanian dishes (Indeed, out of frame of time, however it can not have been an unknown technique, and may have been applied in an improvisatory manner). In such cases, heavy Celtic-style swords, and heavy Sarmatian broadswords should also apply. The importance of armour was in practice only secondary. However, my basic understanding of Celtic arms is that the scholarly opinion of their quality is mixed, so I can't elaborate more on such examples.

However there is little to no dispute that a long arming sword with superior reach was steadily replacing the Kopis or other Greek-styled sabres amongst Iranic cavalry, and would dominate the role with only slight modification until the mid-late Sassanian times, where the Turco-Avar inspired sabre began to influence the Sassanian cavalry sword to its classical characteristics. The Parthian style did continue to survive and may have been the historical role-model behind the Sassanian "Zweihänder"-style saddle-sword encountered in Aphrodisias (Which measured over 1.8 metres). It must certainly have been effective, and the European counter-part certainly enjoyed a successful legacy as well.

And then again, the armour. We're not talking about Renaissance era plate-armour, we're mostly talking about chain-maille, Greek linen armour, padded and quilted cloth and leather, scale-maille, lamellar, banded armour, early maille-and-plate, and the occasional one-piece cuirass. Most of these will only provide a slight hindrance to such a weapon. A high-grade longsword is at worst capable of inflicting blunt trauma because of its added distribution of momentum.

so when you say "giving the AP" to bodyguards you intend "lowering the lethality and add the AP" for example 0.175+AP or do you intend "full letality+AP" (0.225+AP), cause in terms of RTW game mechanics i think 0.225+AP is like to give them some light-sabres...

as i sayd (personlly) i would be agree to have them with 0.175+AP (but i wouldn't be sure ona 0.200 or more lethality + AP)

0.175 letalithy seems to me a much better valour than other units, and there is not an unit with that lethality + AP if i recall well (i think peraphs the Casse two handers has something comparable)

anyway just opinions gamplay-wise, i have not that erudition on arms :(

Yes, of course, 0.225 plus AP is of course something that must be tweaked. I previously suggested the range of 0.17 - 0.2 lethality, in where I take into account the expenses, wootz-steel produce, dimensions including weight, and the administered application while mounted and wearing armour (Which affects momentum). Therefore a value such as your given 0.175 is a good starting point :yes:

Statistics will become a focal point for EB2 where hopefully these kind of problems might find a better solution. The "uniform" RTW-mentality has been a limitation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

Yes, of course, 0.225 plus AP is of course something that must be tweaked. I previously suggested the range of 0.17 - 0.2 lethality, in where I take into account the expenses, wootz-steel produce, dimensions including weight, and the administered application while mounted and wearing armour (Which affects momentum). Therefore a value such as your given 0.175 is a good starting point :yes:

Statistics will become a focal point for EB2 where hopefully these kind of problems might find a better solution. The "uniform" RTW-mentality has been a limitation.

---

The maces are all 0.165 AP with the attack value lower than a longsword. Now if we make the longsword 0.175 AP it will make it FAR more superior than the mace armed cataphracts, because it will not only have a higher leathality with AP damage, but also the high attack value that comes with the longsword.

In conclusion no other Cataphract unit will be able to hang (not even come close) with this unit.

Damn if we do, damn if we don't :laugh4:

I think we need some extensive play-testing to see that they are not monstrously over-powered. Like I said before, the idea with four of the game's statistically most powerful and comparably equipped bodyguards (Armenian, Sacae, Bactrian and Parthian bodyguards) is that in the player's hands, it should be able to defeat the AI's bodyguard unit due to the added melee weapons. So, in idea the statistically "weakest" of the four (Or at least intended to be), the Sacae bodyguard should in the player's hands be able to defeat late Bactrian bodyguards under AI control and vice versa. The reference point here is the player's advantage against the AI. The emphasis is that these four should be comparably strong, not equally strong, but still strong enough so that in the player's hand they are able to defeat the AI counter-part (There isn't that much we can do about the AI).

