umm...

[cmacq]

I heard so many raves about EB, so I decided to download it and try it myself. I gotta say, truely a fantastic job of overhauling the game system, representing provnices, units, characters, etc. It really is quite a breathtaking achievement. There is one part of it where I really felt it fell flat though. I know there are lots of fans of this mod, and I am not trying to be a jerk here, but the way battles play out is really quite unrealistic. Archers are undervalued, cavalry is almost completely useless, damage is quite off, and the AI does some random and pretty ridiculous things. Now before you rip me apart for stating my opinion, let me clarify something. I am not an ignorant noob who wants ridiculous tank cavalry that can roll everything like in RTW, and I am not clueless as to weaponry of the time. In fact, quite the opposite. Apart from having read a vast variety of sources on the subject, I have created and used my own archaic weaponry and armour. While not an expert, and not everything I have made has turned out, I none-the-less have a working knowledge of ancient equipment.
For example, let's take slingers. A good slinger could outrange the average bowman at this time, and be quite a bit more accurate. There are lots of good sources that cite the accuracy and range of slingers, but the best IMO is the Bible (I leave it up to you whether to accept this as a creditable source or not). I forget in which book of the Bible it says that the slingers of Benjiman could hit a bird in flight from some (I forget exactly) very long range. I made and have used a sling (three in fact) myself, and while I remain very unskilled with it, I have gotten a taste for its power. My biggest objection with the slingers lies in the description. The description says that they fling rocks at the enemy. Most Hellenic slingers at least at this time used lead bullets, not stones. They flew faster, with more accuracy, and could cause devestating damage - easily being able to kill an armoured man without even necassarily damaging his armour. While many peasants used smaller slings and stones to herd sheep, and often only brought that into battle, more professional slingers had more professional equipment, with hemp slings and lead bullets. I decided to have a unit of Rhodian slingers pour into a units of unshielded infantry and LO AND BEHOLD! About FIVE darned men dropped dead! WTH! They would have destroyed the entire first row and reaked havoc on the rest. Slingers were limited because of the nature of their weapon, but when used correctly they were extremely devestating, their long range could keep archers and horse archers away, and they slaughtered armoured soldiers. They are just one example of how horribly wrong battles play in EB.

*rant over*
Sorry if I ranted too much, but trust me, the reason for my abject disappointment with this aspect of the game is my love of other aspects of it.
I will still play the mod, but just auto resolve battles. Overall I think the mod is excellent, and I assure you that I will be doing my best to rebalance the battles myself.
Good luck on part 2, I will play it.
Vuk

A rant about the 'king of battle,' the sling, under-strength, as for the ratio of kills per volley??? Have not seen that one for awhile. Of course, this is why the sling has controlled the outcome of every battle until the coming of the first nuke? Although you protest otherwise, as introspection, do you think the problems you’re finding with EB have something to do with either your perception, level of experience, or intrinsic abilities? I’m Just asking the obvious and what most that read your comments are thinking.

For example try using the slingers against the rear or right flank of an enemy, yet with 6 or 7 kills per volley then you may complain the casualties caused are extreme or excessive?




CmacQ

[heldelance]

Cavalry are horrific things. Horrid armored bastards that can ruin your day (actually even light lancers can wreck your day). The only cavalry that sucks in close combat are the ones without lances/spears/whatever. You may think cavalry sucks and they're underpowered but you couldn't be farther from the truth. All cavalry sucks against pikemen, even infantry suck when front attacking pikemen, against hoplite style units however... Get some heavily armored cavalry (25+) and have some good offensive infantry backing them and here's a killer frontal tactic. Charge the cavalry head on and even hoplites break lines and then your infantry can get in and slaughter them with ease.

Other than that, cavalry is supposed to be used as the hammer, infantry pin the enemies and due to their speed, cavalry will get behind the enemy much faster than infantry can.

Slingers need to be used correctly, sure they don't have the range of Cretan archers but good slingers (rhodian slingers for one) will kill cataphracts dead. against armor, slingers are great, they're like the mid point between javelineers and archers, less damage than a javelin but greater range and they have AP (All of them do I think) which makes them indispensable when fighting heavy armor.
Can anyone verify that slingers suck against units with good shields? My slingers seemed to smash units with high armor and low shields but when fighting say hastati, they didn't do as much damage.

