EB 101 (long post)

[Geticus]

I have been watching the tourney matches lately just like I did with ASM's tourney last year and I noticed that something similar is happening now as happened last year. Last year the complaint was "cataphracts are overpowered" and right now its "heavy infantry (esp. post-Marian Roman) in guard mode are overpowered. Now one might consider that these are near opposite, last year most people quit playing Romans, because the cataphracts were mowing the infantry hordes down. No one cared much about Romans in guard mode, just pin them with phalanx, kill Roman cavalry, ride the legion down with cataphracts for the win. So I just wanted to lay down my understanding of the basics in EB for those who tend to complain before they raise their level of play.

1. Infantry line vs line, if both are similar in strength and size, the defender in guard mode will always win when the attacker becomes exhausted and loses morale. This even includes pike phalanxes on the attack, they will generally tire without doing much damage to the defender, and then are ultra vulnerable to flank and rear attack.

2. Numbers: Line vs line if one line is longer than the other it can turn the unguarded flank/surround the opponent and slowly route down the line. This is why it is important to have reasonably large numbers and as Napoleon I said, "god is on the side of the big battalions."

3. Elites: Get over it. Non-Roman elite infantry cost a lot of money and have low numbers. Spartans, Solduros, Hypaspists, German nobles, Dacian noble infantry are nice to look at, but risky to use, since they require much $$$ and occupy too little space. If a player uses Spartans or Hypaspists or Solduros (elite infantry) in MP and wins, it is because of better strategy, micro, and cavalry dominance, the Spartans did nothing that Thorakitai hoplitai or Helvetian phalanx (read high quality superior infantry) could not have done just as well and for less cost. Watch the top players, and you will see that most are winning with big battalions of common or superior troops because too many elites = small lines = you get enveloped at the flank and speared in the back.

3. Infantry with special effects, such as gaesatae fear, or Carnute druids, wargozes, etc. should be used sparingly with an eye to their increased cost, since everyone goes down when speared in the back.

4. Javelin shower: javelins are best shot in the opponents' flank or back. Commonly when lines approach one another, people leave autofire on, and exchange frontal javelin volleys. When both lines are well armored and have lvl3 or greater shields, as for example Roman legionaries vs. phalanx line, or Romans vs. Thorakitai/neitos, the result is little damage on both sides. This is a waste of javelins. On the flank it is often better to turn autofire off and save javelins for a shot in the flank or back, which can cause an instant route, than it is to leave autofire on and kill 6 or 8 opponents in a full volley. A full javelin volley can also do good damage to enemy cavalry, which can help tip the cavalry balance in one's favor.

5. Elite cavalry: cataphracts and hetairoi are very powerful when used well. But some elite cavalry like Remi mairepos are overpriced and a waste of time. Some elites entail little more than a boost to morale and a slight boost to defense skill, over their superior versions (e.g. Brihentin vs. Remi Mairepos). In highly competitive environments such as MP, it is better to spend money on high quality superior infantry, spending 30% or 40% more on cavalry to get that cool looking elite with one higher attack and defense skill will help to ensure your defeat against a more value conscious competitor. (remember mOre means better, and god is on the side of the big battalions).

6.Turning the flank. Frederick the Great said that the purpose of war has always been to turn the enemy's flank and utterly route them with your cavalry. This is basically the case in EB. In an infantry fight line vs. line, assuming lines of similar mnai cost and similar length, the line fighting in defensive mode will win once the attacker becomes exhausted and loses morale. Once they lose morale they are easily routed by cavalry charge to the back, skirmisher fire to the back, spear volley to the back, horse archery to the back, you get the picture EB is all about shooting and spearing people in the back.

