Help needed with Hayasdan Orontid Reforms

**kdrakak** · 05-05-2010, 10:03

Yes I am enjoying it very much. I rarely continue playing after victory. In most cases I do not see much point in doing so. Perhaps if a historically important city is located near by I might go on for a few more turn till it is conquered too, but the Hai campaign is really a step beyond.

**vartan** · 05-05-2010, 23:18

Originally Posted by kdrakak

Yes I am enjoying it very much. I rarely continue playing after victory. In most cases I do not see much point in doing so. Perhaps if a historically important city is located near by I might go on for a few more turn till it is conquered too, but the Hai campaign is really a step beyond.

Then you must not know about the true intentions of a proper Hai campaign. A proper Hai campaign, if you will, requires a diligent Arkah, one willing to go beyond expectations. Then again, it is only expected of the Arkah to conquer the world. Don't do the Hai an injustice. Don't stop. Keep going. Conquer the known world.

**kdrakak** · 05-06-2010, 14:26

Really? Why would I conquer all? There so many factions I am looking forward to lead in the future. Is there some surprise other than the type I gov in Persepolis and Suza I read about?
I am considering playing all the way to 172 to see the Yuezhi but I think that's where 'll draw the line. i've already sort of decided not to destroy the Koinon (it would require of me to take ambrakia and epidamnos which would probably rebel soon and drag me into a war with my friendly Epeirote neighbors allied to the Romani). I like peace at the border which is why I intend to crush Bactria all the way to india if i have to, for bribing 3 of my border cities to the east just as i was making ready to complete vixtory conditions. I think now the 've incorporated a word for Hai into their language as a synonym for divine wrath!!! (nice RPB babbling dont' you think?)

On an other note, and please tell me if I should open a new thread for this one. What's the difference between a kontos charge and one with maces (alt + right click) by Armenian kataphracts for example. Does one have effect against armour while the other doesn't? and if so which? what's the point of having a non-effective against armour attack? In general could someone elabaorate on this?

**Mediolanicus** · 05-06-2010, 16:25

Always charge with your Kontos.

The Mace can be used in melee, especially with other (armoured) horsemen.

I don't quite follow you with the non-effective against armour attack... They are effective, except against armour... You sure you didn't imagine the "non-", because I only remember "effective against armour" units...

**kdrakak** · 05-07-2010, 07:17

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

Always charge with your Kontos.

The Mace can be used in melee, especially with other (armoured) horsemen.

I don't quite follow you with the non-effective against armour attack... They are effective, except against armour... You sure you didn't imagine the "non-", because I only remember "effective against armour" units...

I was just wandering if both attacks are effective against armour Mediolanicus. If only one of them was, then the other would have to not be. My imagination is fine and at its proper place.

Originally Posted by vartan

Except there's a slight problem that CA never foresaw and that EB Team could have easily fixed. And I've brought this up so many times without any definitive response. For instance, Armenian Noble Cataphracts have a primary lance attack of 5 and a secondary mace attack of 10. What CA made a mistake on is implementing a primary and secondary charge, instead of one single charge value. That is, although attack charges and alt+attack charges both use the primary weapon (namely, the lance), the EB Team chose to give the primary charge 37 and the secondary 18. As you can see, this is unnecessary. We can't really blame CA, as it isn't too difficult to write down '37' for both primary and secondary charge values. It effectively acts as if there was only one single charge value. The downside of this mistake is that us players must attack charge and then when the charge has died down, alt+attack to engage in melee. It's just a nuisance especially in MP because it adds unnecessary component to the micromanagement aspect of the game.

Well you have to admit that a charge with a spear is more effective than a charge with a mace (in actual combat) so it makes sense to downgrade it in game mechanics (18 instead of 37). And then a mace is more effective than a spear when close to the enemy. So micro is more troublesome but make for a closer representation of what might have actually happened in real combat. In my oppinion it had better been listed in the unit card so players could get a better idea of what's going on inside the engine. And btw how does one come across all the info you mention about secondary charge strenght, secondary attack strength, primary attack speed, secondary attack speed and so on?

**Ludens** · 05-06-2010, 16:25

Both double-handed lances and maces have an AP (armour piercing) attack. However, the lances have a very slow attack speed as well as a very low attack factor so they are only useful during the charge. In general, it's better to use secondary cavalry arms even when they are not AP.

**vartan** · 05-07-2010, 05:28

Originally Posted by Ludens

Both double-handed lances and maces have an AP (armour piercing) attack. However, the lances have a very slow attack speed as well as a very low attack factor so they are only useful during the charge. In general, it's better to use secondary cavalry arms even when they are not AP.

Except there's a slight problem that CA never foresaw and that EB Team could have easily fixed. And I've brought this up so many times without any definitive response. For instance, Armenian Noble Cataphracts have a primary lance attack of 5 and a secondary mace attack of 10. What CA made a mistake on is implementing a primary and secondary charge, instead of one single charge value. That is, although attack charges and alt+attack charges both use the primary weapon (namely, the lance), the EB Team chose to give the primary charge 37 and the secondary 18. As you can see, this is unnecessary. We can't really blame CA, as it isn't too difficult to write down '37' for both primary and secondary charge values. It effectively acts as if there was only one single charge value. The downside of this mistake is that us players must attack charge and then when the charge has died down, alt+attack to engage in melee. It's just a nuisance especially in MP because it adds unnecessary component to the micromanagement aspect of the game.

**Ludens** · 05-07-2010, 09:29

Originally Posted by vartan

That is, although attack charges and alt+attack charges both use the primary weapon (namely, the lance), the EB Team chose to give the primary charge 37 and the secondary 18. As you can see, this is unnecessary. We can't really blame CA, as it isn't too difficult to write down '37' for both primary and secondary charge values. It effectively acts as if there was only one single charge value. The downside of this mistake is that us players must attack charge and then when the charge has died down, alt+attack to engage in melee. It's just a nuisance especially in MP because it adds unnecessary component to the micromanagement aspect of the game.

I am sorry, but I don't quite follow. Are you saying that the charge value of the secondary weapon is used when alt-attacking? If so, are you sure that the game isn't using the attack value of that one, either?

**ximxim** · 05-07-2010, 18:36

There's a unit list that comes with the EB installation which has most of the unit stats. There should be a shortcut to it from the start menu. Sadly it is a bit outdated though (is there an updated version around?). The only other option I know of is to try to decipher the "export_descr_unit.txt" file in your /EB/Data/ folder.