[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

--- EBO EDU v3.0 Testing and Update Thread ---

NOTES FOR CURRENT VERSION

HERE ARE THE UNITS CURRENTLY UPDATED TO 3.0

-ALL FACTIONS EXCEPT THE SAKA RAUKA


Information on the new battle system can be found in the documentation.

The download for the most recent version can be found here: http://www.mediafire.com/?jnkb1l9a7kvyhbv
Latest Update: 11/4/11 @11:12 PM Eastern Time

INSTRUCTIONS:

Download the rar and extract the four files into EB\Data (wherever that is located on your computer). In addition, copy the new export_descr_unit file into the EB\mp game edu backup folder.

I encourage you to post any and all questions that you have, I will be glad to answer them. Please do have a look at the EDU before firing questions off.

I can test Today (Saturday 8/13).

hi all,

Testing the vers.3.0 with B.Sir Robin we noticed that cavalry is very slow to moving.

I also don't agree with cohors lower morale: I explain this point.
I played against B.Sir R. gauls and I've deployed my imperial cohortes in front of him, and in guard mode.
I also deployed some cohors behind my first line.
The gauls attaked my first line from the front.
Incredibly, after one minut, one cohors routed and all my cohors (engaged only from the front) leave the field.

I think the cohors should not be a super-killer unit in attak, but it should be quite good (or at least decent) in defence.
The lower morale feels very much, this thing maybe needs to be fixed.

Cohorts need higher morale. Archers need Poor morale. A cav charge should insta rout archers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus

hi all,

Testing the vers.3.0 with B.Sir Robin we noticed that cavalry is very slow to moving.

I also don't agree with cohors lower morale: I explain this point.
I played against B.Sir R. gauls and I've deployed my imperial cohortes in front of him, and in guard mode.
I also deployed some cohors behind my first line.
The gauls attaked my first line from the front.
Incredibly, after one minut, one cohors routed and all my cohors (engaged only from the front) leave the field.

I think the cohors should not be a super-killer unit in attak, but it should be quite good (or at least decent) in defence.
The lower morale feels very much, this thing maybe needs to be fixed.

---

To be fair, the cohort unit I routed was engaged from front by neitos and on the flanks by gaesatae with carnutes chanting away behind them so this is what started the rout. However, cavalry moves FAR too slow, tired cavalry moving about the same speed as winded infantry and this was heavy infantry too. In fact, the horses look like they are moving in slow motion. Also, not liking the extra men in missile units. Clogs up the battlefield with men in loose formation.

This is not making sense ACS is totaly right i just played with WordlyBoar few moments ago and this battle proved that something should be fixed, cohorts routed and altrough they lost only 15-20 men its not so real i save battle as well to see this unrealistic battle I think Ceasar had bigger IQ than Ainstein when he counquered whole gallic tribes lol... http://www.mediafire.com/?s6vlvy18imyjlzo I played with Gauls just to tell that its not about my frustration, its about Roman Faction

Yeah I was the Romans and I left that side of the battle field to Flank right, I was in a good position and was sure they would hold for 30 seconds, when I turned the camera I see the whole of my middle line routing. I think the only thing holding in the left side of my line was the general....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vega

This is not making sense ACS is totaly right i just played with WordlyBoar few moments ago and this battle proved that something should be fixed, cohorts routed and altrough they lost only 15-20 men its not so real i save battle as well to see this unrealistic battle I think Ceasar had bigger IQ than Ainstein when he counquered whole gallic tribes lol... http://www.mediafire.com/?s6vlvy18imyjlzo I played with Gauls just to tell that its not about my frustration, its about Roman Faction

---

This thread is for testing 3.0, that battle was played on 2.1.1.

Anyway, the battle doesn't show the weakness of Roman morale, but the strength of the double-scare, i.e. chariots + gaesatae/uirodusios/pictones/any-scare-infantry, especially against someone who for whatever reason hasn't brought any eagle units. It doesn't serve as an argument that legionnaires should have a morale bump at all.

The reason it's a bad argument for legions getting morale bump is because what about nations that don't have any eagles or units as professional on the ground as Rome, such as Hayasdan? Surely you would not use such invalid reasoning. In fact, I might have to end up bringing two generals, one for each flank, because of this problem.

Currently planning to shrink some western missile units, while you can expect Persian archers to have 120 men (large).

Also, tired cavalry are supposed to be damn near useless. I don't like these ahistorical charge-and-charge again - cavalry charges were a big committment, not something easy to call off if you messed up. Meanwhile, a good cavalry charge would be devastating, hence increased horse mass.

Thank u. Though I still dont care even if you give them 0 stamina. You cannot change the engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

This thread is for testing 3.0, that battle was played on 2.1.1.

Anyway, the battle doesn't show the weakness of Roman morale, but the strength of the double-scare, i.e. chariots + gaesatae/uirodusios/pictones/any-scare-infantry, especially against someone who for whatever reason hasn't brought any eagle units. It doesn't serve as an argument that legionnaires should have a morale bump at all.

---

Any scare infantry should not rout a cohors engaging from the front... this is the point.
The cohors morale of vers. 3.0 is the same of 2.1.1, I think (13)

Quote:

---

Also, tired cavalry are supposed to be damn near useless. I don't like these ahistorical charge-and-charge again - cavalry charges were a big committment, not something easy to call off if you messed up. Meanwhile, a good cavalry charge would be devastating, hence increased horse mass.

