So I'm changing some stuff in EB, but maybe I should think on it some more...

[Fedor]

Thanks for sharing your views; I could not have asked for a better person to get the straight word on why things are currently as they are.

A few thoughts:
-Why increase the price of Scythian horse archers? Are they noticeably cheaper than alternative low-level HA units? Unless you mean steppe HA in general, in which case it may impede the steppe factions that are already struggling with a low income.

This change is a crude attempt to prevent non-nomad factions from hiring absurdly cheap horse-archers. I was playing Macedon and was able to BUILD HAs in Crimea for amazingly little money. After learning just how powerful HAs are for anyone with a decent income, I actually disbanded all the units I'd recruited, just to keep the game sane.

I think any horse-archer unit for a non-nomadic people should have a mantenance of at least 450 minai. Nomadic people should get much cheaper versions; I do think that the existing price for Scythian HAs is perfectly reasonable for such factions. A better answer is to have two version of such units, one for nomadic factions, and the other for everyone else (this is already done in many cases, but the costs aren't different enough IMO). I'd also recommand not allowing people to hire HAs in the walled partly-Greek cities in the Crimea.

-The team removed the higher forge-levels because they did not fit in the EB statting system. They actually considered getting rid of the forge entirely, something I support. EB unit stats work on the WYSIWYG-principle, and the differences between units are subtle. If a unit wears a normal chainmail suit, he gets the same base armour as all other normal-chainmail units (there are other modifiers for armour value, but they are not important in the example). It's not unrealistic that a good armourer improves the quality, but +3 is a bit much: a +3 chainmail suit would approach the protection of a muscled plate in the EB system. For that matter: muscled plate and similar high-end armour represents the peak of the armourer's art, so I doubt their quality could be improved substantially. Back to the example: high-quality chainmail would be considerably more expensive than the standard stuff, and armour already represents the main cost in equipping a unit, so recruiting a unit with upgraded armour should also cost more.

I understand what you're saying. My own take is that, with unit armor values ranging from 0-10, even a +3 bonus doesn't represent entirely different or hugely expensive gear, but instead a combination of better-made helmets, shields, footgear, or linen/leather/scale armor, a less motely assemblange of protective gear (what people are wearing correspondingly more closely to what they should be wearing), more careful government inspection and testing of amor, and better training. Instead of those skirmishers going to war with whatever they brought from the farm, they're wearing sturdy leather sandals, cheap head and neck protection, and maybe some light linen, quilting, or leather about the chest. Enough to slow down blows and arrows a little.

I certainly appreciate how adding armor, weapon, and experience bonuses messes with game balance. For example, weak units become stronger relative to elite units. However, I want to be able to optimise my recruitment centers enough - for me, pre-battle preparation and unit boosting is a vital part of the fun - that forges count as a Good Thing. I believe that my removal of all weapon bonuses is enough to keep cheap units under control, given the fact that the EB team seems to have balanced units assuming such bonuses. A +3 forge takes 18 turns and upwards of 15000 minai, not a small investment. But testing is needed!

-Type III governments are rarely used by players: maybe you could look at balancing those?

Seldom used? Of course it depends on the faction, but I personally think Type 3 governments in stock EB to be a worthy option. They're the quickest and most readily available government you can set up that allows your family members to come in and provide bonuses, which I've found is *really* important (mercenary generals being quite pricey...). They help population growth (the population growth penalties for types 1 and 2 in stock EB make me always think twice before building them in the early and mid game), they sometimes grant unit experience bonuses, and they not infrequently are better for overall unrest than type 4s, even before any governor gets involved. For certain factions, in short, they seem the one government type that doesn't need some sort of help.

-There is no way to make the A.I. competitive with the player when it comes to expansion. The human mind is simply far better at planning. I don't think there is any solution beyond unbalancing the game further in favour of the A.I.

There's a mini-mod that adds win conditions to the file /EB/data/world/maps/campaign/imperial_campaign/descr_win_conditions.txt. I haven't played enough to have any opinion on whether filling in this file makes any difference, but the mod thread had some favorable reports of AI powers becoming more focused and determined.

Your ideas on improving A.I. navy use sound sensible. Let me know how they turn out. Reducing the costs of siege equipment and elephants also sounds good, although keep in mind that in reality only the wealthiest states could afford such units.

I'll test, but be warned that I don't play enough games to be able to come up with a decent sample in any period less than real-world years. Don't hold your breath for any statistically meaningful results from me.