The original concern was that the Parthian bodyguard was particularly weak in this sense (In the player's point of view); they would lose big-time if they switched to swords against AI Armenian, Sacae and Bactrian bodyguards (Who were still using lances). At least that needs fixing. However it is equally true that we should not make them more monstrous than they ought to be.

I'm willing to go lower as long as the core issue is solved. Maybe start around 0.15 lethality + AP. Unfortunately, time available for play-testing this is sparse... So, anyone able to volunteer for testing and tweaking values and reporting this will be highly appreciated.

I never had a problem with the Late Pahlava FMs personally.....their swords killed quite effectively. TBH though I eliminated the Baktrians using the early FMs and never experienced the late FMs of Baktria. But against all the Heatiroi-clones for FMs of the AS, Ptolies, Maks, etc. the Late Pahlava FMs had no trouble once it got to the sword fighting. Even the Late Armenian FMs went down swiftly (though by that point I was vastly superior in arms and didn't even need to worry about the actual battle and gang-rushed them). I find that the slow attack of the lances is very counterproductive to the AI, esp if you can hit them with a swarm of cheap infantry. Then they tend to suffer the classic shock effect and be unable to make an attack (also due to the length of the lance animation) by being hit repeatedly, even if they don't die. It's a classic Diablo strategy too - if you hit the boss super-fast, it can't hit you b/c its always in the "I'm HIT!" animation and never gets to get off an attack. Can also happen to you....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

Damn if we do, damn if we don't :laugh4:

I think we need some extensive play-testing to see that they are not monstrously over-powered. Like I said before, the idea with four of the game's statistically most powerful and comparably equipped bodyguards (Armenian, Sacae, Bactrian and Parthian bodyguards) is that in the player's hands, it should be able to defeat the AI's bodyguard unit due to the added melee weapons. So, in idea the statistically "weakest" of the four (Or at least intended to be), the Sacae bodyguard should in the player's hands be able to defeat late Bactrian bodyguards under AI control and vice versa. The reference point here is the player's advantage against the AI. The emphasis is that these four should be comparably strong, not equally strong, but still strong enough so that in the player's hand they are able to defeat the AI counter-part (There isn't that much we can do about the AI).

The original concern was that the Parthian bodyguard was particularly weak in this sense (In the player's point of view); they would lose big-time if they switched to swords against AI Armenian, Sacae and Bactrian bodyguards (Who were still using lances). At least that needs fixing. However it is equally true that we should not make them more monstrous than they ought to be.

I'm willing to go lower as long as the core issue is solved. Maybe start around 0.15 lethality + AP. Unfortunately, time available for play-testing this is sparse... So, anyone able to volunteer for testing and tweaking values and reporting this will be highly appreciated.

---

HMM.. i Think 0.150 leathality with Ap would be good (I havent done any testing) now the mace is 0.165 Ap with a lower attack value than a longsword. If we make the Parthian bodyguards longsword a 0.150 with AP damage it will do about the same amount of damage against armored enemies as the mace does, but would be greater against unarmored foes. That sounds about right. However I have not tested this, it is just my guess from looking at the attack values at both the mace and the longsword.

hum...... I don't know fellas...


This is why things like the falx, mace, axe, and pick are AP:
http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranis...es/falx_02.jpg

Longs swords.... don't really do this kind of damage.

The problem with AP in RTW engine is that it take out 1/2 of the enemies armor. I can see how that makes sence if you are hitting them with a falx, mace, axe, or a pick. But a long sword, not really, as they don't deliver the same pressure in a small area (like an axe does) in order to break through the armor.

A long sword can do some AP, I am not going against that, but not the degree of the above mentioned weapons. If anything their AP should be "minus 1/4 armor".... but we can't do that. On top of that, if we reduce the lethality of the long sword, to the same as an axe, so that it may be AP and not be an overpowering/unbalanced weapon in the game. Then the "slash and kill" power of the long sword vs regular/light units is wasted.