---

Look that increasing mass you could create some bugs with infantry.
I've already tried to do it, and I see which, if you engage a phalanx with your super mass cavalry, the phalangites lost cohesion in strange way.
You could see some phalangites bringing the sarissa 50 meters out of phalanx formation ;-D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACS

Any scare infantry should not rout a cohors engaging from the front... this is the point.
The cohors morale of vers. 3.0 is the same of 2.1.1, I think (13)

---

They have 14 morale in 3.0. Why "any scare infantry" shouldn't be able to rout cohors from the front I've no idea as the majority of scare infantry are elites while cohors are not, but according to Robin they didn't even do that. They engaged your unit from the side, and it resulted in a chain-rout. Nothing special about that.

You still missed my point anyway, which Vartan tried to explain. The battle Vega uploaded doesn't serve as an argument to increase legionaire's morale, because the Aedui army was using the double-scare tactic and the Roman army had no eagles. You can use double-scare against [insert whatever army you like] to show that [insert same army] should get a morale increase that way, because the problem is not the morale of the legionnaire, but the effectiveness of double-scare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

They have 14 morale in 3.0.

---

This is actually the 3.0 EDU:

Attachment 1932

Then what are you talking about?

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining. stop blaming your losses on the EDU. Fact is you people get beaten by more mobile and versatile opponents, instead of ranting about your units, get better. Its getting pathetic now. We are not the campaign AI so dont expect us to sit there , soak up pila and then attack 100 man cohorts in guard mode with whatever in the face.

/rant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus

This is actually the 3.0 EDU:

Attachment 1932

Then what are you talking about?

---

1) You said Imperial Cohortes. Cohortes Reformata are Marians.

2) Way to completely ignore my argument! :applause:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus

This is actually the 3.0 EDU:

Attachment 1932

Then what are you talking about?

---

You're going to have to stick a chevron on them to make them scary proof it seems or be extremely careful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining. stop blaming your losses on the EDU. Fact is you people get beaten by more mobile and versatile opponents, instead of ranting about your units, get better. Its getting pathetic now. We are not the campaign AI so dont expect us to sit there , soak up pila and then attack 100 man cohorts in guard mode with whatever in the face.

/rant

---

I could say something but i promised vartan that i will not, this is insulting me and ACS, and you dont have to be genius to win vs spqr like i wasnt when i played with gauls vs boar i atacked cohorts they trows pila and they was in guard mode that was useles cohorts routed after losing 15 men, the fact is that they are bad and slow killers and that symbol of SPQR rout after 10% lost army :stare: :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining. stop blaming your losses on the EDU. Fact is you people get beaten by more mobile and versatile opponents, instead of ranting about your units, get better. Its getting pathetic now. We are not the campaign AI so dont expect us to sit there , soak up pila and then attack 100 man cohorts in guard mode with whatever in the face.

/rant

---

LazyO,TCV; Guys, please, respect the opinions of others, without saying "pathetic" and clapping ironically.
Otherwise you two will do a new edu and only you two will play it.

We want to improve the edu to make it realistic and have fun, every suggestions are precious.

The thing that I'm saying is that some romani units were weakened compared to the original edu.
So I think this is not the right way for having a good balance between factions in game.
This is my suggestion, nothing else.

What I see, is constant complaining of supposed underpowerement (new word, yay) of Roman Units which does not even exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining [...]

---

Was this really necessary...? I am disappoint. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vega

I could say something but i promised vartan that i will not, this is insulting me and ACS, and you dont have to be genius to win vs spqr like i wasnt when i played with gauls vs boar i atacked cohorts they trows pila and they was in guard mode that was useles cohorts routed after losing 15 men, the fact is that they are bad and slow killers and that symbol of SPQR rout after 10% lost army :stare: :inquisitive:

---

I actually explained my analysis of that battle in detail in the Hamachi chat. Firstly, let me correct you in that WorldlyBoar's legions were mostly, if not all, out of guard mode. That's the first thing I looked for when I was reviewing the battle. It was my conclusion that due to a lack of first cohorts and a general, the Roman army was simply asking to have its morale lowered to the point where entire units would rout. It was simply a matter of time until the first routed. After that point, not only do you have a double-scare, but now you lose morale because your brothers-in-arm beside you are running for their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus

LazyO,TCV; Guys, please, respect the opinions of others, without saying "pathetic" and clapping ironically.
Otherwise you two will do a new edu and only you two will play it.

We want to improve the edu to make it realistic and have fun, every suggestions are precious.

The thing that I'm saying is that some romani units were weakened compared to the original edu.
So I think this is not the right way for having a good balance between factions in game.
This is my suggestion, nothing else.

---

Romans were strengthened compared to the original EDU. The most important thing is their sword, and that was improved to kill more often (its lethality for instance is improved).

Also, if suggestions are so precious, please reconsider what you think about increasing heavy cavalry mass. Remember, we wish to simulate history better by making the exploitation of heavy cavalry less possible (cannot completely exterminate it). By this we mean to allow a cavalry commander a decisive charge (or two) that really matter, after which point you should not be able to keep hitting and running as if you're running on 500 horsepower. It's a horse carrying kilo after kilo of armour, not a Lamborghini (not that I like Lambos).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

What I see, is constant complaining of supposed underpowerement (new word, yay) of Roman Units which does not even exist.

---

Do you mean to say people may be unintentionally contributing with deception? :laugh4: You need to give the benefit of the doubt and consider that the player is not informed (or has not reviewed) the changes in question. And I think it's underpowerment* :laugh4:

Because I love you guys so much. :2thumbsup:

https://i.imgur.com/yI79p.jpg

Yea it was necessary. Like vega complains something is wrong every single match.

The suggested money amount for testing is 40000 mnai. For the new big Tier 2 units, you need it. Also expect an update later today.

First cohorts may seem expensive at first glance; but have a closer look. They not only carry a command eagle, they are veteran versions of regular cohorts; meaning they have superior javelin accuracy and fighting ability. With 16 morale, they are very difficult to rout, and inspire the rest of your army.

