[EB] How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and East

Before I say anything then I have to confess that I will not be playing multiplayer untill the Europa Barbarorum 2 comes out, so this is more like a suggestion for that when that time comes.

When playing as the Western barbarian factions then they are mostly bound to some light slinger units, so when there is played against Hellenic or Eastern factions then the slingers get massacred within an 1 minutes so that then next will the cavalry be massacred and the infantry gets doomed because of their lack of mobility.

But if the Western barbarian factions could be able to hire Cretan mercs against the Hellenic and eastern factions (and also Rome) then they would at least get some chance to counter the enemy archers and Horse archers, so it would encourage players to use other factions rather than Rome and Carthage in the west. This option would not be allowed when Western faction competes against other western factions.

Like for an example then if a western barbarians would meet with an Hellenic and eastern factions, then it is because that either party would have travelled to the territory of the other one, so a western barbarians travelling through eastern territories would be able to hire cretans and vica verca with western mercs.

Like if the Cretans were the most famour mercs in the east then the Celtibrerian heavy infantry (dunaminica) would be the most famous mercs in the west, so when a western faction would compete against an eastern factions then the latter would be able to hire Dunaminica to balance the changes.

it would balance it somewhat but it would be totally ahistorical. cretans working for gauls or sweboz? highly unlikely.

I do however agree on the fact that barbarians need some buffing , but i do not feel that the problem is in the units available ( gauls didnt exchange missile fire with hired cretan archers lol) but in the price. Gauls ARE expensive , as the cost/bang ratio is pretty low. Not to mention most units have 80 men , which is ....bad , while greeks have phalanxes of 120. i mean , how many greeks were there compared to gauls ? From what i've read, usually barbarian armies were larger than their adversary , not smaller.

Sweboz are ok , as long as they have THE BIG BAD Forest. Don't forget , MP is usually around "grassy lands " and Irish marshlands.

Maybe the roman cohorts and phalangists should be reduced to 80 men per unit rather than by adding to the other factions.
It should also be done something about this phalangist immunity to missile fire.

Balearic slingers only get 20 ammo but it is not like they chose to throw big rocks all the time - should have their range and ammo increased (especially when fighting against other ranged units). Slingers should also consist of 80 men per unit like the archer units (instead of being only 60 men)

Gauls half-naked or light units should maybe be increased to 120 men per unit (large) - But for mine part then I am never going to play again as Gauls.

Not all factions are meant to stand around and idle through a passive missile exchange. The Gauls were historically known mainly for crushing power in hand to hand combat, not long range skirmishing, and EB did a decent job reflecting this. So if you want to sit around and arch you are better off playing another faction. If you want to charge your infantry the Celts are the best since they have the most diverse array of high lethality infantry in the game along with the cheapest, the Bataroas and Botroas. Celts also have an abusable advantage in MP because they have access to a greater amount of +morale and -morale effects than any other faction in the game. For my part I find that no other faction in the game quite has the chainrouting power that the Gauls do when used properly with stacked negative morale effects like nakeds' fear, carnute druid chant, cavalry charge etc, flank/rear surround, chariots, etc. In MP if these morale effects were skillfully abused, people would very likely start complaining about Gauls being overpwoered, "Gauls just route my infantry line and then butcher my archers, then my cavalry stand no chance" it would be almost the reverse of what you are saying. Don't stand around and arch. Fight like Caesar at Pharsalos, overload the flank with infantry, route enemy infantry and then run down and butcher the archers standing behind them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Not all factions are meant to stand around and idle through a passive missile exchange. The Gauls were historically known mainly for crushing power in hand to hand combat, not long range skirmishing, and EB did a decent job reflecting this. So if you want to sit around and arch you are better off playing another faction. If you want to charge your infantry the Celts are the best since they have the most diverse array of high lethality infantry in the game along with the cheapest, the Bataroas and Botroas. Celts also have an abusable advantage in MP because they have access to a greater amount of +morale and -morale effects than any other faction in the game. For my part I find that no other faction in the game quite has the chainrouting power that the Gauls do when used properly with stacked negative morale effects like nakeds' fear, carnute druid chant, cavalry charge etc, flank/rear surround, chariots, etc. In MP if these morale effects were skillfully abused, people would very likely start complaining about Gauls being overpwoered, "Gauls just route my infantry line and then butcher my archers, then my cavalry stand no chance" it would be almost the reverse of what you are saying. Don't stand around and arch. Fight like Caesar at Pharsalos, overload the flank with infantry, route enemy infantry and then run down and butcher the archers standing behind them.

---

You are right about the strategy. the problem comes when you try to apply as you simply don't have enough men. Good gaulish units have 80 men. phalanxes 120 , romans 100. And that high letlaity is a trap for light minded , vs high armour they rly suck. I do however like them once they reach the backs of enemies:))))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

You are right about the strategy. the problem comes when you try to apply as you simply don't have enough men. Good gaulish units have 80 men. phalanxes 120 , romans 100. And that high letlaity is a trap for light minded , vs high armour they rly suck. I do however like them once they reach the backs of enemies:))))

---

The key is to combine the Gaulic charge with the classical oblique attack like the Theban general Epaminondas. Sarissa phalanxes dominate in parallel line fights. The Gauls have to approach at a slant, or just smash one flank and ignore the rest of the enemy line. The gaesatae warhead leads the strong flank, turns the battle sideways and routes down the line. Cavalry surround the rear, dumping the javelin barrage at the same time as the gaesatae flank onslaught for enhanced morale reduction. The general masses of the Gaulic line, the bataroas, axeman mercs, whatever infantry spam really, just helps sandwich the enemy line, increase morale pressure and aid in cutting down the routers. It's mainly a matter of timing, its just easier to keep an army in a static position and watch a missile exchange, attacking a strong formation in guard mode requires superior micromanaging and focusing firepower at the vulnerable flank, after the morale loss from nearby troops routing becomes contagious it is very feasible to create a chainroute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Before I say anything then I have to confess that I will not be playing multiplayer untill the Europa Barbarorum 2 comes out, so this is more like a suggestion for that when that time comes.

---

Suggestions for EB2 are better posted in the EB2 forum. I don't know if the EB team visits here. However, since the thread developed into an MP tactics discussion, I'll leave it here for the time being.

Romans don't break. not with prima cohors spam. they do have 15 morale and highly disciplined. you can pressure them on 1 flank but the rest of their army will circle and surround you due to your lack of men (they will have 100 for your 80)(cheaper too , with very good mass)
Greek phalanxes...at 120 men they can really stretch so reaching one flank is very very hard. Not to mention greeks have a killer of a cav which will punish you the second you turn ur back to them.

Don't get me wrong , i think the gauls are well made , but just too damn expensive cost/unit. i think a 100 men /unit would be more balanced. All gaulish vs Roman/greeks involved a superiour number of gauls. That means:
1: either cheap gauls
2:or either bigger unit sizes

They are more powerful if you have not requisite 20 unit armies. But even then 20 Celtic Axemen only break even against 16 Cohorts.

Celtic axemen are ok but the strength of the Gauls lies in the longswordsmen and morale units, chiefly the gaesatae. Also Rhaetians Tekastos are a lot better axemen with their AP javelins, better morale and stamina so they are a better choice for the AP portion of the army. But don't overlook the Northern Gallic Swordsmen, they supply the masses of Gaulic armies with their big numbers, wide coverage and high lethality. Bataroas and Botroas (for Britons) are the basic troop of the line, like the levy phalanxes of Hellenistic armies, they should be present in any army and their main weakness, their weak morale, should be bolstered with eagle troops like druids, nakeds, generals, what have you.

To me the math is there, if the Gauls are filling their mass with 0.225 lethality and the other guy has 0.13 then the Gauls should do well as long as their morale holds up. So 20 celtic axemen will never really show the strength of the Gauls. To run the Gauls right a few things have to be in place: 1)at least one gaesatae; 2) some cavalry, skilled leuke epos micro on the flank separates the men from the boys; 3) big battalions of longswordsmen for general lethality, this means bataroas and botroas; 4) some + morale effects to bolster the Bataroas, in SP I just use strong druid generals with good +command/+morale or Teutatis worshipping shieldbiter/berserker types, but in MP without strong generals British druids are the most cost effective since they are tough and affordable.

