[EB] How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and East

[VikingPower]

Before I say anything then I have to confess that I will not be playing multiplayer untill the Europa Barbarorum 2 comes out, so this is more like a suggestion for that when that time comes.

When playing as the Western barbarian factions then they are mostly bound to some light slinger units, so when there is played against Hellenic or Eastern factions then the slingers get massacred within an 1 minutes so that then next will the cavalry be massacred and the infantry gets doomed because of their lack of mobility.

But if the Western barbarian factions could be able to hire Cretan mercs against the Hellenic and eastern factions (and also Rome) then they would at least get some chance to counter the enemy archers and Horse archers, so it would encourage players to use other factions rather than Rome and Carthage in the west. This option would not be allowed when Western faction competes against other western factions.

Like for an example then if a western barbarians would meet with an Hellenic and eastern factions, then it is because that either party would have travelled to the territory of the other one, so a western barbarians travelling through eastern territories would be able to hire cretans and vica verca with western mercs.

Like if the Cretans were the most famour mercs in the east then the Celtibrerian heavy infantry (dunaminica) would be the most famous mercs in the west, so when a western faction would compete against an eastern factions then the latter would be able to hire Dunaminica to balance the changes.

[Burebista]

it would balance it somewhat but it would be totally ahistorical. cretans working for gauls or sweboz? highly unlikely.

I do however agree on the fact that barbarians need some buffing , but i do not feel that the problem is in the units available ( gauls didnt exchange missile fire with hired cretan archers lol) but in the price. Gauls ARE expensive , as the cost/bang ratio is pretty low. Not to mention most units have 80 men , which is ....bad , while greeks have phalanxes of 120. i mean , how many greeks were there compared to gauls ? From what i've read, usually barbarian armies were larger than their adversary , not smaller.

Sweboz are ok , as long as they have THE BIG BAD Forest. Don't forget , MP is usually around "grassy lands " and Irish marshlands.

[VikingPower]

Maybe the roman cohorts and phalangists should be reduced to 80 men per unit rather than by adding to the other factions.
It should also be done something about this phalangist immunity to missile fire.

Balearic slingers only get 20 ammo but it is not like they chose to throw big rocks all the time - should have their range and ammo increased (especially when fighting against other ranged units). Slingers should also consist of 80 men per unit like the archer units (instead of being only 60 men)

Gauls half-naked or light units should maybe be increased to 120 men per unit (large) - But for mine part then I am never going to play again as Gauls.

[Geticus]

Not all factions are meant to stand around and idle through a passive missile exchange. The Gauls were historically known mainly for crushing power in hand to hand combat, not long range skirmishing, and EB did a decent job reflecting this. So if you want to sit around and arch you are better off playing another faction. If you want to charge your infantry the Celts are the best since they have the most diverse array of high lethality infantry in the game along with the cheapest, the Bataroas and Botroas. Celts also have an abusable advantage in MP because they have access to a greater amount of +morale and -morale effects than any other faction in the game. For my part I find that no other faction in the game quite has the chainrouting power that the Gauls do when used properly with stacked negative morale effects like nakeds' fear, carnute druid chant, cavalry charge etc, flank/rear surround, chariots, etc. In MP if these morale effects were skillfully abused, people would very likely start complaining about Gauls being overpwoered, "Gauls just route my infantry line and then butcher my archers, then my cavalry stand no chance" it would be almost the reverse of what you are saying. Don't stand around and arch. Fight like Caesar at Pharsalos, overload the flank with infantry, route enemy infantry and then run down and butcher the archers standing behind them.

[Burebista]

Not all factions are meant to stand around and idle through a passive missile exchange. The Gauls were historically known mainly for crushing power in hand to hand combat, not long range skirmishing, and EB did a decent job reflecting this. So if you want to sit around and arch you are better off playing another faction. If you want to charge your infantry the Celts are the best since they have the most diverse array of high lethality infantry in the game along with the cheapest, the Bataroas and Botroas. Celts also have an abusable advantage in MP because they have access to a greater amount of +morale and -morale effects than any other faction in the game. For my part I find that no other faction in the game quite has the chainrouting power that the Gauls do when used properly with stacked negative morale effects like nakeds' fear, carnute druid chant, cavalry charge etc, flank/rear surround, chariots, etc. In MP if these morale effects were skillfully abused, people would very likely start complaining about Gauls being overpwoered, "Gauls just route my infantry line and then butcher my archers, then my cavalry stand no chance" it would be almost the reverse of what you are saying. Don't stand around and arch. Fight like Caesar at Pharsalos, overload the flank with infantry, route enemy infantry and then run down and butcher the archers standing behind them.

