3.4 EDU - SUGGESTIONS

I'm putting this on a timetable. I want to finish this EDU, to be the final EDU for June, by Thursday at Midnight Eastern Time US. As such I am now collecting all suggestions for what changes should be made to EDU 3.3 to make June's (and hopefully July's and August's) EDU.

Changes suggested thus far:
-Decreasing of steppe unit ammo except for basic HAs (ones with just a bow and short sword)
-Increasing of archer ammo for some non-steppe units (example: Persian Archers)
-Altering of Sarmatian infantry roster (shrinking the total number of units available, factionalizing units and limiting mercs to the standard number)
-Buff to steppe infantry units (Sauro/Saka spearmen) and some levy spear units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BSR

Well besides what we just discussed two units that need recosting or restatting...

1. Indo-Iranian Light cavalry
2. Caturige Gaedann

Also I think Dumnamica should be disciplined as should Thorakitai. Perhaps higher accuracy ratings for Lusitanian skirmishers too? The Ambusher unit at least. A cost bump is alright but it would be nice for Luso's to actually be the best at light skirmishing.

---

disciplined thorakitai would be good seeing as they arent very useful compared to other units at the moment, you mentioned that the getic light phalanxes need a 4 shield, and id like to add that the african elite infantry could do with a sprite seeing as when zoomed out their only indication is a unit marker, and in a melee theres about 20 unit markers. i suggest maybe the ptoly thorakitai sprite as thats about the same shape and color.

I'd like to see Indo-Iranians as a 60 man unit with lower morale and a similar price. They are far too light to be 50 men and don't hit hard enough to qualify their cost.

Caturige Gaedann need extra men too. Perhaps 100 or 90. They also cost substantially more than units like Galaiche while having fewer men and not doing much better except not routing.

Maybe a modest uptick to spear units lethality? We discussed this but either way its fine.

Libypho infantry should not be disciplined, in the same vein as regular Hoplitai.

Eastern Medium cav are worse than and cost more than Median Medium Cavalry.

Don't forget about Hippeis and Equites or have you already completed them? Bah you have. Stream of consciousness posts are the best.

Perhaps moderate/heavy cost decrease for elite phalangites and light cost decrease for pezhetairoi/hysteroi pez. Still keep regular pez over 1850.

Our pahlava friends have the issue of Dahae Noble Cav being not much better than Dehbeds anymore yet costing significantly more. They also have lesser charge which seems odd. Also parthian spears should be cheaper. My rear produces more interesting results than they do.

Oh and you wanted to redo Khusvanagangvarnagroamadcaleodlz (Kinsmen Heavy Cav) and also Cappadocian Medium Cav need a complete overhaul I think.

Ok, you asked for it so it is all on the forum now and everyone should be having a good laugh at my expense. So it goes when you type this up at 2 am after work.:end:

Confiscate long range Tau plasma guns from Rhodian "slingers" .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Confiscate long range Tau plasma guns from Rhodian "slingers" .

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Confiscate long range Tau plasma guns from Rhodian "slingers" .

---

There's nothing wrong with Rhodian slinger range. You say in that other post that they have longer range than Scythian foot archers, but that's hardly surprising: all slingers have that, except for Balearics. This is all fine and proper, since slingers should have longer range than bows and Rhodians were well known for their skills with it.

Also Triballi Infantry lost to Illergetans in a test battle me and LMT just fought. They need at least +1 defense skill to justify their price compared to other 80 man longsword units which have 13 vs 11.

I suggest making Rome stronger. I mean like... much, much more stronger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyris

I suggest making Rome stronger. I mean like... much, much more stronger!

---

How descriptive.

Yikes Rome is already simple to play as. All 4 eras have amazing advantages over most other factions. I hope your comment was made in jest:clown:

Of course;D Ok which EDU you suggest to practice and finally choose faction before the great tour begins? Current edu will do or shall i wait for the newest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyris

Of course;D Ok which EDU you suggest to practice and finally choose faction before the great tour begins? Current edu will do or shall i wait for the newest?

