What are the main things you want to see fixed from EB1 in EB2???

[MisterFred]

Well, you're a bit off on the stats for hoplite vs legionary, for these reasons: the light-spear attribute gives, I believe, -4 to defense rating (but some bonuses vs cavalry), so the hoplite in that instance actually has less defense than the legionary. As for protection of the armor, both the chainmail and the linen/leather are behind a shield. Moreover the overhand-spear formation doesn't require as much movement of the shield, which is wide and at some points in history and can help the neighbor as well. It does not extend as low as the scutum, true, but don't forget the greaves - plate armor for the lower legs, something the legionaries didn't have. Reduced length in the shield thus doesn't equate to less protection. The higher armor value isn't linothorax or leather vs chainmail, I'm guessing its largely a result of the greaves.

But most importantly, consider that hoplites in particular, and to a lesser extent Roman cohorts, do not all share identical equipment. A whole host of things will affect their equipment, not least of which is region the units are recruited in and the time-period being represented. There are also other differences in the unit, such as the density of the formation, etc. Overall, the EB team has done an incredible job representing historical battles and soldiers. Remember also, that hoplite vs legion battles don't have to just look good, so too do hoplite vs falxman or legionaire vs celtic levy spearmen.

Questioning EB's accuracy is foolish - one can always find tiny points to quibble with, but its accuracy in details and as a whole is incredibly good. As a fan of the mod, I don't appreciate you implying that the team didn't put forth a strong effort to historically represent units - their work obviously shows otherwise.

[Kikaz]

I still gotta wonder why Neitos have 12 armor and Druegalozez and Xosenthozez have only 9...

[SlickNicaG69]

Well, you're a bit off on the stats for hoplite vs legionary, for these reasons: the light-spear attribute gives, I believe, -4 to defense rating (but some bonuses vs cavalry), so the hoplite in that instance actually has less defense than the legionary. As for protection of the armor, both the chainmail and the linen/leather are behind a shield. Moreover the overhand-spear formation doesn't require as much movement of the shield, which is wide and at some points in history and can help the neighbor as well. It does not extend as low as the scutum, true, but don't forget the greaves - plate armor for the lower legs, something the legionaries didn't have. Reduced length in the shield thus doesn't equate to less protection. The higher armor value isn't linothorax or leather vs chainmail, I'm guessing its largely a result of the greaves.

But most importantly, consider that hoplites in particular, and to a lesser extent Roman cohorts, do not all share identical equipment. A whole host of things will affect their equipment, not least of which is region the units are recruited in and the time-period being represented. There are also other differences in the unit, such as the density of the formation, etc. Overall, the EB team has done an incredible job representing historical battles and soldiers. Remember also, that hoplite vs legion battles don't have to just look good, so too do hoplite vs falxman or legionaire vs celtic levy spearmen.

Questioning EB's accuracy is foolish - one can always find tiny points to quibble with, but its accuracy in details and as a whole is incredibly good. As a fan of the mod, I don't appreciate you implying that the team didn't put forth a strong effort to historically represent units - their work obviously shows otherwise.

I think that is the main difference between you and me. You see EB as the ultimate authority in historical facts, I see them as our interpreters. I see us questioning EB's accuracy as our insurance they do a good job, as opposed to your approach of blind faith.

As to the point, I don't seek to bring up specifics like (oh in this region they had more iron helmets than bronze... you know?!)

I'm just seeking a system that is consistent and reliable... so let me ask you then... in regards to the post before mine... why isn't the light hoplite faster than the heavier one? There is no value for movement speed, only an attribute that is why (such as 'Fast Moving'). And even under such circumstances, the attribute is still lacking... isn't it Mr. Kikaz???



Oh, and regards to the whole yea but they're spearmen and they get a penalty, it should have NO bearing on a units basic stats... if, when in combination with certain unit types, such as spear v. sword or spear v. horse, sure let there be penalties and advantages for after all it is a game!... but don't assume that leather armor can protect as well as metal, dont assume a spear is as lethal as a sword, and don't assume a hoplite's fighting style to be efficient to the cohort's.

[Rahl]

The only problem I see with the stats is the fact that a scutum should protect the legionary better, the other stats are ok. The legionary doesn't need the greaves because his legs are mostly protected by the shield. But still the hoplite has a bigger part of his body covered by armour.
But when in history did the classical hoplite face a post-marian legionary?
What you seem to forget SlickNica is the fact that there is the not-totally-realistic engine that is not able to portray the advantages and disadvantages of all kinds of soldiers. If you change stats in a way to portray how the units would have fought against romans... that would be a little bit roman-centric. A weak hoplite would probably be to easy prey for some eastern units. Balancing isn't easy and it needs much time to test all the units. It's not perfect in EB and I believe it is that way because the team does EB II and has no time to perfectly balancing out EB I. I change stats myself when I see something I dislike, you know...
But how much tests did you make to surely know how everything would work if you changed it the way you want it? At least the EB team has done the mod and probably knows more about balancing then you do.

But at the end, this is still the forum for EB II and not EB I and the lethality of spears and shortswords won't be a problem since there is no lethality in the M2TW engine. I doubt that balancing of unit stats will be much better since it is much harder without lethality.

It would still be really nice if you could stop beeing so aggressive. It helps noone.

[vartan]

Questioning EB's accuracy is foolish - one can always find tiny points to quibble with, but its accuracy in details and as a whole is incredibly good. As a fan of the mod, I don't appreciate you implying that the team didn't put forth a strong effort to historically represent units - their work obviously shows otherwise.

If everybody stopped being skeptical, I would recommend everyone start panicking. Who knows the miseries people would submit to. Always good to question, inquire, etc.

