Saka edu: Feedback Appreciated

Hello everyone, I've linked to a short edu which contains the Saka units in question which had not been edited previously by Gamegeek2. He himself said he would probably not have the time to finish up the edu at the moment and gave me his blessing to complete the work left.

There are a few notes which I will make here.
1. I didn't give their cataphracts the fear bonus. I think we would have to have a vote on whether we want this or not for all cataphract units. I know its a heated topic, but I also feel that many veteran players feel as if it is an unfair advantage for cataphracts over other heavy cavalry. Before we change the edu I'd like to hear back from most players on this.
2. Saka and Yuezhi cavalry units received a steppe discount somewhat similar to that of the Pahlava, less than that of the Sauromatae. I did not use a certain percentage, but tried to base it off of similar units already in game.
3. Some Saka infantry units exclusive to them got a small price bump to compensate since the Saka have MUCH better infantry options than either Pahlava or Sauromatae. This is really on two units, the Agema infantry and the Saka Hoplites, both of which are quality heavy infantry anyway.

Here is the link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bq6xmus3rxb6qul

Cata shouldn't have fear. If you keep fear for them, you should add fear to all elite units, heck, even chariots and elephants shouldn't have fear but better stats, as units with fear are beeing used in the backyard to scary men, contrary to what a "feared" unit should do.

I don't think that a Flamethrower was scary for the ww2 soldiers if it wasn't launching fire at you.

I'd tend to agree with you but chariot and elephants need to keep fear or else they would both be worthless, chariots especially. Naked infantry is used in the back to promote fear, but also because it makes little sense to expose nude men to javelins or front line duty where armor clad infantry does much better. We could remove fear from most infantry units and either give them inspire instead in some cases, or just make them cheaper though. That is a matter for another discussion however.

Cataphracts should have stupidly high charge and no stamina.

They already do. Unfortunately there is no way to give them bad stamina as opposed to standard stamina. AFAIK, they are the only cavalry which does not possess good stamina at least though.

What do you guys think about the statting for the units though?

You people should have a thread to discuss fear until the end of time .

I believe I proposed +3 charge to compensate for loss of fear, maybe more.

+10 charge would be fine even. Cataphract charges should be absolutely devastating. I think at a certain point charge stops mattering however. I'm not sure if we have reached that yet with our cavalry.

This all being said, can we please discuss the statting of the units. TCV raised a point with me, I'd like to hear from more of you.

If we want cataphracts to be very devastating I would recommend a revision of the morale system. I've done this with a more shock-based battle style in mind for the EBNOM EDU (considering that there will be almost no phalanxes in it). The idea is for any levy to immediately rout when they're charged by cataphracts.

In line with the idea of a shock-based battle system, I've toned down the numbers of elite units and reduced the speed of melee combat so that flanking and charges are very important in order to avoid attrition fights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

If we want cataphracts to be very devastating I would recommend a revision of the morale system. I've done this with a more shock-based battle style in mind for the EBNOM EDU (considering that there will be almost no phalanxes in it). The idea is for any levy to immediately rout when they're charged by cataphracts.

In line with the idea of a shock-based battle system, I've toned down the numbers of elite units and reduced the speed of melee combat so that flanking and charges are very important in order to avoid attrition fights.

---

What effect does this system have on factions which do not rely on cavalry? For example, this would seem to hurt a faction like Rome the most who relies on the attrition of long melee battles.

Any infantry which bothers standing still in a decent formation will not rout to a cavalry charge, they prey on confusion .

Personally, I feel balancing Saka is a waste of time unless HA are once again reliable for missile superiority, I do not like it when civilized madmen can utterly destroy my nomadic marksmen .

Well our time frames nomads were not particularly renowned for their prowess in pitched battles. The issue remains that armored archers will beat the poop out of any non-cataphract horse archer units. For example, 1 Bosporan Archer can take on at least 2 light horse archer units. Widely available Syrians and Cretans will also easily handle them. At least the Saka get armored infantry to compete. Sauros are the faction which gets screwed most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

If we want cataphracts to be very devastating I would recommend a revision of the morale system. I've done this with a more shock-based battle style in mind for the EBNOM EDU (considering that there will be almost no phalanxes in it). The idea is for any levy to immediately rout when they're charged by cataphracts.

