Why do certain players think that some factions are underpowered?

Hello,

having seen at least two or three threads having the title "Why is faction XYZ underpowered", I wonder why certain EB-players come to that conclusion. Well, I've read enough posts or AARs from people playing with the complete range of factions and I've noticed that most players get better along with certain factions than with others (I for example like to play with some of the Hellenic/Eastern Hellenic/Eastern factions. I get along with them, though I'm still far away from being a "Good Tactician/Leader of Men" etc.).

Well, back to topic: I cannot agree with those hypothesis(ae ?). Why do certain players conquer half of the map with those underpowered factions? Are they cheating? Or are they just using their economics/troops/diplomacy in a better way than others?

No offence, but I was just wondering why ...

Yours,
Treverer

I think those threads are just the result of a particular battle that the player has lost with a faction with which he thought he must always win.

In fact there are no underpowered or overpowered factions. Everyone of them has low end militias, that will be cut to pieces most of the times, and high end elites, that can win against anybody. Some units' stats are debatable when the AI starts spamming them, for example the naked fanatics, that can even make the early Celts invincible, provided half of the army is composed of them.

For one or more of the following reasons:

1. They play on low difficulty levels.
2. They are very good players.
3. They cheat.

When I just started EB, I loved playing as Rome and kicking everyone's behind. I've come to enjoy the more challenging factions though (Makedonia, KH, Nomads) on VH/H. When you defeat the grand army of Pyrrhus as Makedon with an army consisting of mainly militia and light troops, and only a small core of heavy cavalry and veteran pezhetairoi, on a challenging level, then it means something. When you rout the host of Antigonus and his heir with a rag-tag band of old-school hoplites and skirmishers, the feeling is far better than that of crushing a weaker opponent. To fight when you are on the brink of disaster and have (according to computer) an impossibly thin chance of victory, and yet prevail, that is what I find thrilling.

So yeah I like the "underpowered" factions.

Quote:

---

Well, back to topic: I cannot agree with those hypothesis(ae ?). Why do certain players conquer half of the map with those underpowered faction? Are they cheating? Or are they just using their economics/troops/diplomacy in a better way than others?

---

To be honest, the player is overpowered as a faction leader, compared to the AI. The battle AI in particular is very poor, I've had battles where it seemed to just mill around ineffectually while my archers emptied their quivers, even the AI's missile troops kept marching about without even returning fire. And when I did charge in for the kill, the AI soldiers were tired from having marched about without purpose. Formation mods seem to help avert this kind of behaviour, but the AI is stupid and hardcoded.

So really, any experienced player, provided he can survive at the start of the game, will be able to conquer half the map. It's the beginning which can be hard, and that's where factions matter. But no-one has made an AAR where they were killed within the first ten turns...

They make such assertions through flippancy. They perhaps fail to read the FAQ, fail to read about the game, consider themselves good at vanilla, and ignore the challenge ratings factions have. They boot up the Parthians or whatever else, expecting to steamroll, but they start in a bewildering amount of debt in what is a very tough position. Everything is more expensive, and they declare it impossible. I remember once in vanilla I tried Dacia and gave up because I thought it was too hard. I remind myself of that whenever I need a RTW-related laugh, as I now shoulder much more difficult circumstance and much bigger debts with ease. I play on H/M: VH is just cheap, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

To fight when you are on the brink of disaster and have (according to computer) an impossibly thin chance of victory, and yet prevail, that is what I find thrilling.

---

Yep, won a battle at Taras with each one levy hoplite, hoplite (both no upgrade, no chevrons), archer & slinger unit (both upgrade and one chevron) against ... ehm, hmmm, ... three Romans: two Reserve Skirmishers (they weren't my problem at all) and one Triarii (having 2 or 3 chevrons & amour upgrade). Well, my loses were beyond good and evil, but in the end the Triarii routed. Yes! :birthday2:

And now: :focus:

well i suppose its how the player views a unit when they finally get their hands on em. i personally used to think celtic slingers were the shiz, but when it came to actually using them, the effect left much to be desired. it all depends on what you expect, and the results you get.

They fail at life .

Well what Long Lost Caesar posted is a prime example: dissapointment. He was dissapointed about the Iosatae; I on the other hand think they are the single best slinger unit of the entire game. I find the Balearic slingers to be dissapointing - I guess someone else thinks them to be the very best.

I think most cavalry is underpowered, but I don't complain about it, because it's just how the game is constructed, that the cavalry never keeps marching through a unit while cutting it down like in reality.

