Hi there, I made this topic to clump all my ideas together, since my other ideas were incoherently spread across multiple posts.
I need suggestions for tweaking the unit stats - suggestions for mostly game balance, but I don't want to stray too far from historical accuracy.
Thanks!
Updated Jan 22nd, 2012. July 1st, 2010
-updated elephants, babylonian spearmen
Changes so far:
All Phalangites with sarissa 'phalanx' attribute
+1 defense skill
-2 shield to 3
***So far so good, they are more vulnerable to missiles. Should I reduce this to 3? I think a value of 2 was the original RTW vanilla phalangite shield value
All Chariots +1 HP to 3HP (horses), riders stay at 2 & 1 hp for Celtic bodyguard and Scythe chariots respectively
Celtic Chariot -1 def skill, -1 armor
Scythe chariot -4 armor, +2 morale
***so far it seems ok
Rationale:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Rationale for chariots - with 2 HP for the horses, they still kinda sucked for their main purpose - running into infantry and disorganizing their lines. Usually, more than half the chariots would die before they could successfully disorganize an infantry unit. Now with 3 HP, they're much more survivable. I did a test with a chariot + infantry army attacking a fort. I defended the fort's main-gate with heavy infantry, and the chariot was actually able to push my infantry back and allow their own infantry to stream into the fort (I lost the battle). Without chariots, those infantry would've been slaughtered as they got cornered and squished together at the gate by my heavy infantry. Also, with 2HP chariots, they normally would've died and routed before accomplishing their objectives.
All Nake Fanatics/Gaesatae -1 HP to 1HP
+3 defense to 18
+1 attack to 14
+1 armor to 6
***This Gaesatate tweak change has worked great, and has balanced them out.
Rationale:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I mainly wanted them to be more vulnerable to archers and javelins, as well as vulnerable to flanking/encircling due to the defense skill value not applying to a unit's rear. They still pwn in up close melee, but are much more vulnerable to missiles. Did some tests and in one-on-one battles, they beat imperial cohorts and first cohorts nearly every time. And this is after the 2 volleys of Roman armor piercing pilums killing about 10 Gaestates on average. Against elite units such as the Praetorians, the Gaesataes have a 50-50 chance of victory, not bad considering it's 60 vs 80
Classical Hoplites with only 1 weapon
+Short Pike attribute, thanks to TW Fanatic's idea
+1 shield to 5
-.1 spear lethality to .12
-2 armor
added .25 unit cohesion value at the end of "soldier" trait
.8 is now the formation distance for all hoplites formerly with .76
***Based off of TW Fanatic's minimod that made classical hoplites awesome - short pike attribute and a shield value of 6.
Rationale:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Classical hoplites can keep a cohesive, awesome looking formation instead of breaking into individual units like regular spearmen would. I'm experimenting with shield values of 5 to make it slightly weaker and make it proportional to other shield values after lowering phalangite values. Still virtually unstoppable from the front. When fighting in a city street, three to four units of elite classical hoplites can defeat almost a full 20 unit stack of average swordsmen/spearmen units.
Also, see this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...hariot-minimod
Non short-pike classical hoplites (2 weapons)
added .25 or .3 unit cohesion value at the end of "soldier" trait and tightened the formations
of units such as the Celtic Arjos, Agema, etc to around .8
All Elephants +1 HP
3 HP elephants to 4HP
4 HP elephants to 5HP
-5 armor for African forest elephant 23 to 18
-5 armor for towered African forest elephant 23 to 18
-5 armor for African bush elephant 25 to 20
-5 armor for African forest elephant 23 to 18
-5 armor for armored Indian elephant from 30 to 25
-5 armor for Indian elephant from 23 to 18
In single player, I reduced the cost and upkeep of elephants. Also added another HP to 5HP for small African forest elephants
and 6HP for towered forest elephants, African Bush elephants, and Indian Elephants w, w/o armor.
Rationale:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Did this after increasing the chariots to 3. I think these increased elephant HP are ok, since RTW vanilla has them at 12 and 15 HP respectively. I mainly added the extra HP for survivability and to justify their enormous cost. Now half your "smaller" elephant types won't die and rout from only 1-2 volleys of javelins. It's only a 25-33% HP increase, so they're tougher, but still very kill-able. Also, it justifies the chariot HP increase which is now at 3. It would be weird, at least for me, if a smaller elephant and a chariot both had 3 HP. I wanted the smaller & larger elephant to be tougher so I added +1 HP for both...
Sacred Band Phalanx
Removed their 2ndary weapon, which was entirely useless due to its lower attack value and same lethality as the spear
After removing their 2ndary weapon, I was able to add the short pike attribute. Now they fight as an awesome cohesive classical phalanx unit!
I've decided to also increase the shield value to 5 to match the other classical hoplites.
Rationale:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This unit's 2ndary weapon was useless, and Carthage already has a ton of elite units with 2 weapons. Carthage has units like the heavy iberian infantry, Iberian assault infantry, hand-picked heavy libyan-phonecian infantry, heavy libyan infantry, elite african infantry, etc - I wanted an elite classical hoplite unit instead of just another regular two-weaponed unit
Shipri Tukul (Babylonian Heavy Spearmen)
This awesome mercenary unit is underpowered.
Added +1 to armor, and +1 to morale.
Thrakioi Peltastai & Thrakioi Peltastai mercs
Reduced lethality from .26 to .165, increased attack from 7 to 8. Now it matches most other units with a one handed AP-weapon with .165 lethality.
Cordinau Orca (Scordisci Elite Infantry)
Increased long sword lethality from .12 to .225. Decreased attack from 15 to 14.