I still gotta wonder why Neitos have 12 armor and Druegalozez and Xosenthozez have only 9...

This pretty much goes with Slick's argument. There's a bunch of little...what are they called, anomalies? like this, in EB. And I always figured the modders had some good reason, whether it be balancing or otherwise, for placing those anomalies there. I'm not a modder, I wouldn't know.

I think that is the main difference between you and me. You see EB as the ultimate authority in historical facts, I see them as our interpreters. I see us questioning EB's accuracy as our insurance they do a good job, as opposed to your approach of blind faith.

That's actually a frighteningly good point by you Slick. Kind of reminds me of all the history we're fed in all the courses nowadays. Always good not to take them all at face-value. Step back a bit sometimes, yeah. Good stuff.

[SlickNicaG69]

But still the hoplite has a bigger part of his body covered by armour.
But when in history did the classical hoplite face a post-marian legionary?
What you seem to forget SlickNica is the fact that there is the not-totally-realistic engine that is not able to portray the advantages and disadvantages of all kinds of soldiers.

I agree. There should be no need to speculate on how much of an advantage it was to be a hoplite vs. legionary, etc. Therefore there should be no stat that delves that much into specifics. The generic, current standard, of applying 'mount' effects, I think is sufficient enough, which applies to whole classes, such as spearman v. swordsman. However, the fact you pointed out of "double greaves/smaller shield" v. "no greaves/bigger shield" is easy to solve! (rough estimate):

Hoplite: Shield - 3, Armor 12 [Linothorax (6), Helmet (2), 2 Greaves (4)].

Cohort: Shield - 5, Armor 10 [Chainmail (8), Helmet (2)].

It is important to get these right, as the classical hoplite, would not only have less overall armor, less protection from missles, and be more vulnerable to ap units (which I believe the cohorts to be), but the unit comparison in game would theoretically be pretty much historically accurate as well...

That's actually a frighteningly good point by you Slick ... Good stuff.

Thank you Vartan. This is the first time I've actually felt your warmth... ;)

[B-Wing]

Hoplite: Shield - 3, Armor 12 [Linothorax (6), Helmet (2), 2 Greaves (4)].

Cohort: Shield - 5, Armor 10 [Chainmail (8), Helmet (2)].

It is important to get these right, as the classical hoplite, would not only have less overall armor, less protection from missles, and be more vulnerable to ap units (which I believe the cohorts to be), but the unit comparison in game would theoretically be pretty much historically accurate as well...

I'm a bit confused by this. I think one point that MisterFred was trying to make was that it is reasonable for Hoplites and Cohorts to have the same shield values, due to Hoplite's smaller shield's being offset by their greaves. Meaning, the greaves would be contributing to their shield value, not armor, since they mostly protect from frontal attacks. I think giving Hoplites a higher armor rating than Cohorts based on the fact that they wear greaves would be erroneous. As I understand the way those stats work in-game is like this:
Shields only provide their full value of protection from frontal attacks, giving only half their value of protection from side attacks, and no protection from rear attacks.
Armor provides the same value of protection from all angles. Armor piercing weapons reducing this value by half.

So if Hoplites are indeed armored more heavily toward their front, then this should be reflected via a higher shield value, possibly even equal to that of Cohorts. Their actual armor rating would be less than that of Cohorts. I think this makes sense.

As for the attack values, I'm very unclear on what the actual in-game effects of the Spear and Short Spear attributes are. I think one significantly reduces the units defense against infantry while the other reduces their attack. I think this was a very bad decision on CA's part, since it makes it pretty much impossible to judge how well a spear unit will perform against infantry by simply looking at their in-game description stats. If spears are supposed to be inferior weapons to swords, then spear units ought to simply have lower attack values. There's already inherent bonuses for spears versus cavalry, so having an additional, hidden nerf to their performance against infantry is just frustrating to players like myself. I think the EB team addressed this issue by giving spear units higher base defense and attack scores than comparable sword units. It's still hard for anyone who doesn't know the actual penalties (as well as which class of spear the unit is considered to be carrying) to determine how a spear unit stands in comparison with other units.

[abou]

I may be wrong since I wasn't a part of the team when we did the stating, but the reason for the hoplite shields having a higher value was due to it's construction rather than just its size. On size alone, the scutum and thureos would have higher values, but the aspis is bronze-faced making it far sturdier and heavier. For example, we know from Carrhae that the recurve, composite bow can have arrows penetrate the scutum's leather coverings and layers of wood (although the layering does not seem to have always present). I can think of no similar circumstance with the aspis despite its long history fighting against similar weapons.

[antisocialmunky]

Don't Neitos have the double layer of chain over the shoulders? Similarly Cohors have similarly high armor ratings minus the points for chain sleeves.

[seienchin]

I think that is the main difference between you and me. You see EB as the ultimate authority in historical facts, I see them as our interpreters. I see us questioning EB's accuracy as our insurance they do a good job, as opposed to your approach of blind faith.

Amen, man.
Some people in this forum really believe in anything the team does despite the fact, that the teams creates a game and not a historical book. There are unhistorical things to get a balanced game and then there are things the team had to make up, because of no evidence.
Like 98% of the casse faction. Nobody knows anything for sure about britain in 270 b.c..
Another thing is, that the team has a certain point of view on history not anyone agrees.
"Europa Barbarorum" says it all. The approach is that the "barbarians" were great too and rome wasnt the all mighty moloch many(Or maybe most) historian believe.
For Example CA thought Romes marian soldiers were the strongest in the world as you see in Vanilla. (Vanilla is not too realisitc though)
Anyway there are soooo many things in the EB timeframe, which you can interpretate in many ways.