Notice also the option of bringing an expensive, but extremely powerful Praetorian unit. With 100 men, they will be the largest elite infantry unit in the game. They cost 3400 mnai but have devstatingly good accuracy with the javelin and excellent skills up close (they have 14 attack/0.15 leth and 29 defense!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus

LazyO,TCV; Guys, please, respect the opinions of others, without saying "pathetic" and clapping ironically.
Otherwise you two will do a new edu and only you two will play it.

---

Sarcastically.

Anyway, if you don't want your opinion to be criticized, then keep it to yourself. If you go public with it and suggest that we make changes that will affect others, then you should expect that other people might have their own opinions as well. It just won't do to give your opinion and then cry foul when someone disagrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus

We want to improve the edu to make it realistic and have fun, every suggestions are precious.

The thing that I'm saying is that some romani units were weakened compared to the original edu.
So I think this is not the right way for having a good balance between factions in game.
This is my suggestion, nothing else.

---

I have given you my criticism of your suggestion, which you have completely ignored twice now. See, that's what annoys me: your attempts to shift the focus anywhere but to my arguments. It seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you can't answer my points, because that would mean that I could actually be right. Which would mean that the arguments you've made would be invalid.

And that's just not possible.

I move to Give ALL archers Poor morale. This will cause them to insta rout at cav charges which is historical. An archer in the feild of battle would *** in his pants when he sees cav running towards him. The current system makes it so u need 2 cav charges to rout even the persian archers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Anyway, if you don't want your opinion to be criticized, then keep it to yourself.

---

This is absolutely true, but you can still criticise someone without getting disrespectful. If you can't say it politely, don't say it at all. That applies even when the other guy is talking nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

I move to Give ALL archers Poor morale. This will cause them to insta rout at cav charges which is historical. An archer in the feild of battle would *** in his pants when he sees cav running towards him. The current system makes it so u need 2 cav charges to rout even the persian archers.

---

The problem with this is that missiles on skirmish mode would not receive any charges at all. Units could only pursue them. Hence, you still have to rely on using a relatively high attack, lethal unit (such as overhand spear light cavalry) in order to take out missile units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

This is absolutely true, but you can still criticise someone without getting disrespectful. If you can't say it politely, don't say it at all. That applies even when the other guy is talking nonsense.

---

Yes. Thankfully, we have not had any disrespect in this thread (you know what I mean, dearest Ludens). As for nonsense, a friend once said that nonsense can only be fought against with nonsense. Perhaps. But no worries, you won't see that in this thread.

I still insist Archers be given poor morale. Not all players use skirmish mode and if an archer is pursued by a cav it will rout almost immediately after a few seconds of engagment which is how it should be.

Poor morale to Archers.

and could more units have Bonus fighting cav in 3.0 ?

Would it be possible to make the veteran unit a smaller but veteran version of the 1st cohort? Afterall, they are the super experienced battled hardened guys and they don't seem to play that way in the old EDU.

Praetorians while somewhat historically fanciful are a really devastating assault infantry. As of right now, Rome plays a lot like a faster version of KH.

@TCV. There's a difference between criticizing someone's idea like you and saying your opinion doesn't matter because you write it off as whining. More directed at LazyO than you because you have a point about ACS ignoring you and no one likes that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

I still insist Archers be given poor morale. Not all players use skirmish mode and if an archer is pursued by a cav it will rout almost immediately after a few seconds of engagment which is how it should be.

Poor morale to Archers.

and could more units have Bonus fighting cav in 3.0 ?

---

Missile Morale is being addressed in the upcoming update, which will make some other missile changes and add the Getai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Missile Morale is being addressed in the upcoming update, which will make some other missile changes and add the Getai.

---

Just don't nerf them please :) . Finally they are a viable faction , and only thanks to the Balcanic merc celts.
Suggestions for Getai :
Galla-thraikes and Taxeis triballoi are prety weak for their cost
We don't have a good AP unit. Maybe bump Pelekyphoroi Komatai ( 8 Att 16 Def no jav) a little? 100 unit size or smthing?
Drapanai ...just BAD
Ischiroi Orditon ...useless

I wrote something wrong so i just edited post to you guys dont see it lol P.S gg2 you dont believe me but i like your edu :DD
Maybe some fixing with nietos price :DD

The Gaulish factions are a bit strange. During a game between me (Romani) and Vega (Aedui) we both couldn't help but think so.
My army had outnumbered them by 400 men or so, my infantry was bringing up a good fight and his cavalry didn't manage to deal much damage either. However, a few dozen seconds after an utterly ineffective charge from his brihentin that only left them surrounded by auxiliary spearmen, my entire infantry line just shattered and routed. It was strange because his army was taking a massive amount of casualties and it said I was winning in every infantry fight.
He explained that this was because of the morale influencing units he was using, and that they were scaring my men.
Now, this just doesn't make sense.
For starters, my infantry was cutting his up pretty good. That would've been a morale booster, I'm sure. By the time my men began to rout, his line was thin compared to mine. Even if there were naked men that were foaming from their mouths or something, the fact is that all the drug-induced rage wasn't saving them. He pointed out he was using chariots, but this made little sense too.
I mean, chariots? Seriously? What is it about chariots that somehow would make them terrifying?
Their effectiveness? Certainly not, they were seen as outdated for a good reason. The horses were vulnerable and they didn't have any way of attacking that cavalry couldn't do better. They were also quite sluggish compared to cavalry
The noise they make? No way. The sound of chariots would probably drowned in the sound of fighting. I don't know how creaking bouncing wheels would make the noise of galloping horses any scarier.
The way they look? Again, I don't see how they'd be scarier than horsemen, I'd be more likely to wet myself and run if I saw some Kataphractoi.
And to top it all off, my men couldn't even see them! They were way behind the enemy infantry! And if they could see them, they'd see that they were just idly standing there!
In other words, my men were scared off by non-combatants.