In my view long swords should be left as they are, a high lethality weapon. Since we can't mess with the AP values.

Now.... what to do about the Parthian Gy..... (sp) guys.... 2 options:
1. Give them a mace/pick/axe.
2. Do what I do: Use the AP lance against heavily armored units, and the sword vs regular/light units.

When I played with my Aedui Brenthin (sp) cavarly whenever I fought Hetareoi (sp), Pontus FM, or any other heavily armored unit I let the fight with their spears. But when I fought Hippeis (sp), Peltats, or any other regular or light unit I switch to swords.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

hum...... I don't know fellas...


This is why things like the falx, mace, axe, and pick are AP:
http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranis...es/falx_02.jpg

Longs swords.... don't really do this kind of damage.

The problem with AP in RTW engine is that it take out 1/2 of the enemies armor. I can see how that makes sence if you are hitting them with a falx, mace, axe, or a pick. But a long sword, not really, as they don't deliver the same pressure in a small area (like an axe does) in order to break through the armor.

A long sword can do some AP, I am not going against that, but not the degree of the above mentioned weapons. If anything their AP should be "minus 1/4 armor".... but we can't do that. On top of that, if we reduce the lethality of the long sword, to the same as an axe, so that it may be AP and not be an overpowering/unbalanced weapon in the game. Then the "slash and kill" power of the long sword vs regular/light units is wasted.

In my view long swords should be left as they are, a high lethality weapon. Since we can't mess with the AP values.

Now.... what to do about the Parthian Gy..... (sp) guys.... 2 options:
1. Give them a mace/pick/axe.
2. Do what I do: Use the AP lance against heavily armored units, and the sword vs regular/light units.

When I played with my Aedui Brenthin (sp) cavarly whenever I fought Hetareoi (sp), Pontus FM, or any other heavily armored unit I let the fight with their spears. But when I fought Hippeis (sp), Peltats, or any other regular or light unit I switch to swords.

---

This is of course pure folly solution-wise. The alternative weapons are there for a reason, and especially after a cavalry charge, the shock weapon was more than often discarded due to its handling. This is especially true for the kontos/kontarion. The AP-feature was intended from the start and during their conception, and it is not negotiable. Leaving them without AP will not fix the critical flaw, and will leave these bodyguards better off in stand-still melee with gigantic toothpicks rather than brandishing swords perfectly capable of inflicting damage against most types of armour, in particular with the added momentum inherent of skilled horsemen.

The least I will go, and I believe I already made this compromise fairly established, is to leave the recruitable elite cataphracts as they are. The rationale is more sound here, to send even these highly elite cavalry to chase skirmishers where their swords will do wonders. The Parthian bodyguard will need to be prepared against most other units, and will therefore follow the "ping-pong principle" between the other three high-end cataphract bodyguards of the mod.

I will play-test the duels with all the mentioned bodyguards, plot down their kill-loss ratios and iterate it three times in order to get a consistent average value (This is gauged by switching to alternative weapons after a charge). I will then apply AP+0.15 lethality to the Parthian Late Bodyguards and match it off with the ratios of the three other bodyguards; if it is found within accepted margins, it passes. If not, I will continue to tweak the lethality value up or down, depending on the given values, until I'll hit the spot. Once that has been done, it will be available as an optional fix.

Anyone who wishes may follow suit.

Finally, cataphracts weren't used to chase skirmishers. Ironically, club-armed light infantry would prove to be their bane, especially in regards to factors such as heat-loss, and cold legs affecting the stamina of super-heavy cavalry. They became clumps of fact, which of course is a reminder of their natural role: To simple orchestrate a strong frontal charge in order to decide the battle as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. You don't send out a squadron of ambling horsemen riding knee-to-knee to screen a force of skirmishers harassing one of the flanks. The armament of such a heavily armed and armoured horseman were designed to combat heavily armed contingents. We're not just talking about lances, we're talking swords, maces and axes. A late Sassanian dish from Kulargysh shows dismounted cavalry fighting against each other with a wide array of weapons with several ones broken from extensive use laying on the ground.

