Suggestion for a different rule set in EB multiplayer

**antisocialmunky** · 06-09-2010, 04:09

To be quite honest, a Mnai cap of 30K would actually probably result in better games since light troops would be worth it to outnumbering/filler.

**vartan** · 06-09-2010, 05:56

Right. I am also for under-20-slot armies, as once you get to 20, then you really start to see ridiculously unnecessary imbalances in army sizes. Besides, you can play 2v2 and 3v3 on huge if you have only 10 to 15 slots per army per person. 30k sounds pretty cool. Now, where does that leave Polybians: 26k or 27k? or am I off?

**mountaingoat** · 06-09-2010, 06:39

25 - 30 k games ftw ... that puts the romani on 15 - 20 k ? =D

**Jebivjetar** · 06-09-2010, 08:00

Originally Posted by vartan

30k sounds pretty cool.

We can always try it out and see how it works. + just as you mentioned, 2vs2 and 3vs3 battles could perform better with smaller armies because we always have that terrible and annoying lag when we play 2vs2.

that puts the romani on 15 - 20 k ? =D

Have mercy, give em 10k!

**antisocialmunky** · 06-09-2010, 13:23

I have no idea. You guys should test it but I think the Romans are discounted by... 20%? So I took about 8% of their total costs off which would be around 28K for 30K. I dunno, test it. My only concern would be that a lower mnai would over power factions like Getai or Sweboz that have dirt cheap ultra deadly units. But it would give skirmishing a purpose...

I would like to allow for viable skirmishers because they are key in stopping cavalry in heavy infantry factions but at higher budgets you have to buy for heavy infantry if the opponent does.

**Apázlinemjó** · 06-09-2010, 17:27

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

To be quite honest, a Mnai cap of 30K would actually probably result in better games since light troops would be worth it to outnumbering/filler.

I think 36k is better, with 30k you couldn't field any elites if you wanted a proper army without being too low in numbers.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Originally Posted by VikingPower

I have recently been going over the units selection with three different faction (Averni, Rome, Getai) in order to find a proper units, and I have had a better success in mixing a good units with a medium ones, so that I will forfeit mine previous selection of elite-units with its estimated minai from 45000-50000. As an answer to your question which are ‚good units‘ then I would say that is units which are over 2000 minai and the infantry have a defense of 22 and up, while the medium units are from 1500-2000 with a defense of 18 to 22, but the cheap units are under 1500 minai and with a lesser stats.

However even that I have a good mix of units then it still feels about 3000 minai short from having a full stack army (need to two slots of units). Here I will make an example:

Mixed units of Averni.

Belgae Heavy cavalry 1
Gallic noble cavalry 1
Celto-Germanic cavalry 1
Ligurian cavalry 1

Hellenic Slingers 4 (upgraded 1)

Gallic Noble infantry 1
Gallic naked fanatic infantry 1
Averni Nobles 1
Gallic heavy swordsmen 1
Helvetii Phalanx 1
Belgae swordsmen 1
Boi Swordsmen 1
Norica spearmen 1
Rhaetic axemen 1
Druids 1

So it is 4 cavalry, 4 ranged units, and 10 infantry
If I would have about 3000 minai more then I could add let‘s say 1 North Gallic swordsmen and 1 Naked celtic spearmen.

Here is another example if I would have a picked Averni army:

Gallic noble cavalry 2
Celto-Germanic cavalry 1
Ligurian cavalry 1

Hellenic slingers 4 (upgraded 1)

4 Averni Nobles
6 Gallic heavy infantry

So it is 4 cavalry, 4 ranged units, and 10 infantry
If I would have about 3000 minai more then I could add let‘s say 2 Boi swordsmen.

The similar thing has applied when I attempt to create a mixed army with Getai and Sweboz. I have noticed that some native units are more expensive then other general units even that they have a lesser stats. For an example then a Boi swordsmen are cheaper and have a better stats then a Belgae swordsmen, and the similar thing applies about a classic hoplites in comparison to other spear-units with Getai. Does it then not encourage players to have a lot of such units in comparison to their native units? Would it not be historically incorrect to field many such units to armies while neglecting the more native ones?

But if the money limit rules (36000) are mostly made to preclude the players from having too many elite units, then could then not be made rules which limit elite units to only 4 infantry and 2 cavalry and 2 ranged units (or maybe that only one elite infantry can be picked from each sort in regard to medium sized factions – excluding AS, Rome, Carthage), while a little increased money (3000-4000 minai) are supposed to encourage a more flexible selection of native medium units that belong to each faction.

Half of your armies are heavy infantry/cavalry or elit units, that's what the mnai rule tries to prevent and forces you to use levy units too. Also With 50k an eastern faction like Pahlava could field at least 3 or 4 late cataphract unit and several armoured horse archers, which is probably an insta-win against anything.