[Vuk]

A rant about the 'king of battle,' the sling, under-strength, as for the ratio of kills per volley??? Have not seen that one for awhile. Of course, this is why the sling has controlled the outcome of every battle until the coming of the first nuke? Although you protest otherwise, as introspection, do you think the problems you’re finding with EB have something to do with either your perception, level of experience, or intrinsic abilities? I’m Just asking the obvious and what most that read your comments are thinking.

For example try using the slingers against the rear or right flank of an enemy, yet with 6 or 7 kills per volley then you may complain the casualties caused are extreme or excessive?




CmacQ

Trust me, it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system.

[Zett]

Trust me, it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system.

First read this. Approach the discussion openly, sources in hand, but willing to listen.

If you present some sources or evidences about your view, this agumentation wouldn't be only about "I said this, you said that".

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Vuk]

First read this. Approach the discussion openly, sources in hand, but willing to listen.

If you present some sources or evidences about your view, this agumentation wouldn't be only about "I said this, you said that".

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

2 things, first of all, I am in Hungary now, several thousand miles from any of my sources.
Second of all, a part of my evidence was based on my own experience, and so not testable. I am not a sloppy historian (in fact, will not be a historian at all technically for another year), but right now it is a little hard to get at anything. You can check my thread in the Frontroom if you do not believe me BTW, I am in Hungary studying (just got here two months ago).

[A Very Super Market]

Just a question, you aren't playing on very hard difficulty are you?

[Mediolanicus]

Trust me, it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system.

Go complain to CA if you don't like the battle system. As said previously, that's hard coded.

Just a question, you aren't playing on very hard difficulty are you?

If this is the case, I'm going to laugh very, very hard...

[cmacq]

Trust me, it is not their overall effectiveness that I find fault with, but their historically inaccurate battlefield role and capabilities. The same can be said for most other things in the battle system.

Your words make trust impossible. Capabilities = Role = Overall effectiveness

...this is madness!


CmacQ

[Vuk]

Your statements make trust impossible. Capabilities = Role = Overall effectiveness

...this is madness!


CmacQ

I said that their roles and capabilities were inaccurate, not uneffective. If no one is even gonna take the time to read what I write, I will not bother arguing on this thread. I will make my own rebalance and let you critique that.

[A Very Super Market]

What difficulty are you on?

[seienchin]

Of course EB Battles are unrealistic and there are many strange things like the almighty Phalangitai, but the slinger are quite powerfull in EB.
But my goodness... Cavalery in EB is completly messed up (Thanks to Vanilla ^^).
Shock Cavallery like medievial nights were unthinkable in the EB time. Without saddles its impossible to stay on your horse, when using your spear to penetrate something. But on the other hand Cavallery dies very quick in close combat or like the cataphraktoi can perform impossible tasks like stay alive alone rounded by 100s of spear men... But the Generals are just hilarious... They just take way to many hits...
But I like the EB Battles.
They are just 10times funnier than Vanilla ones

[Visitor13]

Vuk, so are you playing on Very Hard battle difficulty or not? Because this may be the cause of your problems.

[Cute Wolf]

RTW Vanilla, slingers are just another versions of peasants with a sling and don't have much use...

EB = Slingers from hell!!! They mow down heavily armoured units... Let us spare the one with large shields, if I was a Hastati, and I faced a lot of slingers, I will cover my face with my shield, rather than hit on the forehead like the foolish goliath... even with their shields, they can't do much if outflanked....

[KipDan]

Ignore.

[antisocialmunky]

Lol, I remember the time in EB .8 where my sphendontai mowed down half a unit of Prodromoi before it charged the slingers and were routed by the last point blank volley.

[Kromulan]

Hmm. . . I don't use slingers much. I may hire 1~2 as mercs during a campaign (except as Saba... who NEED them). This is mostly because my uneducated opinion is that they're too powerful.

Also, the lethality of charge cavalry in ancient battles was VERY dependent on circumstances. A charge into the rear of an engaged levy infantry was absolutely devastating. Frontal charges on prepared and disciplined infantry was suicide. The change I would make would be to give 2 different charge ratings: 1 very high (like we have in EB) for rear or flanking charges and 1 much lower for frontal charges. I doubt this is possible within the game engine.

As to the "units need to be more mortal", I disagree. I think all units should have their defense raised and attacks should stay where they are. Even with the relative nerfing EB gave everything but the missiles via the lethality changes, units still die too quickly. Ancient battles were not decided by which side killed more of the enemy, they were decided by which side's morale broke. It was only AFTER one side broke and ran that the killing would begin in earnest. Therefore, EB's approach of trying to decrease the kill rates in battles is the correct approach (imo).