---

If you would like 'practice' (I would simply call it 'fun'), I suggest grabbing the latest (3.3) and just playing around. There's nothing that's really like throwing yourself into the heat of battle and seeing what works, and what doesn't. Don't wait!

please keep in mind the suggested changes for archer accuracy and thorakitai morale boosts

Oh Capo, you got here before I could. Yeah, smaller difference between medium and high archer accuracies and maybe a slight cost decrease to medium accuracy archers. They are pretty costly currently.

Again Slinger range, if none of you is willing to discuss it in my thread I can assume that you have withdrawn your arguments and admitted defeat . Hurr Durr

Did you ever get around to making more peltastai like units? A lot of the hillmen should play like peltastai. Its so fun to play like that too.

Cappadocian and Hyrkanian Hillmen are now skirmishers. Lucanian Light infantry and Bagaudas are as well. I think about 5-6 light infantry units have been converted into skirmishers which is nice.

Some more playtesting with LMT has yielded yet some more interesting results. We did legions vs. Loricati Scutari (sword ones) with the idea that scutari should handily beat them as heavy ap infantry that costs substantially more. Well, they did handily beat the post-Marian ones. They got their butts handed to them by the Imperials however. The Imperials also killed 10(!) with one pila volley. Basically, the Imperial ones are far too strong compared to post-Marian legions. The extra morale, attack, defense, and accuracy more than makes up for the 10 less men per unit. In fact the results weren't even close. Scutari beat the post-Marians with 38 men remaining while the Imperials had 34 men remaining after routing the Scutari. I think we need to reevaluate the difference in eras before Sunday rolls around.

Also, the difference in accuracy between pila and solifera. Is there a reason that pilum are that much more accurate?

More playtesting oddities. Loricati Caetrati destroy Loricati Scutari with 40 men remaining. This was an odd one. Might the formation for the Scutari be too loose? Or is their defense skill too low? Also they have lower morale than the Caetrati which is very strange considering they are the best infantry of the Iberians.

Overall I have found the Loricati Scutari to be underwhelming compared to other infantry in their tier which prompted the original test against legions and then led me to test this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Overall I have found the Loricati Scutari to be underwhelming compared to other infantry in their tier which prompted the original test against legions and then led me to test this one.

---

That's strange but it fits with my personal experience with them. They never did very well contrary to their description to be good file and line units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Cappadocian and Hyrkanian Hillmen are now skirmishers. Lucanian Light infantry and Bagaudas are as well. I think about 5-6 light infantry units have been converted into skirmishers which is nice.

Some more playtesting with LMT has yielded yet some more interesting results. We did legions vs. Loricati Scutari (sword ones) with the idea that scutari should handily beat them as heavy ap infantry that costs substantially more. Well, they did handily beat the post-Marian ones. They got their butts handed to them by the Imperials however. The Imperials also killed 10(!) with one pila volley. Basically, the Imperial ones are far too strong compared to post-Marian legions. The extra morale, attack, defense, and accuracy more than makes up for the 10 less men per unit. In fact the results weren't even close. Scutari beat the post-Marians with 38 men remaining while the Imperials had 34 men remaining after routing the Scutari. I think we need to reevaluate the difference in eras before Sunday rolls around.

Also, the difference in accuracy between pila and solifera. Is there a reason that pilum are that much more accurate?

More playtesting oddities. Loricati Caetrati destroy Loricati Scutari with 40 men remaining. This was an odd one. Might the formation for the Scutari be too loose? Or is their defense skill too low? Also they have lower morale than the Caetrati which is very strange considering they are the best infantry of the Iberians.

Overall I have found the Loricati Scutari to be underwhelming compared to other infantry in their tier which prompted the original test against legions and then led me to test this one.