Burebista Prima cohort spam seems pretty strong but Rhaetian axemen and Northern Gallic swordsmen are both cheaper, have equal numbers, and cover more space (1.2 vs 1), so Gauls vs Romans I think a gaesatae/AP Rhaetian axemen warhead would overpower most any flank, and the Bataroas, while inferior, should hold up long enough if supported by the general, druids, and/or nakeds. The key with Gauls is to be qualitatively overpowering at the flank and to start the chainroute, if you win the cavalry contest and start routing down the line, I don't think there is any infantry that can withstand -morale from gaesatae fear, friendly troops routing, cavalry charge/ javelin volley from the back, pressure from the front, and getting a little tired, they pretty much all route. I might add that leuke epos are great at killing generals. Basically the thing about EB is that a lot of people like bombproof infantry, rectangular formations, and frontal assaults in line, and this favors Hellenistic phalanx based factions and Romans. If you like surround/slaughter horde tactics then then longsword/javelin troops are for you and gaesatae are the kings.

What about raising the range and damage of barbarian slingers (celtic, shephard, numidian) from 1 to 2 like it would involve a hellenic slingers? Because there is a lot of difference between the 2 and 3 damage (upgraded).
2 = worthless but 3 = fair amount of damage)
ALSO change the Balearic slingers.

For whats the use of having a slingers if their range is about 140 to 160 with only 1 damage plus light armed so that half of them are massacred before getting into range of enemy archers of the east? We don't have to be 100% precice with historical facts if it does ruin the gameplay with the western factions. Because I have tried to chase out the eastern factions with only an infantry and it is a foregone conclusion.

But about gauls then I understand this tactic which you have been describing but I did not post this originally because of them alone, but also because of other factions like Lusotana.
For although such a change of Cretans would be un-historical in regard to missile matter then it would at least make some player chose other factions than Rome or Carthage - But I will forfeit this cretan thing for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

To me the math is there, if the Gauls are filling their mass with 0.225 lethality and the other guy has 0.13 then the Gauls should do well as long as their morale holds up. So 20 celtic axemen will never really show the strength of the Gauls. To run the Gauls right a few things have to be in place: 1)at least one gaesatae; 2) some cavalry, skilled leuke epos micro on the flank separates the men from the boys; 3) big battalions of longswordsmen for general lethality, this means bataroas and botroas; 4) some + morale effects to bolster the Bataroas, in SP I just use strong druid generals with good +command/+morale or Teutatis worshipping shieldbiter/berserker types, but in MP without strong generals British druids are the most cost effective since they are tough and affordable.

Burebista Prima cohort spam seems pretty strong but Rhaetian axemen and Northern Gallic swordsmen are both cheaper, have equal numbers, and cover more space (1.2 vs 1), so Gauls vs Romans I think a gaesatae/AP Rhaetian axemen warhead would overpower most any flank, and the Bataroas, while inferior, should hold up long enough if supported by the general, druids, and/or nakeds. The key with Gauls is to be qualitatively overpowering at the flank and to start the chainroute, if you win the cavalry contest and start routing down the line, I don't think there is any infantry that can withstand -morale from gaesatae fear, friendly troops routing, cavalry charge/ javelin volley from the back, pressure from the front, and getting a little tired, they pretty much all route. I might add that leuke epos are great at killing generals. Basically the thing about EB is that a lot of people like bombproof infantry, rectangular formations, and frontal assaults in line, and this favors Hellenistic phalanx based factions and Romans. If you like surround/slaughter horde tactics then then longsword/javelin troops are for you and gaesatae are the kings.

---

yeah did the math there too and i got the same result on paper. but practice says otherwise.From moment one after you start the battle you realise that the enemy will have no problem flanking you as the 80 man units are no match to the line length of greeks /romans . Waiting for the enemy to atack..not a good ideea..they have arrows ..many ...and long range....bad. Ok ..we attack then. our superior lethality should make this a bloodbath i guess. Wrong!!!u get ur face pawned with elite gauls (2000 mnai) vs spear units/romans ( 1300sh/1700sh). Any flanking? nope..sry..his line just too long. => epic fail.

Ok , next time i'll do it differently. Cavalry.yeah..That would work. They are cheap , have 0.225 lethality...they should be something in cavalry fights. I start the game , see the enemy..i have the cavalry advantage...do some maneuvering...catch his cavalry...charge....they charge....close battle. ok , this is where i want him....thinking...kmoooooon lethality.................Face palm. Cavalry dead....rest of army just no match.

ok , third time...i cant flank i cant win cav fights with HCAV...must attack....Mass one flank. yeah..that's a great ideea ...ill overburden one flank..gaesatae..axemen..the drill. battle starts ..getting closer to the enemy...charging ...i see my enemy surprised...good thing..i start doing some damage on the flank , pressuring...pressuring ...flanking with cavalry ..protewcting them with spearmen so to discourage enemy cav....FACEPALM..AGAIN. The rest of his army circled around and did a "CANNAE" move on me , encircling me pretty much. bloodbath started.....high lethality...bla bla bla ...gauls ...they shoud be good at this....FACEPALM. LOST.Encircled.With fewer numbers and with concentrating power on 1 flank..my numbers appeared even fewer...thus easier to flank. DAMN. DAMN DAMN.

Ok , last try.....Chariots ...I make the plan...If i can get his cavalry and if he has no specialised skirmishers and if he has no elephants and i i can keep my forces safe long enough to have the cav advantage.....then i can win. Welll , surprisingly...all those almost happen..and I bask in the tremendous glory of a.......................DRAW. Facepalm.Facepalm.Monitor facepalm.

Bottom line: Lethality is good , but only for flankers. And even then it doesnt give you a huge advantage. AP much better. that is why my favourite unit is a 1.1 lethality unit with AP.It just kills EVERYTHING. And and has 4 shield , and armour , and trained ,and huge morale , and COSTS LESS THAN GAULS. Screw gauls..im getting some soap and become CIVILISED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Suggestions for EB2 are better posted in the EB2 forum. I don't know if the EB team visits here. However, since the thread developed into an MP tactics discussion, I'll leave it here for the time being.

---

Then thank goodness this thread isn't about EB2 (=

VikingPower (aka my friend VLN!) it's good to see you around. We're missing you! Sorry if this thread has turned into a Civilised vs. Barbaros pseudo-philosophical thread or a debate regarding how the others can hire your heavy inf as mercs but you can't hire their archers as mercs. You're completely right that if facing nations which, geographically speaking, would allow your general to have hired mercs along the way such as Cretan Archers, then you should have the right to hire them, within the merc limit. Seeing as they aren't on the roster, which nations were you thinking should the Archers be added to? Just Aed/Arv, or others as well?

Cheers.

Thanks Vartan for your friendly regard. I hope to see you all again when the new mods come out so that it will draw some decent amount of active players to the hamachi (EB 2, Dominion of the sword, Third age).

Well I guess that the original reason with this thread was rather biased because I felt that the Lusotana faction only needed archers to make it complete in all (it is rather strange how they don't seem to have any mercs at all).

But maybe the barbarian nations should still keep their slingers but the slingers should be modified to some point that they can survive for some limited time against enemy archers while the empahsis should still be on the infantry to do the work. So it will not be possible for slingers to have a ranged duel with other enemy archers but they can still survive for enough time to give some practical support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Thanks Vartan for your friendly regard. I hope to see you all again when the new mods come out so that it will draw some decent amount of active players to the hamachi (EB 2, Dominion of the sword, Third age).

Well I guess that the original reason with this thread was rather biased because I felt that the Lusotana faction only needed archers to make it complete in all (it is rather strange how they don't seem to have any mercs at all).

But maybe the barbarian nations should still keep their slingers but the slingers should be modified to some point that they can survive for some limited time against enemy archers while the empahsis should still be on the infantry to do the work. So it will not be possible for slingers to have a ranged duel with other enemy archers but they can still survive for enough time to give some practical support.

---

Modifying stats which were put in place for good reason is beyond me. Like I said, the one and only reasonable response here is to add mercs that would practically be available for hire in certain matchups.

I was going to suggest that:

1. The Balearic slingers would have the same stats as the Rhodian slingers and that all Celts could hire them as mercs along with Sweboz and Lusotana - don't care about the AP swords of Balearic

2. That the Celtic slingers could have a rhodian armour but be otherwise the same (and Sweboz and Lusotana could also hire them).

3. The main problem with that of being the Gaul faction was that the Hellenic slinger mercs were the best (upgraded) but you always had to skip them to get Rhaetix axemen instead, so another option is that only Barbarian factions can upgrade Celtic slingers twice.

