Gameplay Balance

[Danzifuge]

as has been said, cavalry attacks in the rear and their left flank are most effective. try attacking with two or more cavalry units on the same enemy unit. i often get insta-routs from doing this. number of kills vs. cost effectiveness isn't what you should be entirely concerned about it in a cavalry unit. their ability to rout enemy units is their primary role, thus saving your infrantry in losses and ultimately winning the battle. their abilities against unengaged skirmishers and archers are not quite as effective at times, but remember to bring more than one cavalry unit to break these guys. if there is more than one skirmisher/archer you may do great damage to the one unit but the other one rest assured will take from you just as much. thats the role of these guys i find. as cavalry counters they get chewed up but still dish out, but are cheap so easily replaced. unfortunately i found little use for skirmishers/archers beyond their use as cavalry counters. and this really isn't too accurate. skirmishers were the front lines in battles and the only thing they can hit is cavalry and maybe other skirmishers/archers in this mod. the same goes for archers. so far i've never managed to be able to maneuver my archers to the rear in time to hit the enemy in the ass and cause any real damage. i do agree that the effectiveness of these two units in missle attack could be raised a bit so as to reflect their actual use in combat. if this would done, rest assured cavalry flank/rear attacks would be much more difficult instead of almost a certainty which is what they are now. i don't think i've never been able to flank the enemy with cavalry no matter how many cavalry they had.

[Arkanin]

I thought I'd let you all know where I am now -- so far I have finished four VH/VH campaigns:

1.) Rome
2.) Koinon Hellenon
3.) Iberia
4.) Sauka Rauka (warning: very hard!)

My thoughts will follow. I play RTS games competitively, to the extent that I have a lot of experience identifying the units, strategies and combinatorial tactics that are the most effective. After playing these campaigns, I can see that the game balance is not finished at this point in time. RE the question about Iberian Lancers: I found playtesting on VH/N that they barely have a usable role in their army; they are not beyond but reside on the bottom end of what is a usable power level for their strategic purpose, so they extremely rarely belong in a stack. Keep in mind that being "on the bottom end of what is usable" seems fine for low-tier units, but if a high-tier unit is on the bottom end of desirability in performing whatever role it has it removes the purpose of teching it.

If you are role-playing armies and just building whatever you are "supposed" to build, as I imagine some of you history buff guys might be fond to do, you may not see the balance problems, because you are not thinking about what actually is the least fair within the game engine. But balance problems do exist on every continent and need to be dealt with, though; hopefully most of them will be nailed in the next version.

I'll withhold more comment about what specifically is and isn't balanced until they release another version, as I realize that unit stating is still a work in progress. A lot of people have personalities that tend to assume units are all within an acceptable continuum of power level until completely proven otherwise, though, and they are not likely to discover how well-balanced the game is. With experience playing games (especially competitively) I think you are more likely to come to realize that games generally begin life in a completely degenerate state and need to be wrestled into a non-degenerate one. To understand how the units really work inside the game engine, and remove this degeneracy, it is necessary to search for and exploit flawed mechanics. I just hope it is the individuals that try to find the dominant strategies that staff the stating department, as if so we will have a much more balanced game with the next version. :)

Otherwise fantastic mod, by the way.

[Foot]

We have released our last version, beyond bug-fixes in the future, for EBI. Now is a good a time as any to make your propositions known.

Foot

[mcantu]

Arkanin,

Were those four campaigns with EB 1.1? I find it hard to believe that someone could finish that many campaigns at 4/tpy each in the short amount of time that 1.1 has been out...

[Woreczko]

Why should EB be balanced? It`s based off real history as much as possible. Armies of the past weren`t balanced at all - some were better, some were worse. Same as today. Of course EB, being a game, needs some semblance of "balance" or "fairness" to be playable but it`s not a Starcraft to have all factions and units absolutely equal in their usefulnessnes.

[Arkanin]

Arkanin,

Were those four campaigns with EB 1.1? I find it hard to believe that someone could finish that many campaigns at 4/tpy each in the short amount of time that 1.1 has been out...

Nope! I didn't even know the new version was available. I'm downloading it now. As I said in that post, changes were not final and their stating department was hard at work, so I look forward to seeing the changes. Not to mention that this has always been a fantastic mod anyway!

Where realism is the topic, I am inclined to believe that if a mounted warrior of a given quality, equipment and training fought a similar non-mounted warrior, the mounted warrior had a noticeable advantage. In the old version, toe-to-toe, cavalry were at a recognizable disadvantage when fighting an equal number of non-mounted troops and that just wasn't right, heck, they were often disadvantaged charging the flanks without even accounting for their inferior stack size and tripled upkeep cost. But I look forward to seeing what they have done in the next version.

[Daos]

Yup.Cavalry is crap in this game. I know many of you came to accept it and got accustomed to it but the fact remains that it's not working as it should be and it's wrong. You told me like you told this thread starter here that there is something I'm doing wrong. I will tell you just this: I've charged 18 Capadoccian men with a full stack of Thessalian cavalry head on and 8 of my men died and many more would have followed if I wouldn't have helped them with another cavalry unit. That is just wrong anyway you look at it.

[Korlon]

That 18 men didn't rout just from one charge of one unit of Thessalian Cavalry make me question your battle difficulty.

[Daos]

That 18 men didn't rout just from one charge of one unit of Thessalian Cavalry make me question your battle difficulty.