I only complain of overpowered factions. I know one, but its lobby is very strong.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well what Long Lost Caesar posted is a prime example: dissapointment. He was dissapointed about the Iosatae; I on the other hand think they are the single best slinger unit of the entire game. I find the Balearic slingers to be dissapointing - I guess someone else thinks them to be the very best.

---

Not enough ammo for the dough they cost IMHO. Remember though lads, this type of thing can always be edited!

On the other hand they eat enemy cavalry alive (including most medium cavalry and generals), and they can make very, very short work of Gaesatae indeed. :wink:

IMO Iaosatae are too expensive. Lowly accensi are better compared to the cost, unless you really need to cram the best possible army into the limit for a stack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

On the other hand they eat enemy cavalry alive (including most medium cavalry and generals), and they can make very, very short work of Gaesatae indeed. :wink:

---

Gaesatae don't have much armor. You're better off using archers against them.

Well some factions are underpowered at the beginning, but a truly skilled EB player can turn any country into a high powered killing machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Gaesatae don't have much armor. You're better off using archers against them.

---

archers and slingers have the same attack value (barring the elite ones and composite bows and whatnot), and slingers have longer range, so archers really aren't better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

archers and slingers have the same attack value (barring the elite ones and composite bows and whatnot), and slingers have longer range, so archers really aren't better

---

Comparing iaosatae (Celtic slingers) to sotaroas (Celtic archers), the archers have 3 attack while the slingers have 2 attack. You do lose some range and ammo, but since the archers cost far, far less (about half as much IIRC, the unit cards unfortunately aren't updated with the price in 1.0) they give more dead naked dudes per mnai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Comparing iaosatae (Celtic slingers) to sotaroas (Celtic archers), the archers have 3 attack while the slingers have 2 attack. You do lose some range and ammo, but since the archers cost far, far less (about half as much IIRC, the unit cards unfortunately aren't updated with the price in 1.0) they give more dead naked dudes per mnai.

---

I haven't calculated any cost-effectiveness or anything like that but slingers always seem to kill significantly more for me, no matter what the target :shrug:

.
Archers can shoot fire arrows, which are good for Casse General BBQ. :chef:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Gaesatae don't have much armor. You're better off using archers against them.

---

They have 5 armour, what makes them one of the best armoured units in the early Celtic army. Against them you need AP missles to achieve a visible effect (slingers, pila)

Agreed.. on Gaesatae example we can all see that some factions are 'very well balanced'..
And I just won't start with command atribute that is efective and in motion for 'some' faction with a strong loby in EB team:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maksimus

Agreed.. on Gaesatae example we can all see that some factions are 'very well balanced'..
And I just won't start with command atribute that is efective and in motion for 'some' faction with a strong loby in EB team:thumbsdown:

---

blah blah blah if you have so much problems with the comand attribute why don't you just remove it from your game ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spendios

'blah blah blah ...'

---

Very nice.. :whip:
Still I won't take it personal, my 'command' 'blah blah' is only here because I would like to see EB 1 even better :book:

Still.. No, I will not remove my 'command' atribute from some Celt units, because I respect the first intention of making them unique:bow:

But, after EB 1.1 I will just add that atribute to some other faction units:yes:

...by the way.... :coffeenews:
can you *bump* some dates? like before or after new year.. I understand it it is an 'embargo' issue :shame:

be well my EB friend :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

They have 5 armour, what makes them one of the best armoured units in the early Celtic army. Against them you need AP missles to achieve a visible effect (slingers, pila)

---

Dude, 5 armor is nothing compared to the armor of the Romani or Lusotannan. AP will only make a difference of 2.5 attack (assuming you fire from a direction the shield doesn't cover), which is far from enough to make up for the loss of attack and the far higher cost of the slingers. At least for the Celtic slingers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Dude, 5 armor is nothing compared to the armor of the Romani or Lusotannan.

---

Neither Romans nor Lusotannians fight for the Arverni or Aedui. Compare the Gaesatae with the rest of their "Freemen" units and you will see that they are really a heavy unit for these factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

Neither Romans nor Lusotannians fight for the Arverni or Aedui. Compare the Gaesatae with the rest of their "Freemen" units and you will see that they are really a heavy unit for these factions.

---

I'm comparing to their near-neighbors, since those are among the factions they are likely to end up fighting. And when it comes to choosing between an extra 1.5 attack or nearly twice as many missile troops (for the same price), I know what I would choose. The slingers are better suited to fighting the Romans than to fighting their fellow Celts, where archers will usually be more cost-effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

I'm comparing to their near-neighbors, since those are among the factions they are likely to end up fighting. And when it comes to choosing between an extra 1.5 attack or nearly twice as many missile troops (for the same price), I know what I would choose.