The Roman scutum isn't an adequate referential article either; apparently the shield-structure of many scuta collapsed during the battle of Carrhaë rendering a number of these of little to no practical worth. The argument has a flipside, a falx won't be as shock-effective against an aspis due to its pull-action handling; a longsword from a mounted soldier against said aspis will be felt mor significantly, so clearly first we have to define what "AP" really is. Armour-piercing isn't exactly the characteristics of a mace or a battle-axe. Sounds more like a Sagaris battle-pick or something else capable of inflicting puncture-type wounds. These were all somehow effective against armour, but in different ways. The question we should be asking isn't "how concentrated is the area of pressure/energy", but rather how much. A longsword will indeed distribute this energy differently, but inadequately?

Thus having the Late Bodyguard as it is right now, is not just out of the question, but keeping them as they are because they are effective against skirmishers just doesn't make any sense. Ultimately, it will only be the choice of the player to apply a future fix, but I intend for them to be bodyguards in the truest meaning of that word. The Kopis does apparently have AP, and while it does incorporate some of the features of an axe, it does not, as per according to your argument distribute that much energy over an equivalent measure of area. There really is nothing more to the issue.

The real problem to consider is actually stamina and what lessons we can draw from RTW and improve for M2TW statistically; ideally the cataphract charge should have momentum, but much lesser staying power as time passes.

TPC, after reading this thread and thinking a little, I`m pondering on giving ap attribute to all melee weapons. Reasoning:
1. At high armour ratings, which are quite common in EB ap weapons are MUCH more effective than normal ones. If your opponent has 10 armour (for example humble thureophoroi) an ap soldier has a +5 attack compared to a regular one. That`s too much of an advantage IMHO. And remember, that there a lot of units, who have more than 10 armour...
2. It seems reasonable to me, that an ancient suit of armour would be more effective vs missiles (hence no ap for missiles save those, who already have it) than melee weapons. Even a heavily armoured soldier may be knocked on the ground and have his throat cut by a dagger.
3. Armoured soldiers would be much more vulnerable from their backs, where their defense skill does not work - which is a good thing IMHO. Keeping formation would be important for everyone.


This "solution" does have an obvius downsides. First of all, we will no longer have units who are more effective at killing armoured foes - less tactical diversity. Next, all weapons, which already had an ap attribute would need to be rebalanced (by increasing their lethality or attack)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woreczko

TPC, after reading this thread and thinking a little, I`m pondering on giving ap attribute to all melee weapons. Reasoning:
1. At high armour ratings, which are quite common in EB ap weapons are MUCH more effective than normal ones. If your opponent has 10 armour (for example humble thureophoroi) an ap soldier has a +5 attack compared to a regular one. That`s too much of an advantage IMHO. And remember, that there a lot of units, who have more than 10 armour...
2. It seems reasonable to me, that an ancient suit of armour would be more effective vs missiles (hence no ap for missiles save those, who already have it) than melee weapons. Even a heavily armoured soldier may be knocked on the ground and have his throat cut by a dagger.
3. Armoured soldiers would be much more vulnerable from their backs, where their defense skill does not work - which is a good thing IMHO. Keeping formation would be important for everyone.


This "solution" does have an obvius downsides. First of all, we will no longer have units who are more effective at killing armoured foes - less tactical diversity. Next, all weapons, which already had an ap attribute would need to be rebalanced (by increasing their lethality or attack)

---

right and you end up right back at vanilla RTW killing rates..... :dizzy2:

no offence but thats where thats headed.

I see where you are going with this TPC...

Although I am not yet jumping on the "big sword = AP" wagon, and I said "light troops" as an example (not claiming that running down skemishers was the role of catas).......