---

Working on making Carthage stronger before the tournament?;D:clown: Damn, and my super duper suggestion about making Rome stronger was denied :( <sad> Maybe it really was too descriptive... hmmm:clown:

Actually you don't need them as Carthage as the iberian assault infantry is much better but in my experience it was always sad that using them never really was an viable option.

Yes its much more important to Lusos in all honesty if anyone wishes to take the plunge with those guys.

Don't Loricati Scutari have good stamina while the Iberian Assaults don't? I could also give them legionary spacing.

I can yank Imperial accuracy down to medium. That seems like a fine idea.

I can confirm the Loricati Scutari sentiment, I always found them awful/underperforming in MP...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Again Slinger range, if none of you is willing to discuss it in my thread I can assume that you have withdrawn your arguments and admitted defeat . Hurr Durr

---

...

just realized that heavy persian archers are more expensive than cretan archers, and yet just looking at the stats nowhere near as effective (less arrows, morale, attack and defense) could i request a price drop for them?

Yeah prices of all non-armored archers (I don't consider Heavy Persians to be armored since they lack shields) are a little whack right now since steppe FA absolutely massacre all the others at the moment usually at less or considerably less cost. I think GG2 is currently addressing this through accuracy, but pricing should be looked at too. Heavy Persians don't double as light infantry like Cretans, Agrianians or Syrians, nor as medium infantry like Bosporans. I'd like to see their price drop a bit too.

Oh and don't forget to change solifera so their accuracy ratings are the same as pila.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

I can confirm the Loricati Scutari sentiment, I always found them awful/underperforming in MP...

---

They are too squishy which has always been weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

I can yank Imperial accuracy down to medium. That seems like a fine idea.

---

NO. JUST NO. I BEG YOU!
Is there a way to balance sweboz till the tournament so Featheared Serpent wont get beaten badly by all of us?(except storm:>):(

Sweboz really isn't that bad. You can ask LazyO and I will gladly play you as Sweboz in fun matches. Who knows, maybe I'll take up that challenge for July depending on how I do in June. All you need to know is, cheap, cheap, cheap, swords, swords, swords, spears, fear, swords, and they DON'T EVER BREAK!!!!!!!!!

Hmm... Interesting:yes:

Against sweboz if something of you routes, and another division sees that unit routing, then you are basically fucked because the fear effect is so enormous that it will make chain rout instantly if the player can manage to charge just when the other unit routed

Well, that's what barbarians are for :D

I'd argue thats Casse instead of Sweboz. Sweboz grind you down and eventually eat you away in melee because they refuse to rout. Sorta like the same concept as Koinon Hellenon but without any armor which is strange but true.

Watch the language. This isn't a chat room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Watch the language. This isn't a chat room.

---

agreed. and even if it were a chatroom... That word is related to a mental picture, and i dont like having that picture pop into my head. Its like an ambush, innocent piece of writing and then poof.

Don't make me throw a shoe at you.

Having inferior stamina and a higher cost while otherwise being identical with Bataroas makes the Golberi Curoas a completely useless unit. IMO you should make them slightly superior to but also slightly more expensive than regular Bataroas.

Or at least make them identical to Bataroas to give a less clone-army option for the Gauls.

Do they not wear mail?

Where did that idea originate, that they wear mail? Was it when unarmoured barbs received a +1 armor bonus and people didn't understand why Golberi Curoas had 6 armour?

Wierd; the black stuff looked like mail to me :D

They do seem to have cheek guards though, which Bataroas seem not to have. Is that why they had +1 armour compared to them?

Nah, they have nifty capes. Definitely +1 armor for those.:clown:

Drat, I knew it was one or the other. That would explain why Dracula always wears one, too.

Give Kopis AP back! I was severely shocked when I heard they lost AP...

Controversial suggestion: costing and statting equipment based instead of tiers...

Should give more accurate compositions: for example no iron clad gallic armies or overpriced light troops...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Controversial suggestion: costing and statting equipment based instead of tiers...

