Is EB 1.2 the most sophisticated turn based computer strategy wargame to this date?

[jabarto]

I think EU3 with the expansions is more complex, but as Jabarto said it's not turn-based. If we are talking about turn-based wargames, well you'll laugh at me, but I think Heroes 3 and 5 with the expansions are quite good too.

Heh, how could I forget to mention my all-time favorite game series? Heroes 2 was solid gold.

[Zarax]

Do not underestimate the RTW campaign engine, especially with BI.
AI does know when it's beaten and will negotiate peace with you just like in paradox games, but unfortunately the "I'm beaten" parameter is coded in a relavitely narrow window.

This is unfortunately not seen in most mods as modders always give extra money to AI one way or the other, plus the "snowball effect" plus the huge trade multiplier effect which makes income grow much more than in a linear way.
This basically causes AI to think "I'm rich, I still have a chance" while we know better.

Once you "deflate" the economy AI becomes more passive (which in player's eyes is a bad thing) but less money also means that the player will be slower as well.
On the bright side, it allows you to see things like a faction you're bordering and you've been at war with for 20 years asking your for peace if it comes under pressure on another front.

This may or may not also be affected by the presence of another hated institution in game: the senate.
While I'm still researching that front, descr_senate.txt is the only txt file in game that shows an editable AI threshold, although the lack of research and testing does not give a 100% correct estimate of its effect globally.

That said, EB's huge amount of historical reseach and gameplay mechanisms bring a very solid layer of sophistication in game that more than compensates for AI flaws and gives the experience we all love.

[SlickNicaG69]

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

[vartan]

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

Just to be clear, you are talking about Europa Barbarorum 1.2 when you say "EB", right?

[SlickNicaG69]

Just to be clear, you are talking about Europa Barbarorum 1.2 when you say "EB", right?

Yes Vartan, it would be safe for you to assume so.

[Geticus]

I think the main reason any TW game, including any of its mods, are considered "sophisticated" is not because of the turn-based campaign aspect, but really, because of the extreme sense of reality exhibited by its real-time battle format.

To understand my point, just imagine EB with all the wonderful campaign map features, such as traits, government, ancillaries, etc., but without adjustments to the unit rosters (i.e. still possessing the good ol Roman War dogs, etc.). I believe few would deem it a vast improvement over the standard (vanilla)... it would merely be a virtual encyclopedia on Classical Military and Politics.

Thus, the sophistication comes in the updated unit stats and rosters and the level of balance it affects.

It is obviously much more enthusiastic to play a game, especially with its historical perspective, to know that it is as balanced as possible and as realistic as possible, as well. EB does that, in a vast way, over the Vanilla standard, which greatly underestimated the power of barbarian factions in the game.

However, one should not assume that just because EB is the most sophisticated out there, that it is unwise to challenge its inconsistencies - namely, that though the changes have caused the barbarian factions to be more accurately portrayed, it has led to many undesirables, such as the phalanx/hoplite and cavalry v. skirmishers, and frankly, an unbalance in the game that seems to be skewed towards the barbarians.

To reinforce my statement I offer as evidence the comparison of the Pontic Lt. Spearman and the Pontic Heavy Infantry - namely the discrepencies one sees when looking at each units defense skill values, morale, training, etc... these effects, although subtle, have a deep balancing effect, and could explain why such "levies" are so good vs your heavy armored horsemen...