Persian Hoplites (eastern infantry kardaka)
Similar to the Sacred Band, I got rid of the 2ndary sword weapon which wasn't any more useful than its spear. Then +1 shield, -2 armor, -.02 lethality to .12, and added the short pike attribute.
Roman Praetorian Cohorts
Increased the custom-battle cost in both single and multi edus to 3533. (originally it was around 2000ish for custom)
Roman Manipular Infantry - increased costs to values before EB v1.2
I'm changing them back closer to their original values because they seem way outta balance in comparison to other units. Even if it is to portray Rome's vast manpower ability to spam infantry, I think that can
be represented via campaign script or giving money to the AI.[/SPOIL]
New Values:
Early Hastati = 1258 cost, 314 upkeep
Polybian Hastati = 1333 cost, 333 upkeep
Cavalry in melee.
Another idea - cavalry fares poorly in melee mostly because of their size right? Because the horse + rider unit is so big, 1 cavalry unit has to fight like 3-4 infantry units at once when engaged in melee. Do you thinking doubling their HP, and lowering their defense & armor would make them more effective at melee while keeping them not overpowered like in RTW vanilla?
Actually, what would happen if I gave cavalry unit's a mount value of 1 along with the unit HP of 1, instead of the unit HP being 2? Would that just mean they die twice as fast...or twice as slow?
For some reason, in the multiplayer edu, the Greeks don't have access to the Hellenic Heavy Skirmisher (Peltasti), I added Greek Cities as an owner in the edu. Also tightened Syracusian hoplite formation to match the formations of regular Greek hoplites.
I still say go with the 2-3 shield for phalangists, and leave defense skill alone.
all the rest, I'm really interested in seeing the rationale (gaesatae aside-that one is pretty good rationale); perhaps they can be of value?
Chariots
Rationale for chariots - with 2 HP, they still kinda sucked for their main purpose - running into infantry and disorganizing their lines. Usually, more than half the chariots would die before they could sucessfully disorganize an infantry unit. Now with 3 HP, they're much more survivable. I did a test with a chariot + infantry army attacking a fort. I defended the fort's maingate with heavy infantry, and the chariot was actually able to push my infantry back and allow their own infantry to stream into the fort (I lost the battle). Without chariots, those infantry would've been slaughtered as they got cornered and squished together at the gate by my heavy infantry. Also, with 2HP chariots, they normally would've died and routed before accomplishing their objectives.
Now my only concern is I made them too overpowered against cavalry... >_>
Hoplites
As for hoplites - thanks to TWFanatic's short_pike idea, classical hoplites can keep a cohesive, awesome looking formation instead of breaking into individual units like regular spearmen would.
Sacred Band
This unit's 2ndary weapon was useless, and Carthage already has a ton of elite units with 2 weapons. Carthage has units like the heavy iberian infantry, Iberian assault infantry, hand-picked heavy libyan-phonecian infantry, heavy libyan infantry, elite african infantry, etc - I wanted an elite classical hoplite unit instead of just another regular two-weaponed unit
Elephants
I mainly added the extra HP for survivability and to justify their enormous cost. Now half your "smaller" elephant types won't die and rout from only 1-2 volleys of javelins. It's only a 25-33% HP increase, so they're tougher, but still very kill-able. Also, it justifies the chariot HP increase which is now at 3. It would be weird, at least for me, if a smaller elephant and a chariot both had 3 HP. I wanted the smaller & larger elephant to be tougher so I added +1 HP for both...
This unit's 2ndary weapon was useless, and Carthage already has a ton of elite units with 2 weapons. Carthage has units like the heavy iberian infantry, Iberian assault infantry, hand-picked heavy libyan-phonecian infantry, heavy libyan infantry, elite african infantry, etc - I wanted an elite classical hoplite unit instead of just another regular two-weaponed unit
Give it an overhand spear, then, please! I think it would look much better.
Also, the secondary weapon wasn't entirely useless; it may have been about as good against other infantry. But I agree, it was heavily underpowered.
You can just use guard mode to let hoplites keep a cohesive formation; or shield wall in BI.exe
My big suggestion, however, would be to raise most infantry shield values:
1 for strap-to-arm shields, tiny slinger shields, etc. and a +1 defense bonus
3 for caetrae, medium wicker shields, and a +1 defense bonus if the unit is trained
4 for medium round shields, wicker thureos-shaped shields
5 for thureoi and hexagonal shields, with a -1 defense penalty
6 for scuta and hopla/large aspides, with a -1 defense penalty, or a -2 penalty if the unit isn't trained
-Chariots were pretty fragile things and usually relied on infantry freaking out and trying to get out of the way so I don't think its warranted to make them the poor-man's elephants. If you ever have driven them through attacking legionaires they are freaking deadly already.
-Hoplites with short-pike are... okay. I rather not have to deal with short pike at all and rather have a dense attacking formation. The main issue is formation pushing because they don't have pushing ability in guard mode. I think you can do it by adjusting density but that requires a whole rebalance of the hoplite since there are weird side effects for it.
-Elephants are hit or miss units. You need to know how to use them and how not to use them since unlike regular cavalry, if you hit with a unit of cavalry correctly, you'll do lots of casualties and maybe chain rout for a victory. If you hit with elephants right: you will just win the game. Really its an issue of knowing how to use the unit and whether to want to go for the higher risk/high pay off.
Actually probably the msot useful thing to do for phants is to 1/2 size 1/2 cost them so they are only around 5000 which is only 1000 more than a normal Kataphract.