---

That is a complete different question, what depends on a lot of other factors that can not be generalized (financial situation, compostion of the army, the enemy, the kind of combat, most likely terrain etcpp.) I was talking of individual units.

Quote:

---

The slingers are better suited to fighting the Romans than to fighting their fellow Celts, where archers will usually be more cost-effective.

---

When the fellow Celts attack you with 6 or 7 units of Gaesatae, you'll be happy when you had decided for slingers instead of archers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

That is a complete different question, what depends on a lot of other factors that can not be generalized (financial situation, compostion of the army, the enemy, the kind of combat, most likely terrain etcpp.) I was talking of individual units.



When the fellow Celts attack you with 6 or 7 units of Gaesatae, you'll be happy when you had decided for slingers instead of archers.

---

I don't know, I was happy when I invaded Gaul (in my Roman campaign) with 2 armies with 4 sotaroas each instead of 2 iaosatae each, which carries more or less the same cost.

It is the cost that mainly dictates what troops you can field (out of those you have access to), so cost-efficiency is quite important IMHO.

So in many ways it makes more sense to compare 2 units of sotaroas to 1 unit of iaosatae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

It is the cost that mainly dictates what troops you can field (out of those you have access to), so cost-efficiency is quite important IMHO.

---

That depends very much of the situation.

When you have the money to either field for example two units of Phalangitai Deuteroi or one unit of Argyraspides you should always decide for the cheaper, weaker units because two of them will certainly beat one elite unit of the same type. That can be when you are short of money/income per turn or need to field more than one main stack at a time.

When you have enough money or, due to the strategic situation, can limited yourself to one main army, the 20-slots limit becomes more important. In this situation you should always take the better unit, even if the cost-efficinecy isn't as good because of the much higher price with only slightly better stats.

Personally I'm waiting for the "Eleutheroi overpowered?" thread.

And that would be the first one for me to subscribe.

I do find it funny that Gaesatae have 5 armor and two hitpoints. It's not as if they have an armored **** or literal "buns of steel." Besides, it was missiles in the end that led to their defeat at Telamon according to Polybius. I don't think Polybius would agree with the missile-resistance of the Gaesatae in EB.

Just one of the many elements of the EDU file that I couldn't resist editing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

Personally I'm waiting for the "Eleutheroi overpowered?" thread.

---

Well we already have had a couple of the "WTF, the Eleutheroi kicked my ass!!!" threads & posts though. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

That depends very much of the situation.

When you have the money to either field for example two units of Phalangitai Deuteroi or one unit of Argyraspides you should always decide for the cheaper, weaker units because two of them will certainly beat one elite unit of the same type. That can be when you are short of money/income per turn or need to field more than one main stack at a time.

When you have enough money or, due to the strategic situation, can limited yourself to one main army, the 20-slots limit becomes more important. In this situation you should always take the better unit, even if the cost-efficinecy isn't as good because of the much higher price with only slightly better stats.

---

That doesn't apply to units that are too different in strength though - for example, one unit of Spartan hoplites could kick the arses of quite several levy hoplites, also one unit of Gaesatae could take on many, many low-class units

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

That doesn't apply to units that are too different in strength though - for example, one unit of Spartan hoplites could kick the arses of quite several levy hoplites

---

Are you sure? I wouldn't say so.

Quote:

---

also one unit of Gaesatae could take on many, many low-class units

---

As a passionate Rome and Sweboz player, I would say 'no' to this one too. For example a unit of Hastati plus a unit of Peltastai are able to butcher a unit of Gaesatae.

I must warn you the low class definition seems to get a bit broad there... Peltastai aren't low class; Hastati usually aren't either. Peltastai are Pezhetarioi class, mind you.

I don't think that blank was refering to social classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

I don't think that blank was refering to social classes.

---

I meant units like Hoplitai Haploi (i have taken out several of these even with a unit of classical hoplites, so Spartans shouldn't really be a question), and Lugoae (Gaesatae can take on quite several of these guys)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I must warn you the low class definition seems to get a bit broad there... Peltastai aren't low class; Hastati usually aren't either. Peltastai are Pezhetarioi class, mind you.