---

You mean stronger based on equipment instead of tiers. To stat and cost only based on equipment would be silly and it's also already based on equipment it's just that tier has a stronger influence. Anyway that cannot be a Suggestion for 3.4, that would be a 4.0 or something similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Controversial suggestion: costing and statting equipment based instead of tiers...

Should give more accurate compositions: for example no iron clad gallic armies or overpriced light troops...

---

No iron-clad Gallic armies = two new Sweboz.

For example: what makes Arjos cheaper than Solduros?
Or Gaisatoi so pricy? Same thing for unarmoured archers...

Right now it's partially based on equipment and a lot more on stats...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kival

You mean stronger based on equipment instead of tiers.

---

Yes to statting, for example defense skills related to how heavy a unit is; plus the historical recorded fighting skills...
But for pricing imo, it should be about food, stipends, resources, materials and manufacturing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

No iron-clad Gallic armies = two new Sweboz.

---

Considering how Swebozez armies in MP atm are: BGs and merc BGs, plus Lugiones; no not really...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kival

only based on equipment would be silly

---

Never meant that way and you know it! :P

Okay, let me restate it then: no iron-clad Gallic armies = two new Saba lacking elephants. Better?

My point is if you take away their armour you take away their playability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

My point is if you take away their armour you take away their playability.

---

Every faction would reflect the same policy and it would be accurate to have more unarmoured units in overall on the field...
All I'm saying is: those all heavy infantry armies are too gamey, this for any faction even Karthadast...
Exception would be late republican and imperial Roma, which imo shouldn't have 90-100 men or 60 cavalrymen in the first place...
These could be limited to 10 legionary units for example (keeping the current men per unit) or reducing the n° of soldiers...
For example steppe factions would end up with yes lots of unarmoured HAs (they can already), but at the same time less heavy infantry and cavalry...

Well, if there is a way to take away spear as secondary weapon for Xosenthosez Xazdadoi and Dreugulozez Brunjadoi I will be very happy. Spear in melee is not even close to the effect of the longsword. I mean, these (but also another heavy units like Briton late champions) tend to use the secondary weapon when you order to use the primary. You can click attack to get back the longswords, but that you can forget and makes your micro more problematic, and for no good reason.

If we go by armored suggestion like 5 units of every faction would have armor ( armor, not necessarily metal ) , and roman legionaries would cost upwards of 2500 if we take all that training and armor into account . Aside from that, it would completely *******k the game balance and everyone would spam gaesate . Essentially, Saba will be balanced once again, because everyone else will be just like them .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

it would completely *******k the game ... Saba will be balanced once again, because everyone else will be just like them .

---

Instead we go for the gamey hollywood style armies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

everyone would spam gaesate.

---

They have high quality helmets, longswords, gold torques, bracelets, thureos and are mercs, so they wouldn't be cheap...
I'd still restat them with higher defense and attack skills, little less armour maybe or cut the additional HP...

But frankly 2.7k for 60 men seems a lot... For example during the Telamon campaign there should have been 30.000 of them, some must have been mounted and other poorer or younger, but still atm in MP you can't get any way near a fraction of it...
One could see the "real" Gaisatoi in the Uirodusios and the Gaesatae being "champions", but still what's making them cost so much? All the Galatikoi hired by the Ptolemaioi asked as much money as all the rest... Chiefs would get a larger share, but that's like 40 individuals out of thousands... Iirc Polybios speaks of wages/hire instead of mercenaries, so it was more of a payment to the leaders (in order to make them join the war) and then they would deal with the distribution of the loot among their men...

The real word is boring , we do not like it .


/Discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Feathered Serpent

Well, if there is a way to take away spear as secondary weapon for Xosenthosez Xazdadoi and Dreugulozez Brunjadoi I will be very happy. Spear in melee is not even close to the effect of the longsword. I mean, these (but also another heavy units like Briton late champions) tend to use the secondary weapon when you order to use the primary. You can click attack to get back the longswords, but that you can forget and makes your micro more problematic, and for no good reason.