-Hoplites with short-pike are... okay. I rather not have to deal with short pike at all and rather have a dense attacking formation. The main issue is formation pushing because they don't have pushing ability in guard mode. I think you can do it by adjusting density but that requires a whole rebalance of the hoplite since there are weird side effects for it.
Short pike actually makes them into a very dense attacking formation. Units without this trait separate and scatter when attacking, whereas short pike they keep in a cohesive formation. (especially so when in guard mode). If you use just regular guard mode without short pike, they seem to be weaker than they normally would since not all of their front units engage in battle...I only use guard mode if I'm defending a street and I can keep my unit and the enemy absolutely flat and parallel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
-Chariots were pretty fragile things and usually relied on infantry freaking out and trying to get out of the way so I don't think its warranted to make them the poor-man's elephants. If you ever have driven them through attacking legionaires they are freaking deadly already....
-Elephants are hit or miss units. You need to know how to use them and how not to use them since unlike regular cavalry, if you hit with a unit of cavalry correctly, you'll do lots of casualties and maybe chain rout for a victory. If you hit with elephants right: you will just win the game. Really its an issue of knowing how to use the unit and whether to want to go for the higher risk/high pay off.
Actually probably the msot useful thing to do for phants is to 1/2 size 1/2 cost them so they are only around 5000 which is only 1000 more than a normal Kataphract.
Aye, but my main focus is single player. Human players would know not to charge chariots right into densely packed infantry, or parade elephants around letting them get slaughtered by javelins. Nonetheless, I still feel chariots with only 2HP are still useless given their high price - so I don't know if they would use them in the first place...you can have better morale-killing units like the Gaesataes. And scythe chariots with their ridiculous 6 morale will rout the second the 1st unit dies.... :furious3:
AI players are...not so intelligent.
As for eles, I suppose that would work too, but I prefer larger amounts of eles for more epic battles... :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamegeek2
Give it an overhand spear, then, please! I think it would look much better...You can just use guard mode to let hoplites keep a cohesive formation; or shield wall in BI.exe
Aye. Currently I have the underhand-spear and short_pike. It looks...ok. Looks cooler when in idle, but looks less cool than over-hand spears when in battle ready mode. What stats to I need to change to give it an overhand spear?
For Shipri Tukul (Babylonian Heavy Spearmen)
I'm thinking of adding +1 to armor, and +1 or +2 to morale...? I think they should be at least on or almost on the same level in terms of morale as the polybian hastati to justify their cost...
The Polybian Principes have 12 armor while post-Marian cohorts have 10 armor?
Are the principes armor better than the post-Marian armor? (I guess due to the leg greeves?)
post-Marians have 25% more troops compared to the principes, but the cost of their recuritment/upkeep is more than 25% of the principes?
So principes are generally a better bang-for-buck unit than post-Marian cohorts?
Aye. Currently I have the underhand-spear and short_pike. It looks...ok. Looks cooler when in idle, but looks less cool than over-hand spears when in battle ready mode. What stats to I need to change to give it an overhand spear?
that will involve some 3dsmax editing though, better ask some modellers to do that for you :grin:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You could always ask the newbie one who doing all the mad things with models, right now as far as I can see, Cute Wolf (my university mate) allready doing some custom fixed models, such as repairing duguntiz gautizka's and garamantin's backward spear, as well as some crazy additions such as giving klerouchikoi Phalangitai javelins instead of sarrisae, and made Gaesatae's penis much more bigger, up to the knee
:clown:
bleh! Nevermind then... underhanded hoplites for the Sacred Band looks fine, even though it's not entirely accurate...
And what's up with elephants?
Why do Indian elephants have less defense skill and less morale than African bush elephants? Were they less trained, smaller, etc?
Also armored elephants have the same armor value of 14 as African bush and Indian elephants...? (this is from the unit cards, which might be outdated)
Chariots
Rationale for chariots - with 2 HP, they still kinda sucked for their main purpose - running into infantry and disorganizing their lines. Usually, more than half the chariots would die before they could sucessfully disorganize an infantry unit. Now with 3 HP, they're much more survivable. I did a test with a chariot + infantry army attacking a fort. I defended the fort's maingate with heavy infantry, and the chariot was actually able to push my infantry back and allow their own infantry to stream into the fort (I lost the battle). Without chariots, those infantry would've been slaughtered as they got cornered and squished together at the gate by my heavy infantry. Also, with 2HP chariots, they normally would've died and routed before accomplishing their objectives.
Now my only concern is I made them too overpowered against cavalry... >_>
Hoplites
As for hoplites - thanks to TWFanatic's short_pike idea, classical hoplites can keep a cohesive, awesome looking formation instead of breaking into individual units like regular spearmen would.
Sacred Band
This unit's 2ndary weapon was useless, and Carthage already has a ton of elite units with 2 weapons. Carthage has units like the heavy iberian infantry, Iberian assault infantry, hand-picked heavy libyan-phonecian infantry, heavy libyan infantry, elite african infantry, etc - I wanted an elite classical hoplite unit instead of just another regular two-weaponed unit
Elephants
I mainly added the extra HP for survivability and to justify their enormous cost. Now half your "smaller" elephant types won't die and rout from only 1-2 volleys of javelins. It's only a 25-33% HP increase, so they're tougher, but still very kill-able. Also, it justifies the chariot HP increase which is now at 3. It would be weird, at least for me, if a smaller elephant and a chariot both had 3 HP. I wanted the smaller & larger elephant to be tougher so I added +1 HP for both...
1-why not add 2 hp for the mount, and give the rider 1 HP? as the horses are driven, not ridden, the game can treat it as a separate entity. unless the 2 HP already refer to the horse and man put together?