---

Hmm, as far as frontline infantry goes, peltastai and to some extent hastati (camillan?) would IMO be low class. However, compared to skirmishers their melee abilities are of course superior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

I meant units like Hoplitai Haploi (i have taken out several of these even with a unit of classical hoplites, so Spartans shouldn't really be a question), and Lugoae (Gaesatae can take on quite several of these guys)

---

With Lugoae we have reached the very bottom (if not, butt) of the Celtic line up: I even was able to exterminate two units of Lugoae with one unit of Leuce Epos. I can't recall any faction or unit that I had ever seen in trouble when facing Lugoae (ok, I hadn't tried them against Pantodapoi).

The Hoplite fight is another story. You had done so, but there isn't a guarantee with it. Two units of Haploi are certainly able to win against one unit of Classicals, provided all three have the same experince and upgrades. They must not everytime, but they will if used the correct way (that is overlapping both flanks of the Hoplites).

In my example (2x Phalangitai Deuteroi vs. 1x Argyraspides) it should be clearer: as long as you do not have both Deuteroi standing behind each other you will get in one flank of the Argyraspides, what they won't survive, regardless of their stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

In my example (2x Phalangitai Deuteroi vs. 1x Argyraspides) it should be clearer: as long as you do not have both Deuteroi standing behind each other you will get in one flank of the Argyraspides, what they won't survive, regardless of their stats.

---

That's because they have an entirely different purpose: stick them in the main line, and they will hold it a lot longer than other phalanx units. They are to be used as an anchor for the main line, not an elite that breaks the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

That's because they have an entirely different purpose: stick them in the main line, and they will hold it a lot longer than other phalanx units.

---

They will not hold the line against two other phalanxes, that's the point. It doesn't matter that they will hold out longer than any other Phalanx in the given situation before they break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

They will not hold the line against two other phalanxes, that's the point. It doesn't matter that they will hold out longer than any other Phalanx in the given situation before they break.

---

Did you even read what I said? They are meant to be used in the main battle line as any other phalanx unit, where they will usually not face more than one enemy unit except if the rest of the line collapses, not alone against too many opponents. They do exactly what other phalanx units but better and more reliably, but suffer from exactly the same fatal problem, namely vulnerability to flank attacks. Use them to either hold a strong central part of the line, or as an anchor on one or both of the flanks for cavalry to attack around.

I don't get it. They are meant to hold the main line - not to form a main line. So they aren't quite as useful on their own; but work wonders in conjuction with other - lesser phalanx units. (Simply put: you can afford to have lower quality phalanx troops if you make sure to have a couple of those extremely stiff back bone units too.)

Elite units aren't for making up an entire army of them; elite units are for supplying the army with additional punch and resilience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Did you even read what I said? ....

---

You are absolutly missing the point of this discussion. How to use a phalanx is not the topic, but if it is preferable to raise two medicore units instead of one elite.



But since you insist on talking of phalanx warfare:

Quote:

---

They are meant to be used in the main battle line as any other phalanx unit, where they will usually not face more than one enemy unit except if the rest of the line collapses, not alone against too many opponents.

---

The enemy phalanx in my example is 8 units long while yours numbers just 4 of (better) units. How do you manage to have each of your phalanxes to face just one of the enemy phalanx? The units on the wings are facing two enemy phalanxes each and there is still one more enemy phalanx standing next to these flankers to fight off your mobile forces and cavalry, what the enemy has too.

This tactical nightmare is achived by deciding for Phalangitai Deuteroi instead of Argyraspides.

In my opinion, anything more than Deuteroi level phalanxes against non-phalanx enemies is a waste of money.

Against other Diadochoi, maybe I can get some Pezhetairoi, but the Deuteroi seem to hold the line enough until I can hit them with my cavalry. Cavalry, not UBER phalanxes, is my greatest asset when fighting against Diadochi, KH or anyone that uses phalanxes broadly.

Uhm... Konny you seem to be talking purely theory, and practical issues be discarded.

Now on the other hand consider this. 20 units = 20 units?

At some stage you will reach the luxury of affording elite troops. Then the choice is yours: do you make an army of 20 crappy units and another army of 20 equally crappy units? Or do you go the other way around: dividing your elite forces over multiple armies and adding some manpower in the form of crappy units?

That way you'll likely end up with two armies of 15 units each... Respectable armies at that. And I would take the 15 unit armies over the 20 unit ones - because a lil' math tells me the unit ratio is 3:4 which is quite possible to win. Then consider the 3 units have 1 unit which is good enough to hold 2 from the front (and therefore can be spread over a much larger area if need be)... I do think the 3 would beat the 4 hands down.