Another thing is the whole 2hp thing with the Gaesatae. I'd like to ask how their drug rage or whatever it is somehow makes them that incredibly tough? Sure, it would most certainly make them quite brave, but the fact is that they're naked. If they get hit by something, they're probably down. A javelin for example would incapacitate one. It doesn't matter if he doesn't even feel it, the fact is he just got a sharp piece of metal jammed inside him. Something in his body, be it a limb or an organ probably won't work any more and stop him from fighting. He'd probably just be lying around, bleeding and roaring, but he certainly wouldn't be fighting.
In melee combat, they'd probably not fight with too much focus, so I think we could safely assume that there would be many opportunities for a trained soldier to incapacitate them. To me they seem to be a unit that should only be effective if they caught an enemy by surprise.

I've tested the last vers. of edu 3.0, and I've also alredy added it on eb multi edu.
I want to express my satisfaction.
Increasing the shield value, now the romans units work in the right way: more strong in defence.
Then I agree with this changes.

Congrats to GG2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scarf

The Gaulish factions are a bit strange. During a game between me (Romani) and Vega (Aedui) we both couldn't help but think so.
My army had outnumbered them by 400 men or so, my infantry was bringing up a good fight and his cavalry didn't manage to deal much damage either. However, a few dozen seconds after an utterly ineffective charge from his brihentin that only left them surrounded by auxiliary spearmen, my entire infantry line just shattered and routed. It was strange because his army was taking a massive amount of casualties and it said I was winning in every infantry fight.
He explained that this was because of the morale influencing units he was using, and that they were scaring my men.
Now, this just doesn't make sense.
For starters, my infantry was cutting his up pretty good. That would've been a morale booster, I'm sure. By the time my men began to rout, his line was thin compared to mine. Even if there were naked men that were foaming from their mouths or something, the fact is that all the drug-induced rage wasn't saving them. He pointed out he was using chariots, but this made little sense too.
I mean, chariots? Seriously? What is it about chariots that somehow would make them terrifying?
Their effectiveness? Certainly not, they were seen as outdated for a good reason. The horses were vulnerable and they didn't have any way of attacking that cavalry couldn't do better. They were also quite sluggish compared to cavalry
The noise they make? No way. The sound of chariots would probably drowned in the sound of fighting. I don't know how creaking bouncing wheels would make the noise of galloping horses any scarier.
The way they look? Again, I don't see how they'd be scarier than horsemen, I'd be more likely to wet myself and run if I saw some Kataphractoi.
And to top it all off, my men couldn't even see them! They were way behind the enemy infantry! And if they could see them, they'd see that they were just idly standing there!
In other words, my men were scared off by non-combatants.

Another thing is the whole 2hp thing with the Gaesatae. I'd like to ask how their drug rage or whatever it is somehow makes them that incredibly tough? Sure, it would most certainly make them quite brave, but the fact is that they're naked. If they get hit by something, they're probably down. A javelin for example would incapacitate one. It doesn't matter if he doesn't even feel it, the fact is he just got a sharp piece of metal jammed inside him. Something in his body, be it a limb or an organ probably won't work any more and stop him from fighting. He'd probably just be lying around, bleeding and roaring, but he certainly wouldn't be fighting.
In melee combat, they'd probably not fight with too much focus, so I think we could safely assume that there would be many opportunities for a trained soldier to incapacitate them. To me they seem to be a unit that should only be effective if they caught an enemy by surprise.

---

Be extremely wary whenever you are facing the Celtic factions, as they are able to do a tactic called double-scare. There are two unit attributes that lower enemy morale: frighten_foot/frighten_mounted and druid. Chanting druids lower enemy morale and raise friendly morale; frighten_foot gives a penalty to the morale of nearby enemy infantry (command gives an equivalent bonus). I believe chariots and elephants give an additional penalty but I'm not sure.

There's an additional penalty to morale from a unit being flanked and I think it's even bigger if the unit is attacked in the rear.

I question the 2hp thing for the Gaesatae as well, but I'm not sure how we would compensate for its removal in game balance terms; I'll have to experiment on this when I get to the Germanic naked/elite scary units. Accounts do tell of them ripping javelins out of their bodies, throwing them back at the enemy, and continuing the fight, though.

Also, I am considering giving Kataphraktoi a frighten bonus as well, but I'm extremely loathe to give that to heavy cavalry, as those already murder morale with their charges. I'm definitely considering removing frighten_foot from the Celtic chariots; the scythed ones, however, would keep it because of their murderous scythes at the wheels.

For the Gaisatai and most drugged fanatics, it would be good to have their extra HP removed, and add about 5 or 6 defense, they will be vulnerable to javelins, but not as OPd as they were before, when a full volley only killed like one of them. And they would also retain their high resistance to pain and injuries.

~Jirisys ()

Gaesate are fine as is. If you change them, do like 100 tests to make sure they dont get nerfed. And scarf, yea , I understand what you are talking about, Gallic factions actually do not give a crap if you outnumber them, if they have got 2 scaries, you ahve to wear them down, avoid being flanked, and try to limit the gaesate. They are murderous. Thing is, Druid scare+Naked Gaesate+Chariot will rout any elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gamegeek2

I'm definitely considering removing frighten_foot from the Celtic chariots

---

Then there would be absolutely no reason to use them, because they cost a lot, couldn't hurt a fly and instead drops like them; the only thing that makes them worthwhile is that fear factor, and the fact that it works together with infantry that causes fear. I also fear that doing this would also hurt Casse a lot, and make them not exactly Sweboz, but definitely a push in that direction - and they're already quite weak.