That said, in my opinion the mark of skilled play in EB is about skilled micromanagement in an effort to turn an opponents flank and individually and sequentially route the opponents troops. Towards this end, traditionally in real war, as well as in EB, cavalry are the standard arm of choice. In EB, if one guy attacks in line and the other guy holds line in guard mode, it is generally an auto-win for the defender. Just sit back and wait for his infantry to become exhausted. Skilled players don't commit to combat in line at all, or they attack in line while at the same time outmaneuvering the flank. If this happens (attack in line and flank at the same time), it usually comes down to a winner take all collision at the flank. These collisions are the real crux of EB, and this is where one's extra money should be spent. With horse archers it might be possible to shoot down the opposing cavalry and archery and leave the flank exposed to cav charges with little fight. Otherwise certain troop types, like elephants, gaesatae, cataphracts, AP/high lethality troops like guild warriors/rhomps/swordmasters, and high value infantry like Pedites extraordinarii, Arjos, and Thrakian peltasts can all have strong impact at the decisive collision. And whoever has extra resources to throw at the decisive point and manages his forces more skillfully rightfully gains the right to lance/shoot his opponent in the back and win the battle.

So those are my observations, I would be interested to hear anything other people have to say concerning the basic principles of skilled play in EB. Mainly I think that at a high level of play EB tends to move away from a simple battle in line with guard mode= win, and becomes an evolving attempt to outmaneuver one's opponent, surround, crush individual troops, and initiate chainroutes, and at that point the game can be advanced and I think the number of army systems and strategies that could work would be greater than what I have seen in the tournament play.

[Fulminatrix]

there is no one to play when i get online on EB so i just go play vanilla.

[Burebista]

What about roman boxes? they have no flanks and cata charges usually cost u more mnai than them. Not to add that few factions have the luxury of fielding 1 elite ranged units compared to the roman 3 ( balearic , cretan , saggitarius) and win the ranged duel.

All i am saying is that roman cohorts should cost more. It doesnt make sanse that most elites cost more than roman regulars and do less . As far as i remember romans were a disciplined highly trained , heavy armed army . That must cost more than a bunch of naked gauls with shields and swords (Milnaht for ex)

[vartan]

there is no one to play when i get online on EB so i just go play vanilla.

Follow the red arrows.

What about roman boxes? they have no flanks and cata charges usually cost u more mnai than them. Not to add that few factions have the luxury of fielding 1 elite ranged units compared to the roman 3 ( balearic , cretan , saggitarius) and win the ranged duel.

All i am saying is that roman cohorts should cost more. It doesnt make sanse that most elites cost more than roman regulars and do less . As far as i remember romans were a disciplined highly trained , heavy armed army . That must cost more than a bunch of naked gauls with shields and swords (Milnaht for ex)

I'm all for revisiting the costs of the 500-something units in EB, even though it would take a while. I'm also eager to hear if anyone has yet figured out how to remove the guard-mode feature and to reprogram the engagement and pathfinding AI.

As for the OP, players shouldn't be busy working around the flawed and broken game. They should be busy playing the game. The way it was meant to be played. If A > B, then A should defeat B. Unfortunately, the system doesn't realize this and allows for 2 + 2 = 5.

[Geticus]

Follow the red arrows.

I'm all for revisiting the costs of the 500-something units in EB, even though it would take a while. I'm also eager to hear if anyone has yet figured out how to remove the guard-mode feature and to reprogram the engagement and pathfinding AI.

As for the OP, players shouldn't be busy working around the flawed and broken game. They should be busy playing the game. The way it was meant to be played. If A > B, then A should defeat B. Unfortunately, the system doesn't realize this and allows for 2 + 2 = 5.

Yeah I don't see it that way, weaker infantry can withstand superior infantry if they hold formation in guard mode and gas their opponent. That is a principle of warfare, in classical history it was an often repeated phrase that the Gauls were more than men in the initial charge, and less than men at the end of a battle, this shows how the Romans fought defensively and wore the Gauls down against their shieldwall and killed them after they were exhausted. Same principle as EB, without guard mode the game becomes simpler, some want a straightforward slugfest in line with the better troop winning, but the higher level of play is reached through micromanagement on the flank, and better troops can fall to inferior troops depending on superior coordination, more well placed javelin volleys, more proficient skirmishing, combined arms etc.

