I really HATE AS cataphract reform

[Gaius Valerius]

So I'm playing a game with my favourite faction AS and for once I don't have a persistent crash. Now I'm looking to get the cataphract reform. The trouble begins here "lose 2 large battles against armies with cataphracts..." See... I can't lose battles anymore. I gave up halve the east for the Pahlava and they have stacks everywhere with mostly at least 1 cataphract.

BUT I KEEP WINNING... I tried everything: smaller armies, armies with weak units, but still I keep winning.

-And when I do lose nothing happens...

So how does this go down? I read in the FAQ that you need to lose with more than 250men, well that didn't work, I've had 2 generals lose a battle while they were commanding more than 250 men (against foe with cata) but nothing happened...

-Do they need to lose in the same year? Season?

-I use autocalc cause who can deliberately lose a battle?

-Or does starting a huge battle and then retreating (thus losing) work as well?


It's about 187 BCE and I'm starting to get real bored, I've trying to get that "intrigued by cataphracts" trait since 220 BCE but so far everything was futile....

Can anyone tell me in detail how to get this reform?

Or if possible how to tweak the script to get it? Though I'd rather unlock it.

[Korlon]

The FAQ says that it must be at least 253BC. You've clearly cleared that part of the requirements. It also says that two different generals must lose a large battle against either Hayasdan, Baktria, or Pahlava and apparently one of the generals have to die in the process of the battle. It says nothing about the armies actually needing to have cataphracts in them.

What unit size are you using? If it's huge, large, or even normal, I don't think that 250 units would be considered large.

So grab some stacks consisting of at least 10 units plus your general. Go east/northeast and start looking for large enemy stacks. I imagine this would easier on harder campaign difficulties. I suggest trying to lose without doing an autoresolve.

It's easy to lose a battle like that. First off, deploy your units as far away as possible from the enemy. Secondly, start making them run around, being in very bad formation. The enemy will probably be walking towards you, try to get to exhausted status for all troops. And make sure your general isn't too great either. The less hitpoints for the sacrificial general the better, but better morale traits is ok since you want the general to be fighting till the end and not run out when his bodyguard gets down to only a few units as he usually does in my own campaign battles.

When the enemy comes, keep your armies running around. Turn off all fire at wills. When you see the enemy, throw your general to the middle of their ranks, preferably some spearmen if you see them, and tell him to either stop with guard mode or just let him fight. Try to get him surrounded. The other guys can just sit there doing nothing if you want, but try to get close so the general gets the morale bonus for having friendly units nearby. Once the general dies, the battle should be good as lost. Congratulations! You just lost a battle, on purpose! You masochist.

[Hooahguy]

You masochist.

[Tellos Athenaios]

See. That's why we probably should remove Seleukid Cataphracts for the next version of EB. And bring in the Arcani instead. <_<

Now, seriously though: a reform. Why would any of your brilliant commanders bother with reforming their armies if they simply kept on winning? Why would you purposefully send them on suicide missions? As a matter of fact, why would you adopt a clearly doomed-to-fail Parthian novelty - in your infinte wisdom as rightful heir of he-who-conquered-all? Or so the stories your mother told you go anyways. Just drive the Parthian upstarts back to their wasted steppes, and re-conquer the empire of M. Alexandros. The cute horsies can wait, and will come eventually...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Apart from cheating, one can look up the coded requirements. Either way the magic is all there in the code and it *does* require you atm to run on hughe or at least large unit sizes. Other sizes make it virtually impossible to reach the required numbers.

Should that be your problem, or if you really get fed up trying you can *award* your FM's a brand new shining Intrigued by Kataphraktoi trait... <_<

[Korlon]

I looked over the character traits. It's simple enough to look for. The trait's name is ImpressedByCats. However, I saw the Intrigued by Kataphractoi first so when I looked at it, I had a little "wtf?" moment. Then afterwards a little "oh, right" moment. It's the OTHER type of cat. The one that kills instead of purrs.

[Watchman]

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

See. That's why we probably should remove Seleukid Cataphracts for the next version of EB. And bring in the Arcani instead. <_<

Now, seriously though: a reform. Why would any of your brilliant commanders bother with reforming their armies if they simply kept on winning? Why would you purposefully send them on suicide missions? As a matter of fact, why would you adopt a clearly doomed-to-fail Parthian novelty - in your infinte wisdom as rightful heir of he-who-conquered-all? Or so the stories your mother told you go anyways. Just drive the Parthian upstarts back to their wasted steppes, and re-conquer the empire of M. Alexandros. The cute horsies can wait, and will come eventually...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Apart from cheating, one can look up the coded requirements. Either way the magic is all there in the code and it *does* require you atm to run on hughe or at least large unit sizes. Other sizes make it virtually impossible to reach the required numbers.