(A frequent strategy I use against the numerous but crappy stacks of AI levies: make sure to have your main line a bit curved so the AI will need to maintain a longer line than you have (unit wise) to avoid being outflanked from the get go. (Elite) phalanx units are particularly useful for this kind of tactics.)

I think Tellos Athenaios has said pretty much all there is to say, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

You are absolutly missing the point of this discussion. How to use a phalanx is not the topic, but if it is preferable to raise two medicore units instead of one elite.

The enemy phalanx in my example is 8 units long while yours numbers just 4 of (better) units. How do you manage to have each of your phalanxes to face just one of the enemy phalanx? The units on the wings are facing two enemy phalanxes each and there is still one more enemy phalanx standing next to these flankers to fight off your mobile forces and cavalry, what the enemy has too.

This tactical nightmare is achived by deciding for Phalangitai Deuteroi instead of Argyraspides.

---

...who's talking about one elite against two mediocre units, or four against eight? They're not meant to be cost effective, they're meant to be available when enough money is available to replace one of the mediocre units. Elites are not massively better than regulars but they can make all the difference when used in a regular battle line.

And in history, that's what elites did: they were a minority in a regular line, holding a particular (often crucial) part of it or used for breaking a specific part of the enemy line. So, not only are you missing the point of this discussion, I think you're also missing the point of elites in armies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treverer

Hello,

having seen at least two or three threads having the title "Why is faction XYZ underpowered", I wonder why certain EB-players come to that conclusion. Well, I've read enough posts or AARs from people playing with the complete range of factions and I've noticed that most players get better along with certain factions than with others (I for example like to play with some of the Hellenic/Eastern Hellenic/Eastern factions. I get along with them, though I'm still far away from being a "Good Tactician/Leader of Men" etc.).

Well, back to topic: I cannot agree with those hypothesis(ae ?). Why do certain players conquer half of the map with those underpowered factions? Are they cheating? Or are they just using their economics/troops/diplomacy in a better way than others?

No offence, but I was just wondering why ...

Yours,
Treverer

---

For me Treverer it was that EB wanted to make the units as historical as possible. It's not so much a faction issue for me as it is a historical unit accuracy issue. I felt from my readings that there were some inaccuracies in the Celtic units and some minor ones of the German units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

...who's talking about one elite against two mediocre units, or four against eight?

---

Sakkura, Blank and me from post #25 of this thread onward. I am sorry that you managed to miss the enitre discussion that you joined in, but I can't help it: phalanxes were a pure example.


The same is for Tellos Athenaios:

Quote:

---

At some stage you will reach the luxury of affording elite troops. Then the choice is yours: do you make an army of 20 crappy units and another army of 20 equally crappy units? Or do you go the other way around: dividing your elite forces over multiple armies and adding some manpower in the form of crappy units?

---

It would be helpfull if you take the time to read the previous posts of this discussion (it's not a 20 pages thread after all), then you might not start teaching me things that I had allready pointed out on the previous page:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

That depends very much of the situation.

When you have the money to either field for example two units of Phalangitai Deuteroi or one unit of Argyraspides you should always decide for the cheaper, weaker units because two of them will certainly beat one elite unit of the same type. That can be when you are short of money/income per turn or need to field more than one main stack at a time.

When you have enough money or, due to the strategic situation, can limited yourself to one main army, the 20-slots limit becomes more important. In this situation you should always take the better unit, even if the cost-efficinecy isn't as good because of the much higher price with only slightly better stats.

---

I enjoy this mod so much because there is quite a good balance and if I don't like it they tell me how to mod stats.

I particularly like it when I make a mistake and the AI makes me pay. I look back at a bloody nose the Eleutheroi gave my Epirotes in Patavium, and I feel satisfaction at the victory I took in round 2 with the same units plus 2 mercs hired to counter their Gesaetae.

As a historical simulation it does an enjoyable job given the hard-coded limits, and gives a good idea why people in 272 felt the Antigonids were easy meat and Pyhrros was on track to be Big Al 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

They have 5 armour, what makes them one of the best armoured units in the early Celtic army. Against them you need AP missles to achieve a visible effect (slingers, pila)

---

I'm blown away. From the post quoted above, and one earlier on in this thread, I surmise that in EB, slingers use armour piercing projectiles and archers do not. Is this really true? Please tell me it isn't, that I got things wrong, because it should be exactly the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michaelis

I'm blown away. From the post quoted above, and one earlier on in this thread, I surmise that in EB, slingers use armour piercing projectiles and archers do not. Is this really true? Please tell me it isn't, that I got things wrong, because it should be exactly the other way around.

