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.

[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.

[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.

[gamegeek2]

Look; heavy cavalry are to be used to smash unprepared targets or far weaker units. Example, let's use Cohors Reformata vs. Asavaran-i Azadan

160 vs. 100

Cav charge; cohors javelins down 4 and loses about 15 to 20 men on impact (frontal). After this, the legionnaires are consistently able to catch the Azadan before they can remount a charge, and win by a 7:8 loss to kill ratio. This reflects Carrhae, where Surena sent his cataphracts against the roman infantry's line after they had been softened a bit by arrows. The well-articulated Romans repulsed the attack, despite the length of the kontos and power it delivered in the charge; group organization repulsed the cavalry's knee-to-knee charge and initiative. The cataphracts were content to break off after this failure and let the horse archers do their job (supplied with ammo by camel caravans) while they picked off weakened units or those in a testudo, which was too tight for the romans to fight back in.

Let's say those Azadan crash into the back of some good-strength romans in combat with some theurophoroi. The result is a loss of about 50 guys on impact and an immediate rout (if you're not unlucky). Even with this, Romans historically could form their back ranks for such a situation, but it usually wouldn't work anyways.

[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?

[bovi]

Perhaps you didn't get the charge to count. The lances need to be lowered or they won't make the attack with the charge bonus (and the attack without charge bonus is really weak). The easiest way to get the lances lowered is to line them up completely before right-clicking once on the enemy. I've smashed into plenty of phalanxes this way from more than one side at once, and they nearly invariably rout upon contact.

[Daos]

right-clicking once on the enemy.

you say? Hm... That might have been it but still 50 horsemen should kill 18 axemen no matter what. Just a question. In 1.1 has the cavalry attack changed or is it the same?

[Foot]

you say? Hm... That might have been it but still 50 horsemen should kill 18 axemen no matter what. Just a question. In 1.1 has the cavalry attack changed or is it the same?

Except the axe is Armour-Piercing so thats half of the horseman's armour down for the count. Did you switch to secondary weapons or did you keep using the primary weapon? If the latter then I can easily see why the 18 axemen won.

Its funny that in a post above you complain about everyone telling you that you use the cavalry wrong, and then admit that you don't use cavalry correctly. Cavalry is going to get bogged down in a formation of infantry, and if that formation of infantry has AP weapons then any heavy cavalry is going to have a hard time.

Foot

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I think we need a completely separate FAQ thread on 'How to use Cavalry in EB'.

Separate, so that people will see it. And stickied.

[russia almighty]

And hard and very hard battle settings are broken in RTW.

[Daos]

Except the axe is Armour-Piercing so thats half of the horseman's armour down for the count. Did you switch to secondary weapons or did you keep using the primary weapon? If the latter then I can easily see why the 18 axemen won.

Its funny that in a post above you complain about everyone telling you that you use the cavalry wrong, and then admit that you don't use cavalry correctly. Cavalry is going to get bogged down in a formation of infantry, and if that formation of infantry has AP weapons then any heavy cavalry is going to have a hard time.

Foot

Well I didn't admit to anything. Unlike some people I'm always wiling to try out certain things and I'm willing to change. However, I've tried clicking once and they just walk there. Now that's not a charge, now is it? I've figured it out on my own tho. You gotta use mixed unit tactics. You need like two HA units for every heavy or medium cavalry to wear them down first. Or use mass heavy cavalry like some people suggested. The problem with that is that they cost too much to be effective. For example: Getai MC costs 4000+ a mass charge requires something like 4 of them. That's 12000 or more. With that money you can build a whole army of infantry and it will be 10 times more effective on the battlefield. Exactly like the thread starter pointed out. I'm definitely interested in a mod to either make cavalry more deadly or cheaper, that would be much better than how it is now.

As for the first part of your post. What can a man with an axe do to 3 men with long lances, heavy armor and horses? I'm talking about realism here, not bonuses.

[mcantu]

Well I didn't admit to anything. Unlike some people I'm always wiling to try out certain things and I'm willing to change. However, I've tried clicking once and they just walk there. Now that's not a charge, now is it? I've figured it out on my own tho. You gotta use mixed unit tactics. You need like two HA units for every heavy or medium cavalry to wear them down first. Or use mass heavy cavalry like some people suggested. The problem with that is that they cost too much to be effective. For example: Getai MC costs 4000+ a mass charge requires something like 4 of them. That's 12000 or more. With that money you can build a whole army of infantry and it will be 10 times more effective on the battlefield. Exactly like the thread starter pointed out. I'm definitely interested in a mod to either make cavalry more deadly or cheaper, that would be much better than how it is now.

As for the first part of your post. What can a man with an axe do to 3 men with long lances, heavy armor and horses? I'm talking about realism here, not bonuses.

