[EB] Discussion about Standard Rules

[vartan]

Rules.... Why dont we use normal CWB Rules for EB? I think it would fit very well with a 31k limit money?

I think you meant to put a period at the end of the second phrase, not a question mark. Maybe it was a subconscious slip indicating self-doubt? Just playing. Here are my thoughts:

Once you pick, you cannot change your faction.(To prevent endless faction switching)

This is already in place.

No Elephants (sohuld be changed or else Saba would die)

Saba has extensive freedom in terms of rules due to its nature in EB.

We could aslo do with specialied limits, like max x amount of x unit type. Like the many HA/Cata types available

In this sense, would be more restrictive and over-regulated than what is already in place, as we don't distinguish between sub-species of units. It just happens to be fact that an armoured HA such as the Armenian variant is--needless to say--a heavily armed unit! Hence it's status as a Heavy Cav. You see, the issue came up more with what is heavy and what isn't, rather than diff. between similar unit types. This is because there was noticed a consistent issue with factions who could field many heavies and those who couldn't afford many heavy horses.

Also, DOnt shit me about making these up, these have been in practice for a good amount of years with 99% of all games using these.

Aleternately we also have TWPL rules. The main reason I say this is because most clans would scrap our existing rules.

Most clans have not played EB and need time to learn the difference between an arcade game and an honorable effort at a strategy game (that is, the diff. between RTW and EB). Different purpose and different dynamics call for different approaches. Consider things relevant. Black lesbian women and white middle class heterosexual women. Are white feminists justified in calling conferences and only fielding a tiny fraction of the members as representatives of the black community (and we're not even at the lesbian women yet)? This is what was happening all the time, even up through the 80s. It took intelligent people to make others aware that the fallacy of unity needs to be dropped and differences need to stop being used as excuses for discrimination and they need to be acknowledged and used actively as forces for change and progress. I say this to you as one who has seen earlier days of playing EB with other people as if it were just another game of Rome: Total War. Thanks to the great work done by the development team, we realized very soon after that our approach was mistaken.

The rules we have work fine IMO, so I think it's only fair to ask why we should change.

The good thing is that rules are flexible. And, for anyone who manages replay archives, a lifesaver because changing rules doesn't screw up your replay viewing experience, changing the EDU does. But I think it's always good to be open to change (else we wouldn't have come to where we are). Sometimes I wonder how a "CWB Modified Rules" game in RTW would turn out--don't want to get nostalgic about RTW now!

I mean the same units that are available in x different forms be removed. Im saying change since this will not work with the broader community and will fail epicly.

Ah, ah, ah! No presumptions. One is better off in life going for something rather than always wondering what it would have been like. Try and fail; don't try and keep wondering.

well, rules that was set for vanilla games are unsuitable for historical games

I'd agree if this said "well, rules that were set for vanilla are unsuitable for EB," as I don't see merit in generalizing that far.

[Lazy O]

Correction Vartan, that was not a presumtion. It has already failed epicly. Theres not a single reply at the post I made about EBonline. While RS2, which MP was crafted by a clannie, GalvanizedIron got alot of popularity.

[Cute Wolf]

Correction Vartan, that was not a presumtion. It has already failed epicly. Theres not a single reply at the post I made about EBonline. While RS2, which MP was crafted by a clannie, GalvanizedIron got alot of popularity.

wut? 240 men for each cavalry unit? archers rout on contact, and totally useless light infantry? not to mention altered the unit lists so badly and become unnatural selection of units?

yeah.... those are for vanilla minded players, not historical minded ones. (I've try play RS II multi, and I must say... it bring back vanilla games under RSII Skins)

EB allready has it's own MP community, and we're going fine. Face it.

[Lazy O]

That Is Flaming , not discussion. Only idiots play huge scale. Play normal. So far only vartan has replied seriously.

[VikingPower]

I think it is rather strange how few players there are here playing online and how there is little activity here in the MP threads. For there are a lot of people playing the Campaign and sending threads about the in-game issues. But even that you win 1000 battles against the AI then you do still never learn anything from it.

Since this a a historical RTS game then people should focus most upon the art/science of tactics by fighting against human players.

Everything is great about the rules and such issues, but the MP part of the game needs more publicity in reaching to other players.

[Lazy O]

I think it is rather strange how few players there are here playing online and how there is little activity here in the MP threads. For there are a lot of people playing the Campaign and sending threads about the in-game issues. But even that you win 1000 battles against the AI then you do still never learn anything from it.

Since this a a historical RTS game then people should focus most upon the art/science of tactics by fighting against human players.

Everything is great about the rules and such issues, but the MP part of the game needs more publicity in reaching to other players.

You just nailed it. I nominate you for president. Just to let all the haters here know, I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE CURRENT RULES. But if we are to bring more people to the game, and competent ones, these will not work. Mark my words

[The Celtic Viking]

The good thing is that rules are flexible. And, for anyone who manages replay archives, a lifesaver because changing rules doesn't screw up your replay viewing experience, changing the EDU does. But I think it's always good to be open to change (else we wouldn't have come to where we are). Sometimes I wonder how a "CWB Modified Rules" game in RTW would turn out--don't want to get nostalgic about RTW now!

I am open to change, but I would've liked to have seen some reason why we should change to the proposed ones beyond "because I say so", which was utterly lacking in this thread up until, well, the post just above this one. This is extra important when we're not just talking about building upon the rules we have, but replacing them completely.

Anyway, because my question for reason and clarification was apparently deemed as "not serious", here are some general critiques of the proposed rules:

I mean the same units that are available in x different forms be removed. Im saying change since this will not work with the broader community and will fail epicly.