Greater depth of unit rosters, greatly improved and more evocative unit graphics, greater FM character development, in many ways improved cavalry behavior-- I always hated vanilla cavalry doing hairpin turns in mid charge. As for imbalance in favor of barbarians, maybe you see it from a Rome centered view, granted barbs have some advantages like lethality, more ogrish elites like gaesatae and rhompaiaphoroi, better cavalry stamina, the Sweboz chevron factory et al. But I always play Eurobarbs and from my side of the Po, the advantages of the civilized factions are very clear- better armor, heavier shields, greater missile resistance which conduces to cohort survival and chevroning up during long campaigns. And the Roman cavalry weakness is mitigated by options like Campanian cavalry which in reality make Rome IMO cavalry strong, and then the bombproof Polybian principes factory once Polybian reforms, which are much easier to reach than Gaul's time of soldiers, or the Sweboz reforms. Myself I am a Roman military historian, which in part explains my interest in EB, yet the advantages of the Roman roster are to me so obvious that I have never been able to bring myself to play the Romans. Conquer Italy and Sicily, get Polybian reforms, spam Polybian hastati/principes, supplement with Campanian cav/Equites ex., chevron way up, win win win. It is so obvious. In addition the campaign mode overrates the economic value of trade and underrates agriculture, where is the famous agricultural and livestock wealth of the Po valley Celts? But overrated as trade is, it makes Mediterranean coastal territories the most desireable. I can conquer all inner Gaul or inner Germany and it amounts to very little, playing as Gauls the real way to boost the economy is to sack Rome, Gallicize Italy, and take Britain, coastal trade in EB is the real key to economic strength, and the Mediterranean coastlands are the ultimate prize. This situation in my view makes the Romans, Karthaginians and Ptolemaioi the real uberfactions in the game, not to mention Karthadasts superversatile troop roster, with PedEx clones, Celtiberian Swordsmen clones, elite phalanxes, quality bodyguards, elite Iberian cavalry etc. again playing Kart-Hadast just strikes me as an obvious win. And then there is the Ptolemaioi with superior Neitos (!), Cretans, phalanxes, and decent cavalry again a very versatile roster. If, playing as Gauls, my neitos had level 4 shields, they would be unstoppable. But that said, I think campaign mode is weighed in favor of whoever gets Mediterannean thalassokracy, and I think Roma and Kart-hadast have the best combo of starting position and troop roster. But I think that multiplayer, with the customary equal money system, tends to favor the eastern barbarian factions like the Sarmatians and Getai and Saka, whose armored horse archer/lancers are IMO the single most dominant troop in the game. So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

[vartan]

So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

If you had access to a vault of EB MP replays could you make a (relatively?) reliable and accurate assessment of whether in fact MP does represent medieval Asiatic steppe warfare? (Because I do realize the power of heavy cavalry in the RTW engine by way of EB statting).

[antisocialmunky]

I usually go with a 3 part army with steppe factions, 1/2 the horses go around each side and 1/2 the horses stay up front. I think a cresent is asking too much though TW controls don't lend to any geometrically complex formations.

More importantly, HA only armies are pretty useless after missiles are out. Its better to bring foot archers and infantry since levy HA will rout on charges.

[SlickNicaG69]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Greater depth of unit rosters, greatly improved and more evocative unit graphics, greater FM character development, in many ways improved cavalry behavior-- I always hated vanilla cavalry doing hairpin turns in mid charge. As for imbalance in favor of barbarians, maybe you see it from a Rome centered view, granted barbs have some advantages like lethality, more ogrish elites like gaesatae and rhompaiaphoroi, better cavalry stamina, the Sweboz chevron factory et al. But I always play Eurobarbs and from my side of the Po, the advantages of the civilized factions are very clear- better armor, heavier shields, greater missile resistance which conduces to cohort survival and chevroning up during long campaigns. And the Roman cavalry weakness is mitigated by options like Campanian cavalry which in reality make Rome IMO cavalry strong, and then the bombproof Polybian principes factory once Polybian reforms, which are much easier to reach than Gaul's time of soldiers, or the Sweboz reforms. Myself I am a Roman military historian, which in part explains my interest in EB, yet the advantages of the Roman roster are to me so obvious that I have never been able to bring myself to play the Romans. Conquer Italy and Sicily, get Polybian reforms, spam Polybian hastati/principes, supplement with Campanian cav/Equites ex., chevron way up, win win win. It is so obvious. In addition the campaign mode overrates the economic value of trade and underrates agriculture, where is the famous agricultural and livestock wealth of the Po valley Celts? But overrated as trade is, it makes Mediterranean coastal territories the most desireable. I can conquer all inner Gaul or inner Germany and it amounts to very little, playing as Gauls the real way to boost the economy is to sack Rome, Gallicize Italy, and take Britain, coastal trade in EB is the real key to economic strength, and the Mediterranean coastlands are the ultimate prize. This situation in my view makes the Romans, Karthaginians and Ptolemaioi the real uberfactions in the game, not to mention Karthadasts superversatile troop roster, with PedEx clones, Celtiberian Swordsmen clones, elite phalanxes, quality bodyguards, elite Iberian cavalry etc. again playing Kart-Hadast just strikes me as an obvious win. And then there is the Ptolemaioi with superior Neitos (!), Cretans, phalanxes, and decent cavalry again a very versatile roster. If, playing as Gauls, my neitos had level 4 shields, they would be unstoppable. But that said, I think campaign mode is weighed in favor of whoever gets Mediterannean thalassokracy, and I think Roma and Kart-hadast have the best combo of starting position and troop roster. But I think that multiplayer, with the customary equal money system, tends to favor the eastern barbarian factions like the Sarmatians and Getai and Saka, whose armored horse archer/lancers are IMO the single most dominant troop in the game. So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