You have to be more patient...as those cav are walking to the unit you alt-single right clicked(this will get them to switch to the more effective secondary weapon after the charge stops), they are forming up. when they reach the proper charge distance, they will lower their lances/spears and begin the charge. if you charge units that have high morale or are not tired, you will generally have to repeat the process...

[glouch]

daos, i've never heard of or seen such a thing as an 18-man strong unit standing up to a full cavalry charge. they'll either rout or get wiped out. you may have done something incredibly wrong to lose like that. sad.



arkanin, i don't question your prowess in gaming, but realism is first and foremost the primary objective of EB, i believe. historically, cavalry specifically designed for charging was really meant for nothing but that. lancers (and other 'charging' cavs) were never intended to last in a prolonged melee - they were meant to charge at the weakest link of the army (such as some demoralized, bloodied, and tired soldiers facing a wall of sarissas, oblivious to the lancers lining up behind them). after the charge, what they're expected to do is, a)if the unit they charged routed, pursue and kill or b)if the unit they charged didn't rout, or if they were needed somewhere else, to pull out very quickly and reform their formation. if you read some kind of article concerning the hellenistic period in wikipedia, i think you'd find some reference to that. the decision of the EB team to give the cavalry inferior melee stats compared to infantry was, i think, intentional so as to integrate that reality into the game. there are cavalry that could stand up in a melee, such as the cataphracts (catatanks ), but they are a special kind. some cavalry are actually meant for melee, to be able to provide support when and where it is needed, screen the infantry, and deter any other cavalry threatening to flank the infantry... but don't expect them to launch bodies 10 ft into the air with the ferocity of their charge.

as for the what you perceive as cost-ineffectiveness of the units. if you could try to create an army that is well balanced, with ranged units, infantry units to hold the line, skirmishers to harass the enemy, cavalry for hammering or support... and then throw in some elites to hold them all together, then i guarantee you that you will be satisfied. the army may cost a bunch, but it'll stand up to anything you might encounter because of the variety and versatility that only a combined-arms force can provide, ensuring that this army will last a VERY, VERY, VERY long time, lasting through many many battles WITHOUT retraining all but the skirmishers (who are traditionally there to be whittled away in the place of relatively more important units). i think cost effectiveness relates more to how you use your units as opposed to just spamming them.

one thing you might want to try is to gather enough money to create an army with, say the macedonians. get 3 units at least of pezhetairoi phalangites (but i highly recommend 2 pezhetairoi and 1 argyraspidai combination). get some decent spear-armed or sword-armed infantry to protect the flanks, and fend off any maneuver or attempt that would threaten the integrity of your line, thus ensuring that the pike wall is solid throughout the battle. i suggest you get 5 of them, 1 to protect the right, 1 to protect the left, and three to support any point on your line that needs supporting. get a decent amount of archers and slingers (i personally prefer 2 units of cretan or bosphoran archers and 1 of any kind of slinger, and 1 of any kind of low-level archer). use the archers to reduce the support of the enemy's heavy infantry, such as light infantry, skirmisher, and cavalry, so that they won't be too much of a nuisance later on in the battle. use the pikemen to create an impenetrable wall of pikes, at least 4 men deep, or if you have more pikes, 8.
this will be the men who will do the 'anvil' part of the alexandrian system - they will stand there, poke their sarissas at the men in front of them, whittle away the enemy soldiers' morale, stamina, and numbers (yes, even the elite ones). let them come to you. let them attack. let them wear themselves out. and of course, plug in any holes with your reserve infantry (the extra spear/sword-armed infantry). by this time it's a matter of sending your enemy straight to hell (or heaven, for that matter). that's where the cavalry comes in. have preferably the equivalent of 1/3 of your total force composed of cavalry. of these, have maybe 2 light cavalry for harassment, support, or 'clean up', though this isn't required. what is important is the medium cavalry with lances(like prodromoi, for quick strikes and even quicker retreats , or lonchophoroi, if you plan to hang on for a while - but only for a while) that'll do most of the charging. have them in reserve, preferably hidden, only moving if there is a threat that your infantry guarding the flanks can't deal with. wait for the right moment, then, when the enemy is down in morale and stamina, release them, circling to the rear and wiping out any opposition. then, reform, and or order them all - or at least, most of them - to charge at the same time. you will see that at the moment of impact, a wave of blinking flags - white, [color], white, [color] - will manifest itself throughout the enemy army, signifying a mass rout - and total victory.

you might think this tactic is too defensive for your liking. knowing that you are a very proficient gamer, i am sure that you can device another way to effectively use a combined-arms army of any faction. but just so you know, by using this tactic i was pretty successful. despite my lack of skill, i was able to to completely annihilate four and a half stacks with a 2/3rds stack. why just 2/3rds? because the army i'm using (as makedon of course) has been campaigning in italy for 35 years, with the same general (obviously an EB war god by now), fighting battle after battle(my last count was 106, i lost count after that), usually outnumbered at least 2 to 1, and getting like, 1500-3000 kills with only 10-50 casualties at the most. and what's more, in those 35 bloody years of war (or 140 EB turns) i only retrained 7 times. now that's cost-effectiveness for you.