It seems to me that Rhodian slingers should be allowed to be mercs and maybe the third issue can apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

I was going to suggest that:

1. The Balearic slingers would have the same stats as the Rhodian slingers and that all Celts could hire them as mercs along with Sweboz and Lusotana - don't care about the AP swords of Balearic

2. That the Celtic slingers could have a rhodian armour but be otherwise the same (and Sweboz and Lusotana could also hire them).

3. The main problem with that of being the Gaul faction was that the Hellenic slinger mercs were the best (upgraded) but you always had to skip them to get Rhaetix axemen instead, so another option is that only Barbarian factions can upgrade Celtic slingers twice.

It seems to me that Rhodian slingers should be allowed to be mercs and maybe the third issue can apply.

---

Your model is fine insofar as it involves making certain units possible to recruit by certain factions, and arguably, with enough agreement, all slingers (or some) could be two chevron-upgradeable by all (or some) factions. But why do you wish to alter unit stats? There are other stats that certain people argue should be changed as well, but nobody has yet dared make a thread on the stat-changes for online play. Perhaps there isn't enough interest, or people are afraid to challenge the status quo. If it isn't too far-fetched, a thread for stat-changes should be opened.

Well in regard to the unit stats then I think that a Multiplayer battles between human players calls for another system than that in the Single player, where maybe the thing is not about that whether it is historical correct but rather how to balance out the gameplay with all factions, but I am not sure what say in regard to this unit stats which other people have been discussing about for I don't know what it is about. I guess that you have to make a discernment to that what is a neccesary changes and to that when players are only pedantic about some silly issues on the surface. Maybe a changes should mainly be applied to unpopular factions, like for an example then I think that nobody does ever pick Egypt above the other hellenic factions and the Scythian/Saka are also a rare pick.

You have noticed that most players fight on grassy plain maps like the Irish marshlands and so on but maybe it would add more flavour to a tournaments if that the competing players are supposed to fight three battles on three different maps, where two maps are on each others hometurf (like woods for barbarians and desert plains for nomads) while the third map is on a neutral zone which

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well in regard to the unit stats then I think that a Multiplayer battles between human players calls for another system than that in the Single player, where maybe the thing is not about that whether it is historical correct but rather how to balance out the gameplay with all factions, but I am not sure what say in regard to this unit stats which other people have been discussing about for I don't know what it is about. I guess that you have to make a discernment to that what is a neccesary changes and to that when players are only pedantic about some silly issues on the surface. Maybe a changes should mainly be applied to unpopular factions, like for an example then I think that nobody does ever pick Egypt above the other hellenic factions and the Scythian/Saka are also a rare pick.

You have noticed that most players fight on grassy plain maps like the Irish marshlands and so on but maybe it would add more flavour to a tournaments if that the competing players are supposed to fight three battles on three different maps, where two maps are on each others hometurf (like woods for barbarians and desert plains for nomads) while the third map is on a neutral zone which

---

Indeed. I just wish two things: 1) that balancing for MP would be easy, and 2) there was an indication of which map the replay was played on (I think I mentioned to Chris how great it would be if there were such a thing as a replay analyser, but he is working on a SP saved campaign analyser).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Maybe a changes should mainly be applied to unpopular factions, like for an example then I think that nobody does ever pick Egypt above the other hellenic factions and the Scythian/Saka are also a rare pick.

---

I always felt that some factions need a little tweak. But never in stats , but in availability.
Per example:

Sauromatae have no medium/light MELEE ONLY cavalry > so after choosing heavy cav (all HA) , you pick up a few medium cav HA and your archer limit prohibits you from getting any more cavalry (they are all HA )
Saka --seems ok to me , i've played it and it's balanced. I mean , i took on ACS toe to toe while i was noobish with saka and i've lost by the skin of my teeth.
Egypt --good roster , but a little inferior to other Diadochi. That is why it it not picked. maybe adding some mercs to the roster might add some interest there.
Getai -- dont have access to scythian units , even as mercs , although they have a fomeland with those units and they are pretty much the only neighbour of scythians.
Sweboz --moar trees:)
gauls ---Cheaper or bigger unit sizes...Gauls are uselesss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well in regard to the unit stats then I think that a Multiplayer battles between human players calls for another system than that in the Single player, where maybe the thing is not about that whether it is historical correct but rather how to balance out the gameplay with all factions, but I am not sure what say in regard to this unit stats which other people have been discussing about for I don't know what it is about.

---

But doesn't that defeat the purpose of EB? This mod is about historical accuracy. Other mods are about balance.

I have never been involved in MP, but from what I recall of old discussions previous attempts at instituting alternate MP stats never had much success. Most of the community simply continued to use the "officially approved" ones from CA or the mod team; and the EB MP community is already small enough without being split. Also, prepare for endless debates about what represent accurate and balanced stats. We base our ideas on what is balanced on our own playing-style, but the best MP mods require a different playing style for each faction.

If this stat thing is a problem then we should skip it and rather keep mostly to that of adding some 3-4 mercs to the underrated factions

If there is going to be some changes to the unit roster with the Barbarian factions then we should mostly keep to the formula in making them formidable against the Hellenic and Eastern factions, where the ranged units are probably the most important while we should avoid changing the melee and cav units. But some underrated factions could be like a hybrid of two others and have some limited mercs. For an example then Koinion Hellenon and Macedon are the pure Hellenic factions, but Epirus could have more Gallic units as a hybrid while Egypt could have skirmishing units from the east or west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

I always felt that some factions need a little tweak. But never in stats , but in availability.

---

Exactly what I said =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

But doesn't that defeat the purpose of EB? This mod is about historical accuracy. Other mods are about balance.

---

Agreed. During the northern hemisphere school year we probably have less players than the number of fingers on one hand, so there would go the MP community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

If this stat thing is a problem then we should skip it and rather keep mostly to that of adding some 3-4 mercs to the underrated factions

---

It's all about placing the right people on the right rosters. Maybe roster availability thoughts should be spit and see where they land amongst the community. Hopefully you'll catch a few responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

It's all about placing the right people on the right rosters. Maybe roster availability thoughts should be spit and see where they land amongst the community. Hopefully you'll catch a few responses.

---

Sauromatae have no medium/light MELEE ONLY cavalry > so after choosing heavy cav (all HA) , you pick up a few medium cav HA and your archer limit prohibits you from getting any more cavalry (they are all HA )
Saka --seems ok to me , i've played it and it's balanced. I mean , i took on ACS toe to toe while i was noobish with saka and i've lost by the skin of my teeth.
Egypt --good roster , but a little inferior to other Diadochi. That is why it it not picked. maybe adding some mercs to the roster might add some interest there.
Getai -- dont have access to scythian units , even as mercs , although they have a fomeland with those units and they are pretty much the only neighbour of scythians.
Sweboz --moar trees:)
gauls ---Cheaper or bigger unit sizes...but if that is not available...dunno...some iberic?

I will make a new thread on the EB 2 forum what changed could be made in the MP unit roster, based on this recent discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

Sauromatae have no medium/light MELEE ONLY cavalry > so after choosing heavy cav (all HA) , you pick up a few medium cav HA and your archer limit prohibits you from getting any more cavalry (they are all HA )
Saka --seems ok to me , i've played it and it's balanced. I mean , i took on ACS toe to toe while i was noobish with saka and i've lost by the skin of my teeth.
Egypt --good roster , but a little inferior to other Diadochi. That is why it it not picked. maybe adding some mercs to the roster might add some interest there.
Getai -- dont have access to scythian units , even as mercs , although they have a fomeland with those units and they are pretty much the only neighbour of scythians.
Sweboz --moar trees:)
gauls ---Cheaper or bigger unit sizes...but if that is not available...dunno...some iberic?

---

--So what do you propose for Sauro in terms of specific unit additions to roster?
--ditto Egypt
--ditto Getai
--Roster changes won't repair trees for Sweboz. That's called 'choice of map', and everyone has that choice.
--Gauls - say what? o_O what are the max unit sizes anyway? and after which point would this imbalance the scale? (i.e. crackling-sauron-zerg phenomenon) and Iberic what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

I will make a new thread on the EB 2 forum what changed could be made in the MP unit roster, based on this recent discussion.

---

It doesn't really matter what ends up on the MP faction rosters because that's in the hands of the community anyway. Look at the 'units' lists for factional pages on EB site. It's what we use currently to list 'factional units' for most EB factions in both MP rosters as well as the wiki. In most cases the units match geographically with those factions, but in some cases there are mercs and non-factionals that end up on the lists. It's just an annoying nuance to deal with (I don't think we've bothered much yet in such a primitive stage of both the tiny EB MP community as well as the meager wiki).