......I can see that, in the case of the Parthian FM, it does make sence if you are trying to simulate the other AP weapons they carried. Since the RTW engine won't let us. Other than that I am not convinced that long swords were armored piercing/breaking/trauma causing weapons by swinging them (unless you get a good swing at a guys head). You may have better chances at getting through mail with a powerful straight stab, but with plate (iron or bronze) forget it. And catas use small metal plates.

Another thing..... Be mindful that as a result of reducing attack and lethality to give a good working AP to Parthian FM (and not overpower them) they will be less effective against units such as the Theuroporoi (sp), Bataroas, Hoplitai, etc due to the lower lethality of the weapon, and the lack of heavy armor these guys fight with. (again RTW engine issues, maybe in EBII something can done about this)

Yes. For now, we are rather limited in the question due to engine limitations. For EB2 I am hopeful to say that there might be room for a lot of improvement stat-wise so that they are more dynamic instead of rock-paper-scissor arbitrary. As before, in the suggestion that I will soon be about to recommend, will purely be optional.

In fact, I will only suggest copy-paste values in the fix-thread. Those who want Parthian élite d'élite to remain highly effective against lightly armed infantry, can keep the default settings. Those who want the bodyguards, and indeed, even the recruitable elite cataphracts, to bear a closer resemblance to the three other high-grade super-heavy cavalry will have a reliable alternative to resort to.

Random idea: alter the Grivsomethings' swords to have the stats of axes/maces such as the Hai BGs use. (-1 attack, AP, lethality 0.165) Puts them on par, and can be handwaved as *very* long and heavy swords with enough brute leverage for armour-cleaving to merit AP but duly a bit on the clumsy side as well. That, after all, is the tradeoff you get on that path of weapon design.

Long cutting swords aren't IRL what you really want to try getting through heavy armour with, but I do know they can to a degree be "optimised" enough for the purpose to do a passable job at it. Although AFAIK those designs were High Medieval and later European, employing metallurgical techniques over a millenia more advanced and benefiting from an unbroken line of trial-and-error developement harking back to the damn Hallstatt Celts... and still kind of fell kinda short against anything above heavy mail. :sweatdrop:

hey watchman is back! long time no see man.

Testing Bodyguards duel with their secondary weapons (with human (me and my friend) using double right click and pressing alt, done in multiplayer with a desktop PC and a Laptop) all formed into 2 men deep formations, and charge frontally each other) - using their highest stats bodyguards... (not highest price)

Pontos vs Hayasdan (11 vs 11)
1. Pontos win by luck (survive 2 men, hayasdan rout with 3 men (general dies))
2. Hayasdan win sightly (survive 2 men, pontos all killed)
3. Pontos win sightly (survive 3 men, hayasdan rout with 2 men (general dies))

Pontos vs Baktrian (11 vs 11)
1. Baktrian win (survive 5 men, pontos all killed)
2. Baktrian win (survive 7 men, pontos rout with 1 men (general dies))

Baktrian vs Hayasdan (11 vs 11)
1. Baktrian win (survive 7 men, hayasdan rout with 1 men (the general))

Saka vs Baktrian
1. Baktrian win sightly (survive 3 men, saka all killed)
2. Saka win by luck (survive 3 men, baktrian rout with 4 men (general dies))
3. Baktrian win in unbelievable state (only the general - the last fight was general vs general)
4. Baktrian win sightly (survive 2 men, saka all killed)

Conclusion : Hetairoi Kataphraktoi is the best...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Testing Bodyguards duel with their secondary weapons (with human (me and my friend) using double right click and pressing alt, done in multiplayer with a desktop PC and a Laptop) all formed into 2 men deep formations, and charge frontally each other) - using their highest stats bodyguards... (not highest price)