2-makes sense to me. and I like the restating.
3-Elephants: I don't know what to say about this-mostly because I don't know too much about elephants.
4-now for the hoppers: I'm not in favor of the short_pike attribute whatsoever; while it does solve the problem or lacking cohesion, I think it kinda ***** up stats to an extant. I think we can change the radius of the combat unit instead, from 0.4 (the default), to 0.1-0.25, while maintaining the formation spacings. the result should be a cohesive unit, without playing with the stats (unless, out of safety, you may reduce the attack -1 or -2).
that's the theory anyways; it worked in N2TW. now to actually apply it to EB.
1-why not add 2 hp for the mount, and give the rider 1 HP? as the horses are driven, not ridden, the game can treat it as a separate entity. unless the 2 HP already refer to the horse and man put together?
2-makes sense to me. and I like the restating.
3-Elephants: I don't know what to say about this-mostly because I don't know too much about elephants.
How would 1 hp man, 2hp mount work, would it mean more difficulty for the game engine? (ie. more lag)
Also, if either the man dies or the horse dies, the entire unit dies right?
I'm thinking of changing around morale and armor values for elephants. It's kinda weird that in the unit cards, armored elephants and non-armored elephants have the same exact armor value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrahim
4-now for the hoppers: I'm not in favor of the short_pike attribute whatsoever; while it does solve the problem or lacking cohesion, I think it kinda ***** up stats to an extant. I think we can change the radius of the combat unit instead, from 0.4 (the default), to 0.1-0.25, while maintaining the formation spacings. the result should be a cohesive unit, without playing with the stats (unless, out of safety, you may reduce the attack -1 or -2).
that's the theory anyways; it worked in N2TW. now to actually apply it to EB.
Would changing the radius of the combat unit stop them from dispersing/spreading out as soon as they engage an enemy?
EDIT: CORRECTION: It's not so much a typo as it is a lack of information. Not all info is displayed on the Heimstatt cards let alone the in-game card. There is secondary armour that is the metal that the armoured indian ele has. You can find it in the EDU...
Sacred Band Phalanx
Removed their 2ndary weapon, which was entirely useless due to its lower attack value and same lethality as the spear
After removing their 2ndary weapon, I was able to add the short pike attribute. Now they fight as an awesome cohesive classical phalanx unit!
kept the shield value the same at 4, since it seems to be smaller than most hoplite shields from the picture...
Rationale:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This unit's 2ndary weapon was useless, and Carthage already has a ton of elite units with 2 weapons. Carthage has units like the heavy iberian infantry, Iberian assault infantry, hand-picked heavy libyan-phonecian infantry, heavy libyan infantry, elite african infantry, etc - I wanted an elite classical hoplite unit instead of just another regular two-weaponed unit
This is a good idea. What other units would traditionally use their spear that the AI automatically has them use their sword that we could change?
There is one Gallic unit that uses their spear too much, when they should use their sword. Some Averni elite Gallic swordsmen or something.
Anyway, I added 18% to all lethality values, reduced the attack of most spears, increased the damage and cost of archers and slingers, removed the AP attribute from slingers, limited the ammo of many, increased the range of javelins and pila (so they have a chance to get them off before the enemy unit is already in a melee with them), reduce all infantry to 1 HP and rebalanced those that had 2 hp, and reduced morale. I also added frighten infantry to all cavalry units (save horse archers, whom infantry would love to get their hands on rather than fearing the power of their horses in a full blow charge), reduced the armor of cavalry, and removed the ridiculous launching attribute that elephants and chariots have. Finally, I greatly reduced the cost of ships and siege weapons.
If I am not mistaken, one or two greaves should not make a difference in EB's stat system. The additional protection is very useful for the leading leg, but not so much for the trailing one.
How would 1 hp man, 2hp mount work, would it mean more difficulty for the game engine? (ie. more lag)
Also, if either the man dies or the horse dies, the entire unit dies right?
I'm not quite sure how it works precisely; I was proposing this as a potentially more satisfactory solution; I'll try it out myself today. I do know about the whole "seperate HP" thing, but have yet to try it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
I'm thinking of changing around morale and armor values for elephants. It's kinda weird that in the unit cards, armored elephants and non-armored elephants have the same exact armor value.
I'd have to concur on that then. makes little sense to all have one armor value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Would changing the radius of the combat unit stop them from dispersing/spreading out as soon as they engage an enemy?
precisely. it also allows for tighter formations as well-if you so choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
I know that post-Marians are better than Principes. My question is why are they more expensive? Is it because they provided their own equipment?
yep-Marians not only get paid, but are equipped, maintained, and even pensioned by the state; earlier units? not so much.
EDIT: turns out my suggestion was exactly what was in the EB sp and mp stats (regarding chariots)..bummer. best try sth else.
The tests y'all perform use modified stats, but because you are still using the same game as everyone else, Europa Barbarorum, your tests would still be great reads for those wishing to study the game more in-depth. Consider contributing to the research project, Europa Barbarorum: A Look Into the Past.
EDIT: turns out my suggestion was exactly what was in the EB sp and mp stats (regarding chariots)..bummer. best try sth else.
So horses get 2HP and the rider gets 1HP? What if there are two riders? Does that mean both rider have 1/2 HP or they both count as 1 person?
And does 2HP horse + 1 HP rider make it easier or harder to kill the chariot? I'm thinking it creates more targets to kill, but if all the attacks happen to land on the rider,
then that would mean the unit dies 2x as fast.
1HP for a rider and 1HP for the horse would work well for regular cavalry units to beef them up I believe... ?