In line with the idea of a shock-based battle system, I've toned down the numbers of elite units and reduced the speed of melee combat so that flanking and charges are very important in order to avoid attrition fights.

---

That's somewhat anachronistic for this period isn't it? Cavalry only became OP in NOM's time frame. And there's the problem of eastern levies designed to spam defeat charging horses. Anyway, the OPness of cavalry was one of the reasons we redid the EDU, he who has the cavalry left at the end of the day used to always win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Well our time frames nomads were not particularly renowned for their prowess in pitched battles. The issue remains that armored archers will beat the poop out of any non-cataphract horse archer units. For example, 1 Bosporan Archer can take on at least 2 light horse archer units. Widely available Syrians and Cretans will also easily handle them. At least the Saka get armored infantry to compete. Sauros are the faction which gets screwed most.

---

Problem with that theory is that linen armor is not much protection from an arrow, and archers did not carry around huge thureos on their arm -_- . At present, culture for whom archery play an almost non existent role can completely outmatch every archer unit nomadic factions can bring .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

That's somewhat anachronistic for this period isn't it? Cavalry only became OP in NOM's time frame. And there's the problem of eastern levies designed to spam defeat charging horses. Anyway, the OPness of cavalry was one of the reasons we redid the EDU, he who has the cavalry left at the end of the day used to always win.

---

Correct, that's why that's the system we're using in EBNOM, which was the heyday of the ultra-armoured cataphract, though not its peak (its peak came later in the Sassanid-Byzantine wars when both sides fielded thousands of them, albeit not as heavy as the ones in NOM).

About the spam problem, this will be addressed in EBNOM through a new morale system designed to make levies break easily to powerful charges if weakened slightly first. We will of course need to test this.

The solution is the new ammo system I suggested, along with having high HA numbers (I recommend 70 men for most light HA units).

I rather just make them undisciplined so when one breaks, they all break (when engaged) like now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Correct, that's why that's the system we're using in EBNOM, which was the heyday of the ultra-armoured cataphract, though not its peak (its peak came later in the Sassanid-Byzantine wars when both sides fielded thousands of them, albeit not as heavy as the ones in NOM).

About the spam problem, this will be addressed in EBNOM through a new morale system designed to make levies break easily to powerful charges if weakened slightly first. We will of course need to test this.

The solution is the new ammo system I suggested, along with having high HA numbers (I recommend 70 men for most light HA units).

---

Wrong, heavy cavalry was using mail by that time . Savaran used Mail, lamellar, and large chest plates on top of their armor, along with sophisticated arm and leg protection .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Wrong, heavy cavalry was using mail by that time . Savaran used Mail, lamellar, and large chest plates on top of their armor, along with sophisticated arm and leg protection .

---

That much is correct. I should refocus my statement and note that it was the later Sassanid times when having less armor became more popular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I rather just make them undisciplined so when one breaks, they all break (when engaged) like now.

---

You need to have their base morale low enough that they crack quickly when impacted by a powerful charge. Discipline will be low as well, and cataphracts will be relatively more expensive.

If you call this less armoured...

Technology gets better, not worse, Personally I think full armored horse was a waste of money anyway .

It's just as effective, if not moreso, but it is less overall armour.

Well they did transition to a slightly lighter corps which got all the way to Anatolia.

Problem with that theory being the "lightness" misconception , it is because lesser landowners could now serve in the Savaran, the fully armored cavalryman was never displaced .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Problem with that theory being the "lightness" misconception , it is because lesser landowners could now serve in the Savaran, the fully armored cavalryman was never displaced .

---

That makes sense.

I propose five changes to EDU 3.0:

1. -.02 lethality to all AP weapons that aren't lances
2. Treat cavalry kopides like regular long swords
3. Remove fear from cataphracts, replacing it with +4 charge (at least)
4. Do the Saka stats properly
5. Implement new ammo system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

If you call this less armoured...