---

It is true. Sling bullets generally fare better against armored opponents than arrows, although of course there are many variables involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

I do find it funny that Gaesatae have 5 armor and two hitpoints. It's not as if they have an armored **** or literal "buns of steel." Besides, it was missiles in the end that led to their defeat at Telamon according to Polybius. I don't think Polybius would agree with the missile-resistance of the Gaesatae in EB.

Just one of the many elements of the EDU file that I couldn't resist editing.

---

That armor is from the helmet, which is what many infantry get. Something like 4 for the helmet and 1 for the cheek pieces.

Why do certain players think that some factions are overpowered?

Honestly I am not 100% sure but I have seen some common trends in "underpowered/overpowered" threads, I'll list a few:

-Levy Pike unit X is stronger than spear/sword elite unit Y. For some reason, I believe due to playing mods that allowed infantry to literaly walk through pikes, a bunch of people posted about this. Not realizing that u DO NOT win a frontal attack on a ready pike formation with a melee unit.

-Pretorian much should be stonger than Cohort Imperatoria. A lot of people asume that a Pretorian was always a better soldier than a regular legionary, although this was the case for a short while, the norm became that Pretorians were legions recruited in ITALY. Thats it. They got a little better pay and a little better armor, but they rarely saw any combat. Exept for riots and Civil Wars. Regular legionaries in imperial times were recruited from the provinces.
----for the record I do a agree that Evocata should be notched up a bit more. Along with cost.

-Faction X beat faction Y in the time frame of so&so BC to so&so BC. Therefore Faction X > Y throughout the entire EB timelime. Here some people assume that historicaly since a faction X beat faction Y in so&so BC it follows that the units of faction X should be able to beat the units of faction Y. Well here context and other factors that weakened/strenghtened either faction tend to be ignored, and a simple "soldiers from X where ALWAYS stronger than soldiers from Y" argument is used. Unfortunatly u cannot say this because it ignores other issues affecting the outcome of wars. Its like saying US tanks in WWII were better than in German tanks in WWII becuse historically the Germans lost WWII....When infact it was the opposite and there were MANY other factors that hindered German armor against the US/Britain in 1944/45.

-....and.... DANG IT! I had one more and it just slipped my mind :wall: when I remember it I'll post.

Quote:

---

-Pretorian much should be stonger than Cohort Imperatoria. A lot of people asume that a Pretorian was always a better soldier than a regular legionary, although this was the case for a short while, the norm became that Pretorians were legions recruited in ITALY. Thats it. They got a little better pay and a little better armor, but they rarely saw any combat. Exept for riots and Civil Wars. Regular legionaries in imperial times were recruited from the provinces.

---

Truly, Praetorians supposedly did get more training than Cohors Imperatoria, even though their combat experience was smaller. And their extra armour should be better represented as they really have more armour than the Cohors Imperatoria and are depicted in game as so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Did you even read what I said? They are meant to be used in the main battle line as any other phalanx unit, where they will usually not face more than one enemy unit except if the rest of the line collapses, not alone against too many opponents. They do exactly what other phalanx units but better and more reliably, but suffer from exactly the same fatal problem, namely vulnerability to flank attacks. Use them to either hold a strong central part of the line, or as an anchor on one or both of the flanks for cavalry to attack around.

---

Use Argyraspidai to anchor the flanks, if your centre caves in you bring your flanks together to perform the classic double envelopment. It worked for Militiades and Hannibal, it works for me, it will work for you. The only time I'd consider positioning my elites in the centre is if I'm badly outnumbered and gambling on a rapid breakthrough, not something I'm comfortable with. Of course, if the elites aren't in the battle-line but in reserve, then I usually place them in the centre, unless I anticipate being outflanked by cavalry.


To reply to the "1 elite vs. 2 levies" debate, I've certainly betaten two units of Hoplitai Haploi with one of Epilektoi Hoplitai, and also one unit of Hoplitai Haploi and one of Phalangiti Deteroi with the same unit of Epilektoi Hoplitai bodyguards. However, it was a difficult fight, if my opponent had been an experienced human rather than the AI, I certainly would have lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

Personally I'm waiting for the "Eleutheroi overpowered?" thread.

---

Absolutely! They get Polybian Equites right from the start of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

That armor is from the helmet, which is what many infantry get. Something like 4 for the helmet and 1 for the cheek pieces.