I always hated vanilla cavalry doing hairpin turns in mid charge. As for imbalance in favor of barbarians, maybe you see it from a Rome centered view, granted barbs have some advantages like lethality, more ogrish elites like gaesatae and rhompaiaphoroi, better cavalry stamina, the Sweboz chevron factory et al. But I always play Eurobarbs and from my side of the Po, the advantages of the civilized factions are very clear- better armor, heavier shields, greater missile resistance which conduces to cohort survival and chevroning up during long campaigns. And the Roman cavalry weakness is mitigated by options like Campanian cavalry which in reality make Rome IMO cavalry strong, and then the bombproof Polybian principes factory once Polybian reforms, which are much easier to reach than Gaul's time of soldiers, or the Sweboz reforms. Myself I am a Roman military historian, which in part explains my interest in EB, yet the advantages of the Roman roster are to me so obvious that I have never been able to bring myself to play the Romans. Conquer Italy and Sicily, get Polybian reforms, spam Polybian hastati/principes, supplement with Campanian cav/Equites ex., chevron way up, win win win. It is so obvious. In addition the campaign mode overrates the economic value of trade and underrates agriculture, where is the famous agricultural and livestock wealth of the Po valley Celts? But overrated as trade is, it makes Mediterranean coastal territories the most desireable. I can conquer all inner Gaul or inner Germany and it amounts to very little, playing as
Gauls the real way to boost the economy is to sack Rome, Gallicize Italy, and take Britain, coastal trade in EB is the real key to economic strength, and the Mediterranean coastlands are the ultimate prize. This situation in my view makes the Romans, Karthaginians and Ptolemaioi the real uberfactions in the game, not to mention Karthadasts superversatile troop roster, with PedEx clones, Celtiberian Swordsmen clones, elite phalanxes, quality bodyguards, elite Iberian cavalry etc. again playing Kart-Hadast just strikes me as an obvious win. And then there is the Ptolemaioi with superior Neitos (!), Cretans, phalanxes, and decent cavalry again a very versatile roster. If, playing as Gauls, my neitos had level 4 shields, they would be unstoppable. But that said, I think campaign mode is weighed in favor of whoever gets Mediterannean thalassokracy, and I think Roma and Kart-hadast have the best combo of starting position and troop roster. But I think that multiplayer, with the customary equal money system, tends to favor the eastern barbarian factions like the Sarmatians and Getai and Saka, whose armored horse archer/lancers are IMO the single most dominant troop in the game. So if everyone dismissed the aesthetic appeal of the infantry battle in line, I think MP would resemble medieval Asiatic steppe warfare: armored horse archers in crescent formations, strafing the flanks and rear, shooting all unarmored troops, and foot archers, then concentrated lance charges for the win.

What you failed to realize in my previous post was that the balance referred to is, literally, historical balance...