Pontos vs Hayasdan (11 vs 11)
1. Pontos win by luck (survive 2 men, hayasdan rout with 3 men (general dies))
2. Hayasdan win sightly (survive 2 men, pontos all killed)
3. Pontos win sightly (survive 3 men, hayasdan rout with 2 men (general dies))

Pontos vs Baktrian (11 vs 11)
1. Baktrian win (survive 5 men, pontos all killed)
2. Baktrian win (survive 7 men, pontos rout with 1 men (general dies))

Baktrian vs Hayasdan (11 vs 11)
1. Baktrian win (survive 7 men, hayasdan rout with 1 men (the general))

Saka vs Baktrian
1. Baktrian win sightly (survive 3 men, saka all killed)
2. Saka win by luck (survive 3 men, baktrian rout with 4 men (general dies))
3. Baktrian win in unbelievable state (only the general - the last fight was general vs general)
4. Baktrian win sightly (survive 2 men, saka all killed)

Conclusion : Hetairoi Kataphraktoi is the best...

---

That's a pretty good way of testing unit performance there. Could you test Pahlava Late vs Baktria, Saka, and Hayasdan (late model on all). Pontos Late BG are seriously outclassed by all 4 of the guys I just mentioned. I think they are the only Faction whose early BGs are actually better than the late model. I'm surprised the Pontic BGs did so well against the Hayasdan BGs, since the Pontics aren't really armored well enough to merit the Cataphract label.

I use Pontos Early, Hayasdan Early, Baktrian late, and Saka late...and oops I forgot to use the hayasdan late BG:wall: because the Pontos and Hayasdan name are somewhat similar (khuvesvang.. bleh...):wall: next time better...

I test Pontos early Bodyguard (17 armor, 12 def skill)... they are better than their late counterparts ( 15 armor, 12 def skill) and actually I prefer to use the early bodyguards for my pontos army...

Maybe I'll just have to say that we (I and my friends who help me to just pick to click the mouse and pressing alt) didn't have the same experience in playing TW (he normally play DOTA with me, and only play TW rarely(3/4 times)). for some reason, I suggest you to try to test it with 2 men that have the same experience handling the TW-styled battle... I run this test just out of curiousity of all your posts here...:idea2:

Baktrian bodyguards have that nice AP Kopis as secondary weapon, and that actually makes them better in melee than nomad bodyguards that only have a lance to use. Even the early ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

I use Pontos Early, Hayasdan Early, Baktrian late, and Saka late...and oops I forgot to use the hayasdan late BG:wall: ...

---

Ah, that's why Pontic BG did so well against Hayasdan. Their early BGs are actually the same unit (Khuveshavagan-Shah, or something like it, that's what he says when you select him in battle :laugh3:). I though you tested the late BGs, as per the elite Cataphract BG discussion (they are all late model), which is why I was confused as to why the Pontic BGs did so well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Testing Bodyguards duel with their secondary weapons (with human (me and my friend) using double right click and pressing alt, done in multiplayer with a desktop PC and a Laptop) all formed into 2 men deep formations, and charge frontally each other) - using their highest stats bodyguards... (not highest price)

Pontos vs Hayasdan (11 vs 11)
1. Pontos win by luck (survive 2 men, hayasdan rout with 3 men (general dies))
2. Hayasdan win sightly (survive 2 men, pontos all killed)
3. Pontos win sightly (survive 3 men, hayasdan rout with 2 men (general dies))

Pontos vs Baktrian (11 vs 11)
1. Baktrian win (survive 5 men, pontos all killed)
2. Baktrian win (survive 7 men, pontos rout with 1 men (general dies))

Baktrian vs Hayasdan (11 vs 11)
1. Baktrian win (survive 7 men, hayasdan rout with 1 men (the general))

Saka vs Baktrian
1. Baktrian win sightly (survive 3 men, saka all killed)
2. Saka win by luck (survive 3 men, baktrian rout with 4 men (general dies))
3. Baktrian win in unbelievable state (only the general - the last fight was general vs general)
4. Baktrian win sightly (survive 2 men, saka all killed)

Conclusion : Hetairoi Kataphraktoi is the best...