What do you mean, "same units (...) available in x different forms"? Obviously, when you refuse to answer the question I made, and just repeat what I wanted you to explain in the first place, it leaves me no wiser than I was before. However, assuming I was correct, then this rule is as arbitrary as it's dumb. Yay for forcing even more clone-like armies than ever! Diversity in armies is our biggest obstacle to enlarging the community!

No Elephants (sohuld be changed or else Saba would die)

Nah, lets just allow elephants as normal. It's not like people ever bring them anyway.

With this said, I seriously doubt that the rules are to blame for the fact that the community isn't bigger than it is. Changing them is not likely to bring in more players (nor would I really see that as a sufficient reason for this kind of change anyway).

[Galvanized Iron]

What heresy does my left eye behold?

wut? 240 men for each cavalry unit? archers rout on contact, and totally useless light infantry? not to mention altered the unit lists so badly and become unnatural selection of units?

yeah.... those are for vanilla minded players, not historical minded ones. (I've try play RS II multi, and I must say... it bring back vanilla games under RSII Skins)

EB allready has it's own MP community, and we're going fine. Face it.

Hehe funny guy. I especially liked your joke about light infantry being useless, considering how a phalanx army in RS II that doesn't use a protective screen of light infantry gets absolutely mutilated by javelins from an enemy who got them.

240 men cavalry isn't something I pulled out of my arse. The cavalry comes in double units to counter cavalry spamming, it's difficult to spam your army with cavalry when they have to be purchased in pairs. This also have added gameplay benifits of preventing unrealistic stacking of cavalry in one spot and also means that you have to pick your targets more carefully when the cavalry can't be everywhere at the same time. Its simply a good example of how you can edit restrictions into the game rather than having to impose a massive list of rules.

Archers rout on contact becuase its realistic, they were not equiped or trained to fight in close combat and thus they have to fold when charged by close combat experts. I'd say morale levels are much more realistic in RS II, a unit sent on a suicide mission will quickly turn tail, whilst a non-flanked battle line will fight on even under heavy casualties (thanks to a combination of lower morale and slower kill speeds). Archers have extra low morale also due to gameplay reasons, in vanilla archers tend to stick around for hit and run tactics even if the main battle line has been shattered, this unrealistic behavour was one of the first things I purged from RS II.

As for the rosters it is a matter of personal preference. I prefered to reward a player for using light and regular units by making these much more cost effective than the elites, it appears you prefer to make up armies consisting entirely of elite units which means I can unfortunately not help you as it goes against the as realistic as possible approach of the RS II MP.

The units themselves are designed to all have counters so that balanced armies always have the upper hand, basicly:

Skirmishers counter phalanxes, elephants, chariots.
Archers counters skirmishers, phalanxes, light cavalry, slingers, elephants.
Slingers counters phalanxes, heavy cavalry, elephants, chariots, heavy horse archers.
Phalanxes counter medium infantry, spearmen, cavalry, elephants, chariots.
Heavy infantry counters phalanxes, light cavalry, skirmishers, medium infantry, chariot, archers, spearmen, hoplites.
Medium infantry counters lack of numbers.
Hoplites counters cavalry, archers, medium infantry, skirmishers, chariots, elephants, spearmen, phalanxes.
Spearmen counters cavalry, elephants, chariots.
Specialist infantry counters different things.
Light cavalry counters skirmishers, archers, slingers, heavy horse archers and heavy cavalry.
Heavy cavalry counters skirmishers, archers, slingers, medium infantry, heavy infantry, heavy horse archers.
Javelin cavalry counter phalanxes, elephants, chariots, light cavalry, medium infantry, horse archers.
Horse archers counters archers, skirmishers, medium infantry, spearmen, phalanxes.
Heavy horse archers counters archers, skirmishers, medium infantry, spearmen, phalanxes, light cavalry, javelin cavalry.
Chariots counter cavalry, archers, horse archers.
Elephants counter cavalry, heavy infantry, medium infantry.

Comparing RS II with vanilla is insulting considering all effort that has gone into making it as balanced as possible whilst at the same time remaining realistic and creating long hard fought battles. Only thing that doesn't work as planned with RS II really is that the launcher often have trouble loading the right EDU.

[vartan]

The godly nature of the RS II MP EDU notwithstanding, can we turn on arcade mode when playing online? I ask because I'm sure it would help that 24-way-rock-paper-scissors thing you have going on in the second-to-last paragraph.

[The Celtic Viking]

The godly nature of the RS II MP EDU notwithstanding, can we turn on arcade mode when playing online? I ask because I'm sure it would help that 24-way-rock-paper-scissors thing you have going on in the second-to-last paragraph.

Unlimited arrows + unlimited stamina + nomad horse archers =

[Galvanized Iron]

The godly nature of the RS II MP EDU notwithstanding, can we turn on arcade mode when playing online? I ask because I'm sure it would help that 24-way-rock-paper-scissors thing you have going on in the second-to-last paragraph.

Is this a question or are you trying to be ironic?

RS II MP is designed for competive play, playing on arcade mode would seriously tip the balance in favour of missile heavy factions, ie cataphract archers of death.

[Galvanized Iron]

Anyway I don't want to imply that EB MP is inferior, I just don't see why I should have designed RS II MP to be a clone of EB MP, what would be the point of having 2 different mods if they were both the same? EB MP has the advantage of having bigger unit selection and gives you more free hands since units are more confident if left unsupported whilst RS MP is more tactical and competive (RS units do stand and fight for a veeeery long time when close to the main battleline, but rout quickly if you send them alone on suicide missions. Some people have complained about the unit morale, but they all had in common that they were not properly supporting their units). Only problem I see with EB MP is that its easier to exploit spam tactics to win and thus apperently need these fairplay rules to stop phalanxes from trampling everything etc.