Should that be your problem, or if you really get fed up trying you can *award* your FM's a brand new shining Intrigued by Kataphraktoi trait... <_<

Word. Hetairoi all the way, speed and tight turns beat men in tin suits.

[Korlon]

What about those Hetaroi Kataphractoi then?

[Hax]

Pah! Baktrian scum. True Seleukidai would never allow his bodyguard to wear stinking Pahlav armour!

[Tellos Athenaios]

True Seleukidai don't exist, though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hax shall write a hundred times: "I shall not misspell Seleukides."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about those Hetaroi Kataphractoi then?

I've never had a problem with them, to be honest they're overrated, Hypaspists and Hetairoi grouped together bring them down fast enough. Mind you, most of my Hetairoi are high on XP these days.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Actually... the dillemma is even more wonderful than you might've noticed:

Seleukides. Confirmed, exist. But it's not the right word.

Seleukidai. Or Seleukides (sg.) -> Not within the TLG, and as a matter of fact the right patronimicum appears to be Seleukeus. (According to the TLG anyways.) From 'tois Seleukidais' (1 source, uses it a grand total of 4 times) we learn that Seleukdai might've existed, only the question is (as seems to be confirmed with the total lack of Seleukidai/Seleukidais elsewhere) 'do we have a source here which uses dodgy Greek itself?' Then there is the issue that other patronimica are more widespread:

Seleukeis... And various other deratives of Seleukeus appear to be most widespread and frequent. Which is quite relative, considering that it's all something like ~5-40 hits. Only Seleukeia (the city) and Seleukos (the man) and their various conjugations get anything like a substantial 'post count' - i.e 200+.

Then there is another, less frequent 'class': Seleukeios.
Or rather Seleukeioi, since were talking plural here.. But I've got a feeling that it somehow intimately connected with the city itself... It is however the only thing to be retrieved through Perseus' dictionary. And in fact, it can pass for a valid patronimicum as well... Yet it is even less common than Seleukidais (it's got only 1 hit total).

And according to Middle Liddel Seleukis is a cup named after Seleukos, the word is used by Ploutarchos...

[Mr Frost]

...Why would any of your brilliant commanders bother with reforming their armies if they simply kept on winning?

Same reason the Aircraft Carrier and the Dive Bomber were invented . Neither had any real effect on the outcome of WWI and certainly didn't seem vital to the Allies whom invented them {the first actual dive bomber wasn't even designed until well after the war was over} , yet they were invented .
Then they were systematically developed at very great expense in the case of the carrier after the war despite much of the military high command and government of most countries involved considering the Battleship and various cruisers the real fighting power of a navy and massed level bombing to be the best way to deliver bombs .

...
As a matter of fact, why would you adopt a clearly doomed-to-fail Parthian novelty - in your infinte wisdom as rightful heir of he-who-conquered-all?

The Germans were completely defeated after WWII , to the point the victorious Allies could have done anything to the Germans with virtual impunity , yet they eagerly adopted many German wartime developments {not just military , many medical developments still used today , hypothermia treatment techniques being one good example any have you ever driven a cheap 1960s Volkswagon ?} .
By your reasoning , we wouldn't have adopted the ICBM {a V2 missile development} , Assault Rifle , command guided missile , surface to air and air to air guided and homing missiles {many early post war missiles were developed from german work , sometimes by German scientists} and lets not forget the space program having Werner to thank .
Even WWI gives a good example : the Germans invented the modern SMG and the commando like Stormtrooper is a clear forrunner of WWII British and Commonwealth Commandos .

Of course during both wars , both sides copied each others' developments with great eagerness .

You don't have to actually lose to be impressed enough with a the performance of a unit or piece of equiptment to decide to adopt it yourself .





P.S. is it me , or is it sad the spell checker doesn't even know words like equiptment exist , let alone how to spell them ?

[Conqueror]

I've never had a problem with them, to be honest they're overrated, Hypaspists and Hetairoi grouped together bring them down fast enough. Mind you, most of my Hetairoi are high on XP these days.

I think Hypaspists and Hetairoi grouped together would bring down just about any cavalry unit. Anyway, the Baktrian late general's unit has the coolest looking helmets in all of EB, which to me is enough of a reason to favor them over the Seleukids (no I won't even attempt a greek spelling)

You don't have to actually lose to be impressed enough with a the performance of a unit or piece of equiptment to decide to adopt it yourself .

But how would you determine in-game when a general is impressed with cataphracts, when IIRC there is no way to even check whether or not there were any cataphracts in the army you just fought against?

P.S. is it me , or is it sad the spell checker doesn't even know words like equiptment exist , let alone how to spell them ?