---

have you tryed the Pahlava Grinpanvar Vs the Baktrian Bodyguards? that would be interesting, im curious on the match of 0.225 lethality of the Pahlavans vs the AP of the Baktrians.
Also i would test it in 2 different ways, one with 0 Experience both, and one with 3 experience, that multiplayer test is a great idea! (but i know is very difficult to arrange)

you should be testing the four "elite" ones. Late Armenian BG, Late Parthian BG, Late Baktrian Bg, and Late Saka BG. My hunch is that the Late Saka BG will be the best because of their heavier armor and AP pick axe.

Testing Saka Late, Phalava Late, Baktria Late, and Hayasdan Late (0 exp 0 upgrade, same unit size as before) ...

Saka Late vs Baktria Late
1. Baktria win (survive 4, saka all dies)
2. Baktria win sightly (survive 2, saka all dies)
3. Saka win by luck (survive 3, Baktrian rout with 5 men (general dies in the first charge T.T))
4. Baktria win (survive 5, saka rout with 3 men (general dies))

Saka Late vs Phalava Late
1. Saka win sightly (survive 2, Phalavan all dies)
2. Saka win sightly (survive 3, Phalavan rout with 1 men (general dies))
3. Saka win sightly (survive 3, Phalavan rout with 3 men (general dies))
4. Phalavans win sightly (survive 2, saka rout with 1 men (the general))

Baktria Late vs Hayasdan Late
1. Baktrian win sightly (survive 3 (general dies), Hayasdan all dies)
2. Baktrian win (survive 4 men, Hayasdan all dies)

Baktria Late vs Phalava Late (try to switch laptop and desktop control in turns 6&7)
1. Phalavan win (survive 4 men, Baktria all dies)
2. Phalavan win (survive 5 men, Baktria rout with 3 men (general dies))
3. Phalavan win sightly (survive 2 men, Baktria all dies)
4. Phalavan win (survive 3 men, Baktria rout with 1 men (the general))
5. Phalavan win sightly (survive 2 men, Baktria all dies)
6. Phalavan win by luck (survive 3 men, Baktria rout with 5 men (general dies in the first charge T.T))
7. Phalavan win sightly (survive 2 men, Baktria all dies)

I certainly disbelief my own tests results, especially the phalavans and baktrians... Baktrians are better than saka, saka pawned Phalavans, but why Phalavans pawned Baktrians?

You've still got Baktria vs Saka and Pahlava vs Hayasdan to test. As for the results, I'm not surprised. I've found that many times the stats that you see rarely tell the whole story of a unit's effectiveness. I maintain that the speed of the attack and/or the animation has a very large effect on combat results, or at least larger than anticipated. If the stats are wildly disproportionate (elite cav vs skirmishers, say) then it won't really affect the result but for units of similar quality it can really influence things. Also, as I'm sure many have noticed, the denseness of the formation is a big factor as well. I know the Pahalva FMs are in a very tight formation but I'm not sure about the others. Personally I see no need to give the Pahlava FMs an AP weapon since their big sword is a fast attacker. Also, if the FMs are in human hands they generally will have many chevrons. I know my campaigning FMs had something like 45 armor all told after heavy xp gains, which for all intents and purposes made my guys invulnerable. i think concentrated slinger fire was the only thing that inflicted undue casualties on them (in 1.1). Since slinger stats have been reduced for 1.2 I'm not sure even that would dent them.

Quote:

---

I certainly disbelief my own tests results, especially the phalavans and baktrians... Baktrians are better than saka, saka pawned Phalavans, but why Phalavans pawned Baktrians?

---

It's rock, paper, scissors in action, of course.

:skull: DON'T test with generals in ur units!!

have ur general be some crappy unit and put him ALL the way at the end of the map (have ur buddy do the same).