For example, an 50k Pahlava build:
4 Late Cataphracts
4 Armoured HAs
4 Regular HAs
4 Persian Hoplites
2 Parthian Hellenic Infantry
2 Coastal Levies

**vartan** · 06-09-2010, 18:13

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

I think 36k is better, with 30k you couldn't field any elites if you wanted a proper army without being too low in numbers.

What is a proper army and do you really want to fill all 20 slots? Why do you suppose under-20-slot armies are too low in number? There is a setting for huge unit size, after all. 15 units on a huge setting are still prone to causing lag. Most online battles you see don't have many if any elites as it is. People tend to find numbers and overall strength and cost-effectiveness much more important to success--that is, they find success and victory the eventual goal in battle, not simply the fielding of a...proper army, for the sake of fielding a proper army. After all, this is a game.

That being said, let us suppose we're dealing with a 30k budget cap, and 28k for pre-Marians. Now, presumably you can still field 20-slot armies, or just for example a 15-slot more heavy-oriented army. Currently, because 20-slot armies are so ubiquitous in our 36k model, we don't provide proportions (i.e. percentages) for skirmishers, archer/slingers, cav--heavy cav, and so on and so forth, but rather we have slots. That is, we don't say maximum 20% army can be archer/slingers, but we say 4/20 slots. If we were to reduce budget to 30k or whatnot, would we still maintain same system and same numbers of slots, or would we have to resort to proportions? When using proportions, this would bring about more complexity in that the player, when creating his army, must consider that each time he uses one more slot, the percentages adjust. Integers are simple. Percentages complex (relatively, i.e. in this scenario). What say you?

**Apázlinemjó** · 06-09-2010, 19:33

Originally Posted by vartan

What is a proper army and do you really want to fill all 20 slots? Why do you suppose under-20-slot armies are too low in number? There is a setting for huge unit size, after all. 15 units on a huge setting are still prone to causing lag. Most online battles you see don't have many if any elites as it is. People tend to find numbers and overall strength and cost-effectiveness much more important to success--that is, they find success and victory the eventual goal in battle, not simply the fielding of a...proper army, for the sake of fielding a proper army. After all, this is a game.

That being said, let us suppose we're dealing with a 30k budget cap, and 28k for pre-Marians. Now, presumably you can still field 20-slot armies, or just for example a 15-slot more heavy-oriented army. Currently, because 20-slot armies are so ubiquitous in our 36k model, we don't provide proportions (i.e. percentages) for skirmishers, archer/slingers, cav--heavy cav, and so on and so forth, but rather we have slots. That is, we don't say maximum 20% army can be archer/slingers, but we say 4/20 slots. If we were to reduce budget to 30k or whatnot, would we still maintain same system and same numbers of slots, or would we have to resort to proportions? When using proportions, this would bring about more complexity in that the player, when creating his army, must consider that each time he uses one more slot, the percentages adjust. Integers are simple. Percentages complex (relatively, i.e. in this scenario). What say you?

In my mind a proper army has one or two elite, some heavies and mass medium/levy units. The others' PCs won't handle the Huge size, even if we use only 15 units. There are people who don't use all the slots even with 36k. Online battles are about victory, but how will you achieve that? I personally more like when I don't have to spam a very cost-effective unit to win. If we reduce the budget too much, we will begin to see exactly the same units and builds everywhere, everybody will buy the cost-effective one, because they won't have more mnai to buy a bit better. I see 36k as a balanced budget.

We could use the units by percentages with 36k too. (The slot system being replaced with the % one is appealing.)

**vartan** · 06-09-2010, 20:37

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

We could use the units by percentages with 36k too. (The slot system being replaced with the % one is appealing.)

I myself wouldn't want that pessimistic scenario to play out as well and do find 36k a fine number, but am trying to remain impartial and hear what people have to say. The current system does take into account percentages, except that a 20-slot army is assumed, hence the slot numbers.

**Brave Brave Sir Robin** · 06-10-2010, 00:33

I'd just like to point out that stats alone don't make a unit combat effective VikingPower. You used the example of Boii swordsmen and Belgae swordsmen saying Boii have better stats but are cheaper. However if you match the two up, the Belgae will win. In fact I don't even think it would be all that close. The increased lethality of their swords plus their tight formation makes them extremely effective medium/heavy infantry.

**The Celtic Viking** · 06-10-2010, 01:38

Err, since when are lethality and formation tightness not stats?

For an example then a Boi swordsmen are cheaper and have a better stats then a Belgae swordsmen

What do you mean by "better stats"? The Milnaht have 11 stats that are better than the Cingetos, while the Cingetos only have 8 that are better than the Milnaht (two of them being their cost). The Milnaht have 4 more morale, higher defence value, higher sword lethality, higher javelin attack and range, better training, tighter formation, higher mass and are more hardy to name a few.

You really can't go by what the in-game cards show you, because you don't get the full picture that way.