umm...

[Tollheit]

I'd even say they are still easily the most efficient ranged foot soldiers in EB, especially so against armoured opponents.
On the use and usefulness of cavalry:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103172

[Vuk]

The AI stupidity cannot be modded and is the same as in RTW.

And the slingers... they are good enough if used correctly

So what if they can be used effectively under the correct circumstances? The point of this mod to represent things realisticly, and that could have been easily achieved by simply setting a few values to something different. The problem is that the modders (despite how excellently they did with other aspects of the game) are not well enough informed about the warfare of the time. The way battles in RTW were worked too, but they were also wrong. EB's battles hardly play any more realistically than vanilla's.

I'd even say they are still easily the most efficient ranged foot soldiers in EB, especially so against armoured opponents.
On the use and usefulness of cavalry:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103172

Come on, if you have three units of some of the best cavalry in the game you can take down ONE unit of infantry after charging multiple times. lol, why not just have three units of infantry? That is my whole poine, cavalry is useless. And regardless of how useful it is, the big point here is that it is unrealistic.

Anyway, I may release my rebalance when I am done, then people can have realistic battles as well as campaign.

[Phalanx300]

EB battles are realistic, and not well informed? Are you joking???

[SwissBarbar]

So what if they can be used effectively under the correct circumstances? The point of this mod to represent things realisticly, and that could have been easily achieved by simply setting a few values to something different. The problem is that the modders (despite how excellently they did with other aspects of the game) are not well enough informed about the warfare of the time. The way battles in RTW were worked too, but they were also wrong. EB's battles hardly play any more realistically than vanilla's.

That's what I say. The EB team is bound to the limits of hardcoded RTW-aspects.

Come on, if you have three units of some of the best cavalry in the game you can take down ONE unit of infantry after charging multiple times. lol, why not just have three units of infantry? That is my whole poine, cavalry is useless. And regardless of how useful it is, the big point here is that it is unrealistic.

Anyway, I may release my rebalance when I am done, then people can have realistic battles as well as campaign.

In reality, if you have nothing but "3 units" of cavalry against nothing but "1 unit" of heavily armoured Hoplitai with long spears, they also would be repulsed. The thing is to use cavalry properly in battle, in cooperation with the rest of your army. If you use cavalry how it should be used, you can roll up a line and make a whole army of 3000 men rout with your 3 units of heavy cavalry.

[Mediolanicus]

So what if they can be used effectively under the correct circumstances? The point of this mod to represent things realisticly, and that could have been easily achieved by simply setting a few values to something different. The problem is that the modders (despite how excellently they did with other aspects of the game) are not well enough informed about the warfare of the time. The way battles in RTW were worked too, but they were also wrong. EB's battles hardly play any more realistically than vanilla's.



Come on, if you have three units of some of the best cavalry in the game you can take down ONE unit of infantry after charging multiple times. lol, why not just have three units of infantry? That is my whole poine, cavalry is useless. And regardless of how useful it is, the big point here is that it is unrealistic.

Anyway, I may release my rebalance when I am done, then people can have realistic battles as well as campaign.

Of course the battles play the same as in Vanilla. Battle AI is hard coded. Nothing the modders can legaly do something about.

Cavalry is pretty effective when I use them. They can kill everything as long as you don't leave lance-armed horses in melee. And use them in a supportive role most of the time. As Swiss Barbar said 3, and even 2 (I use an FM and a unit of equites extraordinarii in my campaign) can mob up a whole army 3000 men strong while taking about 10-20 casualties in total.

If you can't get used to fight with them then change their stats, but plaese don't come saying the EB team did a bad job and made battles unrealistical and should change everything because you say so.

[anubis88]

yeah... The cavalry is very strong in EB if you use it as it was supposed to be used, there is no non spear armed unit that could defeat a good charge by heavy armoured cavalry.

If the slings would be so effective as you suggest, then instead of a roman empire we would have a rhodian empire... If slings would be so effective, ie completly destroy a formation why weren't they used more? In fact, why were the slingers most of the time from the lowest level's of society?

If the sling was so effective, it would be use more often

[Mediolanicus]

Slings are very effective but require years of training before they can be so effective.