Give barbs fire arrows so we can do the massive frontal assaults again :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Give barbs fire arrows so we can do the massive frontal assaults again :D

---

Are you serious? I thought the only archers y'all had were Sotaroas.

One archer is all you need :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

One archer is all you need :D

---

In that case, how large is this differential, between a Gallic army without flaming arrows and one with?

Depends on how scary it is... but it is the difference between easily mass chain routing and dying hilariously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Depends on how scary it is... but it is the difference between easily mass chain routing and dying hilariously.

---

But that isn't a 'difference'...easily mass chain routing and 'dying hilariously' are the same effective event in the game. I was just wondering if there was an effective difference between an army of Gauls that uses fire arrows and one that doesn't. For instance, if the Gallic army has a 45% chance of winning against a Roman Camillian army without using fire arrows, what would you suppose the increase in win percentage would be if it used fire arrows? 5%? 10%? more than 20%?

That is unknown. I've seen more experienced people like ACS and Agrippa hold it as Imperial Legionaires and then someone used a box formation like I started to this year somehow.

Vartan; Even though EB is designed for historical reasons, Some things just HAVE to be changed for multiplayer.... I mean how many units are there which are essentialy the SAME THING???? Look at the diadochi, Almost all are the same with only a few exception.....Mundane.....Steppe factions are unique, thats good, Arverni and Aediu? SAME. Atleast change the recruitable units a BIT so theyre atleast some enjoyment of playing another faction rather jthan just gauls. IN all, you should get someone whos been in the MP thing for a long long time.YOu cant possibly do all that by yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Vartan; Even though EB is designed for historical reasons, Some things just HAVE to be changed for multiplayer.... I mean how many units are there which are essentialy the SAME THING???? Look at the diadochi, Almost all are the same with only a few exception.....Mundane.....Steppe factions are unique, thats good, Arverni and Aediu? SAME. Atleast change the recruitable units a BIT so theyre atleast some enjoyment of playing another faction rather jthan just gauls. IN all, you should get someone whos been in the MP thing for a long long time.YOu cant possibly do all that by yourself

---

lol, hey Lazy O, how's it going? It's good to see you again. Yeah man, you took the words right out of my mouth. But don't worry about me. I don't do the recruitability (I guess it's a word now) by myself. Actually, I don't do it at all. The text file editing is done by my puppets. I just do the webmastering so people can see recruitment lists. Adding units to the MP rosters isn't a problem (unless we hit a faction's MP roster unit limit, and I don't know if there is one at all); it's the factional lists that people are worried about. You see, EB teaches history via video game medium. So if people are playing an MP game and wish to recruit mostly one kind of unit, they should choose a faction that has most of those types of units as their factionals. What we ought not to do is say that some Iberian units for the Lusotannan should be factionalized (hey, that's a word too now!) for the Saka Rauka, or anything along those lines. We could say they should be added to the MP roster so as to be hired as mercs, since RP also extends to the MP realm. Say you are Saka and you're fighting Carthage online. You might say I hired 5 Iberian mercs. Well there you go. You didn't exceed your merc limit (whatever people wish it to be) and they're available because the dwarves that work at the EB Online factory churned out a new Saka MP roster that included Iberian units! As for the Diadochi, it's their fault they didn't use vastly different army compositions, haha. Those rascals.

Mostly I think that one should stick with default stats for MP, but one thing that should be changed for EB MP (and something I griped about in the past) was the incredibly high price of elephants which led to armies that used them being far too gimped, or alternatively to armies just sadly NEVER using elephants.

Barbarians are fine, though. They aren't meant to be balanced, and with chariots anything can happen, including a stunning victory. :laugh4:

Oh, and yes, I still exist.

I did not mean to give the Saka iberian units ...(though if you idd it would be pure lol :D)... What I meant was to give Factions that are identical in factionals be at least marginally different. Lets take the Diadochi for example...

Makedon should have exclusive access to some celtic and thraikian troops.

Seleucids should have exclusive hold on the Eastern regionals.

ptolies should be granted all galatians along with sharing them with Pontus.

Getai should also have Skythians shared with Pontus. That we have 2 very different factionals bu the same accesible regionals.

Saba are fine as is but ELephants cost should be reduced. Since they are known to have frequently used them.

The gauls....This im not sure. My general idea would be that the low/medium tier should be the same. With Nakeds shared but the armored elite should be different.

Lusos are fine as is but since they rely on ambush. All units imho should be given can hide anywhere. This goes for sweboz as well. You just cant force these guys into pitched battle, use a brain and scout

Carthies are fine but shouldnt stats be changed so they arent the same as greeks?

Baktria idk

These are just my thoughts , obviously this is very raw and someone more experienced should probably have a better idea on increasing diversity..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gabeed

Mostly I think that one should stick with default stats for MP, but one thing that should be changed for EB MP (and something I griped about in the past) was the incredibly high price of elephants which led to armies that used them being far too gimped, or alternatively to armies just sadly NEVER using elephants.

Barbarians are fine, though. They aren't meant to be balanced, and with chariots anything can happen, including a stunning victory. :laugh4:

Oh, and yes, I still exist.

---

It's good to hear from you Gabeed. I thought you were out for good. For MP, I've seen elephant armies that have done just fine. Read MisterFred's paper on elephant usage online.

Elephants are pretty strong, and even though they are expensive, I think they are proportionally actually cheaper than soldiers. Not sure. But in any case, I think the higher costs in EB remove (somewhat) what you could find in vanilla Rome, which was and easy onslaught by elephants, because of their lower prices.

And LazyO, if you look at MP rosters for those Diadochi, you should find precisely those differences. Their mercs are different because of their regions.

Interesting paper. I've actually been watching a bunch of the multiplayer games from July 2010, and although I marveled at how skilled Fred was with implementing his one unit of African elephants, I was equally surprised by how ineptly many of his foes dealt with the elephants. In at least three instances, the opposing armies had the opportunity/men to have plenty of javelins ready for whenever the elephants would arrive, but ended up squandering their javelins beforehand, making the forthcoming slaughter inevitable.

Let me be more clear--I don't think elephants are underpowered by any means. They can be easily countered, but they can just as easily devastating in the right hands. But I DO think that elephants were part of armies besides the Sab'yn, and I'd like to somewhat see that reflected.

Fred has very nicely demonstrated that a Sabaean army with elephants works. This is wonderful, given that the Sabaeans can really only get levy-quality troops and medium cavalry anyway. But the Diadochi, on the other hand, will never be able to afford an army with elephants that makes any sense--the elephants require a considerable amount of the total cost of the army, with the result of the army being made up (similar to the Sabaeans) of lots of levy troops. This, I think, is just a minor nitpick, and I think I'm essentially arguing for less game balance :laugh4:, but when I imagine a Seleucid army, I shouldn't see a unit of elephants with a smattering of levy phalanxes, archers, and pantodopoi, with perhaps a unit of light jav cav or two. Elephants were a symbol of the grandeur of an army, and with these current costs that grandeur cannot be displayed or attained.

Oh, and I keep up with the forum from time to time. I've moved on to grand strategy games for the most part (big fan of Crusader Kings nowadays), but I'm always up for a mp EB battle.

Well Gabeed, I've considered the following: Assume Player A will be using a non-elephant 36k army, while Player B wishes to use elephants. In this case, we would set the money limit to either 41k or 46k (i.e., either a 5k or 10k boost), where Player A is still only allowed to use 36k, while Player B is allowed to use all of the money. One more thing: This proposition was fought against by the majority of people concerned with multiplayer EB, and hence why it isn't in place for "official" tournaments. I would much rather see it in play, as would you, I can imagine, but the reason (I believe) we see a majority of players fight against it is the precise lack of micromanagement and wise usage of troops/ammunition amongst newcomers to the scene.

My memory failing me -.- thanks for pointing it out

wow I can't believe i missed this thread..... I've been out of the EB loop for a while now, anywho..

Here is the problem with most people who play Hellenic factions a lot and then try to jump on Western barbarians:
-Do not Stand around in pretty front line!!!!

With gauls you have to mix Gaesate with a Druid and long sword guys, use Axe guys IF you enemy has a lot of armored units (such as Hellenics and Romans). The idea is to smash a flank, while running around that flank to hit the enemy's rear. THUS forcing legions or phalanxes to break their pretty formations.