It's actually Medium difficulty. Although I normally play on hard when I've tried it in EB the gameplay was just ridiculous. It was an error so to speak that they didn't rout but still, 18 men with axes or whatever they have against 50 of the best heavy cavalry in the game and they almost win the fight? If I wouldn't have used my Thracian cavaley to make them rout they would have killed them all I think. And the price oh lord. They cost me 7000 mnai and for what? Just another unit that I have to flank with?

[Mediolanicus]

I thought I'd let you all know where I am now -- so far I have finished four VH/VH campaigns:

I suppose you always play VH/VH?

Then the last thing you have to complain about is unit balance, because you are unbalancing them yourself!
VH battles gives AI 7 more defence and 7 more morale points.
With those advantages you'd have to unbalance cavalry very heavily to make charges effective.
And since in EB melee with cavalry is very deadly for your cavalry only (as it was back then too, without stirrups), VH battles just won't work!

Play on VH/M and start complaining then.

If you do then I'll tell you you're using your cavalry wrong and tell you to read this thread : https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103172

good day.

[Arkanin]

I suppose you always play VH/VH?

Then the last thing you have to complain about is unit balance, because you are unbalancing them yourself!
VH battles gives AI 7 more defence and 7 more morale points.
With those advantages you'd have to unbalance cavalry very heavily to make charges effective.
And since in EB melee with cavalry is very deadly for your cavalry only (as it was back then too, without stirrups), VH battles just won't work!

Play on VH/M and start complaining then.

If you do then I'll tell you you're using your cavalry wrong and tell you to read this thread : https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103172

good day.

I misspoke. My 1.1 campaign HAS been on VH/M based on someone's prior suggestion that VH/VH screws up unit balance. I HAVE figured out how to exploit the cavalry in this mod; I already explained how.

In your guide, the author spends the entire battle paying a micromanagement cost to charge repeatedly, then achieves woeful cost inefficiency by exchanging elite cavalry with middling spearmen... it ought to be a primer on why cavalry are worthless.

Regardless, I DO NOT want to debate this with you. I would much rather someone tell me where I can change cavalry so that they penetrate ranks as intended like in old RTW... which was unfair when they cost the same as infantry, but is quite fine when they have triple the upkeep.

[beatoangelico]

the file is descr_mount. But I have to say that is sad to see that you continue to not understand how cavalry work in RTW and in EB and how this compares to real life. If someone say that EB is "deeply flawed" and vanilla RTW was better, then I expect that he knows how the things work and not just some generic supposition. But if you want the I WIN button and screw up the balance, go on

[satalexton]

....another prime example of a traditional RTS gamer that has been overfed with hollywood 'historical' productions... *cough* LS, Gladiator.

...Bear in mind, in real non-hollywood history, casualties in the actually battle itself are very low (no more than 3-5% of the combatants involved). People are normal people like you and me, not some hollywood fearless kungfu gladiator that carve through everybody without a scratch. the vast majority of casualties happen during the rout, where the routers throw off everything they wear (armour, shields, weapons), run for their dear lives in disarray, and swiftly chased and cut down by the light and medium calvary.

[Cambyses]

Ah yes, gameplay versus historical accuracy. A tough one.

I would suggest however that many factors - not just including stats and battlefield effectiveness - are involved in costing units. Some of them surely do need changing. Lusotanna - Iberian Medium Infantry (swords) versus Iberian Heavy for example. (Unless that has already been adressed in 1.1). But most of it seems to work for me. Cavalry are expensive though and to my mind need to be able to offer more back to the player - although not necessarily on the battlefield. An example (dont shoot me) % of cavalry in a stack might affect a general's logistical ability, so that armies with more cavalry would have more food as they can scavenge more widely. I suspect also if the game was less focused on settlements and more on field battles cavalry's cost effectiveness would seem to increase.

I would assume/hope that the majority of costings include a reflection of the scarcity of a troop type, difficulty in training etc etc, balance with other units available to a faction etc. And in that case given how EB's economy works, surely a steep exponential curve is required in costs for more elite units, as they are supposed to complement - not replace - their non-elite compatriots. I imagine its also for this reason that regionals are more expensive, but also - generally - more widely available.

[Midnj]

I do somewhat agree with the OP.

This isn't the medieval period so we don't need heavy cavalry churning through anything with frontal charges.

But on a rear charge the lethality should be higher.. often times the casualties inflicted from a full on rear charge are very small (eg out of an 80 man unit being attacked, I seem to average 5-10 at most with a totally fresh, elite cav unit). One important reason for this as was mentioned previously in that it's like a bug on windshield thing where the rear rank gets decimated but nothing else.. perhaps mass is the key? Or upping lance lethality to 1 (with the really low base attack this would only really benefit the charge)?

I disagree with him though in that cavalry is totally cost ineffective. I will always use cav because while it is overpriced on a raw statistical basis vs infantry it provides certain tactical benefits through mobility and morale effects that make it a battle winner.

EDIT: While I'm at it... it'd be nice if the fatigue took longer to take effect. AFAIK this is not moddable (except to give everyone very_hardy, which isn't really an option since this would no longer distinguish between a Legionary vs a Conscript) but it'd be nice to make battles more tactical. Unfortunately turning fatigue off (as I've seen suggested by a couple others) isn't an option.. it makes cavalry worthless.