It's possible to kill the missile-bearers on a chariot or elephant without killing the unit, though this happens rarely and seems to be a matter of chance. I suppose that is what the rider HP refers to: I've never seen a mahout or chariot-driver die other than through killing it's mount.
If the mahout has a single HP as well, then we would, once in a blue moon, see an elephant die under the first salvo of missile fire. I have never noticed that happening, so I suppose the mahout is part of the elephant model.
It's possible to kill the missile-bearers on a chariot or elephant without killing the unit, though this happens rarely and seems to be a matter of chance. I suppose that is what the rider HP refers to: I've never seen a mahout or chariot-driver die other than through killing it's mount.
If the mahout has a single HP as well, then we would, once in a blue moon, see an elephant die under the first salvo of missile fire. I have never noticed that happening, so I suppose the mahout is part of the elephant model.
it never happened with the mahout that was on top on elephants head, or the chariot riders... but you can notice how chidainh javelinmen die, and their chariot and drivers not, when under heavy pilum (like, oh, my passangers are die, but whatever, I can get some more in the town when we are retrained anyway...)
if you want to notice that, raise the passangers per chariots (to 3 instead of 2) so you can notice after charging a line full of Romans, you'll found some chariots have only 1 passangers.
on the contrary, I've never seen elephant archers die in EB without their elephants die, too high placed maybe?
I will add ideas as they come to me, but here is one that seems obvious:
Legionary Description from EB Website:
Quote:
The gladius hispaniensis, adapted during the late 3rd century BC conflicts, is a great weapon for fighting in close formations. Its strong, unbending blade has a sharp point to penetrate heavy armour and can deal an effective blow with both edges. So it can be used for stabbing or slashing as well. The pilum, the heavy Roman javelin, is designed to bend after impact so that it is worthless for the enemy and is difficult to remove from shields. Its weight also gives the weapon great penetration capability.
The points I emboldened only leads me to rationalize that:
*Legionary attack should be AP, it says it in the description.
*Legionary lethality should be at least .225 or higher, since even the Southern Gallic Swordsman has a lethality of .225, despite possessing a common 'longsword.' It would be wrong to factor in reputation in for this.
*Since the 'rendering the shields useless' is impossible, somehow adjust the pila so that it doesn't kill 0 units up front, regardless of what unit type it is... this one is especially needed as anyone can tell you how unrealistic it is for pila to be thrown at the flanks of a phalanx unit, and still kill only 1 soldier (I remember throwing one whole volley at the backs of some Scythian cataphracts and killed a total of 1 unit... yes 1!!!), there is something wrong with that.
*The pila has an attack value of 4!, even being armor piercing, what difference would it make vs some light infantry? It would actually be weaker than a rudimentary javelin from a Spanish ambusher... again... a nice subject for an experiment...
*Why isn't their attack value higher, being that they can attack by slashing and thrusting... this can be applied to anytime of soldier with such description (such as Boii swordsmen). This one should be more based of reputation, as it would be wrong to give a Gaestate a less powerful attack then a legionary.
In regards to the Neitos, why is their defense skill, armor, and morale so high? Their description says the following (from site):
Quote:
Well armored in quality chain, with sturdy shields, and good longswords, the Neitos (Nee-yet-os; "Soldiers") are professional soldiers, and excellently skilled and disciplined when compared to the bulk of light Gallic soldiers ... they were rarely in large enough number to act as anything but a tiny elite, though they, in truth, were little more than average soldiers of regular warriors in superior armor and with superior equipment.
Why would their armor be superior to the Romans'? Why would their defense skill be higher? Why would, above all things, their morale be so close to the Romans if they were merely the Boutoras in heavy armor... I'd concede a morale of 10, assuming their equipment enchance their 'confidence.'
*I take this opportunity to identify what I believe to be the clearest reference for applying stat values... Unit Descriptions.
*In said descriptions, have a standard for each, kind of like done by Gamegeek above... chainmail = __. Non-metal curriass = __... etc. etc.
*Thus, no hoplite, except maybe levies, and certainly no 'pike', should have a 'light spear'.
*Oh and for the cavalry problem, why not just give light skirmisher units and to a certain extent heavier ones (I would exclude, for example, the Thracian Peltast as in description it says it is very effective vs cavalry) negative mount effects vs. cavalry?
I agree with those who have said don't mess with the chariots/elephants as, historically, they were much more hindrances than beneficiaries... you seem to possess a desire to see them used much more effectively than they actually were... just an objective opinion.
How are yoiu going about chaing the stats? Do you just edit the values in the edu?
Also, how do yo edit the mp rosters for each faction?
Which stats do you wish to change? Single player or Multiplayer? Choose one, go to its sp or mp edu backup folder in RTW/EB and edit the EDU values. For ownership add proper faction to ownership lines.
*Legionary attack should be AP, it says it in the description.
*Legionary lethality should be at least .225 or higher, since even the Southern Gallic Swordsman has a lethality of .225, despite possessing a common 'longsword.' It would be wrong to factor in reputation in for this.
Nah. The gladius is no more armor piercing than your regular spear point. If we gave the gladius AP, you'd have to give all spears AP as well.
As for lethality, a short sword simply isn't as lethal as a long sword. I think the short sword might have a faster attack rate that compensates anyways. Furthermore, EB can't factor in the fact that longswords have a longer attack range than short swords.
So short swords having less lethality than long swords would make sense.
