[EB] Introducing alternate rules (to make LazyO happy)

[VikingPower]

Early setting 30.000 minai – Only cheap and low tier troops

If all the players have a cheap and low quality troops then the odds should be even for all.

All infantry must be under 1600 minai, cavalry under 2500 minai, archers under 1100 minai, slingers under 800 minai. But the player can pick 1 general unit (half the manpower) Possible exceptions about units like levy phalangists, Polybian principes, Triarii, Rhaetic axemen, thracian peltasts, Alpine phalanx.... – for such units are much greater than their low cost implies.

No units allowed whom are more expensive

No elites

Maybe max 4-6 same unit

Dont know anything about the Nomads and their cavalry based upon cost.


High setting about 40.000 minai

Supposed to encourage the player to have all his units as a professional troops with good morale (inf around 1800 to 2000 minai, best missile units available, at least 2 best heavy cav with some 2 medium cavalry support)

Cost of infantry never under 1400 minai (excepections made for the same units whom are counted in the yearly setting - like principes, alpine phalanx.....).

Max 2 elites (inf above 2600 – cavalry above 3600)

or

Max 6 lesser elites (inf between 2000-2400)

Factions cant both have 2 elites and some lesser elites inf, but must choose either. Maybe some exception should be made for the cataphracts of the Nomads (so they can field more then 2)

Max 4-6 same unit type (no levy phalangist spam) but about 8-10 max in regard to Legionary cohorts (Post-Marian, Imperial - they can have more mercs to make it up).

General rules regardless of high and Early setting:

Civilized factions:

Max 5 cav (3 heavy), 5 archers.

Nomads:

Max 12 cav, 10 archers/skirmishers (HA included), max 8 infantry


Other possible rules:

High setting will still be 36.000 minai but the Barbarian factions will receive plus 3000-4000 minaii (maybe also Carthage).

[VikingPower]

And to balance it out how some units are ridciously cost effective then the following units must always be upgraded (once):

Alpine phalanx, dacian falxmen (maybe 2 chevrons), polybian principes, polybian triarii, Thracian peltasts, Levy phalangists, Rhaetix axemen, Bosporan archers, Imperial eastern archer auxilia, maybe cretans......

For if these units get more expensive then the player has less money to make other units as powerful.

[Lazy O]

I didnt post them to make me happy. I posted them to bring EB to the attention of the major clans. I had no qualms with the previous rules.

[Burebista]

This looks bad. Old rules rule , just needed a tweak in budgets of greeks/romans and all was fine.
I mean , i loved the sotaroas pickups to accomodate a core of elites , loved the ellie rushes , loved he getai mass drapanai. Those werent Op just great.
in these rules you can't do anything new.

[VikingPower]

The original purpose of these rules was NOT to get them confirmed or to replace the previous rules, but rather to make Lazy O feel better after his previous thread was unsuccesfull.

[Lazy O]

So this counts as spam. As I did not ask for youre help. I asked to close that thread since people did not engage in discussion except Vartan who is always willing to listen. And btw, I count it as a success, because of that, vartan discovered RCC and somehow the thread got the Admins attention

[vartan]

I didnt post them to make me happy. I posted them to bring EB to the attention of the major clans. I had no qualms with the previous rules.

EB Online has one major difference with RTW and that is where loyalties lie. In RTW, I wouldn't be surprised if clans are more abundant than they were in 2007. In EB Online, each man runs his own show. The most obvious reason for this is the low volume we have (even though potential could be high).

So this counts as spam. As I did not ask for youre help. I asked to close that thread since people did not engage in discussion except Vartan who is always willing to listen. And btw, I count it as a success, because of that, vartan discovered RCC and somehow the thread got the Admins attention

Arguably the thread you are referring to got plenty of feedback, even if from a handful of people on the forum. Had more people checked the EB MP forum and replied, I assure you, you would have a more positive view of the situation. I know I would. More feedback is generally better, a good thing. And which admin are you referring to? The YouTuber?

[Lazy O]

Belle. admin at RCC

[vartan]

Belle. Shes admin at RCC

Yep, the YouTuber. That's the one.

[VikingPower]

To be honest then the current rules are great BUT I hate it how the money is too little. If the money were raised to 40.000-42.000 then it would be great in giving the player some breathing space in picking those units which he likes and in having a good-all-round army. When picking units in RTW vanilla then I have no worries about the unit composition and I simply just enjoy it, but these 36.000 minai rules give me headache in trying to find a good combination of troops and how I have to restrict myself according to other peoples premises.

Its not like it is my wish that players have an army with 10 Gaestae or 3 Sacred band cav, and such things, but I would like to have at least 3 different sort of good infantry (cost between 1700-22000), 3 cretans to counter the enemy archers, and about 1 super cav with 3 medium cav.

