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

[WinsingtonIII]

On the subject of the diversity of the Diadoch in MP, I thought we already had some measure of diversity....

Epeiros is the only one that gets Illyrians plus Tarantine cavalry. Mak's are the only ones that get Thracian Peltasts as a factional instead of a mercenary, and only they and Epeiros get Agranian Assault Infantry. Pontus gets Galatians, Bosphoran archers, and Scythian noble cavalry. Ptolies get native Egyptian units and the Galatian Klerouchai. AS gets tons of Eastern regionals. Baktria gets Baktrian medium cav, Baktrian horse archers, and Indo-Greek units.

So, there is diversity, the issue is, the best armies tend to be ones that utilize large numbers of the most cost-effective units. The ultimate example of this are Thracian Peltasts. They are seriously the only support infantry a Diadoch army needs. They are high lethality, armor piercing, mobile, decently armored, have good morale, and have 6 javelins to skirmish with. As such, there's no reason to bring regular Pelstats or other regional skirmishers/axemen/longswords because they fulfill the role of all three for a surprisingly cheap price. And since they are available as mercenaries or factionals to Maks, Epeiros, Pontos, AS, and I think Ptolies (not sure about the last one though) you are probably going see a lot of them in any of those armies alongside levy phalanxes and Prodromoi. That might be part of the problem here, that a few unit types are very cost-effective, and elites and many regionals are generally not cost-effective in comparison.

[vartan]

That's right WIII. But why should the fact that some units are cost-effective while others are not be a problem? Is it the duty of the online community to ensure the cost-effectiveness of all units? Is that even possible? Is it necessary? I figure the variety of the Hellenes is clear now. And Spartan mentioned some of what comes up for the Celtic/Gallic player when facing the Hellenes online. Simply put: don't expect to beat a Hellene as a Celt by using Hellenic ways of fighting. Back to you WIII, elites don't really show up much online, that's true. But I never really expected them to. EB does a wonderful job of including vast amounts of units; it would really be rather ad nauseum if it weren't for the unit limit. But although they all fulfill the roles of history, it does not necessitate the player to use all units. For instance, I am not required to use Akontistai if I find it 'useless' (or any other excuse). Besides, some of us don't roleplay. The same goes online, especially if you're playing a competitive battle and not a re-enactment for artistic purposes (e.g., making a film using cinematics). Whatever the case, elites or not, cost-effective or not, if the games are fair and enjoyable, I deem the day a successful one.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, personally I don't see it as a problem, but if you do dislike the lack of diversity in armies, then I believe that it is a root cause. I'm not saying anything should be changed, just trying to explain a phenomenon.

[vartan]

That might be part of the problem here, that a few unit types are very cost-effective, and elites and many regionals are generally not cost-effective in comparison.

This is what I was referring to. Forgive me for not pointing it out.

Well, personally I don't see it as a problem, but if you do dislike the lack of diversity in armies, then I believe that it is a root cause. I'm not saying anything should be changed, just trying to explain a phenomenon.

Right. I see two broad cases:

In Case A, we see match-ups wherein Faction A and Faction B consistently field similar armies. Thankfully, this occurs more often due to inherent qualities rather than cost-effectiveness. These match-ups include Celt/Celt, Gallic/Gallic, Diadochi, and so on. It is clear why army compositions and units tend to be similar amongst these factions on the field.

In Case B, we see match-ups wherein Faction A and Faction B consistently field widely different armies. Again, this occurs due to inherent qualities. That is, for instance, the Aedui could not field a very similar army to that of Carthage simply because they do not 'own' the same troops.

Harkening (mind the U.S. spelling) back to an important note by our good friend Ludens...

[...]the best MP mods require a different playing style for each faction.

...indeed they do. And thankfully, every player plays slightly differently, and every group of factions plays out differently on the field. So some of the worst case scenarios would be from Case A, where AS would fight Mak, for instance. The only saving grace in this case might be a Thraikan Peltast here and some eastern unit there, not to mention the differing playing styles and speeds of the opposing players.

OP: "How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and Ea[stern factions]"
A combination of varying one's personal inventory of playing styles, adapting one's style to the faction of choice (e.g., one style for a Gaul, another for a steppe faction), varying one's army composition (as they say, to "spice things up", if you wish), and of course to partake in discussion on why certain units should be added or removed to certain factions on the so-called "Factional Unit Lists" (convenient nomenclature!)

[WinsingtonIII]

This is what I was referring to. Forgive me for not pointing it out.

Well, you've got me there I think I was just using the word "problem" because others were complaining of a lack of army composition diversity. It's not much of an issue to me, but I was just pointing that my thought process when building armies on a budget (as in MP) is to go for cost-effectiveness so that I get the most potential out of my money, and this is probably a thought process some others share. Depending on the faction, this can lead to some pretty boring builds (hence some peoples complaints, I think). In single player, on the other hand, I would be more likely to build a diverse army because the amount of available money is generally greater and the capabilities of the AI as a general are lacking.

I certainly am not calling for a change to the rules, however, as it's really not an important issue in my opinion.

[Burebista]

On the lack of diversity:

From what i've seen , these are the army types you expect:

Roman armies- heavy inf spam
Greek successor armies- Phalanxes + thracians
KH army -hoplites , 1 battle line in "guard" mode
Celtic - Fast charge , pro's do it in the flank , kinda weak imho ,
Carthage - My personal favourite , HUGE OPTIONS FOR COMPS ,virtually cannot be fitted into a model as army comp or strat
Getai/iberian- fight like gauls but with less armour and better cav. Getai rly rly could use the scythian units to give them the option of forcing teh enemy to make the first move , thus being able to ambush
Baktria/Saka/Pahlava -Same options , different approach. Did a lot of good things with Baktria in serious MP , got lots of potential
Sauromatae- broken - Not having medium non-ranged Cav factional is the root cause , as the rules seriously hampers them
Sweboz -similar to getai/iberian , but with great front-holding power - If you got trees you win , if not u lose
Armenia-broken -not cost effective
Pontos- best deal- broken due to OP combination between galatians /scythian/tharachian availability as factionals


This rly gives me all the diversity i need. I only believe that some minor balances have to be made.
Give medium non-ranged factional cav to Sauros.
Get skythians to Getai.
Remove some options from the successor armies . Some proposals are limiting the availability of Thracian peltasts to maks , galatians to egipt/ AS + pontos
Remove indian units from Pahlava to make them feel unique.They will still be very good.
Make mercs the gala /thra /scy units for pontos and successor. That's what they were ..mercs.
Limit the prima cohors to ONE.

[WinsingtonIII]

Give medium non-ranged factional cav to Sauros.

Can't you just use mercs for your medium cav? You do get 5 mercs.