As another AP point, again, giving a gladius AP properties means we would have to give all arrows fired from composite bows AP property as well. Actually, we'd have to make bows much stronger...considering an arrow fired from a composite bow has a better change of penetrating chainmail armor than a stab from a gladius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69
*Since the 'rendering the shields useless' is impossible, somehow adjust the pila so that it doesn't kill 0 units up front, regardless of what unit type it is... this one is especially needed as anyone can tell you how unrealistic it is for pila to be thrown at the flanks of a phalanx unit, and still kill only 1 soldier (I remember throwing one whole volley at the backs of some Scythian cataphracts and killed a total of 1 unit... yes 1!!!), there is something wrong with that.
I usually kill like 10+ enemies from throwing pila into their front, and kill 20-30+ enemies if I throw pila into their rear.
As for cataphracts, they don't carry shields, and most of their defense lies in their armor, which covers front and back. So throwing pila into the back of a cataphract line is no different than throwing it into the back of a cataphract line. And if they have good lamellar plate armor instead of chainmail, they wouldn't take very much casualties...
But just killing 1 seems a bit low. I'll have to do tests on that. Are you throwing pila straight on? If it is thrown into a high arc, then it will barely kill anybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69
*The pila has an attack value of 4!, even being armor piercing, what difference would it make vs some light infantry? It would actually be weaker than a rudimentary javelin from a Spanish ambusher... again... a nice subject for an experiment...
Probably for balancing issues. I think they should take out the AP trait for pila and just give it a very high attack value - higher than the regular javelins. That should make it decent against lightly armored infantry. I'll do some testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69
In regards to the Neitos, why is their defense skill, armor, and morale so high? Their description says the following (from site): Why would their armor be superior to the Romans'? Why would their defense skill be higher? Why would, above all things, their morale be so close to the Romans if they were merely the Boutoras in heavy armor... I'd concede a morale of 10, assuming their equipment enchance their 'confidence.'
I think the reason for this is because the Neitors are expensive elite units that are rare, whereas the Roman soldier was plentiful and your rank and file soldier.
So it's a well equipped, well trained "elite" Gallic soldier vs a well equipped, well trained "average" Roman soldier.
This should be reflected with a proportionally higher cost to train and maintain, imo.
I would tend to agree with Slick for the following reasons Intranetusa:
Quote:
Nah. The gladius is no more armor piercing than your regular spear point. If we gave the gladius AP, you'd have to give all spears AP as well.
You cannot say that without ignorance or possessing a subtle disdain for the Roman soldier. The Gladius is arguably the most renown weapon for lethality in the ancient world. It's physical design and features reinforced this to a high degree. It was not just double-edged, which in itself was a stark advantage over the typical barbarian swordsman, but also was made of highest quality steel. It was so short as to make it so light as to render it efficient with one hand, yet was able to incapacitate to the same degree as any broadsword. Yet the point most relevant to the point, is its unbreaking sharp point and edge, which made it easily able to deliver blows within the many crevices of heavy armor. It must be pointed out that the lethality of a unit comes not from the weapon, but how the weapon was used.
If you seriously analyze even the most developed spearman - the hoplite - you will see that even such a highly professional soldier did not rely on the lethality of his weapon to kill an opponent, but by skill, defense, and counter-attacks in which the most usual desired outcome involved the knocking down of the opponent, to be pierced in an unarmored spot at the hoplites choosing, due to the defenders defenseless situation.
Thus, it is apparent, as a rule, that a swordsman will always be more lethal than a spearman, due to the fact that it is much easier deliver blows and find weak spots in armor when in close, than when farther away.
Of relative value, I would agree that the "sarissa" should have the AP attribute, as the weight of force with which it was inherently used would allow pikemen to easily pierce heavy armedd units.
Quote:
As for lethality, a short sword simply isn't as lethal as a long sword. I think the short sword might have a faster attack rate that compensates anyways. Furthermore, EB can't factor in the fact that longswords have a longer attack range than short swords ... So short swords having less lethality than long swords would make sense.
I wouldn't busy myself with attack rates... It is much too trivial and disputable to challenge EB's settings in this respect.
Quote:
As another AP point, again, giving a gladius AP properties means we would have to give all arrows fired from composite bows AP property as well. Actually, we'd have to make bows much stronger...considering an arrow fired from a composite bow has a better change of penetrating chainmail armor than a stab from a gladius.
This again would fit into what I said previously regarding the nature of the weapons and how they are used. If you look at it with education, it is impossible to deny that the function of the archer is to kill unarmored or undefended opponents. Yes, there are many instances where "arrow pierced through shield" and "pinned foot to the ground" but these are examples in particular, not in general. I doubt that Crassus' legions were lost more because their shields and armor were utterly useless against the Persian bow, than because of Crassus' own strategy and tactics.
Also, realize that, by 272, the composite bow was prevalent almost everwhere in the East and in Africa. It was not adopted in the West due to its logistical failures in the damp weather.
Quote:
I usually kill like 10+ enemies from throwing pila into their front, and kill 20-30+ enemies if I throw pila into their rear.
Have you ever tried this manoever against pikemen or naken fanatics? It is simply ridiculous.
Quote:
As for cataphracts, they don't carry shields, and most of their defense lies in their armor, which covers front and back. So throwing pila into the back of a cataphract line is no different than throwing it into the back of a cataphract line. And if they have good lamellar plate armor instead of chainmail, they wouldn't take very much casualties...
Even if an ancient cataphract possessed the means to use Robocop's suit, I doubt he would want to see if he could survive a point-blank shot from a javelin, let alone from the back.
Quote:
But just killing 1 seems a bit low. I'll have to do tests on that. Are you throwing pila straight on? If it is thrown into a high arc, then it will barely kill anybody.