Vanilla portrayed them very fictionally and, hence, very unbalanced historically... Why were numidians so un-unique?... Why were Gaulish infantry so fragile?...

These are things that are a result of the fact that the unit rosters were totally not made to be historically balanced, but rather for entertainment balance: Carthage with Elephants, Romans with Everything, Greeks with Pikes, Easterns with Cataphracts, Barbarians withh Druids/Berserkers, etc., etc...

So, it is natural for you to feel that your faction has certain disadvantages and, hence it is unbalanced. But this can only be felt if you take, as you said, a very subjective approach. Why not try and play other factions to the same degree as you do as Gauls or Germans? If others also have relative disadvantages, why would that not be considered balanced? What would be unhistorical about trade not being good above the Po under the Gauls and Germans... trade has never, ever been good without the seed of civilization!... Isn't that the mark of the barbarians?... profiting from plunder??...

[Geticus]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What you failed to realize in my previous post was that the balance referred to is, literally, historical balance...

Vanilla portrayed them very fictionally and, hence, very unbalanced historically... Why were numidians so un-unique?... Why were Gaulish infantry so fragile?...

These are things that are a result of the fact that the unit rosters were totally not made to be historically balanced, but rather for entertainment balance: Carthage with Elephants, Romans with Everything, Greeks with Pikes, Easterns with Cataphracts, Barbarians withh Druids/Berserkers, etc., etc...

So, it is natural for you to feel that your faction has certain disadvantages and, hence it is unbalanced. But this can only be felt if you take, as you said, a very subjective approach. Why not try and play other factions to the same degree as you do as Gauls or Germans? If others also have relative disadvantages, why would that not be considered balanced? What would be unhistorical about trade not being good above the Po under the Gauls and Germans... trade has never, ever been good without the seed of civilization!... Isn't that the mark of the barbarians?... profiting from plunder??...

Yes I agree to some extent that Vanilla RTW unit statistics and design were partly created for fun factor, while EB is a more serious effort to shrug off the effects of Helleno-Roman misobarbarism and reflect that around 270 there were many strong martial cultures and the future was uncertain. As for Roman troops in EB, well on the one their advantages to me are obvious, and having played the Celtic factions a great deal, playing the Romans would be almost the same thing, its all swordsmen armies, the Romans are just tougher and have better javelin volleys, while their melee impact is weaker. And that is the other reason I won't play them, when I send swordsmen charging on the flank, I want to see a lot of bodies dropping but the Romans with their inferior lethality just don't satisfy me. I've played Getai and ran falxmen too much, the 0.13 lethality gladius just don't cut it. 0.225 is about as low as I want to go. Now in reality I think the 0.13 Roman principes lethality is a statistical nerf, designed for game balance issues, and in reality Roman principes were some of the more lethal regular infantry in the world at that time. The Celts, in a more realistic system, would have statistical variance within cohorts, not all would be equally well armed, and the heroes would surpass most anything individually that the Romans could field. And charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality. That's my take anyways.
But I won't play Romans simply because the 0.13 bores me, that and the Polybian principes are just too good in that 0.13 boring way.
As for profitting from plunder, the Romans were just as good at that as any "barbarians". One of the Roman axioms, often repeated in Livy, is that the Romans considered nothing to be more properly their own, than that which they siezed by arms during war.

If you had access to a vault of EB MP replays could you make a (relatively?) reliable and accurate assessment of whether in fact MP does represent medieval Asiatic steppe warfare? (Because I do realize the power of heavy cavalry in the RTW engine by way of EB statting).

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear. I did see one replay about a month ago with a good Sarmatian army with Sarmatian nobles, Roxalani lights, mass HA levy spam and Skythian nobles in reserve, maybe it was you playing I'm not sure but the Sarmatians crushed a pretty tight KH infantry box in guard mode. I'd be curious to see it done at 40K with some Sarmatian warlords, or Saka bodyguards (not the FM type but the regular hetairoi lance/axe type). But its not too complex really, the main thing would be crescent formations rather than rectangles, doing simultaneous HA sweeps of both flanks and rear, firing concentrically when possible, skirmishing and riding down stray troops, and punctuated by a decisive heavy cavalry charge.