Technology gets better, not worse, Personally I think full armored horse was a waste of money anyway .

---

Lol. Note the 5th to 9th centuries CE.

P.S. Robin I forgot to mention I'd be hard put to give feedback considering I'm not well-versed in translating EDUs into plain English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

That makes sense.

I propose five changes to EDU 3.0:

1. -.02 lethality to all AP weapons that aren't lances
2. Treat cavalry kopides like regular long swords
3. Remove fear from cataphracts, replacing it with +4 charge (at least)
4. Do the Saka stats properly
5. Implement new ammo system

---

1 and 2 just turn AP weapons into pretty much vanilla EB. 3.4.5. would be fine though.

The statistical model I've developed shows that currently AP weapons are somewhat overpowered, and also that vanilla EB shortwords were somewhat better balanced than things are now (something I must take the blame for). Kopides had AP in vanilla EB.

Clubmen and axemen already are pretty useless... I don't think I like the idea.

Define overpowered. I don't think that axes can beat hellenic units at this point.

@vartan; Oh please this is not Europes 5th and 9th century .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kival

Clubmen and axemen already are pretty useless... I don't think I like the idea.

---

I'm inclined to suggest that this is because such units are overcosted due to the way the price system works...I'm willing to explore this further but only after I test out my new EBNOM battle system.

You no pay enough attention to us anymore :(((

That's probably true :/

I do think that elite units with AP are rather overpowered though. I could get rid of the special cost boost on Iberian Assaults if we depowered them.

I'd say the overall problem is that armor values are too high, generally speaking. I think a reduction of armor values by 10-20% across the board would help make AP less powerful than it currently is. Also light infantry should gain extra points in defense skill to make them more viable counters to AP units, even heavy ones. This all being said, I still prefer longsword units to comparable AP units.

Again, another problem I plan to at least try to solve in EBNOM :yes:

Then you OP slingers unless you modify them :) so the circle of nerfing continues.

I think you should increase the base stats of each type of dood:
-Levys
-Militia
-Citizen Soldiers
-Career Soldiers
-etc

Its ability and not equipment that should be the primary decider of battles. Currently different types of equipment produce too much of a difference in unit stats and performance.

Between equal skill types, equipment does matter .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Then you OP slingers unless you modify them :) so the circle of nerfing continues.

---

Wait, lowering armor doesn't make slingers more OP, it makes them less. I mean, yes they would do more damage, but not compared to all other units that don't rely on AP. If anything, it makes archers more powerful. I for one, would recommend the reduction of missile unit sizes, but GG2 did say he is working on reforming the missile system.

Reducing missile unit sizes is for the most part rather ahistorical. It was done in EB but it really doesn't make sense except in the case of rare mercenaries such as Cretan Archers. The fact of the matter is that missile units weren't all that effective in Western warfare due to the pre-eminence of large shields; the Parthians at Carrhae shot at the Romans all day and didn't manage to kill more than half, probably not even more than a quarter, by doing this (not including the massacre of Publius and his men).

The problem with EB is not only that it undervalued skill (which is why they had to give barbarians a +1 atk and def bonus) but that it also undercosted armour. That's something that isn't the case in the new EBNOM system I'm working on, in which armor costs rise exponentially. The number of AP weapons however will be lower, incidentally making up for the even higher relative cost of cataphracts that will result.

It is still a rather large number of men killed by arrows, since most casualties occur during a rout, arrow storms are far more useful for sapping morale, and, you know, harassment .

Now this always interested me. A lot of infantry in the east used large shields too, sparabara and such. But often the shields were made of wicker. Does a wicker shield stop an arrow?

Of course a solid wooden theuros, scutum, or aspis would. But a wicker shield? I don't see as much of a point. Why wasn't solid wood used?

Sadly, arrows don't seem to sap morale effectively: archer units that rout after 10 seconds in melee will stand to the last man in a shootout.