---

Yup. The Nekkid Men have armour values entirely in line with other Celtic infantry (or for that matter nigh any infantry) whose only actual armour consists of a decent helmet; compare to the other similarly equipped longswordsmen (eg. the Northern types and the Belgae equivalent) to see the pattern.

Myself, the only thing I'm going to say on this topic is this:

In my opinion, EVERY faction in EB is overpowered! :beam:

Thus, there is balance after all, since all factions are equally overpowered.

Everybody's happy!:2thumbsup:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

P.S
Note the tongue-in-cheek approach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

Myself, the only thing I'm going to say on this topic is this:

In my opinion, EVERY faction in EB is overpowered! :beam:

Thus, there is balance after all, since all factions are equally overpowered.

Everybody's happy!:2thumbsup:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

P.S
Note the tongue-in-cheek approach

---

Heh, I dare you to win a VH/VH campaign as Hayasdan (or maybe Pahlava/Saka Rauka) without cheating and say that again. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

It is true. Sling bullets generally fare better against armored opponents than arrows, although of course there are many variables involved.

---

I think this is absolutely insane. Sling shot better against armour than a metal arrowhead? Could you give me one good reason why? On second thoughts, don't bother - no matter what I hear, I guess if I'm ever to play EB again, I'll have to painstakingly go through all the slinger/archer units and edit that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michaelis

I think this is absolutely insane. Sling shot better against armour than a metal arrowhead? Could you give me one good reason why? On second thoughts, don't bother - no matter what I hear, I guess if I'm ever to play EB again, I'll have to painstakingly go through all the slinger/archer units and edit that.

---

Try concussive effect of having a large stone slung at you at high speeds. Armour won't protect against that, whereas it does prevent the piercing effect of arrows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michaelis

I think this is absolutely insane. Sling shot better against armour than a metal arrowhead? Could you give me one good reason why? On second thoughts, don't bother - no matter what I hear, I guess if I'm ever to play EB again, I'll have to painstakingly go through all the slinger/archer units and edit that.

---

Because flexible armor like mail mainly prevents penetration by sharp objects, but does not protect much against blunt force trauma. While something like a breastplate (muscled cuirass included) provides pretty good protection against sling bullets, the armor might be dented in a way that would make it difficult to breathe with the armor properly attached - thus hindering the wearer or even forcing him to discard a piece of armor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michaelis

I think this is absolutely insane. Sling shot better against armour than a metal arrowhead? Could you give me one good reason why? On second thoughts, don't bother - no matter what I hear, I guess if I'm ever to play EB again, I'll have to painstakingly go through all the slinger/archer units and edit that.

---

Stone or led bullets damage the armour or if your wearing mail it crushes your chest. But amour can keep arrows away.

Yeah. A decent comparision, I think, would be spear- or sword-thrust contra a solid blow from a mace.

...it wasn't all that unusual AFAIK for armourers and their customers to be in the opinion that it just wasn't worth the trouble, weight and expense to try to craft a harness that could reliably resist the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karo

Stone or led bullets damage the armour or if your wearing mail it crushes your chest. But amour can keep arrows away.

---

Sure, sure. This is why the English abandoned the bow sometime in the early Middle Ages and introduced a new type of ranged attack infantry - Brawny Slingers.

Dream on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michaelis

Sure, sure. This is why the English abandoned the bow sometime in the early Middle Ages and introduced a new type of ranged attack infantry - Brawny Slingers.

Dream on.

---

Longbows, and also composite bows and crossbows, offer a different set of advantages and are certainly not comparable with standard bows in use in EBs timeframe and in most of Western Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Technology changed and improved bows, and slings went out of fashion.

Stones could be slung with a higher velocity and with greater weight than arrows could be fired at the time. Try imagining having a half-kilo weight slung at you: whatever armour you're wearing, that's going to hurt.

Dream on, indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michaelis

Sure, sure. This is why the English abandoned the bow sometime in the early Middle Ages and introduced a new type of ranged attack infantry - Brawny Slingers.

Dream on.

---

Some people have been nice to give you explanations, if you disagree with them you can express it without using arrogant and insulting tone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michaelis

Sure, sure. This is why the English abandoned the bow sometime in the early Middle Ages and introduced a new type of ranged attack infantry - Brawny Slingers.

Dream on.

---

I absolutely second Spendios.