[SlickNicaG69]

The Celts, in a more realistic system, would have statistical variance within cohorts, not all would be equally well armed, and the heroes would surpass most anything individually that the Romans could field.

Yes, you too are right, but in the virtual reality system of a videogame, such discrepencies must be overlooked directly, and be indirectly assessed by the law of averages no? In other words, we must look at each unit as a whole rather than as a multitude of pieces.

However, the point you raise sheds light on the preventable descrepencies in the game that cause historical unbalance. The fact is that the typical gallic swordsman (such as the Southern or Northern) were quite under-equipped when compared to legionnaries in every sense. They had smaller, more brittle shields. They had pointless, heavy swords ideal only for slashing and quite unreliable (in Polybius' histories, he even describes during the Celtic War before the Hannibalic how Gallic swordsmen would be required to back off and straighten their swords with their legs! because sometimes the only way to be able to kill with such a sword was by sheer blunt trauma, not slashing or gashing.

Also, keep in mind that certain technicalities of history, such as the fact that most barbarian armies primarily consisted of those lowly soldiers, should not be considered when attempting to set certain stat values... Just because the Gauls could never develop a socio-economic system where they would be able to afford the maintenance of a real professional army (Neitos), doesn't mean such things should not be allowed to be generated in the game, whether sp or mp. I hear many times how Neitos, in real life, only consisted of an elite squad, not a whole force (as players usually get 6-8 of these units in a typical mp game), but that is fine within the confines of a videogame.

And charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality.

What you are asking for here is... RTW: EB... 2050!!!

As for profitting from plunder, the Romans were just as good at that as any "barbarians". One of the Roman axioms, often repeated in Livy, is that the Romans considered nothing to be more properly their own, than that which they siezed by arms during war.

Yes, this is very true, but as you also failed to recognize in my statement was that it was the barbarian way to profit by plunder. Although the Romans also did, they much more profitted from conquest, colonization, and, ultimately, the establishment and proliferation of modern civilization!

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear.

Tell me, Geticus, apart from Hannibal, who else in history ever used the crescent defense formation deliberately?

[vartan]

Charioteer warriors could dismount and fight on foot with broad bladed longspears with something on the order of a 20 attack and 0.3 lethality.

That's one of the features I'm working on for the new battle engine.

Well I have watched quite a lot of EB replays, especially the tournament posts from ASM's tourney last year and a fair amount from your tourney this year, and no one really does the crescent formation IIRC, and few people if any sweep both right and left flank simultaneously. Most people tend to use rectangular formations, or amorphous masses and overlapping Cantabrian circles, often shooting from the front rather than flank and rear. I did see one replay about a month ago with a good Sarmatian army with Sarmatian nobles, Roxalani lights, mass HA levy spam and Skythian nobles in reserve, maybe it was you playing I'm not sure but the Sarmatians crushed a pretty tight KH infantry box in guard mode. I'd be curious to see it done at 40K with some Sarmatian warlords, or Saka bodyguards (not the FM type but the regular hetairoi lance/axe type). But its not too complex really, the main thing would be crescent formations rather than rectangles, doing simultaneous HA sweeps of both flanks and rear, firing concentrically when possible, skirmishing and riding down stray troops, and punctuated by a decisive heavy cavalry charge.

That would be Horsies.rpy if I recall correctly, gamegeek2 (Sauromatae) vs Antisocialmunky (Koinon Hellenon), I forget the money. Here's the problem, more money doesn't mean more units. The game unfairly and unjustly only lets you choose 20 unit cards. This is of course an implementation used to prevent the explosion of computers from having to render too much darn graphics, but that's only that way because the game doesn't have dynamic range for rendering (AFAIK) that allows the engine to render at a lower quality (or to use lower-polygon models) when fielding over a certain number of men.