---

agreed, can we also sort this out for galations aswell, i dont know why theyd want to use spears instead of their nice shiny longswords


also kival i was also quite shocked that kopis didnt have ap anymore, but after playing with the edu for a while now i agree with it quite happily, AP kopis was taken out for a reason, i dont know what it was....but it seems to be good so we should stick with it

I disagree with removing the spear from some units. Galatian spears, Arjos and the Germanic Bg's plus nobles are all crazily effective for their price, spear or no spear. If any units needed the removal of the spear, it would be Solduros and Hypaspists. The reasons are these. Those two units are very expensive as 80 man elites and while they have immense staying power, they don't have the best killing power. Galatian Spears and Arjos are already the two finest infantry units one can use at around 2000 mnai. Just look at any Arvernian, AS or Pontic armies and you will usually find 4 of these. Units that are already used so heavily clearly need no editing.

Also, take a look at the formation of Galatians and Arjos. They should be using spears as they are packed so tightly together. I'd imagine the longsword would be for when the formation is cracked.

Also @ Arjos - Sweboz can bring a max of 6 armored infantry, 2 of those being undermanned bodyguards and their elites being 70 men. If they bring all that, its likely they can't afford their elite cavalry and need to go light or no cavalry instead. 2/3 of a Sweboz army (more like 3/4 in terms of numbers of men) will have an armor rating of 6 or lower no matter how many armored infantry you take. They don't play like Gauls at all as you have to be VERY careful around horse archers and most foot archers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Also @ Arjos - Sweboz can bring a max of 6 armored infantry, 2 of those being undermanned bodyguards and their elites being 70 men.

---

Make that 8, since the BGs cost less than 2.5k, plus 4 armoured cav: Marxolitho Wolxiskod and Xosenthōzez Marxoreidondijoi...
Again the tier system allows lots of weird things, it needs to be tweaked imo...

Re "losing spears": that's absurd as Rob pointed out the spear and the shield-wall were the main weapons, swords were most of all a status symbol and used in extremis for those elite units...

How can the sweboz bring 4 armored cavalry? Tier system strictly limits them to two.

BTW I am raising some numbers for Germanic units in the next update, such as Zemjones and Chatti Clubmen; I'm also cutting javelin attacks to 9 (for those with 10) and raising the numbers of ammo for some units (sucj as Korodrougos)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Make that 8, since the BGs cost less than 2.5k, plus 4 armoured cav: Marxolitho Wolxiskod and Xosenthōzez Marxoreidondijoi...
Again the tier system allows lots of weird things, it needs to be tweaked imo...

Re "losing spears": that's absurd as Rob pointed out the spear and the shield-wall were the main weapons, swords were most of all a status symbol and used in extremis for those elite units...

---

If that's true, then is incoherent with so many units using longswords in the game. Just take a look at the Sweboz roster. Nonsense. IF that's true, again, then all those units must get rid of the longsword. If that's not true, which seems to be the case, then allow them to use their letal longswords as the more cheap and less trained inf. It's quite absurd that the best infantry of an army must battle with such a non-shock non-line-inf weapon. This units used to battle in the center, and they use spears for that? Frankly, nonsense. I've tesed their effect with the longsword (unsubstantial clicking everytime they got spears) and is absolutely different. They have much more killing power and can stand vs well armoured inf units with longswords (and not neccesarily with the same armo number as them, also lower than theirs). I don't see any reason for not taking out the handicaping spears. Finally, this will be not a problem if those units were not bugged. So, what was the initial intention with them? Clearly, to use their longswords as much as they like. The game is just bugged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

How can the sweboz bring 4 armored cavalry? Tier system strictly limits them to two.

BTW I am raising some numbers for Germanic units in the next update, such as Zemjones and Chatti Clubmen; I'm also cutting javelin attacks to 9 (for those with 10) and raising the numbers of ammo for some units (sucj as Korodrougos)

---

That's nice. But why are you cutting jav attack? That implies all units with an increase of armour? Or all units no matter if they have an increase of armour?