And there have been several extensive threads about "Slingers overpowered" or "slingshot vs. arrows", which exhaustively discussed the issue, including links to experiments, citations from original texts and whatever else you like. So no need to hijack this post. And change it into the exact thing it tries to explain. Please use the search function instead.

the Cretan slingers are using a strong composite bow, so I don't understand when levy slingers get more kills than them... :/

Many, many bows from this time are "weenies", much weaker than people are imagining. And most slings from this time are throwing the rock much, much faster (faster than the arrow, I believe) than most people are imagining as well... these aren't Bart Simpson's "Y" slingshot. If an arrow doesn't penetrate the armor, you barely feel it. If the rock doesn't penetrate the armor, you still feel the weight/speed of the impact. And unless the arrowhead was of very good metal, the pointy little tip might just bend or "squish" on impact against strong armor and still not be felt much, even if you could fire it with enough force.

This is not true. Many bows of the EB timeframe were of composite construction with sinews and horn reinforcements. The bows were roughly as strong as in the later times. A typical arrow of such a bow would weight 40 to 60 g. and travel with 45 to 55 m/s. A typical lead sling bullet would weight 30 to 60 g. and travel with 50 to 60 m/s. Do you really think that the difference in energy and terminal ballistics would be so great?

We had the slinger discussion before, as it was said in this thread already. Use the search function. In the case of slingers EB is wrong and right imho. Slingers were not better against armour. A little research can prove this.

But EB is a game and some compromises have to be accepted. There are a lot unit designs with small historical problems. Often this is due to the TW game design, no way to do it better. So, if slingers and archers would have the same performance in terminal ballistics (like in reality) it would be boring, wouldn't it? And the slingers of 1.0 are much better (because they are worse) than in 0.8x.

To the topic: the factions are very well designed. I don't see any problem with over-/underpowered factions. Some "problems" perhaps come from the historical background and it is a pleasure that there is a certain diversity in EB. A total balance would be nonsense.

They wouldn't; I can assure you beforehand. ~;)

The bullet is mostly about the equation: m*delta(v)=F*delta(t)

(I do not have all the proper symbols such as the delta symbol on hand, so bear with me.)

The arrow on the other hand is much more about the equation: 0.5*m*v*v=F*s*cos(alpha);

In other words: delta(p)=S versus E(kinetic)=W.

So, you got me.:yes: I don't understand anything, and of course I'm sure something, or even more, is there to be understood.:juggle2:

The conclusison is clear, I should better stay away from math.:2thumbsup: :inquisitive:

I didn't say that ALL bows were weenies, only that many were, such as those awful toxotai hellenic archers (what, like a 2 attack or something like that, without AP?) ... ick. So those are probably the ones that the original poster was complaining about. The stronger composite bows fare better than slings against no-armor troops such as the nubian spearmen, in my experience.

Those Yuehzi horse archers should use fairly powerful bows - they would've used something similar to the Hun/Xiongnu bows and would've almost been as powerful as the ungodly Mongolian composite recurved reflex bow.

---Pissed off, angry post directed to Michaelis
---content of the post for everyone else.

IF you paid attention to the game you will see arrows kill MORE UNARMORED guys than slingers.

BUT heavily armored guys like Cataphacts (sp) tend to take a more casualties against slingers. Not a whole lot, about 10 dead horsies for ALL the sling shots (yes all munition was used, tested by me and madmatg).

WHY?? Because the armor can stop the arrows from piercing but the slings can cause consusions and blunt trauma.

Those are the 2 extremes, with inbetween armor units its going to vary. Normaly guys with 9 armor took about the same casualties of Celtic Singers and Cretians back in .81 when slingers HAD MORE AMMO and a little HIGHER attack.

p.s Pissed off post directed to Michaelis

Michaelis, now you've done it. One thing you should learn is not to piss off NeoSpartan! You have no idea what he's like when he's mad.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g...tan/Charge.jpg

Look at those eyes man! LOOK AT THEM!! Like Achilles, except slightly more drunk.

And you better keep yourself in check should it be Halloween or close to it: he is quoted to go Gaesatae at those moments....

Anyway now for the more serious remark I intended to make before Thaatu distracted me with the memories of slightly disturbing threads :sweatdrop: ...

Based on my own gameplay experience:
-archers tend to be very effective on their own compared to slingers;
-two units (or preferably more) of slinger firing at targets from different angles make for a more effective combination than two archer units doing the same;
-the combination of flaming arrows (the arrows causes massive moral drops) + sling bullets (nearly every bullet equals a hit, equals a potential kill) is particularly powerful against armour or against massed crowds (i.e. on bridges, in the streets);
-flaming arrows are rather devastating against lightly armed enemies; but from time to time (mostly when they got *big* shields) you will do better without the flames;
-slingers are particularly good against units with *big* shields.