Wicker shields also stop arrows, I think, or at least those of old-style Persian bows, and used properly they might be able to turn aside a javelin; I don't think they'd be much use against the powerful bows of the Parthians or Yuezhi. I suppose my answer was also overly simplistic, though: there wasn't really a strong archery tradition in Western lands, likely due to the low quality of the bows produced there (in comparison to eastern composite bows).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Between equal skill types, equipment does matter .

---

Yeah but in this game, equipment gets more % of total stats than man. I rather have everything based on a slight difference in stats between similar units than the wildly varying stats currently. Atleast then you would know if you put unit x and unit y into battle against each other, unit x will probably win very slowly but if you use missile and other things then unit x probably won't win. So factions have more similar units but the slight differences can win battles with exploited correctly.

Right now its like:
Roman Swords + Armor > Celtic Non AP + High Defense > Germanic AP + No Armor or Defense > Roman Swords + Armor

Or Hoplites > Everything. :p

I rather have each man be like a Average Stamina, 5 Attack, 10 Defense, 1 Armor (0 if nude), 20 Charge (guard break mode, encourage attacking and charging) and AP weapons would 75% attack and charge. You then go from there with accuracy, morale, and stamina adjustments.

A wicker shield is un breakable . You cannot even break a simple wicker chair with an axe let alone a huge reinforced tower shield . Wicker is tough stuff . The huge Persian sparas always fascinate me, they knew heavy infantry warfare before teh Romans :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Yeah but in this game, equipment gets more % of total stats than man. I rather have everything based on a slight difference in stats between similar units than the wildly varying stats currently. Atleast then you would know if you put unit x and unit y into battle against each other, unit x will probably win very slowly but if you use missile and other things then unit x probably won't win. So factions have more similar units but the slight differences can win battles with exploited correctly.

Right now its like:
Roman Swords + Armor > Celtic Non AP + High Defense > Germanic AP + No Armor or Defense > Roman Swords + Armor

Or Hoplites > Everything. :p

I rather have each man be like a Average Stamina, 5 Attack, 10 Defense, 1 Armor (0 if nude), 20 Charge (guard break mode, encourage attacking and charging) and AP weapons would 75% attack and charge. You then go from there with accuracy, morale, and stamina adjustments.

---

That's actually quite close to what I have going for EBNOM right now. Each man has base 5 attack and 10 defense.

Compare EBNOM Gaisofulxo with Dugundiz:

type germanic infantry plegodai
dictionary germanic_infantry_plegodai ; Plegōðai (Germanic Commoner Infantry) (t=0)
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type General_1
soldier celtic_infantry_toutanacoi_plegodai, 55, 0, 1
officer ebofficer_germanic_standardbearer
mount_effect elephant -2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, very_hardy
formation 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, 2.4, 5, square, shield_wall
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 9, 6, javelin_l, 40, 3, thrown, archery, piercing, spear, 10 , 1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown
stat_sec 7, 6, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.33
stat_sec_attr light_spear
stat_pri_armour 1, 12, 5, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -1
stat_mental 10, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1056, 264, 50, 70, 1056
ownership alemanni

type germanic infantry dugundiz
dictionary germanic_infantry_dugundiz ; Ðugunðiz (Germanic Retainer Infantry)
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type General_1
soldier germanic_infantry_dugundiz_tautaginai, 40, 0, 1.2
officer ebofficer_germanic_standardbearer
mount_effect elephant -2
attributes sea_faring, hide_improved_forest, very_hardy
formation 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, 2.4, 4, square, shield_wall
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 12, 12, javelin_h, 42, 3, thrown, archery, piercing, spear, 10 , 1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown
stat_sec 9, 12, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 0 ,0.33
stat_sec_attr light_spear
stat_pri_armour 2, 14, 5, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, 1, -1
stat_mental 13, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 40
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1293, 323, 50, 70, 1293
ownership alemanni

(Note also that low acc javelins are given horrible accuracy in EBNOM, may even miss the formation at big distances!)