I just looked at the Sweboz' javelin range and their javelin attack and thought they didn't line up well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

I just looked at the Sweboz' javelin range and their javelin attack and thought they didn't line up well.

---

Maybe at least Worgozez must keep it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Feathered Serpent

If that's true, then is incoherent with so many units using longswords in the game. Just take a look at the Sweboz roster.

---

Swebozez aren't gallic...
And even then, swords among them should be extremely rare...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Feathered Serpent

It's quite absurd that the best infantry of an army must battle with such a non-shock non-line-inf weapon.

---

Arjos, Solduros etc aren't supposed to be shock infantry, that you prefer the sword in close-quarters is one thing, how they fought in history is another...
The engine is indeed broken, but only swords is worse imo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

How can the sweboz bring 4 armored cavalry? Tier system strictly limits them to two.

---

Ok, now Celto-Germanic cav with chest-plates are naked...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capomafioso

also kival i was also quite shocked that kopis didnt have ap anymore, but after playing with the edu for a while now i agree with it quite happily, AP kopis was taken out for a reason, i dont know what it was....but it seems to be good so we should stick with it

---

And what gives you the idea it is good?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kival

And what gives you the idea it is good?

---

What historical precedent is there for a sword dealing large amounts of blunt damage through plate?

Come to think of it, maybe falcatas should lose AP as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

What historical precedent is there for a sword dealing large amounts of blunt damage through plate?

Come to think of it, maybe falcatas should lose AP as well...

---

Well because the center of gravity for the sword would be located nearer to the top because the blade broadens as it is expanding from the pommel. The forward curve of the sword magnifies this, though not as greatly as an axe.

Arjos, a Sweboz army with that much armor isn't viable based on the costs of the units in question. 2 Germanic Heavy cav, 2 Celto-Germanic Cavalry, 4 each of the bodyguards and the retainer infantry leaves you with 6276 mnai and 8 slots to fill. Unless you plan on using the remaining slots on slingers and archers/levy spears, there is no way this army works in MP where it would simply be overrun. A much more realistic Sweboz army which I prefer to use takes 2 each of the retainer infantry and bodyguards and then perhaps a unit or two of heavy cavalry to allow for the cost-effective Dugundiz and various sword units to be used. Yes the Sweboz have armor, but it is very expensive.

Also we don't have plate armour in the medievel sence here. Mostly chainmail and some cuirasses. Also kopis and falcata were made for the purpose of dealing damange against armoured enemies. Are we just going to ignore that fact now? It was also one of the interesting parts of EB that different swordwielding units had different purposes, now we just have longswords - which are the best swords - and other swords who are at best pseudo-longswords statwise or obviously inferior like shortswords.

Nevermind.

Must I really summon a physicist up in this to resolve the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Swebozez aren't gallic...
And even then, swords among them should be extremely rare...

---

That's irrlevant for the point argued. Those units are bugged, and in a way they're handicaped and incoherent with the actual roster of Sweboz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Arjos, Solduros etc aren't supposed to be shock infantry, that you prefer the sword in close-quarters is one thing, how they fought in history is another...
The engine is indeed broken, but only swords is worse imo...

---

It's not my opinion, it's a fact that longswords are much more effective in close quarters. In this composition of Sweboz is incoherent that such superior units must use such an inferior weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Feathered Serpent

In this composition of Sweboz is incoherent that such superior units must use such an inferior weapon.

---

The point is that the spear was their main weapon...
Removing it is like saying: bugger the sarissa, just give xiphos to the phalangitai...

The engine is what it is, you just have to deal with it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

The point is that the spear was their main weapon...
Removing it is like saying: bugger the sarissa, just give xiphos to the phalangitai...