That is the proper way to test the theory: to test it out. In my example, it was always done at the maximum distance, although I doubt the distance factor should have such a high discrepancy in this respect, albeit with its effect on damage.
Quote:
Probably for balancing issues. I think they should take out the AP trait for pila and just give it a very high attack value - higher than the regular javelins. That should make it decent against lightly armored infantry. I'll do some testing.
I would argue that it should have both, in order to reflect its high level distinction over the regular javelin.
Quote:
I think the reason for this is because the Neitors are expensive elite units that are rare, whereas the Roman soldier was plentiful and your rank and file soldier.
So it's a well equipped, well trained "elite" Gallic soldier vs a well equipped, well trained "average" Roman soldier.
This should be reflected with a proportionally higher cost to train and maintain, imo.
A Neitos was nowhere near the level of discipline and training as a legionairre. They were not elite. They weren't nobles. They were merely privileged in the sense that their main duty was to serve their local chief in times of war and were provided special equipment for this purpose - a warrior class far from the distinction of a professional army. When their tribes were not at war, they would live the life of a regular citizen, working farms and indulging in trade.
The Roman Legionnaire, although also not noble and with the same sense of duty, were constantly trained and disciplined during peacetime in preparation for war. They did not live the life of a common Roman citizen, often times living in remote outposts designed to defend the frontier. If anything, you could argue the Neitos to have greater morale, given their great superiorty of courage and bravery, but nothing else.
A Neitos was nowhere near the level of discipline and training as a legionairre. They were not elite. They weren't nobles. They were merely privileged in the sense that their main duty was to serve their local chief in times of war and were provided special equipment for this purpose - a warrior class far from the distinction of a professional army. When their tribes were not at war, they would live the life of a regular citizen, working farms and indulging in trade.
They were every bit as well equipped, if not more so, and while lacking elite training, were well disciplined, professional in the sense that they were full-time warriors, and amazing.
They were every bit as well equipped, if not more so, and while lacking elite training, were well disciplined, professional in the sense that they were full-time warriors, and amazing.
I am sorry GameGeek, but if you consider the Neitos warrior as equipped than a Roman legionary soldier (let alone possessing the inclination that they were better equipped), you have no conception of what made the Romans the superior power of their time, nor do I think you have taken into consideration anything I have previously said. Otherwise, you would have tried to prove your refutation with some evidence or enlightening description, no?
Just because a man fights does not make him a boxer; just because a warrior goes to war does not make him a soldier. A warrior fights for himself while a soldier fights for his country. The warrior wins by his strength alone; the soldier wins by giving some of his strength to those who fight with him!
I don't want to said this, but President, you should know that in metallurugical respect, Celts often comes out far better than the Romans, how could you compare mass produced chainmail with carefully tailored and forged chainmail?
I don't want to said this, but President, you should know that in metallurugical respect, Celts often comes out far better than the Romans, how could you compare mass produced chainmail with carefully tailored and forged chainmail?
How do you know Celtic metallurgy to be better than the Romans? By the time of the Marian days, Rome had dominated much of Spain, North Africa, Asia, Greece, and part of your beloved Gauls. Do you not think they would've had access to a level of blacksmithing that would approach the Celtic?
As far as I know there was never any such thing as "mass-production" in the ancient world. People still depended on the works of skilled laborers and for an empire such as Rome, such laborers comprised various different types of peoples with many skills and customs in the art of "metallurgy." Thus, if anything, Rome would have an advantage eh? I feel you are considering the standing of the Celts in relation to the Romans based on their standing before 272 BC.
This can be applied to your common laborers (...) with many skills and customs in the art of "metallurgy." [sic], who, with excessive demand, had to make the armours faster, and therefore, made mistakes, or had to use less iron to make enough. Those mailles were of lower quality, to fit the demand, that's why 300 spartans and ~7,000 greeks took a hold against 70,000-300,000 persians; because their armour was made with care and pacience, because the common laborer(...) with many skills and customs in the art of "metallurgy." [sic] knew that the armour was going not only to protect his buyer, but his buyer's son, grandson, and etc.
In that matter, legionaries should get lower armour than neitos. Metalurgy is like rennaisance art, hurry it and you will EPIC FAIL(:clown:).
On the matter of javelins, in order to achieve full power, has to be on the air for at least three feet, but not to attain it's height peak, when cinetic energy is at it's max, but enough about physics flabber-plabber. If you shoot a javelin at PBR (Point-Blank Range) what you will get is your hand hitting the target's armour with your hand, and, you cannot understand, try to jav a cylinder with the same strength, angle, etc. from the "back" and the "front", what you will get is: THE SAME THING
Armour =/= fighting style, as you had put it, it doesn't matter if the legions trained every single day, and the neitos were a bunch of fat old men, and viceversa. Each one's armour WILL REMAIN THE SAME. No matter how you fight, lorica hamata on a gaul=lorica hamata on a parthian!
<removed>
P.S.: Accept it, Rome destroyed everyone once they outnumbered them, I appreciate Hannibal, to have showed them that tactics are more important than pure brute force, same thing with the Quincunx for the romans side, and maybe Caesar, but, most strategos of Rome were just fat, overpaid, tacticless brutes (of course i don't mean it, i don't know that much of roman history, it's just an asseveration of my rant, I apologize)
OT : @ Jirisys : your earlier part of the post is a bit offensive :clown:
The Report Post button is found on the lower-left of each post. Use that if you find any particular post offensive (it's more effective than simply replying to the post).