The Gallic Brenthin(sp) cavalry then comes in to smash the already engaged flank IF that flank has not routed by this point.

When playing with a western barbarian faction you want to end the battle in 6-8 minutes. Gallic troops are shock troops and they should be used to aggressively overwhelm the enemy's infantry piece by piece. Making the battle last a long time will tire the gallic forces, except for the elites, thus making it impossible to maneuver, en-mass, aggressively.

On the subject of the diversity of the Diadoch in MP, I thought we already had some measure of diversity....

Epeiros is the only one that gets Illyrians plus Tarantine cavalry. Mak's are the only ones that get Thracian Peltasts as a factional instead of a mercenary, and only they and Epeiros get Agranian Assault Infantry. Pontus gets Galatians, Bosphoran archers, and Scythian noble cavalry. Ptolies get native Egyptian units and the Galatian Klerouchai. AS gets tons of Eastern regionals. Baktria gets Baktrian medium cav, Baktrian horse archers, and Indo-Greek units.

So, there is diversity, the issue is, the best armies tend to be ones that utilize large numbers of the most cost-effective units. The ultimate example of this are Thracian Peltasts. They are seriously the only support infantry a Diadoch army needs. They are high lethality, armor piercing, mobile, decently armored, have good morale, and have 6 javelins to skirmish with. As such, there's no reason to bring regular Pelstats or other regional skirmishers/axemen/longswords because they fulfill the role of all three for a surprisingly cheap price. And since they are available as mercenaries or factionals to Maks, Epeiros, Pontos, AS, and I think Ptolies (not sure about the last one though) you are probably going see a lot of them in any of those armies alongside levy phalanxes and Prodromoi. That might be part of the problem here, that a few unit types are very cost-effective, and elites and many regionals are generally not cost-effective in comparison.

That's right WIII. But why should the fact that some units are cost-effective while others are not be a problem? Is it the duty of the online community to ensure the cost-effectiveness of all units? Is that even possible? Is it necessary? I figure the variety of the Hellenes is clear now. And Spartan mentioned some of what comes up for the Celtic/Gallic player when facing the Hellenes online. Simply put: don't expect to beat a Hellene as a Celt by using Hellenic ways of fighting. Back to you WIII, elites don't really show up much online, that's true. But I never really expected them to. EB does a wonderful job of including vast amounts of units; it would really be rather ad nauseum if it weren't for the unit limit. But although they all fulfill the roles of history, it does not necessitate the player to use all units. For instance, I am not required to use Akontistai if I find it 'useless' (or any other excuse). Besides, some of us don't roleplay. The same goes online, especially if you're playing a competitive battle and not a re-enactment for artistic purposes (e.g., making a film using cinematics). Whatever the case, elites or not, cost-effective or not, if the games are fair and enjoyable, I deem the day a successful one.

Well, personally I don't see it as a problem, but if you do dislike the lack of diversity in armies, then I believe that it is a root cause. I'm not saying anything should be changed, just trying to explain a phenomenon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

That might be part of the problem here, that a few unit types are very cost-effective, and elites and many regionals are generally not cost-effective in comparison.

---

This is what I was referring to. Forgive me for not pointing it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Well, personally I don't see it as a problem, but if you do dislike the lack of diversity in armies, then I believe that it is a root cause. I'm not saying anything should be changed, just trying to explain a phenomenon.

---

Right. I see two broad cases:

In Case A, we see match-ups wherein Faction A and Faction B consistently field similar armies. Thankfully, this occurs more often due to inherent qualities rather than cost-effectiveness. These match-ups include Celt/Celt, Gallic/Gallic, Diadochi, and so on. It is clear why army compositions and units tend to be similar amongst these factions on the field.

In Case B, we see match-ups wherein Faction A and Faction B consistently field widely different armies. Again, this occurs due to inherent qualities. That is, for instance, the Aedui could not field a very similar army to that of Carthage simply because they do not 'own' the same troops.

Harkening (mind the U.S. spelling) back to an important note by our good friend Ludens...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

[...]the best MP mods require a different playing style for each faction.

---

...indeed they do. And thankfully, every player plays slightly differently, and every group of factions plays out differently on the field. So some of the worst case scenarios would be from Case A, where AS would fight Mak, for instance. The only saving grace in this case might be a Thraikan Peltast here and some eastern unit there, not to mention the differing playing styles and speeds of the opposing players.

OP: "How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and Ea[stern factions]"
A combination of varying one's personal inventory of playing styles, adapting one's style to the faction of choice (e.g., one style for a Gaul, another for a steppe faction), varying one's army composition (as they say, to "spice things up", if you wish), and of course to partake in discussion on why certain units should be added or removed to certain factions on the so-called "Factional Unit Lists" (convenient nomenclature!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

This is what I was referring to. Forgive me for not pointing it out.

---

Well, you've got me there :oops: I think I was just using the word "problem" because others were complaining of a lack of army composition diversity. It's not much of an issue to me, but I was just pointing that my thought process when building armies on a budget (as in MP) is to go for cost-effectiveness so that I get the most potential out of my money, and this is probably a thought process some others share. Depending on the faction, this can lead to some pretty boring builds (hence some peoples complaints, I think). In single player, on the other hand, I would be more likely to build a diverse army because the amount of available money is generally greater and the capabilities of the AI as a general are lacking.

I certainly am not calling for a change to the rules, however, as it's really not an important issue in my opinion.

On the lack of diversity:

From what i've seen , these are the army types you expect:

Roman armies- heavy inf spam
Greek successor armies- Phalanxes + thracians
KH army -hoplites , 1 battle line in "guard" mode
Celtic - Fast charge , pro's do it in the flank , kinda weak imho ,
Carthage - My personal favourite , HUGE OPTIONS FOR COMPS ,virtually cannot be fitted into a model as army comp or strat
Getai/iberian- fight like gauls but with less armour and better cav. Getai rly rly could use the scythian units to give them the option of forcing teh enemy to make the first move , thus being able to ambush
Baktria/Saka/Pahlava -Same options , different approach. Did a lot of good things with Baktria in serious MP , got lots of potential
Sauromatae- broken - Not having medium non-ranged Cav factional is the root cause , as the rules seriously hampers them
Sweboz -similar to getai/iberian , but with great front-holding power - If you got trees you win , if not u lose
Armenia-broken -not cost effective
Pontos- best deal- broken due to OP combination between galatians /scythian/tharachian availability as factionals


This rly gives me all the diversity i need. I only believe that some minor balances have to be made.
Give medium non-ranged factional cav to Sauros.
Get skythians to Getai.
Remove some options from the successor armies . Some proposals are limiting the availability of Thracian peltasts to maks , galatians to egipt/ AS + pontos
Remove indian units from Pahlava to make them feel unique.They will still be very good.
Make mercs the gala /thra /scy units for pontos and successor. That's what they were ..mercs.
Limit the prima cohors to ONE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

Give medium non-ranged factional cav to Sauros.

---

Can't you just use mercs for your medium cav? You do get 5 mercs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Can't you just use mercs for your medium cav? You do get 5 mercs.

---

You may wish to use those merc slots for other units, like Hoplitai.

Bure, you make good points. And 1st Cohort is limited to one on the field, but if that wasn't mentioned in the rules, it was taken for granted. How do you envision a consensus on alterations in order to encompass those changes? What do you propose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

You may wish to use those merc slots for other units, like Hoplitai.

---

True, especially considering that the only factional non-archer infantry that the Sauros get is the Voinu, which although fun because they scare enemies, are pretty lacking in the armor department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

You may wish to use those merc slots for other units, like Hoplitai.

Bure, you make good points. And 1st Cohort is limited to one on the field, but if that wasn't mentioned in the rules, it was taken for granted. How do you envision a consensus on alterations in order to encompass those changes? What do you propose?

---

Proposals for factionals:

Sauro- add skudra tabari , skuda uaezdaettae ( to enable some non-ranged options , making i easier to respect the rules and still field a good army)
- add one of the following -Aspet hetselazar /mezenai/asiatikoi hippeis- sauros rly need factional medium non-archer cav.