---

Evidence for that? Why is it then secondary an not primary weapon? I really doubt that a barbarian heavy inf will carry spears and not swords as primary weapon. The spear is a defensive weapon compared with the sword. And is not the same. Phalanxes have sarissa as primary and determinant weapon, it defines the functionality of the unit. Spear has not the same role for a germanic heavy inf. And, if you have evidence on the use of spears as primary weapon, then you must know what was the role of this handicaped heavy inf, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

The engine is what it is, you just have to deal with it...

---

Quite like saying: the error is there and I've not intention of fixing it.

Well, several sources from the Dark Ages show how Angle and Saxon royal units used spears as main weapons instead of seaxs, spathas or longswords.

Why? well, because the spear if properly used can have better flexibility on where to attack, since a fast thrust is far more difficult to block with a shield than a slashing attack

The problem is that we compare the level of skill of a levy using a spear with an experienced veteran using a spear. Also, the pike is far less agile than the spear, and so is the sarissa compared with a spear

We have to take in account that a spear from the Gallics tribes will be different of a spear crafted from the Germanic people, or one crafted by the greeks, as they change between lenghts and stuff.

Also, the use of longswords is very chaotic in a densed formation, as you need space to make slashing attack with enough power to cut efficiently, and they are slower too

I'm liking how you all are engaging in very good discussion, but there are a couple of things to mention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Feathered Serpent

Quite like saying: the error is there and I've not intention of fixing it.

---

If there are suspicions regarding what weapons the units in EB carry, take it up with the people who developed the game. As far as the engine goes, if you did not previously know that there are certain inherent limitations that result in problems that are not resolvable, do not worry. I guarantee that there will always be someone who will let you know: "such and such a problem is a result of the engine, and we can't do much about it." And this much is true.

But honestly, about the AP on the kopis and falcata: really guys? Are you really going to melt through ancient plate armor or helmets like you're cutting through butter? You'd basically be only counting half of the enemy's armor value. That's much more dangerous balancing-wise than simply adding a couple of attack points, say, for the blunt damage, or whatever you'd like to imagine. Just food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

I'm liking how you all are engaging in very good discussion, but there are a couple of things to mention.



If there are suspicions regarding what weapons the units in EB carry, take it up with the people who developed the game. As far as the engine goes, if you did not previously know that there are certain inherent limitations that result in problems that are not resolvable, do not worry. I guarantee that there will always be someone who will let you know: "such and such a problem is a result of the engine, and we can't do much about it." And this much is true.

---

Hum, Arjos is stating that "spear is the main weapon", so he must have evidence of that. I don't see any problem in asking for a prove. The use of spear by a heavy unit such as those of Sweboz is, for me, counterintuitive.
And, since I dont see the reason, I take the conclusion of "get with it" as an evasion of the problem. At least you prove otherwise.

Man, good thing i got nothing to do with those barbarians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Feathered Serpent

Hum, Arjos is stating that "spear is the main weapon", so he must have evidence of that. I don't see any problem in asking for a prove. The use of spear by a heavy unit such as those of Sweboz is, for me, counterintuitive.
And, since I dont see the reason, I take the conclusion of "get with it" as an evasion of the problem. At least you prove otherwise.

---

Ok forget all that. Robin was the one who could explain it to me...

Our ancient Plate Armor is not Medieval Brigandines, Mail and Plates, Yushmans or Gothic Full plate, it is BRONZE , while it does offer good protection, an axe, falcata or mace will do alot of damage to the person underneath and probably make a decent dent in it if not break it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

But honestly, about the AP on the kopis and falcata: really guys? Are you really going to melt through ancient plate armor or helmets like you're cutting through butter? You'd basically be only counting half of the enemy's armor value. That's much more dangerous balancing-wise than simply adding a couple of attack points, say, for the blunt damage, or whatever you'd like to imagine. Just food for thought.

---

Modern reproductions and analysis of the weight distribution in the blade, show that those weapons were capable of dealing a considerable g-force shock and that power is concentrated on a limited part of the blade: it works just like an axe...

OK, this means we should horribly devalue the weapon versus less armored infantry why?

How would it be depowered vs less armoured infantry by giving it ap back?