The Absolutely Best Heavy Cavalry in EB...

**artavazd** · 12-15-2008, 22:56

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

Damn if we do, damn if we don't

I think we need some extensive play-testing to see that they are not monstrously over-powered. Like I said before, the idea with four of the game's statistically most powerful and comparably equipped bodyguards (Armenian, Sacae, Bactrian and Parthian bodyguards) is that in the player's hands, it should be able to defeat the AI's bodyguard unit due to the added melee weapons. So, in idea the statistically "weakest" of the four (Or at least intended to be), the Sacae bodyguard should in the player's hands be able to defeat late Bactrian bodyguards under AI control and vice versa. The reference point here is the player's advantage against the AI. The emphasis is that these four should be comparably strong, not equally strong, but still strong enough so that in the player's hand they are able to defeat the AI counter-part (There isn't that much we can do about the AI).

The original concern was that the Parthian bodyguard was particularly weak in this sense (In the player's point of view); they would lose big-time if they switched to swords against AI Armenian, Sacae and Bactrian bodyguards (Who were still using lances). At least that needs fixing. However it is equally true that we should not make them more monstrous than they ought to be.

I'm willing to go lower as long as the core issue is solved. Maybe start around 0.15 lethality + AP. Unfortunately, time available for play-testing this is sparse... So, anyone able to volunteer for testing and tweaking values and reporting this will be highly appreciated.

HMM.. i Think 0.150 leathality with Ap would be good (I havent done any testing) now the mace is 0.165 Ap with a lower attack value than a longsword. If we make the Parthian bodyguards longsword a 0.150 with AP damage it will do about the same amount of damage against armored enemies as the mace does, but would be greater against unarmored foes. That sounds about right. However I have not tested this, it is just my guess from looking at the attack values at both the mace and the longsword.

**NeoSpartan** · 12-16-2008, 00:35

hum...... I don't know fellas...

This is why things like the falx, mace, axe, and pick are AP:

Longs swords.... don't really do this kind of damage.

The problem with AP in RTW engine is that it take out 1/2 of the enemies armor. I can see how that makes sence if you are hitting them with a falx, mace, axe, or a pick. But a long sword, not really, as they don't deliver the same pressure in a small area (like an axe does) in order to break through the armor.

A long sword can do some AP, I am not going against that, but not the degree of the above mentioned weapons. If anything their AP should be "minus 1/4 armor".... but we can't do that. On top of that, if we reduce the lethality of the long sword, to the same as an axe, so that it may be AP and not be an overpowering/unbalanced weapon in the game. Then the "slash and kill" power of the long sword vs regular/light units is wasted.

In my view long swords should be left as they are, a high lethality weapon. Since we can't mess with the AP values.

Now.... what to do about the Parthian Gy..... (sp) guys.... 2 options:
1. Give them a mace/pick/axe.
2. Do what I do: Use the AP lance against heavily armored units, and the sword vs regular/light units.

When I played with my Aedui Brenthin (sp) cavarly whenever I fought Hetareoi (sp), Pontus FM, or any other heavily armored unit I let the fight with their spears. But when I fought Hippeis (sp), Peltats, or any other regular or light unit I switch to swords.

**The Persian Cataphract** · 12-16-2008, 01:26

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

This is of course pure folly solution-wise. The alternative weapons are there for a reason, and especially after a cavalry charge, the shock weapon was more than often discarded due to its handling. This is especially true for the kontos/kontarion. The AP-feature was intended from the start and during their conception, and it is not negotiable. Leaving them without AP will not fix the critical flaw, and will leave these bodyguards better off in stand-still melee with gigantic toothpicks rather than brandishing swords perfectly capable of inflicting damage against most types of armour, in particular with the added momentum inherent of skilled horsemen.

The least I will go, and I believe I already made this compromise fairly established, is to leave the recruitable elite cataphracts as they are. The rationale is more sound here, to send even these highly elite cavalry to chase skirmishers where their swords will do wonders. The Parthian bodyguard will need to be prepared against most other units, and will therefore follow the "ping-pong principle" between the other three high-end cataphract bodyguards of the mod.

I will play-test the duels with all the mentioned bodyguards, plot down their kill-loss ratios and iterate it three times in order to get a consistent average value (This is gauged by switching to alternative weapons after a charge). I will then apply AP+0.15 lethality to the Parthian Late Bodyguards and match it off with the ratios of the three other bodyguards; if it is found within accepted margins, it passes. If not, I will continue to tweak the lethality value up or down, depending on the given values, until I'll hit the spot. Once that has been done, it will be available as an optional fix.

Anyone who wishes may follow suit.

Finally, cataphracts weren't used to chase skirmishers. Ironically, club-armed light infantry would prove to be their bane, especially in regards to factors such as heat-loss, and cold legs affecting the stamina of super-heavy cavalry. They became clumps of fact, which of course is a reminder of their natural role: To simple orchestrate a strong frontal charge in order to decide the battle as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. You don't send out a squadron of ambling horsemen riding knee-to-knee to screen a force of skirmishers harassing one of the flanks. The armament of such a heavily armed and armoured horseman were designed to combat heavily armed contingents. We're not just talking about lances, we're talking swords, maces and axes. A late Sassanian dish from Kulargysh shows dismounted cavalry fighting against each other with a wide array of weapons with several ones broken from extensive use laying on the ground.