Maybe because it's spelled equipment?

[anubis88]

of course you can check the enemy army. Just click at their general when the before battle screen starts

[Conqueror]

I meant how to determine it by scripting / trait triggers. What the human player sees doesn't help making reforms happen, does it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

of course you can check the enemy army. Just click at their general when the before battle screen starts

He means in the triggers.

[Mr Frost]

Maybe because it's spelled equipment?

And the spell checker cannot figure that with just one single letter wrong ?
One letter !

[Mr Frost]

But how would you determine in-game when a general is impressed with cataphracts, when IIRC there is no way to even check whether or not there were any cataphracts in the army you just fought against?

Same could then be said in the current system {being sure there was a Katatank in the enemy stack} .
It might be possible however to deduce if a stack has a general in it and whist it could be a merc general , it is most likely a family member instead and for the factions in question that is a reasonable way to assume "Kats were here" .

Even so , it might be better to base it on how many battles against the Katafactions in which you lose x% of men {win or lose} . The game seems to be able to deduce such stats judging by some vanilla VnVs . Lets say 10 battles where you {or the A.I.} lose say 1/3 of your army {against the Kat using factions} and there is a good chance you {or the A.I.} will have faced Kats and have a reasonable excuse to develop them yourself . Then require a Family member to survive such a battle whom has the Sharp VnV to get the Katfetish VnV .
Certainly it could use tweaking , but perhaps it would work .


Having to play on large or huge sizes means for some the reform will never happen which is a shame for those with Kmart computers {pity the underprivileged gamers } .








P.S. Ok , now the Spell Checker doesn't know what Kmart is ; wanna tell me that is spelled wrong ?!1

[Watchman]

That's a name, not a 'word'. Not quite the same thing.

And, yes, although some databases may be clever enough to offer you a "did you mean...?" alternative, getting one letter wrong does matter. Especially if it's flat out wrong and not, say, an alternative spelling (eg. equipment - equipement).

[Ibrahim]

Same could then be said in the current system {being sure there was a Katatank in the enemy stack} .
It might be possible however to deduce if a stack has a general in it and whist it could be a merc general , it is most likely a family member instead and for the factions in question that is a reasonable way to assume "Kats were here" .

Even so , it might be better to base it on how many battles against the Katafactions in which you lose x% of men {win or lose} . The game seems to be able to deduce such stats judging by some vanilla VnVs . Lets say 10 battles where you {or the A.I.} lose say 1/3 of your army {against the Kat using factions} and there is a good chance you {or the A.I.} will have faced Kats and have a reasonable excuse to develop them yourself . Then require a Family member to survive such a battle whom has the Sharp VnV to get the Katfetish VnV .
Certainly it could use tweaking , but perhaps it would work .


Having to play on large or huge sizes means for some the reform will never happen which is a shame for those with Kmart computers {pity the underprivileged gamers } .








P.S. Ok , now the Spell Checker doesn't know what Kmart is ; wanna tell me that is spelled wrong ?!1

K-mart or Kmart are fine-it's just such a fail nowadays that it is no longer remembered

[mea]

This is similar to the op topic, and ive looked through the forum and couldnt find detailed instuctions on how to get the cataphract reforms. Ive heard you need at least 250 men (on small unit size? so multiply by 4 for huge units size?), and 2 different generals to loose. Ive also heard you need certain odds, for the enemy to have lots of cats in the army you lose to, and for your general to get an impressed by cats and beaten by cats trait. Also, could i jsut build 2 armies of 1 general, and 9 levy hellenic spearmen and have that lose to trigger the reform, or do i have to have better troops.

So, do both generals have to die, in two differnet battles, or do they have to jsut lose some of their bodyguard and still live but lose the battle, and how much of the stuff in paragraph one is true. Im playing the seleukid campaign, its 220 bc, and ive pushed armenia out to northern georgia and am fighting against a very large baktrian kingdom, and i would like to get my reform.

[Tellos Athenaios]

P.S. is it me , or is it sad the spell checker doesn't even know words like equiptment exist , let alone how to spell them ?

I guess that's you, since IIRC there's no such word. Equipment, now, that's another matter.

I wasn't being too serious about the Kataphraktoi; but one must understand that the comparisons you made are not only flawed (the English suffered quite a bit more from V2's than the OP apparently suffered from Cats...), they are completely beside the point as well: the Cataphract reforms, just like the Marians for the Romani, indicate a necessity to change a particular component of the army. It has not really anything to do with keeping up with the times, but it has everything to do with some serious military issues: in casu (the Seleukids) the trouble with the Nomadic/Semi-Nomadic Cataphracts or (the Romans) the lack of men capable of serving as the mainstay of the army.