I do see the other side as well, but perhaps a better choice would be to do with them for the Gauls what is already done for the SPQR: make them bound to their reform. I.e., if you bring them as Gauls, you are limited to only pre-first-reform units, as they disappear for them afterwards. Or just make a slightly gamey move and remove them from the Gauls' roster, as they were mostly outdated there already at the start of the game. I don't think the double-scare tactic is as strong with Casse as it is with the Gauls, as you don't have the same quality infantrywise, and you don't have much other choice with them. But since Casse is hardly ever played with in MP that's of course just a guess on my side.

Quote:

---

I question the 2hp thing for the Gaesatae as well, but I'm not sure how we would compensate for its removal in game balance terms;

---

I think you should Leave their 2hp alone, and remove that 4 armour they're getting from that helmet.

Please don't give cataphracts the scary trait! If anything, it should be removed from the super heavy armored infantry. The whole idea of scaring the enemy was because your opponent was so bold as to go naked that they must not fear battle at all! This might be a terrifying thought to someone more accustomed to tilling the fields than facing down a celtic warrior wearing nothing more than a torc.

As far as chariots, I can understand removing the scary trait from them but fear, like TCV, that this would seriously hurt the Casse. Also removing them from the mainland Gallic factions doesn't make that much sense as Gauls were using chariots as far along as Telamon against the Romans which is over 50 years into our timeframe. If anything should be done, the Druid unit should be removed from the Gallic rosters. These are only recruitable on Britain yet so are the Swordmasters and we don't see them in Gallic armies for mp. That way, only the Aedui would be able to bring a chanting unit (one which is more expensive) while the Arjos could be given a bit of a boost as well so that it would also make sense to play as Arverni. This would be a much better "fix" to the Gauls.

Also, now that I think about it, make the Carnutes 80 men and raise the price accordingly. It only serves to help the Gauls that they can bring a unit for a relatively cheap cost which is not supposed to fight in combat anyway.

I did remove it from the super heavy infantry.

I suppose 80 man carnutes make sense as does the druid restriction.

Quote:

---

I think you should Leave their 2hp alone, and remove that 4 armour they're getting from that helmet.

---

Wait, stat them as if they didn't have something that they did have, and the game shows they have?

Few quick updates coming soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Also removing them from the mainland Gallic factions doesn't make that much sense as Gauls were using chariots as far along as Telamon against the Romans which is over 50 years into our timeframe.

---

Yes, I've admitted that it would be a gamey decision for that very reason. If you remove their fear trait, though, no Gallic player would use chariots anymore (why would you?), so in effect it would be the same, only now things are seriously worse for Casse.

Another option might be to remove the fear from the 40-man chariots, but keep it on the 20-man chariot, which is exclusive to the Casse. Though that's obviously gamey too, and inconsistent to boot. (And still a slight weakening of Casse.) Sigh. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

That way, only the Aedui would be able to bring a chanting unit (one which is more expensive) while the Arjos could be given a bit of a boost as well so that it would also make sense to play as Arverni. This would be a much better "fix" to the Gauls.

---

While I have thought about this before and, well, lets say "reluctantly came to the conclusion that the other position doesn't hold up". I've been very loath to admit it because there already is no sense in picking the Arverni, and this change would only make it even worse. It would have to be more than "a bit" of a boost, in other words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

While I have thought about this before and, well, lets say "reluctantly came to the conclusion that the other position doesn't hold up". I've been very loath to admit it because there already is no sense in picking the Arverni, and this change would only make it even worse. It would have to be more than "a bit" of a boost, in other words.

---

When playing the Aedui last month, I came to the conclusion that I should have picked the Arverni actually. Arjos are simply the most cost effective line infantry there is. Ask Lazy as we had a battle where one unit of Arjos held off two units of Argyraspides for the entire battle! Making Carnutes more expensive along with a slight boost to Arjos would make it much more difficult to put together a heavier Gallic army as Aedui while it would be relatively simple as the Arverni.

Is this normal?! Cohorts now look like some kind of skirmishers this is totaly pathethic move i dont know why even you do this https://imageshack.us/photo/my-image...000365881.jpg/ bcz they beat boi cingetos? of course that cohort will beat cingetos really pathetic what you exept now from hastati, nothing roman best atack was their exelent defence now that is totaly changed have some look on other factions and try to resolve iberian assualt spam or nietos spam instead of making cohorts to look even worse and like skirmishers, other factions with 40000 can bring OP army and you caught on ALL ROMAN INFRATRY which looks fine until you made this very bad mistake :oops: :beadyeyes2: I am really stubborn and nothing cant persuade me that i am wrong bcz everything i said is clear and right..

What the hell are you talking about?

That's how hastati looked like in the times of the second punic war; poor. Same with the other two line-infantry classes, the triarii were only different because of their plate cuirass, and the principes because of their lorica hamata.

Besides, my Pontic cataphracts will rout whatever barbaroi coming to my lands! :laugh4:. Just kidding, but you should be glad, at least your line infantry is not Lugoae.

Also, you should implement short_pike attributes to hoplites in order to have more cohesive formations. And compensating for the spear and light_spear -4 def/attack bonus (respectively) to the stats.

~Jirisys ()

GG were you drunk when u updated the EDU? Elites have 60 men, persian archers now have 80 men, thesalians lost stamina and cost 4000 . spartans 3000 cost for 60 men.