Getai - add scythian foot archers

Pontos & rest o successor - make thracians mercs ( except maks , they can keep them , that's their flavour)

pontos - make scythians mercs


I think that if you chang these the following will happen-

less Pontos players , but still played due to galatians as facs.
more baktria , more egypt , as they appear more interesting now as successor states.
more getai players. I for one , being romanian and stuff , would love a crack at a game in which i actually force a player to make the first move.
More romans , but less prima cohors spam , still manageable.Maybe trim down their mercs lists?:))

these are some few options. More tweaks can be made , but essentially most problems come from "guard mode" romans/ hoplites , making getai/luso/swebos and esp celtic armies cry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

Proposals for factionals:

Sauro- add skudra tabari , skuda uaezdaettae ( to enable some non-ranged options , making i easier to respect the rules and still field a good army)
- add one of the following -Aspet hetselazar /mezenai/asiatikoi hippeis- sauros rly need factional medium non-archer cav.

Getai - add scythian foot archers

Pontos & rest o successor - make thracians mercs ( except maks , they can keep them , that's their flavour)

pontos - make scythians mercs

---

The Sauros already have the Scythian Noble Cav as a factional... but it is a heavy, not a medium like you want. I think the generic Eastern Medium Cavalry is probably the best choice to add as a factional medium, the others are a bit too unique, and I think people would complain less about adding such a generic and not very good unit.

It is true that it doesn't necessarily make sense for Pontos to get Scythian foot archers as a factional and for the Getai to not get them as a factional as well, considering the lands of the Getai and Scythians actually overlap.

The Thracian peltasts already are mercs for every successor faction other than the Maks, so no need to change that. If you're seeing a lot of them being used by the AS, then that player is using all their merc slots on them.

This is why the Sauromatae don't get the Eastern Med Cav (but I'm sure people can make an exception):
http://tiny.cc/fimn1

I think that most western town/village here is Տիլիս (I'm assuming that's Tilis in English, but it might be spelled Tylis, don't quote me), so since that's pretty much Getai lands, I can see why they would be an option for them:
http://tiny.cc/tt0mu

I have been looking at many different unit stats and I have often seen a similarities between two different unit of some factions, like for example how many Carthage units have excactly the same stats as a Greek ones (hoplites, successor cavalry) and are only dissimilar in appearance and one point.

So in regard to the Thracian peltasts then they have a very similar stats and javelin ammunation as the Lusotana light infantry and Balearic light infantry, but they have a similar cost as the lusotana ones while the Balearic units do cost about 1730 minai. So maybe if the Thracian peltast cost would be increased to 1700 then it would force the Hellenic factions to be not as strong all round in units, but they would have a weak factor in cav, arch, or inf.

In regard to the Romans then the Gallic aux cav is probably the best cost effective cav in the game, because they are Leuce Epos/Curepos with better armour which makes them almost immune to missile damage. So maybe they should be considered a heavy cav in order to force other weaker cav units to be chosen. Because as a Roman you can have a lot of gallic aux cav, cretans, and Post marian cohorts to make them strong all round.

The Lusotana cav is also very bad and does not perform as their stats show, like the Iberian medium cav and Iberian heavy cav. But maybe that will be changed in EB 2.

I otherwise agree with everything which Burebista proposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

This is why the Sauromatae don't get the Eastern Med Cav (but I'm sure people can make an exception):
http://tiny.cc/fimn1

I think that most western town/village here is Տիլիս (I'm assuming that's Tilis in English, but it might be spelled Tylis, don't quote me), so since that's pretty much Getai lands, I can see why they would be an option for them:
http://tiny.cc/tt0mu

---

No, I agree that it doesn't really make sense for the Sauros to get Eastern Mediums, but I think it makes even less sense for them to get Armenian Medium Cavalry or Dacian Light Cavalry. Actually, on the second thought, maybe the Dacian Light Cavalry makes most sense, as they go right up to the fringes of Sauro territory. Either way, though I understand Burebista's complaint about a lack of non-ranged mediums, I'm not sure how historical any of these units are for the Sauros.

I actually think it's Kallatis, Tylis is further Southwest. Either way, it is certainly an area where Dacians and Skythians both lived historically, and as such, Skythian Foot Archers wouldn't be that unrealistic a factional unit for the Getai.

What if the fundamental problem lies in that the Rome and Hellenic factions do get too cheap units in all the unit types so that they are strong all round in infantry, archers, and cavalry. Like for an example about a successor cav, cretans, thracians, and levy phalangists. Or Gallic aux cav, cretans, and post marian cohort.

Maybe the rules should limit the civilized factions (Rome, carthage, Hellenic) from having good units in all three factors, so they must be weak in one to make them fair against the Barbarians and nomads. The barbarian are always weak in archers and the Nomads are always weak in infantry, so they need no to be changed unless the levy and merc phalangists should be removed. This should make this rock-paper-scissor thing work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

What if the fundamental problem lies in that the Rome and Hellenic factions do get too cheap units in all the unit types so that they are strong all round in infantry, archers, and cavalry. Like for an example about a successor cav, cretans, thracians, and levy phalangists. Or Gallic aux cav, cretans, and post marian cohort.

Maybe the rules should limit the civilized factions (Rome, carthage, Hellenic) from having good units in all three factors, so they must be weak in one to make them fair against the Barbarians and nomads. The barbarian are always weak in archers and the Nomads are always weak in infantry, so they need no to be changed unless the levy and merc phalangists should be removed. This should make this rock-paper-scissor thing work.

---

The game is fine , i managed to pull plenty of victories with geati/sweboz against romans/greeks. I can't say the same about the celts , but some ppl claim they had , so no comment there.
I think the solution is to not allow successor states to get so many good flankers as factionals by making them mercs. i'm reffering to the 3 problems - galatian wildmen , scythian foot archers /hcav , thrakioi peltastai.
Romans should not get more than 1 prima cohort .
Also , add some units to the underused facions as proposed in my previous posts and i think that it will do the trick.

Why is there this notion that the game should be artificially balanced a la rock paper scissors? Please help me understand this idea.

I think the idea is that MP SHOULD be artificially balanced because it is not meant for historical accuracy, it is meant for personal enjoyment separate from the spirit of the campaign which involves the historical accuracy side of the game. I don't think people deploy MP armies to display accurate Roman armies, they play to win!

As such, balance is important if everyone would like a unique feel and playing style to factions without compromising their chances for a victory. For example, if I play as Aedui because I want to combine fear units with a ferocious charge on one flank which might break a lesser foe, I want a chance to win if I handle the tactical aspect properly. I don't want to lose because the Aedui simply can't win against comparable costs of Thracian skirmishers and levy phalanxes without an incompetent opponent (note that I am not saying this is the case but this is the gist I get from reading previous posts). Perhaps by reassessing the costs of various units for MP would help balance things a bit.

If a team of 5-10 people could rank units according to predetermined classes (ie heavy cav, light infantry, etc.) then perhaps new cost values could stop some of these rules and make the cost effective argument irrelevant. Instead, players can fight with the tactics they want to play with rather than saying, "well I want to win and use Pezhetairoi but I should just buy 2 units of Thracians instead since they are so cost effective."

IMO this is why I play the original RTW multi still with one of my friends but we havn't played EB much. While the vanilla game is gimmecky, thats fine for MP, I don't care that Arcani are historically inaccurate, I just want to hide them and at the right moment spring them on his archers while he wonders where they came from. Also, it is a little more balanced cost wise for the units.

Here's a crazy idea. How about a limit on Cretans? That way every single Mediterranean army won't bring 3 in every single battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I think the idea is that MP SHOULD be artificially balanced because it is not meant for historical accuracy, it is meant for personal enjoyment separate from the spirit of the campaign which involves the historical accuracy side of the game. I don't think people deploy MP armies to display accurate Roman armies, they play to win!

---

People play most games to win. For instance, people play RTW online to win. Yet there are techniques used there that people don't like to see used when playing EB online. I think perhaps it's just easier to find a balance or a common ground in the realm of fair-play than in the realm of unit stats/costs.

Quote:

---

As such, balance is important if everyone would like a unique feel and playing style to factions without compromising their chances for a victory. For example, if I play as Aedui because I want to combine fear units with a ferocious charge on one flank which might break a lesser foe, I want a chance to win if I handle the tactical aspect properly. I don't want to lose because the Aedui simply can't win against comparable costs of Thracian skirmishers and levy phalanxes without an incompetent opponent (note that I am not saying this is the case but this is the gist I get from reading previous posts). Perhaps by reassessing the costs of various units for MP would help balance things a bit.