When playing RTW vanilla with low money with no units upgraded or high money with all units upgraded then the odds become balanced for everyone. So this money thing should not be such strict but it should give the players more space to field their favourite army.

In the future I will simply not play battles with 36.000 minai.

[vartan]

The problem with 36k, and any higher money, is that you don't see a variety of troops on the field. You don't see lighter medium troops. You see heavier infantries and medium to heavier cavalry. You see the more professional archers, not the weaker ones. You rarely if at all see skirmishers.

[VikingPower]

Well, Romans and Hellenic factions do always field heavy troops either way, while the light medium troops mostly suits weak factions which are rarely used.

Skirmishers (non-AP javelins) are worthless against heavy inf and phalanx but it suits them more to be applied in woods and such instead of open ground. Since it is best to shoot the opponent in the back then the long range archers/slingers are better suited either way. In the tournament then it was mostly used thracian peltasts, indo-hellenic peltasts, and some others in regard to the Nomad factions, but that was not because of any role-playing reasons but rather because these units were one of the few decent units accessible to these factions (thracian peltasts as flankers, and Baktria does not have that many inf types to choose from when fielding flankers). In regard to archers then it is better to have all quality archers like Cretans or none at all, for everything in between is a waste when a more infantry could have been chosen instead.

I also don't like it that players should have pure heavy infantry. Maybe an elite max or same unit max could preclude the player from using a spam of the same best cost-effective troops. Most of the factions have at least 3-5 infantry types whom cost somewhere between 1700-2200 minai. In general it is good to have one-third AP heavy infantry, one-third high lethality/line holder heavy/medium troops, and one-third medium/light flankers which can move fast (multipurpose spearmen, inf with alternate melee attack). That is when playing Civilized factions. I know little about Nomad factions but trust that some way can be found about them.

When playing with 24.000 minai then it is understandable to field such light infantry and skirmishers against cheap troops from other more civilized factions, but with 36.000 minai then it neither fullfills the low and the high troop types. Better to have a third money type also.

[vartan]

Well, Romans and Hellenic factions do always field heavy troops either way, while the light medium troops mostly suits weak factions which are rarely used.

Skirmishers (non-AP javelins) are worthless against heavy inf and phalanx but it suits them more to be applied in woods and such instead of open ground. Since it is best to shoot the opponent in the back then the long range archers/slingers are better suited either way. In the tournament then it was mostly used thracian peltasts, indo-hellenic peltasts, and some others in regard to the Nomad factions, but that was not because of any role-playing reasons but rather because these units were one of the few decent units accessible to these factions (thracian peltasts as flankers, and Baktria does not have that many inf types to choose from when fielding flankers). In regard to archers then it is better to have all quality archers like Cretans or none at all, for everything in between is a waste when a more infantry could have been chosen instead.

I also don't like it that players should have pure heavy infantry. Maybe an elite max or same unit max could preclude the player from using a spam of the same best cost-effective troops. Most of the factions have at least 3-5 infantry types whom cost somewhere between 1700-2200 minai. In general it is good to have one-third AP heavy infantry, one-third high lethality/line holder heavy/medium troops, and one-third medium/light flankers which can move fast (multipurpose spearmen, inf with alternate melee attack). That is when playing Civilized factions. I know little about Nomad factions but trust that some way can be found about them.

When playing with 24.000 minai then it is understandable to field such light infantry and skirmishers against cheap troops from other more civilized factions, but with 36.000 minai then it neither fullfills the low and the high troop types. Better to have a third money type also.

Your statements are contradictory, in a sense. Why should quality be made mandatory? (See your mention of quality archers or none at all.) Then you state that players shouldn't have all heavies, followed by your idea of what a "right" army composition should be. My point is that there shouldn't be a right composition at all, but when people field all heavy armies, it means something. Money amounts don't make much of a difference if some factions can field more heavies than others. To be honest, and I hate to say this, but I don't see any all-encompassing compromise between players of strong factions and players of weak factions.

Remember that the money amounts and other rules apply only to tournaments, not to EB multiplayer gaming in general.

[VikingPower]

About your idea of lighter medium troops then I think that the fast moving trait should be enough to qualify medium/heavy infantry as flankers.

But I guess that I will then just play as Post-Marian Rome in the tournament, since it is the only infantry based faction which can field a balanced army without trouble.

[vartan]

About your idea of lighter medium troops then I think that the fast moving trait should be enough to qualify medium/heavy infantry as flankers.

But I guess that I will then just play as Post-Marian Rome in the tournament, since it is the only infantry based faction which can field a balanced army without trouble.