Necro thread bump due to relevant issues. Has anyone tried elephants with lesser numbers and lesser cost? Is it even possible to have just a single elephant in a unit? It'd be interesting to have dirt cheap elephants...
Im'ma test this out as soon as I get my datafiles working again...
Also, I see that Jirisys's phalanx mod has given the short_pike attribute to phalanx units with 2 weapons. When I did this, the unit often glitched and would never use the 2nd weapon. ie. Babylonian Heavy Spearmen with the short_pike attribute would always use the spear and never use the mace. Does this still happen or did someone find a way around this problem?
I would suggest making the Cretan archers, Rhodian slingers, Balearic slingers a tad more powerful to empasize their (historical) superiority. Also you might want to make the Scythians a tad more powerful as well.
Also for the SPQR the inferiority of the hastati to the principes should be emphasized I think
And please can someone explain why the peltastai are just so damn powerful? Aren't they supposed to be a regular skirmish unit? Well they fight like regular infantry
:laugh4: No silly. I mean I go from unit to unit making the changes you mentioned in the OP, that way I can merge it with other EDU-altering mods.
~Jirisys ()
Sure, go ahead. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by danio43us67
I would suggest making the Cretan archers, Rhodian slingers, Balearic slingers a tad more powerful to empasize their (historical) superiority. Also you might want to make the Scythians a tad more powerful as well.
And did you have a look at this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ords%29-in-1-2 ?
Also for the SPQR the inferiority of the hastati to the principes should be emphasized I think
And please can someone explain why the peltastai are just so damn powerful? Aren't they supposed to be a regular skirmish unit? Well they fight like regular infantry
What missile stats do you suggest? As for hastati-principes, what do you suggest? I was thinking of increasing the cost of principes. But then again, I guess all Roman units are suppose to be cheap and spam-able?
As for Peltastai, I think Hellenic Heavy Peltastai are suppose to be tough and can serve as emergency line troops in a pinch. (they have good armor, a shield, a decent sword, etc) - but if you're talking about the
thorkati Peltastai with the falx-looking weapon, the weapon lethality is OPed & needs to be edited.
I would suggest +1/2 for Balearics +1 for Rhodians +1/2 for Cretans and maybe +1 for Scythians in missile attack. That would have to be balanced so it would have to be tested, also the cost of them should be considered as well.
Quote:
As for Peltastai, I think Hellenic Heavy Peltastai are suppose to be tough and can serve as emergency line troops in a pinch. (they have good armor, a shield, a decent sword, etc) - but if you're talking about the
thorkati Peltastai with the falx-looking weapon, the weapon lethality is OPed & needs to be edited.
Don't know about the Peltastai, it was just an observation that they are pretty much all very powerful and those thorkati Peltastai are just killers. I'm not that familiar with Greek military.
Quote:
As for hastati-principes, what do you suggest? I was thinking of increasing the cost of principes. But then again, I guess all Roman units are suppose to be cheap and spam-able?
Yes, republican troops weren't really a standing army, they were kind of drafted and trained when in need - but, since Rome was almost always at war, they were in action very often, though. Therefore, the cost of all infantry, I think below triarii, maybe principes, should be comperably low. However, principes were significantly better equipped (That's pretty much what Roman troops differed in - equipment, before the Marian reforms).
Again, we have a few periods in republican military. In EB we have the Camillian reforms and the Polybian reforms. There aren't any rorarii or leves in the Polybian times. Because of that, in my opinion, there should be a bigger difference between the Polybian troops. The hastati were absolute greenies, just properly drilled and with alright equipment. The principes were much better. Certainly a bigger difference than how it is portrayed in EB.
If we start messing with those republicans, then we might unbalance other Roman troops, which might unbalance other factions' units. I'm not an EDU expert, so I leave it to you to do anything with it, you're probably more experienced than I am with this stuff.
I would suggest +1/2 for Balearics +1 for Rhodians +1/2 for Cretans and maybe +1 for Scythians in missile attack. That would have to be balanced so it would have to be tested, also the cost of them should be considered
as well.
Well, at the moment, all slingers massacre armored troops due to their AP trait. levy celtic slingers kill more heavily armored elites than Cretans... :(
I might have to add missile attacks to archers but I'll hold off on that for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danio43us67
Did you have a look at that thread?
Yeh, the thread reminded me that in earlier EB versions, the Roman infantry cost much more. Why were the Polybian era Roman infantry were reduced in cost?
The original recruitment costs for the Polybian era hastati, principes, and triarii were 1333, 1647, and 2171 respectively. Now they cost 1066, 1185, and 1524 respectively.
Well those misisle units were historically the cream of the crop, crop of the cream, but it was just a suggestion. If I have any more ideas I'll post here.
Why does the ;392 Roman Eastern Auxilia have a totally useless 2ndary weapon? Its primary weapon is the spear with 14 attack and .13 lethality. Its sword only has 9 attack and .11 lethality (no AP either). There is absolutely no reason to use the sword in any scenario. The Roman Western Auxilia doesn't have a sword, so why does the Eastern one have one?
Why does the ;392 Roman Eastern Auxilia have a totally useless 2ndary weapon? Its primary weapon is the spear with 14 attack and .13 lethality. Its sword only has 9 attack and .11 lethality (no AP either). There is absolutely no reason to use the sword in any scenario. The Roman Western Auxilia doesn't have a sword, so why does the Eastern one have one?
Intranetusa is online now Add to Intranetusa's Reputation Report Post
Edit/Delete Message
There is also one major difference. Attacking with spears is much slower than with swords. So with swords they will inflict less damage per hit, but they will hit much faster. This is unverified, so I'm not so sure, but you can check it out.