---

Right, but the costs of units as they are at the moment are derived from a system. That is, if two units are nearly identical, with one having 1 more armour point than the other, you will almost invariably see a slightly higher recruitment cost for that unit compared to the unit with 1 less armour point. There are of course other factors involved in the original determining of EB unit recruitment costs. But at the end of the day, stat values are virtually always remaining untouched for the MP realm, leaving only cost, as you bring it up, to be the remaining factor. There can be units A and B where A costs more than B, but where B defeats A. Cost doesn't always have a perfectly direct correlation with efficiency, and efficiency is dependent upon which unit B unit A is facing. It's quite easy to nuance the whole ordeal. Therefore, how would you begin to reapply price tags, if you will, to the 500 odd units of EB? A daunting task if you ask me! :idea2:

Quote:

---

If a team of 5-10 people could rank units according to predetermined classes (ie heavy cav, light infantry, etc.) then perhaps new cost values could stop some of these rules and make the cost effective argument irrelevant. Instead, players can fight with the tactics they want to play with rather than saying, "well I want to win and use Pezhetairoi but I should just buy 2 units of Thracians instead since they are so cost effective."

---

The reality is that the so-called cost-effective argument is always there. It's like a schizophrenic incarnation that won't go away. It's why we consistently see the army compositions we see.

Quote:

---

IMO this is why I play the original RTW multi still with one of my friends but we havn't played EB much. While the vanilla game is gimmecky, thats fine for MP, I don't care that Arcani are historically inaccurate, I just want to hide them and at the right moment spring them on his archers while he wonders where they came from. Also, it is a little more balanced cost wise for the units.

---

Balancing can be systematic or non-systematic. I see the original Rome balancing to be lying closer to the non-systematic. More often would you see a non-correlation of the type mentioned above in RTW than you would in EB. As for gameplay in the MP realm, between the ad hoc and the historicity-oriented styles, I would remove that dichotomy from the realm of competitive online gameplay. That, I believe honestly, is something of a more personal decision, and due to the nature of ad hoc gameplay styles (per the Arcani example you mention), it's quite hard if not impossible to quantify and standardize the style to suit competitive gaming. You bring up very relevant points, I must add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sdragon

Here's a crazy idea. How about a limit on Cretans? That way every single Mediterranean army won't bring 3 in every single battle.

---

Kretan Archers do a great job indeed for the amount of money they cost, and plenty of players may use some, most or all of their mercenary options by using Kretans. One proposition would be, as Sir Robin mentions above, to alter the recruitment cost of the unit(s). Although quite skeptical, I can see more merit in increasing the cost of a unit of Kretan Archers instead of limiting the number of that specific unit one can bring to the field. It reminds me of so-called "superweapons" in some C&C, or more correctly, Westwood RTS games back in the day. They were quite effective, and so you would see the option of disabling them. Is there enough data to show that some units in (our case) EB are so effective (e.g., Kretans) that they should be numerically limited?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

IMO this is why I play the original RTW multi still with one of my friends but we havn't played EB much. While the vanilla game is gimmecky, thats fine for MP, I don't care that Arcani are historically inaccurate, I just want to hide them and at the right moment spring them on his archers while he wonders where they came from. Also, it is a little more balanced cost wise for the units.

---

Is it really more balanced? I haven't played in a while, but I always got the impression that beating the Romans with "barbarian" troops in MP was pretty difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Is it really more balanced? I haven't played in a while, but I always got the impression that beating the Romans with "barbarian" troops in MP was pretty difficult.

---

Of course RTW isn't balanced. It's just as unbalanced as, for instance, Emperor: Battle for Dune. One example of a well-balanced, unmodified game is Starcraft: Broodwar, assuming you have the latest patch.

What if the Thracian peltasts should only be accessible to Getai and Macedon, while all the other hellenic powers must make use of their other units. Pontos should manage to use the galatians, Koinon hellenon the hoplites, Egypt the Kleitarchos, and so forth, for the Hellenic powers did have inferior flanking units in comparison to the western ones.
I also do not think it is fair that the Romans should access to so many merc units after they became an empire, for most other factions are only based upon their home-region while the Italians do get all the whole world as their recruiting pool. Maybe the Polybian era should be the real one for the Romans.

In regard to the Cretans then I think they are supposed to use a short bow, so I don't understand their long range in comparison to the composite bow of the east.

About the rock-paper-scissor thing then I think that historically then:

Western infantry factions beat the Hellenic, Hellenic phalangists beat the Nomads, the mobile Nomads beat the Western infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Western infantry factions beat the Hellenic, Hellenic phalangists beat the Nomads, the mobile Nomads beat the Western infantry.

---

How does this make sense? If this were Age of Empires, then sure, maybe that is how it would work, but in a game actually based on tactics instead of just stats, this doesn't make much sense. Celtic infantry should not defeat phalanxes in a head on fight. They should be able to defeat them when flanking, but head on they would not be able to break through. Phalanxes shouldn't beat Nomadic cavalry if the cavalry keeps its distance and wears them out before striking. The only aspect that is true in this is that "barbarian" infantry really have little chance against Nomadic cavalry unless they can corner them.

A rock, paper, scissors system only works in games like Starcraft where tactics are irrelevant and the only thing that matters are stats. It doesn't make sense to employ such a system in a Total War game because, for example, there is a huge difference between a rear charge and a frontal charge in TW games. Cavalry should be able to charge spears in the rear with great effect, but they should be devestated charging spears from the front. If you have a rock-paper-scissors system where spears always beat cavalry, then you remove any incentive to use smart tactics like flanking and rear charges.

Well the Macedonians had a good success in conquering the Persians and while the Hellenic powers lasted then there did not emerge any parthian power. However when the Romans arrived as a western infantry based faction then they had easy time conquering the Hellenic powers but failed against the parthians (but at later they did get the hang of beating the parthians AFTER they became imperial and had developed better cav and archers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well the Macedonians had a good success in conquering the Persians and while the Hellenic powers lasted then there did not emerge any parthian power. However when the Romans arrived as a western infantry based faction then they had easy time conquering the Hellenic powers but failed against the parthians (but at later they did get the hang of beating the parthians AFTER they became imperial and had developed better cav and archers).

---

Your points are understood. But it doesn't take away from the fact that we're talking about Real Time Tactics. Not Super Mario Bros. Not Starcraft. Not Age of Empires. Not Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII

Is it really more balanced? I haven't played in a while, but I always got the impression that beating the Romans with "barbarian" troops in MP was pretty difficult.

---

Well, there are still "superior" factions such as the Romans, Seleucids, and Egypt. However, its quite easy to formulate a strategy for say, Gaul which revolves around the wonderful Foresters which involves ranged superiority and forcing a disjointed attack, or as Germania and its incredibly killer Chosen Axemen. Because each faction has unique units that are particularly good at certain things, but also have counters, almost any faction can be used successfully.

Of course using Numidia, Dacia, or Spain requires more skill but again, still possible.

I'm currently working on something that you might find interesting Vartan. Its non scientific and open to incredible amounts of interpretation, and so you might debate whether it is worthwhile to begin with, but it is a listing of the units and costs in a spreadsheet according to class which I can easily reference moreso than say the unit comparison program imo, in hopes to rebalance MP a bit. Its a task, but finals will be over in another week and a half and I should have some spare time coming up before the holidays hit.

I've already redone the MP edu to make various factions a little more unique and limit mercenary recruitment where it makes sense. Mercenaries are wonderful for the campaign, but I believe unneeded in multi. There are enough unit choices as is. If you want Thracian Peltasts than play as Macedon or Getai. If anyone would want to take a look at what I have so far, I'll upload it shortly. Just putting some finishing tweaks on the document.

I agree that this rock-paper-scissor thing does not apply with EB but I was merely pointing out how some factions had more advantage against others.

But I was just wondering whether it would add more flavour to battles if none of the players had an army which were strong all round but there would always be one factor lacking. Like for an example if barbarians lack a good archers, nomads lack a good infantry, and civilized factions lack a good cavalry, so that each player would have to show more flexibility in outmanouvering the opponent instead of just waiting idly in some guard mode and shooting with cretans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Well, there are still "superior" factions such as the Romans, Seleucids, and Egypt.

---

Lies!

Quote:

---

However, its quite easy to formulate a strategy for say, Gaul which revolves around the wonderful Foresters which involves ranged superiority and forcing a disjointed attack, or as Germania and its incredibly killer Chosen Axemen. Because each faction has unique units that are particularly good at certain things, but also have counters, almost any faction can be used successfully.