Balanced? What is balanced? Imperial Rome can field a legion representative. Just pop in the 10 plus the prima, pop in a Gen and his two cav guard, and pop in some imperial archers and you're set. You don't reach 20 unit marker and you chev some of the units. One thing I've discovered is people tend to have a need to fulfill all 20 slots.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Are chevrons allowed because if you up the total to 40k, it seems one can choose a smaller experienced army or a larger inexperienced one. I was setting up some custom battles last night and found this total to be a good amount. I agree that 36k doesn't really allow the most expensive units to be fielded without seriously compromising your army while the extra 4k does really make a difference for some factions. No spamming of elites, but a small sprinkling and a line of heavy infantry is a possibility.

Another issue I find here is Rome. Their infantry is cheap because iirc, this was the way the EB team chose to represent the fact that they could raise large amounts of troops relatively quickly. However, this is a strategic asset, not a tactical one. Since online battles are solely about tactics, shouldn't this advantage be removed? Can't Roman infantry just be rebalanced cost wise for custom battles?

[vartan]

Are chevrons allowed because if you up the total to 40k, it seems one can choose a smaller experienced army or a larger inexperienced one. I was setting up some custom battles last night and found this total to be a good amount. I agree that 36k doesn't really allow the most expensive units to be fielded without seriously compromising your army while the extra 4k does really make a difference for some factions. No spamming of elites, but a small sprinkling and a line of heavy infantry is a possibility.

Another issue I find here is Rome. Their infantry is cheap because iirc, this was the way the EB team chose to represent the fact that they could raise large amounts of troops relatively quickly. However, this is a strategic asset, not a tactical one. Since online battles are solely about tactics, shouldn't this advantage be removed? Can't Roman infantry just be rebalanced cost wise for custom battles?

You don't need to up the purse to 40k in order to achieve what you suggest. This has been tested already. At 36k most nations can field upgraded units. And of course in the tournament this means no weapon or armour upgrades, but simply 1-chevron max per unit. I believe the idea is not to have an elite+heavies army.

[Lazy O]

Although Higher money than 15k was a big nono in vanilla, 40-41-42 k can probably apply very well. Due to many factions being extremely limited in their choices on low money.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Although Higher money than 15k was a big nono in vanilla, 40-41-42 k can probably apply very well. Due to many factions being extremely limited in their choices on low money.

I don't play competitively online in Vanilla, just for fun, but low money units are often incredibly effective. Standard archers cost what, 190 and are incredibly OP IMO with a base attack of 7 in a game where armor values rarely go above 6-9. In EB Sotoroas who are more or less useless as archers and only have 60 men per unit on large cost 411 or something similar. I like 40k a little more since you don't have to rely on levies and can build more or less professional style armies, but if 36k has been agreed and tested with, I can't argue.

That being said, Roman infantry is still too cheap. This was a consideration by the EB team to represent readily available manpower, not combat effectiveness as MP should be based.

[Lazy O]

When did I mention Archers? 0_o?? . Yes they are IMO the most cost effective unit in the whole game.

[vartan]

That being said, Roman infantry is still too cheap. This was a consideration by the EB team to represent readily available manpower, not combat effectiveness as MP should be based.

I was conferring on precisely this issue yesterday with my colleagues. They agreed with me and you Brave Sir that although the Single Player values may--nay, they indeed do--represent corresponding real-life phenomena such as Rome's manpower reserves, the Multiplayer scene is a completely different ballgame. For firmer competition, one would ideally have similar price ranges for similarly functioning units (i.e., the various classes and sub-classes of infantry and cavalry). In fact, we were considering the mid 1st-century BCE, during which time Rome and Armenia were the strongest empires on EB's map. I don't know how many men Rome ruled over, but Armenia ruled over a population of over 20 million people. That considered, it didn't make sense to us why in online play, costs should remain the same as in SP, such that an Armenian company of swordsmen, armoured, should cost some couple hundred mnai more than the corresponding Post-Marian cohort of Roman infantry (and considering that the Roman cohort has 25% more men than the Armenian company!)

The primary issue in this case has always been the question of the re-adjustment of costs of all the hundreds of units in order to adapt them to MP scene. Who will do this? How will it be conducted? How long will it take to sufficiently test it long-term? Is it worth it?

And probably even more important in order to prevent a similar problem in EBII, will the EB development team consider this when making the sequel? Ideally, they would consider the MP EDU and give it the proper attention it deserves, setting aside a different adaptation of cost values for the MP scene, keeping in mind that MP is played for competitive enjoyment, not for the representation of some factions manpower reserves. Because, after all, each MP battle is a one-time, exclusive event. We look at them individually, not in light of centuries of kingdom or empire-running (hence the need for cost adaptation tailored to competition and balance, not historical trends).