[Geticus]

What about roman boxes? they have no flanks and cata charges usually cost u more mnai than them. Not to add that few factions have the luxury of fielding 1 elite ranged units compared to the roman 3 ( balearic , cretan , saggitarius) and win the ranged duel.

All i am saying is that roman cohorts should cost more. It doesnt make sanse that most elites cost more than roman regulars and do less . As far as i remember romans were a disciplined highly trained , heavy armed army . That must cost more than a bunch of naked gauls with shields and swords (Milnaht for ex)

I agree Roman cohorts are underpriced, but so are Thrakian peltasts, bosphoran archers, Sarmatian nobles, Aorsi riders, Cretan mercenary archers, and Rhaetian axemen to name a few. I might also argue that phalanxes are broken because of their insane missile immunity. But its all about abusing advantages. The key to it is not straightforward slugfest but rather tactical micromanagement on the flanks. Against Romans I think there are various ways to beat a cohort box. Shoot down their cavalry and sagitarii with armored horse archers, then charge the right flank and exposed cohorts on the corners with lancers to break up the box.

I also remember Neospartan played in the tourney as Aedui (one of my factions incidentally) last year and was destroying infantry lines real fast with Brihentin/gaesatae/druids/axemen/swordsmen swarming the flank. I recall a game where Neospartan fought a guy that played Koinon Hellenon, mostly Thorakitai in a box in guard mode with Cretan archers at the center, like 16 heavy infantry, he just sat there and waited for you to come to him just letting the Cretans draw you in. Neospartan swarmed one flank with extreme pressure and brihentin charges and the whole box chainrouted in like 2 minutes. The KH player was so upset that he quit the tournament. But the same strat would probably work against the Romans, its just a bit harder I think, but the same principle applies, that armies that just sit still will win if you fight on their own terms but lose if you break them up piecemeal.

[MisterFred]

Remember that in the tourney, you can't change faction. Probably the reason that most people are complaining about guard mode right now over cataphracts are that a number of people (especially ones with time to play all day) are playing factions conducive to such tactics (Rome and others) where as few are playing successor states who can really put the hammer down. That said, if its REAAALY frustrating and you'd prefer to figure out how to break the box in practice rather than a tourney game there are two tactics that work well:

1) Sitting back yourself, or holding to the forest. Leads to draws as the Romans are too scared to engage you. Boring, I know. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Or, in this case, don't fight with fire with someone else who refuses to fight with fire. Bring a good book. Sounds insane? You're using the same tactics they are.... Their main advantage in using guard mode is that they're willing to twiddle their thumbs and you aren't.

2) Don't face someone who's used a strategy you don't want to fight again. If its not fun, fight someone else.

[vartan]

2) Don't face someone who's used a strategy you don't want to fight again. If its not fun, fight someone else.

Among the best lines all day.

I don't think you got it, geticus. The issue regarding the guard mode, say, to represent the line relief used by the Romans, is as follows. In the RTW system, there are three ways to fight enemy units in melee.

In the first method, you have guard mode off. It does not matter whether you order an attack or not order an attack: the attack happens upon collision detection.

In the second method, you have guard mode on, and order an attack. Your men won't break formation, will face a general direction determined by their initial positioning, and will not chase after the enemy.

In the third method, you have guard mode on, and do not order an attack. Your men will, in the eyes of the engine, be idling. No more, and no less. Yet you will observe fighting and killing of the enemy troops.

In method 1 and 2, your men will tire over time because the engine determines them to be in fighting mode, and you can observe this by hovering the mouse over the unit. In method 3, your men will be idling, according to the engine, as you can again see by hovering your mouse over the unit.

Methods 1 and 2 are fair, method 3 is unfair. And that is where the problem lies. The feature itself (i.e. guard mode) that tells your men not to chase routing units is fine, but the use of it to have idling-yet-fighting units is not fine/justified/fair/etc.

Do you get that, geticus?