Vega is right, carthage is horribly overpowered with 40k, you can spam an Iberian Assault numidian Archer and Lanceari army which is quite unbeatable. Plus you still have money left over for liby phoenician elites :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Vega is right, carthage is horribly overpowered with 40k, you can spam an Iberian Assault numidian Archer and Lanceari army which is quite unbeatable. Plus you still have money left over for liby phoenician elites :/

---

Aren't all the iberians OPd with AP?

And what about the mercenary/AOR limit?

~Jirisys ()

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

What the hell are you talking about?

---

That wasn't nice. And what are you doing here? When do you ever play with these players whose arguments are based on experience playing one another, not with sub-mod creation and single player campaigns and AARs?
--------------------------------------------------------
I highly recommend picking one scare factor to remove from the Celts (Gauls? What do you call these people?! I hate to use these terms interchangeably, I feel like I'm making a major violation each time.) :stare: Really, if we look at the world map for EB, you only have these three factions that can utilize this freak tactic (please forgive my language) to call the shots. Can we get to a place where scare factors play more of a minor role, factions in question become less dependent on them, and good old churning out the carnage on the field becomes our pride and joy? Call me old and idealist. I think there is merit in this. Just my modest two pence for my fellows. :yes:

Actually no not all the iberians or any iberian unit is OP. 40k just permits spamming the elites which makes them op.

Yeah, the mnai limit didn't need to be increased if some of the medium infantry and missile units didn't receive extra men.

And @ storm, GG2 didn't get around to the Greek and Eastern factions yet so those units are statted as they were for vanilla EB.

Actually, I wouldn't mind it if you gave "Scares Foot" to cavalry if you take it off most non-naked infantry. Only few infantry should have it. It makes sense on cavalry Kataphractoi though, especially if you reduced their melee fighting/defensive ability due to the ridiculous armor or just gave them completely terrible stamina.

Quote:

---

However, the design of the cataphract also presents some potential weaknesses. Besides requiring expensive maintenance, the heavy armor of cataphracts was at times unwieldy. The excessive armor made it difficult to flee from battle or perform quick maneuvering in battle. The inability to flee from battle due to armor has been mentioned in several occasions. Heliodorus wrote that the armor was so weighty that riders required assistance to mount their horses. This description was probably true, since unlike medieval cavalrymen, ancient cavalrymen did not have the benefit of the stirrup to mount their horses.

The lack of stirrups in ancient cavalry warfare also restricted the effectiveness of cataphracts in melee combat. While stirrups were not essential to charging (for which the saddle would be the most crucial), stirrups were important in providing the rider with stability in melee. In Crassus’ battle against the Parthians, Plutarch describes the vulnerability of cataphracts in maintained melee combat: “For they (the Roman cavalry) laid hold of the long spears of the Parthians, and grappling with the men, pushed them from their horses.” Such accounts may be anecdotal or artificial, but there is no doubt that riders who were unhorsed became easy prey, as they were probably too clumsy to quickly get up to fight in the middle of a melee. Heliodorus also mentions that cataphracts who were unhorsed were like logs on the ground.

---

http://www.allempires.com/article/in...?q=cataphracts

The only problem you would have is against 240 sized levy spearmen which are suppose to attrition them but would probably break due to scary charge. I really do like the idea of Kataphracts basically being a one time commit unit though. Their whole point was to break the enemy in a frontal charge after their lines were weakened. You didn't do fancy maneuvers or anything, you just shot the enemy up enough that you could break in a single massive charge after a few hours:)

It would atleast make for some interesting changes for cav fighting. It should only be done for the elite, 3.3K+ fully armored guys though or maybe just the super heavy elites like the Baktrian/Parthian Late and .

PS. The spacing on the Romans do look weird from that angle. I think you should change it back to where it was.
PPS. I like TCV's suggestion. I would actually remove the 40 sized chariots. They are basically completely unrealistic because they were mainly used as battle taxis for elites and not scythed chariots. Maybe just put eagles on them? If you remove scary from Gaullic chariots, you would probably want to put fire arrows back in.

We should try both 36k and 40k.

I am almost positive that I should increase the cost of Iberian Assault infantry somehow.

My sense is that a troop of levy spears would break and run if they even saw cataphracts charging at them, or if they were hit by a cata charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

If you remove scary from Gaullic chariots, you would probably want to put fire arrows back in.

---

While we're at it, let's put dogs and pigs back in as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

We should try both 36k and 40k.

I am almost positive that I should increase the cost of Iberian Assault infantry somehow.

My sense is that a troop of levy spears would break and run if they even saw cataphracts charging at them, or if they were hit by a cata charge.

---

Could you respond to the second part of my post: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053362064

I will come at you at a stake if we end up on 36k and you still increase the cost of the Assault Infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vartan

(Gauls? What do you call these people?! I hate to use these terms interchangeably, I feel like I'm making a major violation each time.)

---

Gaul is a region in western Europe, Gauls are the Celts from that region. The term Celt, while covering the Gauls, also includes people not from Gaul, such as the Celts in Britain, Iberia, Galatia, Egypt etc. etc. In game terms, when you talk about "the Gauls", you speak of the Aedui and the Arverni, while "Celts" would also include the Casse.

As to your point, yes, I do agree, but I think it is only overpowered for the Gauls. For Casse that strategy isn't as strong due to having inferior infantry, especially now that (I take it) the Dubosaverlacica have lost/will lose their fear factor. Since Casse can't get the Gaesatae, their best scare infantry, unless they are given access to the Pictone Neitos, is the Uirodusios, and you know how easily they die.

With cavalry that is only good for chasing routers, you're basically forced to go for the double-scare anyway; if you can't, then why go for Casse? They've got worse infantry than Gauls and I've already said what I think of their cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

Also, you should implement short_pike attributes to hoplites in order to have more cohesive formations. And compensating for the spear and light_spear -4 def/attack bonus (respectively) to the stats.