P.S. Ludens could you pass this on to the development team?

[antisocialmunky]

Most of the light units are pretty good when they aren't fighting against heavily armored elites.

[VikingPower]

To give some picture of that what I would call an ideal army based upon different money setting then it is the following:

Carthage High:

4 Iberian assault infantry, 4 Elite African infantry, 4-5 Iberian medium spearmen, 3-4 Cretan archers and
1 Sacred Band cav, 3 Carthaginian citizen cav OR 2 Iberian heavy cavalry, 2 Carthaginian citizen cav

Carthage Medium:

4 Asturian axemen, 4 Celtiberian heavy infantry, 4-5 Iberian medium spearmen, 3-4 Numidian archers/Balearic slingers and
3 Liby-Pheonician cav OR 1 Livy-Pheonicanc cav, 3 Carthaginian citizen cav.

Carthage low:

4 Iberian light infantry/Balearic light inf, 4 Libyan heavy spearmen, 4-5 Maure infantry, 3-4 Celtic slingers and
4 Iberian medium cavalry/Gallic light cav

Rome Medium:

4 Gallic aux cavalry, 3-4 Cretan archers, 11-12 Post-Marian legionary cohorts.

Rome High:


4 Gallic aux cavalry, 3-4 Cretan archers, 8 Post-Marian legionary cohorts, 4 Elite Post-Marian legionary light inf (flankers)

Averni High:

4 Rhaetic axemen, 5 Gallic heavy swordsmen, 4 Iberian medium spearmen, 3-4 Rhodian slingers and
3 Brihentin/Belgae heavy cav or 2 Brihentin, 2 Gallic light cav

Averni Low:

4 Celtic axemen, 5 Northern Gallic swordsmen, 4 Celtic naked spearmen, 3-4 Celtic slingers, 1 Brihentin, 3 Gallic light cav


Averni Medium:

5 Alpine phalanx, 4-5, Belgae swordsmen, 4 Helveti Phalanx, 3-4 Rhodian slingers and 3 Gallic noble cavalry

[Lazy O]

Extremely restrictive.

[vartan]

Extremely restrictive.

Exactly. For more appropriate army compositions, I recommend viewing some (not all) of the armies in LDC's latest historical battles pack for EB. I think Zama's Carthage will show you precisely what an army should be like. History doesn't teach us about any clone wars, that's George Lucas' job, hence the need for diversity.

[VikingPower]

I guess that I will just forget playing as Carthage, but focus more upon Rome and Averni (if they receive rhodian mercs).

I have never been much fun of slow moving heavy cavalry, and the only unique unit which Carthage has is Iberian assault infantry while most other factional units are just copies of hellenic ones.

Rome has much better basic army of Gallic aux cav, cretans, and post-marian cohorts. And Averni has better selection of versatile infantry units and basic fast moving cav - cheap AP mercs, high lethality units, Iberian mercs.

I like clone-armies for professional armies are based upon such model (like all wearing the same uniform), while a mix of some rabble is a sign of lack of unity.

[vartan]

I have never been much fun of slow moving heavy cavalry, and the only unique unit which Carthage has is Iberian assault infantry while most other factional units are just copies of hellenic ones.

I would argue that most "Hellenic" units are in fact the copies of other units. Or perhaps there are no such things as "unit copies." I believe Carthage gets some medium and some heavy Iberian cavalry, as well as the Citizen and Phoenician cavalry units. They're available if a person wishes to get cavalry units.

I like clone-armies for professional armies are based upon such model (like all wearing the same uniform), while a mix of some rabble is a sign of lack of unity.

Has it crossed your mind that this is probably because people are looking for a false unity that's nonexistent? Unity is a really convenient concept, I'll admit. It's even more awesome when it doesn't belong.

[VikingPower]

Remember the battle of Zama when the Romans shouted in unity with each other while the Carthaginian mercs rabble gave from themselves some incohorent sounds.

Imagine how it would be to control such army IF Hannibal Barca were not there.

I agree though that such unity is nonexistent if the soldiers are only some device to profit the rich elite rather than in fighting some rational war against tyranny (like Allies in WW2).

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

With the right sort of propaganda, any war can seem to be fought against some form of tyranny.

[vartan]

I agree though that such unity is nonexistent if the soldiers are only some device to profit the rich elite rather than in fighting some rational war against tyranny (like Allies in WW2).

All the same. People look for things that aren't there. I sometimes wonder if we're not all just born schizophrenic in the West and some of us have to simply fight our way out. It's amazing.