p.s. : wow, i never thought reminiscing that campaign could be so fun!
it took 35 years because believe it or not, i was actually keeping rome alive.
the purpose was so that they could develop their armies not only so that i'll have bigger and bigger challenges, but also so that they could keep the northern peoples (arverni, aedui, etc.) in check. i even went to war with carthage 5 times, 2 aiding rome, and 3 fighting both (because they got into an alliance). i went so far as to give rome 50,000 mnai every 4 years as a gift, so they could continue to produce armies and be manipulated indefinitely. until now i'm in possession of just taras, rhegion, syrakusa, messana and lilibeo, although i'd occassionally rampage through italy and sack capua and rome, then give it back (of course not before being exterminated and stripped of every building in sight). i was even able to prevent rome from capturing the 3 northern, massively garrisoned eleutheroi cities (forgot the names, but one is ligurian i think, near where genoa is supposed to be) by keeping their armies constantly occupied (and constantly utterly defeated).

you see, after playing EB and RTW for four years now, i've gradually lost interest in this whole idea of 'conqueing the world is victory'. think about it. what if you could instead be a power broker of empires? what if instead of completely taking over a region, you could instead impose a protectorate and practically have a pet nation? just a thought i implemented- and it turned out great.

one other trick i employed is that i'd let multiple stacks attack me so that i won't have to waste time chasing them all over the map just to kill them. what i'd do is i'd goad them into battle by besieging one of their cities, and voila, instant enemy-magnet.

ok i'm off-topic. enough.




i hope this'll help you to appreciate EB more.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

You want to appreciate cavalry in EB?

Play the Casse for a while and see how much you 'enjoy' their chariots....now they are REALLY crap in melee.....

Or try the KH and use all-infantry armies against the Makedones, and watch your skirmishers being chased off the field by their Companion Cavalry.

[Olaf The Great]

Head East, young man. You will find fanatic adherents to just about all the factions here - so send that general question out knowing that. Start a new thread with a "best cavalry faction" and find yourself in the middle of a fine mess. There may be some insightful threads already out there - so do take a moment and check out some of the older pages.
I've played mostly Western Factions, so I am of little help. I do know that the Gallic Briethen (sp) cav is the best in the west. As for out East - ask away - just remember ..."I warned you!!"

Isn't the "Best in the West" those crazy Iberian Kataphraktoi?

[Midnj]

Isn't the "Best in the West" those crazy Iberian Kataphraktoi?

I'd say the Sacred Band is the best in the west as a pure cav unit. The Iberian Lancerii (or whatever) are probably the best melee cav, but then I was never a fan of melee cav in EB unless they're also a horse archer.

[Arkanin]

Hi guys, thanks for the replies, especially Glouch. I don't have time to respond to your entire post mate but I understand your point about cavalry not doing well toe to toe but I don't see that as the big picture.

I have finished a 1.1 campaign now and it is my opinion that the way cavalry behave is deeply flawed. In EB, cavalry cause almost no damage to any kind of unit without suffering major losses. Their only role then is to repeatedly charge flanks and retreat with minimal casualties to cause arbitrary morale loss and routing, not to actually injure units in any significant way. I have seen heavy cavalry fight skirmishers and route -- the lack of balance of cavalry as an actual combat piece is quite ridiculous.

Whenever I fight now, I bring two units of cavalry. I micro the cavalry to repeatedly charge flanks without ever connecting with infantry, and then chase down routers with it. Let's talk historical accuracy. One for one, mounted warriors should have an edge against infantry, i imagine, even "toe to toe". The reason is not equipment but the synergy of the confusion caused by a charge, and their continued mobility; cavalry units do not sit around while infantry whack on them but remain moving targets even as they enter a melee.

RTW has a mechanic that reflects this. Cavalry mass. In RTW cavalry penetrate enemy ranks, remain mobile, and cause much more damage to enemy units. In EB, they run up to the enemy with lances out, kill a few guys, and just stand there.

My proposal is that the "CHARGE BONUS" has a negligible affect on cavalry behavior -- it causes one or two casualties, while the "MASS", which has been nerfed, is what causes cavalry to behave like real cavalry -- disrupting enemy ranks, using their mobility to their advantage after a charge, and so on.

[Arkanin]

I understand if the EB team does not see balance issues the same way as me -- but since I believe a hidden attribute determines cavalry effectiveness and not "charge bonus", which has negligible effects, I am going to find and up cavalry mass to comport with old RTW settings and see how it plays.

So here is the question, if I want to increase cavalry mass, how do I go about doing that?

[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.

[QuintusSertorius]

Charges work perfectly fine, if you charge from the right distance. No horn, no proper contact.

Archers are rubbish, because in this period, archers were rubbish. Use slingers.