---

No, please don't do this. It has already been done with the Germanic pikes, and it looks completely ridiculous. I could never take hoplites seriously again if you did this.

(Oh, and if you give Kataphracts the scares infantry trait, you might as well have the Panzerlied come on when they move too. :p)

The weakness of Iberian Assaults and their cousins the Pedites Extraordinarii is their lack of defense against cavalry and ineffectiveness against lighter units. Don't use your heavy infantry against them people and make them the first targets for hammer and anvil attacks. I don't find PE/Iberian spam to be difficult to defeat.

I told you guys that 40K really favors successors and guys with lots of elite units to choose from.

You could go for 36K or 38K (we tested but also favors extremely powerful cavalry wings).

Problem is that with the Iberian assault spam you also get some of the best cavalry in the game :/ . At 36k, I had to compromise on any 1 or i get an ineffective army.

In edu 3.0 best archers should be boshporans, after them syrians romans cretans and dacian elite archers, no reason for owerpowering other kind of archers, i noticed also that komatai toxotai have biger range to atack my sagitary when i played with gg2, now with lowing nietos price i see that samnitici milities cost almost same as nietos even nietos are better unit, and other thing, now with new edu and with 36000 mnai spqr in imperial era its almost impossible to bring solid army with some heavy cav in that i mean also merc heavy.... must to say that polybians look exelent like they have to be...

P.S i know that this is just alpha edu and that we are just testing now but i had to post this

Yeah, one of the big issues is army effectiveness at price points. If your army requires fielding a heavy cavalry arm, then you're going to be extremely good at 40K but you'll have to bring levys at 36K so you can actually bring a heavy cavalry arm. But because you have a proliferation of fearful units, it becomes very difficult to actually bring levys since Eagles don't counter act scariness that well and not everyone has access to eagles.

Now because infantry has been buffed extensively, you really need to invest in a heavy cavalry wing to have an effective heavy cavalry wing (ie, you can't bring 2 with only missiles and be fine, you need light infantry escorts and a ton of other things which are countered by the opponent just getting more heavy infantry).

We were able to get it working at 36K because Prodromoi, Celtic Hoplites, Pandas(I used to use them at size 240 AP axes because they were so good in melee), and Thracians were so cost effective and Rome/KH/Gauls/Asian factions were the most played. This wasn't perfect because Carthage/Germania/Luso/Getai weren't very well balanced at 36K with Carthage not being all that effective and the other factions being very good against certain factions and terrible against others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Gaul is a region in western Europe, Gauls are the Celts from that region. The term Celt, while covering the Gauls, also includes people not from Gaul, such as the Celts in Britain, Iberia, Galatia, Egypt etc. etc. In game terms, when you talk about "the Gauls", you speak of the Aedui and the Arverni, while "Celts" would also include the Casse.

---

Thank you for clearing that up for me TCV. I appreciate it. :bow:

Quote:

---

As to your point, yes, I do agree, but I think it is only overpowered for the Gauls. For Casse that strategy isn't as strong due to having inferior infantry, especially now that (I take it) the Dubosaverlacica have lost/will lose their fear factor. Since Casse can't get the Gaesatae, their best scare infantry, unless they are given access to the Pictone Neitos, is the Uirodusios, and you know how easily they die.

---

I agree. Casse should be promoted. People should be encouraged to play as them. Therefore, we should consider how we may make an exception of sorts for them while not providing the power to the Gauls.

And Antisocialmunky's historical overview of multiplayer EB is pretty accurate. :2thumbsup:

ok germainc auxillary cav are light cav, BUT THEY DONT DIE TO MY ARROW FIRE.

ALL light cav should die to arrow fire to make up for nerfing their armour which im assuming u will do just increase defense skill.

But bottom line ALL light cavalry have to die to arrow fire.

hi im new here

i just have to say listen to Storm he knows what he's talking about.

Its because of accuracy changes. They die jsut as fast as they used to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

hi im new here

i just have to say listen to Storm he knows what he's talking about.

---

Very nice kind of spam ;-)

What do you think about changing every light_spear attribute in spear?
I've tried it and seems that spearmen become better against cavalry and worse against infantry.
I see also phalanx increase the attak power from the front, and weakens in back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus

Very nice kind of spam ;-)

What do you think about changing every light_spear attribute in spear?
I've tried it and seems that spearmen become better against cavalry and worse against infantry.
I see also phalanx increase the attak power from the front, and weakens in back.

---

It also causes buggy behavior and other things. The EB team changed to light_spear because of this, and I am keeping it that way.

Also I will not be online often for the next few days.

Quote:

---

(ie, you can't bring 2 with only missiles and be fine, you need light infantry escorts and a ton of other things which are countered by the opponent just getting more heavy infantry).

---

This is where the utility of javelin cavalry comes in: they can assault the rear of the enemy line without having to get through the heavy infantry reserve. If the cavalry battle is no longer exclusively a heavy cavalry battle, then I have done my job right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

ok germainc auxillary cav are light cav, BUT THEY DONT DIE TO MY ARROW FIRE.

ALL light cav should die to arrow fire to make up for nerfing their armour which im assuming u will do just increase defense skill.

But bottom line ALL light cavalry have to die to arrow fire.

---

I am glad to see that my use of Germanic Auxiliaries is spreading to the main Roman players. In any event, they don't have much armor but they have a 3 shield which makes them pretty resilient to missiles. 3 shield light cavalry are not common. They are also quite expensive for light cav so I wouldn't complain too much Storm.