That's why only the lowest classes used them. They learned slinging by playing as a kid and hunting afterwards.
For a professional army it would take to long to learn. Archers are almost as deadly, can be used from behind your own lines and are much more easier to learn to use effectively.

In EB: western archers < slingers < eastern archers (with a few exceptions of course).

[Tollheit]

I can rout one unit of Hoplitai with one unit of cavalry by frontal charges, and that is not how cavalry should be used.

[Vuk]

The Roman Empire (and Republic) DID use slingers. The reason that they did not dominate the battle are threefold.
1. They could not be concentrated easily like archers, because they needed a lot of room to shoot (I have done it myself, so I know :P)
2. If the enemy hard large shields they could get up to enemy slingers taking very few losses.
3. To be a good slinger took a lifetime of experience (which is why I am such a lousy one :P).

As to the cavalry comments, I am not saying they should be able to roll pikemen (like the guy who did the tutorial tried), but they should be a lot more mortal (ei, take a heck of a lot more damage), and do a LOT more charge damage. (and no, I am not saying that they should launch enemies like Vanilla had) And to avoid confusion, I am talking about heavy charging cavalry, not horse archers or something. Every unit should be more mortal, ranged units overall need to do more damage, infantry has to be a little slower, shields have to count for a bit more, and shock troops need more charge damage. That is my (un)proffesional opinion.

[Lovejoy]

Cavalry bad? You must be joking. Look in the MP-thread, even against humans opponents cavalry is game winners. Hetairoi is almost over powered in multiplayer - as romans you cant stop them.

Are you sure you know how to use cav correctly? They need a long chage space etc.


And the thing is, you cant make everything realistic. You must balance things. If they made slingers even more powerful, you would only need 5 slingers to beat ANY Gaul army. Is that realistic?

The battlefields in Rome Total War are like football fields: flat and you have a good view of everything. Slingers can target WHATEVER unit he wishes on the ENTIRE battlefield. If we went by your suggestion, you could simply take 5 slingers and kill the general in EVERY fight before the battle have even started. Is that realistic?

You see, you cant simply take one unit and say, "look this is wrong!". You need to look at it from a bigger picture.

[Vuk]

Cavalry bad? You must be joking. Look in the MP-thread, even against humans opponents cavalry is game winners. Hetairoi is almost over powered in multiplayer - as romans you cant stop them.

Are you sure you know how to use cav correctly? They need a long chage space etc.


And the thing is, you cant make everything realistic. You must balance things. If they made slingers even more powerful, you would only need 5 slingers to beat ANY Gaul army. Is that realistic?

The battlefields in Rome Total War are like football fields: flat and you have a good view of everything. Slingers can target WHATEVER unit he wishes on the ENTIRE battlefield. If we went by your suggestion, you could simply take 5 slingers and kill the general in EVERY fight before the battle have even started. Is that realistic?

You see, you cant simply take one unit and say, "look this is wrong!". You need to look at it from a bigger picture.

lol, the answer is to give it all an overhaul. Make formations count for more, make shields count for more, give slingers a very loose formation and have them do lower damage than archers, but do AP damage. Up the charge damage of shock units, lower the speed of infantry, make new maps, etc. All these things would go a long way toward making the big picture more realistic.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and distinguise between peasant slinger levys and professional slingers with cost, training time, etc. The training time for good slingers should be very high. In MP that could be balanced by adding to the cost.

[Lovejoy]

lol, the answer is to give it all an overhaul. Make formations count for more, make shields count for more, give slingers a very loose formation and have them do lower damage than archers, but do AP damage. Up the charge damage of shock units, lower the speed of infantry, make new maps, etc. All these things would go a long way toward making the big picture more realistic.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and distinguise between peasant slinger levys and professional slingers with cost, training time, etc. The training time for good slingers should be very high. In MP that could be balanced by adding to the cost.

Heh, not everything can be done.

Formation - not much can be done. what do u wanna do?

Shields are very strong is EB. Thats why many units don't take much dmg from skirmishers and slingers.

Slingers do have AP(most of them) and have weaker attacks than archers AFAIK.

Not much can be done about the maps. The AI only know how to use these kind of terrains - besides: most things are hardcoded.