You are right about the strategy. the problem comes when you try to apply as you simply don't have enough men. Good gaulish units have 80 men. phalanxes 120 , romans 100. And that high letlaity is a trap for light minded , vs high armour they rly suck. I do however like them once they reach the backs of enemies:))))

[Geticus]

You are right about the strategy. the problem comes when you try to apply as you simply don't have enough men. Good gaulish units have 80 men. phalanxes 120 , romans 100. And that high letlaity is a trap for light minded , vs high armour they rly suck. I do however like them once they reach the backs of enemies:))))

The key is to combine the Gaulic charge with the classical oblique attack like the Theban general Epaminondas. Sarissa phalanxes dominate in parallel line fights. The Gauls have to approach at a slant, or just smash one flank and ignore the rest of the enemy line. The gaesatae warhead leads the strong flank, turns the battle sideways and routes down the line. Cavalry surround the rear, dumping the javelin barrage at the same time as the gaesatae flank onslaught for enhanced morale reduction. The general masses of the Gaulic line, the bataroas, axeman mercs, whatever infantry spam really, just helps sandwich the enemy line, increase morale pressure and aid in cutting down the routers. It's mainly a matter of timing, its just easier to keep an army in a static position and watch a missile exchange, attacking a strong formation in guard mode requires superior micromanaging and focusing firepower at the vulnerable flank, after the morale loss from nearby troops routing becomes contagious it is very feasible to create a chainroute.

[Ludens]

Before I say anything then I have to confess that I will not be playing multiplayer untill the Europa Barbarorum 2 comes out, so this is more like a suggestion for that when that time comes.

Suggestions for EB2 are better posted in the EB2 forum. I don't know if the EB team visits here. However, since the thread developed into an MP tactics discussion, I'll leave it here for the time being.

[vartan]

Suggestions for EB2 are better posted in the EB2 forum. I don't know if the EB team visits here. However, since the thread developed into an MP tactics discussion, I'll leave it here for the time being.

Then thank goodness this thread isn't about EB2 (=

VikingPower (aka my friend VLN!) it's good to see you around. We're missing you! Sorry if this thread has turned into a Civilised vs. Barbaros pseudo-philosophical thread or a debate regarding how the others can hire your heavy inf as mercs but you can't hire their archers as mercs. You're completely right that if facing nations which, geographically speaking, would allow your general to have hired mercs along the way such as Cretan Archers, then you should have the right to hire them, within the merc limit. Seeing as they aren't on the roster, which nations were you thinking should the Archers be added to? Just Aed/Arv, or others as well?

Cheers.

[VikingPower]

Thanks Vartan for your friendly regard. I hope to see you all again when the new mods come out so that it will draw some decent amount of active players to the hamachi (EB 2, Dominion of the sword, Third age).

Well I guess that the original reason with this thread was rather biased because I felt that the Lusotana faction only needed archers to make it complete in all (it is rather strange how they don't seem to have any mercs at all).

But maybe the barbarian nations should still keep their slingers but the slingers should be modified to some point that they can survive for some limited time against enemy archers while the empahsis should still be on the infantry to do the work. So it will not be possible for slingers to have a ranged duel with other enemy archers but they can still survive for enough time to give some practical support.

[vartan]

Thanks Vartan for your friendly regard. I hope to see you all again when the new mods come out so that it will draw some decent amount of active players to the hamachi (EB 2, Dominion of the sword, Third age).

Well I guess that the original reason with this thread was rather biased because I felt that the Lusotana faction only needed archers to make it complete in all (it is rather strange how they don't seem to have any mercs at all).

But maybe the barbarian nations should still keep their slingers but the slingers should be modified to some point that they can survive for some limited time against enemy archers while the empahsis should still be on the infantry to do the work. So it will not be possible for slingers to have a ranged duel with other enemy archers but they can still survive for enough time to give some practical support.

Modifying stats which were put in place for good reason is beyond me. Like I said, the one and only reasonable response here is to add mercs that would practically be available for hire in certain matchups.

[VikingPower]

I was going to suggest that:

1. The Balearic slingers would have the same stats as the Rhodian slingers and that all Celts could hire them as mercs along with Sweboz and Lusotana - don't care about the AP swords of Balearic

2. That the Celtic slingers could have a rhodian armour but be otherwise the same (and Sweboz and Lusotana could also hire them).

3. The main problem with that of being the Gaul faction was that the Hellenic slinger mercs were the best (upgraded) but you always had to skip them to get Rhaetix axemen instead, so another option is that only Barbarian factions can upgrade Celtic slingers twice.

It seems to me that Rhodian slingers should be allowed to be mercs and maybe the third issue can apply.