As far as differentiating Casse from the Gauls, taking Druids away from the Gallic factions solves this problem a bit. Also, Casse get great skirmishers along with some of the best flanking infantry in the game in the Kluddargos. Along with prevalent eagle units including a medium infantry eagle unit, Casse are one of the more interesting facitons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

As far as differentiating Casse from the Gauls, taking Druids away from the Gallic factions solves this problem a bit. Also, Casse get great skirmishers along with some of the best flanking infantry in the game in the Kluddargos. Along with prevalent eagle units including a medium infantry eagle unit, Casse are one of the more interesting facitons.

---

They might be an interesting faction, true, and they do stand out from the crowd - but that doesn't say anything at all about their strength relative to the other factions, which you must admit is poor.

The Cwmyr (which I think you're referring to with the "medium infantry bit") are nothing but a waste of money in 2.1.1. For 80 men and a little more than 1.7k their biggest feat is that they can stay for a longer time than other Casse medium infantry. They didn't do any killing of their own with their shortswords, though. They've been changed for 3.0 though, which I just noticed, and it will be interesting to see how they work now: 1.8k, but with longswords, -2 morale, -1 def skill, +1 armour, +1 shield, +2 jav attack, -6 charge. Perhaps they could be worth it now.

Eagles in and of itself is much less of a deal now that every faction has at least one unit with it, and AFAIK it doesn't stack. Not much of a special benefit, and when you consider that most Casse units have quite the poor morale, and really need those eagles, it doesn't look as alluring as it might have done at first glance.

As for the skirmishers, well, they're at best "good". Sweboz, Getai, Lusotannan, AS, Ptollies, Saba, Baktria, Saka Rauka, Carthage etc. etc. have equal or better skirmishers than Casse. In any case, even if they had been the best skirmishers in the game, what would that have mattered? They're only good at soaking up projectiles, and most people simply don't use them because they don't need them. They're simply not a threat.

Fair enough.

Ilike ACS's idea. GG what bugs r u talking about? maybe they are not often and not really bad ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

Fair enough.

Ilike ACS's idea. GG what bugs r u talking about? maybe they are not often and not really bad ?

---

The bugs it causes aren't worth it at all when we can get where we need to go by altering stats instead of buggy types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

I am glad to see that my use of Germanic Auxiliaries is spreading to the main Roman players. In any event, they don't have much armor but they have a 3 shield which makes them pretty resilient to missiles. 3 shield light cavalry are not common. They are also quite expensive for light cav so I wouldn't complain too much Storm.

---

Glad to see other ppl are starting to discover units that i've been using for a while now.

Germanic light cav is my main cav for the getai , and not without reason.
Also LAZYO's spam of Iberian assault Infantry comes late after my previous spam of them 1 month ago

Thats good that you see some more 3 shield cav units, previously the only one was the Saka Hellenic cavalry which could take arrows like kataphracts when sitting still.

I thought Lonchophoroi, Apsidophoroi, Campanians and the Liby-Phonecians also had 3 shield values?

That is getting even better, as a bonus has been given to all shields with values 2 or greater, with few exceptions. These all got +1 shield and -1 defense, mainly for the sake of lighter units resiliency, while this has not diminished the utility of javelins at attacking the flanks and rear of heavy infantry.

However, two handed lancers will now have a very slightly more pronounced advantage in the charge.

Germanic Light Cav hasn't been modded yet, only Equites Germanorum. Thus I do not recommend using it for now.

Also I am considering giving warcry to a couple Germanic units, namely those that are supposed to have a powerful charge - clubmen in particular. This will come at additional cost to those select units.

Recalling Caesars De Bello Gallico, Germanic light horse employed by Caesar on his campaigns defeated the Gallic cavalry in melee multiple times, which was important for the Romans as their light cavalry was, on the whole, decidedly inferior to the excellent Gallic light horse. For example one account tells of the Germanic horse assaulting a position held by Vercingetorix' excellent Gallic cavalry on a hill. The Germanics fought their way up the hill, routed the Gauls, and flanked the rest of the Gallic cavalry, causing a rout. On another occasion, they dismounted and fought off the assault of the Gallic horsemen.

You can count on Equites Germanorum, and later you should be able to count on Reidonez, to defeat enemy light cavalry handily, and perhaps hold against heavier horse. Even as late as the 4th century, light, bare chested Germanic cavalry at the battle of Strasbourg routed better armed and more numerous Roman horsemen with ferocious charges.

Change the cavalry mass back to normal. They are overpowered. And Bataroas lost in a melee to iberi velites 0.o

And luso and carthie bodyguards no longer have the eagle...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Change the cavalry mass back to normal. They are overpowered. And Bataroas lost in a melee to iberi velites 0.o

And luso and carthie bodyguards no longer have the eagle...

---

Agreed, factions that don't have charge cav i.e. Casse are now pretty done for. I used Caledonian Nobles to pin his charge cav but they simply ran through my cav, reformed behind my line and routed about 4 infantry units who were winning that battle in one charge. The extra mass means they kill 2-3 ranks deep from charges where before it was 1-2. If this is meant to be the case, cost needs to be hiked for charge cavalry. Also, extra mass means that is impossible to pin cavalry since they can simply push aside pinning units, especially infantry.

Also, missile units should be reduced again. From what I can see, changes to accuracy are completely undone by the extra men and they still disrupt flanking infantry and such without routing quickly. Also, the closer to the lines they get, the accuracy does not matter as much anymore and higher missile attacks and more men mean they kill even quicker than before.

Addition: New Getic unit causes errorless crashes. Needs to be addressed.

Heres the replay so you know that we are not just rambling nonsense here

http://www.mediafire.com/?dw4zji0qt7qjei7

And the new unit you made is causing crash. If you want il do it for you . You cant create units, you have to edit existing ones.

That sounds strangely like having to deal with BS Macedonian 40K armies...