---

One suggestion I can recall is that when playing in tournaments, you must play against a faction you may have faced in history. Another suggestion was to play on maps regionally accurate for the two factions that will fight. So you might fight in Gaul if the match-up is Gallic/Roman (some field, some woods, some grass). Or both. I can see the argument for having a diverse map-set and choosing that which will be more fair for the factions. But when it comes to restricting match-ups, I wouldn't go as far. The idea is to create new possibilities, to pitch Saka against Carthage, not because it happened (it did not!) but because people are curious creatures and get a kick out of **** like this :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Of course using Numidia, Dacia, or Spain requires more skill but again, still possible.

---

Pshh...maybe in RTW. EB is slower-paced, giving tactics a chance, and reducing the Starcraftiness of the original RTW (what would you call it then, the characteristic of RTW wherein people must click ever so quickly in order to get things done because RTW units have such low morale?)

Quote:

---

I'm currently working on something that you might find interesting Vartan. Its non scientific and open to incredible amounts of interpretation, and so you might debate whether it is worthwhile to begin with, but it is a listing of the units and costs in a spreadsheet according to class which I can easily reference moreso than say the unit comparison program imo, in hopes to rebalance MP a bit. Its a task, but finals will be over in another week and a half and I should have some spare time coming up before the holidays hit.

---

Don't worry, I'll view it with a scientific eye regardless (gotcha!) :laugh4:

The only issue is class. If you simply mean infantry and cavalry, that's one thing. But you can't even separate the types of archers, as some "archers" are actually cavalry, or infantry, and their archery aspect is but a facet of their self. If you mean light vs. heavy, for instance, those are for the Campaign AI; these markers alter recruitment habits, as we've all been told.

Quote:

---

I've already redone the MP edu to make various factions a little more unique and limit mercenary recruitment where it makes sense. Mercenaries are wonderful for the campaign, but I believe unneeded in multi. There are enough unit choices as is. If you want Thracian Peltasts than play as Macedon or Getai. If anyone would want to take a look at what I have so far, I'll upload it shortly. Just putting some finishing tweaks on the document.

---

Some of the factions are broken, as mentioned previously by a fellow player. It's good to have mercs, but limited and local, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

But I was just wondering whether it would add more flavour to battles if none of the players had an army which were strong all round but there would always be one factor lacking. Like for an example if barbarians lack a good archers, nomads lack a good infantry, and civilized factions lack a good cavalry, so that each player would have to show more flexibility in outmanouvering the opponent instead of just waiting idly in some guard mode and shooting with cretans.

---

Competitive online players demand armies, not leftovers of armies. It's tough to convince them otherwise (trust me, the "rules" are part of this convincing process!)

Didn't I claim that it would be subjective Vartan?:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Well, there are still "superior" factions such as the Romans, Seleucids, and Egypt. However, its quite easy to formulate a strategy for say, Gaul which revolves around the wonderful Foresters which involves ranged superiority and forcing a disjointed attack, or as Germania and its incredibly killer Chosen Axemen. Because each faction has unique units that are particularly good at certain things, but also have counters, almost any faction can be used successfully.

---

Fair enough, you'd know better than I would, I haven't played vanilla since 2005 (I think).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well the Macedonians had a good success in conquering the Persians and while the Hellenic powers lasted then there did not emerge any parthian power. However when the Romans arrived as a western infantry based faction then they had easy time conquering the Hellenic powers but failed against the parthians (but at later they did get the hang of beating the parthians AFTER they became imperial and had developed better cav and archers).

---

The Achaemenid Persian Empire was not nomadic, it was settled. They employed some nomadic mercenaries, but they did not generally employ the nomadic strategy of simply running away from the enemy and leaving empty land in front of them. They couldn't employ this tactic because they had cities, unlike the nomads, who just pack up and leave. If Alexander had tried to conquer the steppes to the North of the Black and Caspian seas, I sincerely doubt he would have succeeded, because the nomads simply would have run away. It is certainly possible for an infantry based army to beat a steppe army, but if the steppe army does not want to give pitched battle, there's not much chance of winning.

Well, the Persians did emphasis much more upon a cavalry and archers in comparison to the Macedonians, even that they did not apply horse archers tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VikingPower

Well, the Persians did emphasis much more upon a cavalry and archers in comparison to the Macedonians, even that they did not apply horse archers tactics.

---

Which is why the Macedonians adapted.

Hmmmm, I wanted to upload my custom MP edu but apparently the file is too big...

Solutions anyone who might be interested?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Hmmmm, I wanted to upload my custom MP edu but apparently the file is too big...

Solutions anyone who might be interested?

---

Simple: Don't attach files to the Forum! Use remote file hosting; there are many free solutions available on the Internet (there have been for many, many years; I used to host files myself!) FileFront is the only one that comes to mind, but Google is your saviour.

http://www.mediafire.com/?4w1x3xsxng8m4m9

Hopefully that works

Quick guide to factions:
seleucid = SPQR
egypt = Kart Hadast
carthage = Pontos
gauls= Aedui
scythia = Arverni
britons= Casse
romans_brutii= Baktria
romans_scipii= Hai
romans_julii= Arche Seleukia
thrace= Epiros
macedon= Makedonia
greek_cities= KH
germans= Sweboz
spain= Lusotann
numidia= Ptolemies
dacia= Getai
armenia= Sarmatians
pontus= Saka
parthia= Pahlava

I think thats it. Take a look, let me know what you think. Its really quite simple to edit.

Did you include a synoptic readme file with summary of changes? Or are the changes sporadic and/or non-systematized?

No readme though I probably should have included one. The changes are systematic to a degree being based mainly on two principles.

The first relates to factional starting position in 272 bc. I know that the Romans ended up conquering about half of the map, but I don't think that should have such major implications on what units they can recruit compared to say, the Casse which never really expanded out of their starting province. Now there are exceptions to this. Unique factional units are allowed if they are not recruitable near the starting provinces. Take the Romans various cavalry auxilia and levantine archers as examples here. Non-unique factional units like Boii swordsmen or Galatians for the Gauls are on the other hand, not recruitable by the Aedui and Arverni. The Boii and Galatians are nowhere near the sphere of influence of these two factions. In fact, sphere of influence c. 272 is probably the best way to describe how other factions recruitment is handled. Therefore, Epiros has access to Italic units as well as some Gallic units which might be found north of Epirus. The Macedonians have access to Thracian units. The Saba get Ethiopian units as do the Ptolemies. Baktria and Saka get access to Indian units although I would consider leaving the non-unique Indian units off of the Saka roster.

The second point has to do with making each faction somewhat unique. Take for example Galatia. Bordered by Pontos, the AS, and the Ptolemies at game's start. I could give Galatian units to all 3 but doing so eats away at the differences between each. So, the Ptollies keep their unique Galatian heavies, Pontus gets the full Galatian roster, and the AS doesn't get any access which is ok, they have enough options as it is. Other problem "peoples" include various Celts which were heavily recruited by almost all Western factions in the game, Scythians, and Cretans which I am also a little unsure about in terms of who should get access. My decision was to limit Cretans to Mediterranean Greek/Hellenic factions. Scythians are limited to Pontos and Sarmatians though I would be open for Hai and Getai. Celts, well, if everyone can recruit Cuerpos and various Celtic spearmen, slingers, archers, etc, it takes away some of the reason to play as Aedui/Arverni. So they are limited as well.

Ugh this is a long post so hopefully I havn't lost you but the breakdown is as such.
SPQR - access to factional and Italic regionals
Kart Hadast - access to factional, African and most Iberian regionals
Lusotann - access to factional and all Iberian regionals
Aedui - access to factional units from Gaul, Celto-Germanic areas
Arverni - access to factional units from Gaul, Celto-Germanic areas
Casse - access to factional units from Briton, Hibernia and Belgica
Sweboz - access to factional units and Celto-Germanic regionals
Getai - access to factional units and some Celtic and Germanic regionals
Epiros - access to factional units, Italic, Illyrian and Celtic regionals
Makedon - access to factional units and Thracian regionals
KH - access to factional units
Ptolies - access to factional units, Egyptian, limited Anatolian and Ethiopian regionals
Pontos - access to factional units, Scythian and Galatian regionals
Sarmatians - access to factional units
Saka - access to factional units and Indian regionals
Baktria - access to factional units, East Persian and Indian regionals
AS - access to factional units, most Persian, Anatolian, some Caucasian regionals
Pahlav - access to factional units
Hai - access to factional units
Saba - access to factional units (I think this includes various Arab and Ethiopian units)