The Roman scutum isn't an adequate referential article either; apparently the shield-structure of many scuta collapsed during the battle of Carrhaë rendering a number of these of little to no practical worth. The argument has a flipside, a falx won't be as shock-effective against an aspis due to its pull-action handling; a longsword from a mounted soldier against said aspis will be felt mor significantly, so clearly first we have to define what "AP" really is. Armour-piercing isn't exactly the characteristics of a mace or a battle-axe. Sounds more like a Sagaris battle-pick or something else capable of inflicting puncture-type wounds. These were all somehow effective against armour, but in different ways. The question we should be asking isn't "how concentrated is the area of pressure/energy", but rather how much. A longsword will indeed distribute this energy differently, but inadequately?

Thus having the Late Bodyguard as it is right now, is not just out of the question, but keeping them as they are because they are effective against skirmishers just doesn't make any sense. Ultimately, it will only be the choice of the player to apply a future fix, but I intend for them to be bodyguards in the truest meaning of that word. The Kopis does apparently have AP, and while it does incorporate some of the features of an axe, it does not, as per according to your argument distribute that much energy over an equivalent measure of area. There really is nothing more to the issue.

The real problem to consider is actually stamina and what lessons we can draw from RTW and improve for M2TW statistically; ideally the cataphract charge should have momentum, but much lesser staying power as time passes.

**Woreczko** · 12-16-2008, 09:56

TPC, after reading this thread and thinking a little, I`m pondering on giving ap attribute to all melee weapons. Reasoning:
1. At high armour ratings, which are quite common in EB ap weapons are MUCH more effective than normal ones. If your opponent has 10 armour (for example humble thureophoroi) an ap soldier has a +5 attack compared to a regular one. That`s too much of an advantage IMHO. And remember, that there a lot of units, who have more than 10 armour...
2. It seems reasonable to me, that an ancient suit of armour would be more effective vs missiles (hence no ap for missiles save those, who already have it) than melee weapons. Even a heavily armoured soldier may be knocked on the ground and have his throat cut by a dagger.
3. Armoured soldiers would be much more vulnerable from their backs, where their defense skill does not work - which is a good thing IMHO. Keeping formation would be important for everyone.

This "solution" does have an obvius downsides. First of all, we will no longer have units who are more effective at killing armoured foes - less tactical diversity. Next, all weapons, which already had an ap attribute would need to be rebalanced (by increasing their lethality or attack)

**NeoSpartan** · 12-16-2008, 22:39

Originally Posted by Woreczko

TPC, after reading this thread and thinking a little, I`m pondering on giving ap attribute to all melee weapons. Reasoning:
1. At high armour ratings, which are quite common in EB ap weapons are MUCH more effective than normal ones. If your opponent has 10 armour (for example humble thureophoroi) an ap soldier has a +5 attack compared to a regular one. That`s too much of an advantage IMHO. And remember, that there a lot of units, who have more than 10 armour...
2. It seems reasonable to me, that an ancient suit of armour would be more effective vs missiles (hence no ap for missiles save those, who already have it) than melee weapons. Even a heavily armoured soldier may be knocked on the ground and have his throat cut by a dagger.
3. Armoured soldiers would be much more vulnerable from their backs, where their defense skill does not work - which is a good thing IMHO. Keeping formation would be important for everyone.

This "solution" does have an obvius downsides. First of all, we will no longer have units who are more effective at killing armoured foes - less tactical diversity. Next, all weapons, which already had an ap attribute would need to be rebalanced (by increasing their lethality or attack)

right and you end up right back at vanilla RTW killing rates.....

no offence but thats where thats headed.

**NeoSpartan** · 12-16-2008, 23:19

I see where you are going with this TPC...

Although I am not yet jumping on the "big sword = AP" wagon, and I said "light troops" as an example (not claiming that running down skemishers was the role of catas).......

......I can see that, in the case of the Parthian FM, it does make sence if you are trying to simulate the other AP weapons they carried. Since the RTW engine won't let us. Other than that I am not convinced that long swords were armored piercing/breaking/trauma causing weapons by swinging them (unless you get a good swing at a guys head). You may have better chances at getting through mail with a powerful straight stab, but with plate (iron or bronze) forget it. And catas use small metal plates.

Another thing..... Be mindful that as a result of reducing attack and lethality to give a good working AP to Parthian FM (and not overpower them) they will be less effective against units such as the Theuroporoi (sp), Bataroas, Hoplitai, etc due to the lower lethality of the weapon, and the lack of heavy armor these guys fight with. (again RTW engine issues, maybe in EBII something can done about this)

**The Persian Cataphract** · 12-17-2008, 00:12

Yes. For now, we are rather limited in the question due to engine limitations. For EB2 I am hopeful to say that there might be room for a lot of improvement stat-wise so that they are more dynamic instead of rock-paper-scissor arbitrary. As before, in the suggestion that I will soon be about to recommend, will purely be optional.

In fact, I will only suggest copy-paste values in the fix-thread. Those who want Parthian élite d'élite to remain highly effective against lightly armed infantry, can keep the default settings. Those who want the bodyguards, and indeed, even the recruitable elite cataphracts, to bear a closer resemblance to the three other high-grade super-heavy cavalry will have a reliable alternative to resort to.